Sunday, June 17, 2018

Climate Change Accelerating Sea Level Rise...Faster than Expected

An ice shelf near the Eqip Sermia glacier off the coast of Greenland.

CLIMATE CHANGE COULD be accelerating a rise in sea levels to a greater extent than previously thought, researchers have found.
A new study by an international team of polar scientists has discovered that the process of warmer ocean water destabilising ice shelves from below is also cracking them apart from above, increasing the chance they’ll break off.
“We are learning that ice shelves are more vulnerable to rising ocean and air temperatures than we thought,” Christine Dow from the University of Waterloo in Canada, who led the research, said.
“There are dual processes going on here. One that is destabilising from below, and another from above.
“This information could have an impact on our projected timelines for ice shelf collapse and resulting sea level rise due to climate change.”

Two-year study
Over the course of two years, researchers used radar surveys and Landsat imagery (from Earth-observing satellites co-managed by the US Geological Survey and Nasa) to monitor ice shelves in locations such as Antarctica and Greenland.
They found that as warmer salt water erodes channels into the ice that attaches glaciers to stable land, it also generates massive vertical fractures splitting glaciers from above and below. Surface water melting on top of the ice shelves then pours into these cracks, accelerating the problem further.
“This study is more evidence that the warming effects of climate change are impacting our planet in ways that are often more dangerous than we perhaps had thought,” Dow said.
“There are many more vulnerable ice shelves in the Antarctic that, if they break up, will accelerate the processes of sea level rise,” she added.
The study was recently published in Science Advances.

Saturday, June 9, 2018

NASA satellites reveal major shifts in global freshwater

News | May 29, 2018  
Time series showing global freshwater trends as measured by the NASA/German Aerospace Center (DLR) Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment mission from 2002 to 2016. Freshwater increases above average are shown in blue, while decreases below average are in red. Credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio › Full view
In a first-of-its-kind study, scientists have combined an array of NASA satellite observations of Earth with data on human activities to map locations where freshwater is changing around the globe and why.
The study, published today in the journal Nature, finds that Earth's wet land areas are getting wetter and dry areas are getting drier due to a variety of factors, including human water management, climate change and natural cycles.
Between 2002 and 2016, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) tracked the movement of freshwater around the planet. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Katy Mersmann 
Between 2002 and 2016, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) tracked the movement of freshwater around the planet. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Katy Mersmann
A team led by Matt Rodell of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, used 14 years of observations from the U.S./German-led Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft mission to track global trends in freshwater in 34 regions around the world. To understand why these trends emerged, they needed to pull in satellite precipitation data from the Global Precipitation Climatology Project, NASA/U.S. Geological Survey Landsat imagery, irrigation maps, and published reports of human activities related to agriculture, mining and reservoir operations. Only through analysis of the combined data sets were the scientists able to get a full understanding of the reasons for Earth's freshwater changes, as well as the sizes of those trends.
"This is the first time that we've used observations from multiple satellites in a thorough assessment of how freshwater availability is changing everywhere on Earth," said Rodell. "A key goal was to distinguish shifts in terrestrial water storage caused by natural variability -- wet periods and dry periods associated with El Niño and La Niña, for example -- from trends related to climate change or human impacts, like pumping groundwater out of an aquifer faster than it is replenished."
Freshwater is found in lakes, rivers, soil, snow, groundwater and ice. Freshwater loss from the ice sheets at the poles -- attributed to climate change -- has implications for sea level rise. On land, freshwater is one of the most essential of Earth's resources, for drinking water and agriculture. While some regions' water supplies are relatively stable, others experienced increases or decreases.
"What we are witnessing is major hydrologic change," said co-author Jay Famiglietti of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, which also managed the GRACE mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. "We see a distinctive pattern of the wet land areas of the world getting wetter -- those are the high latitudes and the tropics -- and the dry areas in between getting dryer. Embedded within the dry areas we see multiple hotspots resulting from groundwater depletion."
Famiglietti noted that while water loss in some regions, like the melting ice sheets and alpine glaciers, is clearly driven by warming climate, it will require more time and data to determine the driving forces behind other patterns of freshwater change.
"The pattern of wet-getting-wetter, dry-getting-drier during the rest of the 21st century is predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models, but we'll need a much longer dataset to be able to definitively say whether climate change is responsible for the emergence of any similar pattern in the GRACE data," Famiglietti said.
The twin GRACE satellites, launched in 2002 as a joint mission with the German Aerospace Center (DLR), precisely measured the distance between the two spacecraft to detect changes in Earth's gravity field caused by movements of mass on the planet below. Using this method, GRACE tracked monthly variations in terrestrial water storage until its science mission ended in October 2017.
Artist's illustration of the twin spacecraft of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On (GRACE-FO) mission. GRACE Follow-On will soon continue the legacy of the original GRACE mission, providing valuable data that will help manage Earth's critical water resources. › Full image and caption 
However, the GRACE satellite observations alone couldn't tell Rodell, Famiglietti and their colleagues what was causing the apparent trends.
"We examined information on precipitation, agriculture and groundwater pumping to find a possible explanation for the trends estimated from GRACE," said co-author Hiroko Beaudoing of Goddard and the University of Maryland in College Park.
For instance, although pumping groundwater for agricultural uses is a significant contributor to freshwater depletion throughout the world, groundwater levels are also sensitive to cycles of persistent drought or rainy conditions. Famiglietti noted that such a combination was likely the cause of the significant groundwater depletion observed in California's Central Valley from 2007 to 2015, when decreased groundwater replenishment from rain and snowfall combined with increased pumping for agriculture.
Southwestern California lost 4 gigatons of freshwater per year during the period. A gigaton of water would fill 400,000 Olympic swimming pools. A majority of California's freshwater comes in the form of rainfall and snow that collect in the Sierra Nevada snowpack and then is managed as it melts into surface waters through a series of reservoirs. When natural cycles led to less precipitation and caused diminished snowpack and surface waters, people relied on groundwater more heavily.
Downward trends in freshwater seen in Saudi Arabia also reflect agricultural pressures. From 2002 to 2016, the region lost 6.1 gigatons per year of stored groundwater. Imagery from Landsat satellites shows an explosive growth of irrigated farmland in the arid landscape from 1987 to the present, which may explain the increased drawdown.
The team's analyses also identified large, decade-long trends in terrestrial freshwater storage that do not appear to be directly related to human activities. Natural cycles of high or low rainfall can cause a trend that is unlikely to persist, Rodell said. An example is Africa's western Zambezi basin and Okavango Delta, a vital watering hole for wildlife in northern Botswana. In this region, water storage increased at an average rate of 29 gigatons per year from 2002 to 2016. This wet period during the GRACE mission followed at least two decades of dryness. Rodell believes it is a case of natural variability that occurs over decades in this region of Africa.
The researchers found that a combination of natural and human pressures can lead to complex scenarios in some regions. Xinjiang province in northwestern China, about the size of Kansas, is bordered by Kazakhstan to the west and the Taklamakan desert to the south and encompasses the central portion of the Tien Shan Mountains. During the first decades of this century, previously undocumented water declines occurred in Xinjiang.
Rodell and his colleagues pieced together multiple factors to explain the loss of 5.5 gigatons of terrestrial water storage per year in Xinjiang province. Less rainfall was not the culprit. Additions to surface water were also occurring from climate change-induced glacier melt, and the pumping of groundwater out of coal mines. But these additions were more than offset by depletions caused by an increase in water consumption by irrigated cropland and evaporation of river water from the desert floor.
The successor to GRACE, called GRACE Follow-On, a joint mission with the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ), currently is at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California undergoing final preparations for launch no earlier than May 22.
For more information on how NASA studies Earth, visit:
Thank NASA

Knight Jonny C.

Sunday, June 3, 2018

One Degree Change Doesn't Sound too Bad....What's the Big Deal??

What’s going to happen during that big question mark around the one-degree change? We’re already seeing the impacts of warming. Our weather is changing, and seasons are shifting. Droughts are becoming longer and well, drier. Then, when the rains come, they’re stronger and inundate the now-parched land, causing floods – and  the results are serious.

This Time, It’s Personal.

That’s what’s happening with our weather. But what else is going on? We wouldn’t put up with a person who behaves like that guy.... someone who moves into our environment and changes everything that was normal and comfortable. Why should we wait to take action on climate?

Climate Change Is Rough For People (And The Rest Of The Residents On Planet Earth)

As the seasons shift and unexpectedly extreme events become the norm, wildlife has to adapt – or die.  The climate change shuffle  indicates that species are trying to learn to stay alive.

  The Signs Are Everywhere

Let’s face it – the signs are everywhere. If these species could protest, they would – This is how it would look when a climate change denier is confronted with the wisdom of mother nature.

Despite All the Evidence, Some People Still Just Don’t Get It.

We’re seeing the signs more and more. Strange seasons, extreme weather, hotter heat waves, and species changing their behaviors just to survive. And yet every winter without fail, there’s that one guy who says “So much for global warming!” as soon as the thermometer drops below 32 degrees.

Risky Behavior

Say you surveyed 100 structural engineers, and 97 said a nearby bridge is structurally unsound and driving over it would be dangerous. Would you take the advice of the only three who disagreed, and proceed to drive over that bridge ?
It’s the same thing with climate change: 97 percent (or more) of climate scientists say climate change is real, and caused by humans. So do you believe that other remaining 3 percent and ignore the risks? Here’s what would happen if you apply that same reasoning to other areas.

Trust The Scientists. They Know What They’re Talking About.

That politician did not have a clue what the consensus of scientists believe. And I don't think he cared.
 Scientists are experts in their fields, much like the structural engineers you asked about that bridge. Or the doctors you see at the hospital. That’s why we trust their recommendations. You don’t have to know the minutiae of every scientific study on climate change – you just need to trust valid science on the subject. Most of all, please don’t believe this politician from a recent New Yorker cartoon!

The Times, They Are A-Changin’.

Together, we’ve solved a lot of tremendous problems the world has faced, and made wondrous advances in the span of decades, or even years that naysayers swore could never happen. Just look at computers: They used to take up an entire room. Now they fit in the palm of your hand.
'Not My Earth, Not My Problem' demonstrates the stark difference between advances in our computer technology and advances in our energy systems. Which sparks the question: with all the incredible advances in wind and solar we’ve seen recently, why aren’t we making bigger and faster changes to our energy system?

I have to say it....I'm a big fan of alternative, renewable energy

We can make changes to our energy. In fact, the shift to power our lives – and the economy – with clean, renewable energy is already underway. As Bob Dylan said, the answer is blowin’ in the wind. We can transition from dirty, dated fossil fuel energy to clean sources like wind and solar power. And when it comes to that plan, we’ve got to say it: We’re big fans!

Put Your Knowledge To Use.

Put Your Knowledge To Use. Now that you’ve got the basics, it’s time to take action. You’ve got the drive — help stop climate change by supporting leaders who make climate solutions, like more fuel-efficient vehicles. And who support research into alternative fuels.

Friday, June 1, 2018

Keeping Global Warming to 1.5 Degrees Could Spare Millions Pain of Dengue Fever

The tropical disease is spread by mosquitoes that thrive in the wetter, hotter conditions that accompany climate change. 
By Neela Banerjee
May 2Under mosquito nets, young patients are treated for dengue fever at a hospital in Paraguay. Limiting global warming could avoid millions of new cases each year, research shows. Credit: Norberto Duarte/AFP/Getty Images

Faster international action to control global warming could halt the spread of dengue fever in the Western Hemisphere and avoid more than 3 million new cases a year in Latin America and the Caribbean by the end of the century, scientists report.

The tropical disease, painful but not usually fatal, afflicts hundreds of millions of people around the world. There is no vaccine, so controlling its spread by reining in global warming would be a significant health benefit.

The study is one of several recently published that attempt to quantify the benefits of cutting pollution fast enough to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. It also projects infection patterns at 2 degrees of warming and 3.7 degrees, a business-as-usual case.

Scientists have predicted that climate change could create the wetter, hotter conditions that favor diseases spread by various insects and parasites. This study focuses on one widespread disease and on one geographical region.
Half a Degree Can Make a Big Difference
Published May 29 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ⦁ the study was conducted by researchers from the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom and the Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso in Brazil.
It is part of an urgent effort by scientists around the world to collect evidence on the difference between 2 degrees of warming and 1.5 degrees, under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is due to report on the latest science this fall.

Either target would require bringing net emissions of carbon dioxide to zero within the next several decades, the IPCC has projected, but to stay within 1.5 degrees would require achieving the cuts much more rapidly.
Avoiding 3.3 Million Cases a Year 
Without greater ambition, the study projected an additional 12.1 million annual cases of dengue fever in the Caribbean and Latin America by the end of the century.
By comparison, if warming is held to 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times—the longstanding international climate goal—the number of estimated additional cases in the region falls to 9.3 million.

Controlling emissions to keep the temperature trajectory at 1.5 degrees Celsius would lower that to an annual increase of 8.8 million new cases.
The increase in infection is driven in great part by how a warmer world extends the dengue season when mosquitoes are breeding and biting.

The study found that areas where the dengue season would last more than three months would be "considerably" smaller if warming is constrained to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Which Countries in the Region are Most at Risk?

The areas most affected by the increase in dengue would be southern Mexico, the Caribbean, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela and the coastal regions of Brazil. In Brazil alone, global warming of no more than 1.5 degrees might prevent 1.4 million dengue cases a year.

The study found that under the 3.7 degree scenario, considered "business as usual," dengue fever could spread to regions that have historically seen few cases. Keeping to 1.5 degrees could limit such a geographical expansion.

People living in previously untouched areas would have less built-up immunity and would be more likely to get sick, while public health providers in some such places "are woefully unprepared for dealing with major dengue epidemics," the authors warned.

                        Neela Banerjee
Neela Banerjee is a Washington-based reporter for Inside Climate News. She led the investigation into Exxon's early climate research, which was a finalist for the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service reporting and the recipient of nearly a dozen other journalism awards. Before joining ICN, she spent four years as the energy and environmental reporter for the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau. Banerjee covered global energy, the Iraq War and other issues with The New York Times. She also served as a Moscow correspondent with The Wall Street Journal. Banerjee grew up in southeast Louisiana and graduated from Yale University.
You can reach her by email at For encrypted communication, use
Thanx Neela  Banerjee

Knight Jonny  C.

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Your dinner might be swimming North thanks to climate change


Fisheries worldwide are expected to face substantial struggles as warming ocean waters force marine species to change their migratory patterns

The climate crisis poses a growing threat to fisheries across the globe, as warming oceans force marine species to head for the poles or deeper waters—and away from some of the world's most heavily fished areas, according to a new report published in the journal PLOS ONE.

Warming ocean waters, as a result of anthropogenic climate change, have already caused migration changes for marine organisms, "which have generally been shifting poleward or into deeper waters as temperatures warm," according to the report.
For the new study, scientists examined the migratory changes of nearly 700 species living in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans along the North American continental shelf, and projected future shifts for these species, based on anticipated increases in ocean temperatures throughout the 21st century.
Fish shifts

The North American continental shelf, the reports notes, is "an expansive area with some of the most productive fisheries globally" that also "contains some of the most rapidly increasing regions of ocean temperature in the world"—meaning that as the water temperatures continue to rise, these highly productive fisheries will likely be significantly impacted.

"We've already seen that shifts of a couple of hundred miles in a species' migratory range can disrupt and bankrupt fisheries," lead author James Morley, a marine biologist at Rutgers University, reported. "This study shows that such dislocations of migratory patterns will happen all over the continent and on both coasts throughout the 21st century." 

As Rutgers researcher and co-author Malin Pinsky put it, "It's like the rug is slowly getting pulled out from under our fishing communities."
Even if the international community somehow manages to meet the ambitions of the Paris climate agreement and limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, Pinsky explained that their findings indicate these fisheries could still suffer a great deal from the warming waters, considering that highly mobile marine species are changing habitats in response to the climate crisis 10 times faster than the rate of land-based species. They are migrating towards the poles where the water is still cooler than more central planetary waters.

"This is something that's been happening on the East Coast already. If we don't prepare for what is surely coming, it's going to create more conflict and challenges for fishing communities in the future," Pinsky warned.  They will be struggling for survival and unable to follow the schools of fish which will migrate far beyond the range and capabilities of fishing boats. 
 Pointing out that fishing permitting isn't keeping up with the pace of migratory changes, particularly along the East Coast, Pinksy added: "Accounting for climate change is very necessary. If we pretend like nothing is happening, it's not going to help."  In fact, if we pretend like nothing is happening we may lose the greatest source of food on the planet.

Climate Chuckles

does it have to be one or the other . . .
Warming Sends A Chill Through Ski Industry | NPR - 7 12/2013 »
(cartoon by David Horsey)
Especially here in coal-digging, oil-drilling, cattle and sheep-grazing, fracking-frenzied Wyoming. :-(
A Sweltering Planet’s Agenda: Washington Post Editorial Board Calls For Carbon Tax
French Communist conspiracy
Climate change is already here.

Global warming, global trade means floods in China will likely harm U.S. economy

"Economic losses might be down-streamed along the global trade and supply network affecting other economies on a global scale," said researcher Sven Willner. 
By Brooks Hays | May 29, 2018 

Road signs partly vanish under a swollen Yangtze River in Chongqing on August 24, 2010. The flooding from torrential summer rains, which has killed at least 700 people and displaced millions, was the worst China had suffered in more than a decade. Photo by UPI/Stephen Shaver 

May 28 (UPI) -- New research suggests climate change is likely to cause more frequent and more destructive flooding in China, triggering economic losses at home and abroad -- including the U.S. economy.
"Climate change will increase flood risks already in the next two decades -- and this is not only a problem for millions of people but also for economies worldwide," Anders Levermann, researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said in a news release. 

Levermann and his colleagues modeled flooding risk in China and its effects on the economies of China's trade partners.
"Through supply shortages, changes in demand and associated price signals, economic losses might be down-streamed along the global trade and supply network affecting other economies on a global scale -- we were surprised about the size of this rather worrying effect," said Potsdam researcher Sven Willner.

The researchers' models used algorithms designed to measure global risk assessment for natural hazards, as well as algorithms inspired by network theory. Together, the model's components helped scientists understand how localized economic shocks propagate in time and space.

The simulations, detailed in the journal Nature Climate Change, provided a reminder that natural disasters can impact the entire global community.

China could suffer as much as $380 billion in economic losses due to flooding over the next 20 years. Such losses would likely trigger direct and indirect economic losses in the United States. The new models suggest increased flooding in China will cause direct losses of $30 billion and indirect losses of $170 billion over the 20 years.

Europe is likely to suffer more modest losses due to their more balanced trade relationship with China, the models showed.
"The U.S. imports much more from China than it exports to this country," Willner said. "This leaves the U.S. more susceptible to climate-related risks of economic losses passed down along the global supply and trade chain."

While the globalized nature of the economy ensures local impacts are felt around the world, it also allows supply chains to readjust, buffering economies against more dramatic losses. These buffering benefits offered by the globalized economy are most fully realized by countries engaging in balanced trade.
According to the new study, President Trump's plans to subject more Chinese imports to tariffs could make the United States more vulnerable to climate-related economic shocks.

"As our study suggests, under climate change, the more reasonable strategy is a well-balanced economic connectivity, because it allows to compensate economic damages from unexpected weather events -- of which we expect more in the future," said Levermann.

Thanx  Brooks Hays

Knight Sha  C.


Please donate  if it's only your voice  , come on people  , lets get the word out .

Friday, May 25, 2018

Before the Flood

Before the Flood is set on the battlegrounds of climate change—from the North Pole to the South Pacific to the voting booth.

October 19, 2016 Clara Chaisson Leonardo DiCaprio usually plays the leading man. But in the new documentary Before the Flood, climate change is the star—a villainous one—and DiCaprio takes on a supporting role as a guide who walks us through what’s happening to the planet.

With two and a half years’ worth of footage, the film, directed by Fisher Stevens, takes us on a journey to the front lines of a warming world. We watch Arctic ice melting and coral reefs bleaching. We get a bird’s-eye view of the Alberta tar sands (“It kind of looks like Mordor,” DiCaprio remarks to a bemused oil exec). A helicopter ride over a smoldering Sumatran rainforest shows us how illegal slash-and-burn agriculture to clear land for palm oil plantations produces drifting haze that has made the air unhealthy to breathe in neighboring countries. We meet Indian farmers who have lost their crops to flooding, and the former Kiribati president Anote Tong, whose island nation is slowly slipping beneath the sea. As president, Tong oversaw the purchase of land in Fiji to relocate Kiribati’s residents when sea-level rise inevitably overwhelms the country.

“All that I have seen and learned on this journey has terrified me,” DiCaprio told delegates at last year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris. In 2014, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon named DiCaprio a U.N. Messenger for Peace, with a special focus on climate change. The actor and longtime environmental activist—who also sits on NRDC’s Board of Trustees—is the first to admit that Before the Flood makes for some seriously daunting viewing.

But this horror flick isn’t without hope. Cleaner technologies and policies play the roles of potential heroes. DiCaprio speaks with electric car entrepreneur Elon Musk about his ambitious ideas for sustainable transportation and discusses how countries like Denmark are successfully transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy. DiCaprio also reminds the audience that we’re not merely witnesses to the planet’s destruction. Through how we live, we are all actively choosing what kind of world we want to leave for our children.

The film’s pithy tagline sums up the situation: “The science is clear. The future is not.”

Before the Flood premieres in theaters in New York and Los Angeles on October 21 and is available to stream on the National Geographic Channel.

onEarth provides reporting and analysis about environmental science, policy, and culture. All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of NRDC.

You can donate to the NRDC    or use your voice to spread the word 'THANK' you ever so much .
Thanx Leo  DiCaprio
Crusader Jenny Nanook & Mika

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

See the source image
Image result for cartoon of Trump denying climate change
See the source image
See the source image
See the source image
See the source image
See the source image

National Parks Report On Climate Change Finally Released, Uncensored

After previously erasing all mentions of climate change, National Park Service releases uncensored report

The study's lead scientist said she was "extremely happy" that mentions of climate change were restored.

In the face of mounting scrutiny over attempts to scrub all mentions of climate change from a report about sea level rise, the National Park Service (NPS) has finally released its long-awaited report.
The uncensored report was quietly released on Friday with no mention by the NPS, the Department of Interior, or its Secretary Ryan Zinke’s Twitter accounts.
The report highlights the climate risks at 118 coastal national park sites. While the impact will vary depending on the location and how much global temperatures increase, the report finds that parks in North Carolina’s Outer Banks are at the greatest risk from sea level rise.
In contrast to the Trump administration’s tendency to ignore or deny climate change and its risks, the report begins: “Global sea level is rising. While sea levels have been gradually rising since the last glacial maximum approximately 21,000 years ago, anthropogenic climate  change ( changes caused by interference from mankind)  has significantly increased the rate of global sea level rise.”
“Ongoing changes in relative sea levels and the potential for increasing storm surges due to anthropogenic climate change and other factors present challenges to national park managers,” it states.
After analyzing 18 different versions of the report, which was first drafted in the summer of 2016, journalists found that the word “anthropogenic” was crossed out by an official in a February 2018 draft. Three references to “human activities” causing climate change were also removed.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who denies the science on climate change, had previously said in his defense that “I didn’t change a paragraph — a comma — in any document and I never would.”
In response, last month House and Senate Democrats called on the Department of the Interior’s inspector general to investigate whether the NPS had violated its scientific integrity policy. They also asked for an investigation to identify who edited the NPS report and who directed them to do so.
The study’s lead scientist Maria Caffrey, a University of Colorado research assistant, said that she was “extremely happy” that the report was released with all mentions of climate change restored
Caffrey had worked on the report for five years. When she resisted the editing efforts, she was reportedly told by NPS officials that the report would not be released if she refused to accept the deletions, or that it could be released without her name on it.
“The fight probably destroyed my career with the [National Park Service],” she said, “but it will be worth it if we can uphold the truth and ensure that scientific integrity of other scientists won’t be challenged so easily in the future.”
 Yay!! Score one for climate scientists!

Facing Climate Change without the USA

Auto makers form alliance to reduce emissions
Automakers urged the White House to cooperate with California officials in a coming rewrite of vehicle efficiency standards, saying “climate change is real.”

The plea came in a May 3 letter to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry’s leading trade group. It said carmakers “strongly support” continued alignment between federal mileage standards and those set by California. General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Daimler AG and nine other carmakers are members of the Alliance.

“Automakers remain committed to increasing fuel efficiency requirements, which yield everyday fuel savings for consumers while also reducing emissions -- because climate change is real and we have a continuing role in reducing greenhouse gases and improving fuel efficiency,” David Schwietert, executive vice president of federal government relations at the Alliance, wrote in the letter, which was made public Monday.

The letter came roughly a week before President Donald Trump signaled he was open to talks with California on mileage standards. The direction came after the administration’s April ruling that the Obama administration standards for model years 2022-2025 were too aggressive and needed to be eased.

Court Battle Threat

Officials from the state have pledged to fight a Trump-led rollback, setting up a potential messy legal battle and the risk of different mileage requirements in California and 12 additional states that follow its rules.

“Operating under two or three sets of regulations would be inefficient and disrupt a period of rapid innovation in the auto industry,” Schwietert wrote, adding that fractured rules could have negative consequences for the roughly 7 million people employed directly or indirectly by the American auto industry.

A joint proposal for revised mileage targets from the Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is still in the works and could be released by late May or early June. A leaked draft of the proposal, led by the NHTSA, recommended freezing mileage requirements at a 37-miles-per-gallon fleet average from 2020 through 2026 instead of increasing each year to eventually reach about 50 miles per gallon.

In addition to voicing support for annual gains in efficiency requirements, the Alliance asked the White House to consider ways to keep California at the table, including extending the so-called national program of rules beyond 2025 and updating efficiency credit mechanisms.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Monday, May 21, 2018

A little extra global warming will mean a lot more habitat loss for plants and animals, study says

By  Deborah Netburn             May 18 , 2018
A polar bear walks in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. New research suggests that a small difference in global temperatures will have a big effect on wildlife habitat. (Subhankar Banerjee / Associated Press)

What difference does half a degree Celsius of global warming make?

To many plants and animals, and especially insects, it could mean the difference between life and death, according to a new study.

In a paper published Thursday in Science, researchers report that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above the average pre-industrial global temperature would avoid half the risks of global warming to plants and animals and two-thirds of the risk to insects compared to 2 degrees of warming.

The new analysis was inspired in part by the 2015 Paris climate agreement in which 176 countries agreed to work together to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, with an ultimate goal of keeping the temperature from climbing no more than 1.5 degrees.

"All the previous scientific literature looked at 2 degrees as the lower limit because that was what was being discussed at the time," said Rachel Warren of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, an environmental biologist who led the new work. "After the, Paris agreement the landscape changed. We wanted to know what the benefits would be to limit warming globally by an extra .5 degree."

In the new work, Warren and her colleagues analyzed how the geographical ranges of about 100,000 species of terrestrial plants and animals would be affected by several different warming scenarios.

"Basically, every plant, animal and insect has a range of climates where it's happy," she said. "Outside of that range, it gets a little bit uncomfortable, and eventually gets to where it can't survive at all."

The researchers found that 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates will lose more than half their geographical range if the average global temperature is two degrees hotter than it was before the industrial revolution.

If the warming can be limited to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels however, that risk drops significantly. In this scenario, only 6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates would be expected to see more than half their geographical range disappear.

The authors also looked at what would happen if the Earth warmed by 3 degrees by 2100, which is what is projected to occur if members of the Paris accord met their current pledges to reduce emissions by 2030 but then did nothing else.

In that case, 49% of insects, 44% of plants and 26% of vertebrates would see more than half of their geographical range disappear.

"The takeaway is that if you could limit warming to 1.5 degrees, the risk to biodiversity is quite small. At 2 degrees it becomes significant, and at 3 degrees almost half the insects and plants would be at risk," Warren said.

To come to this conclusion, the authors started by looking at the geographical ranges of 100,000 species, including 34,000 insects. This data came from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, which is an open access database that gets contributions from research institutions all over the world.
Marine heat waves have led to severe bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef.
Marine heat waves have led to severe bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef. (ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies)

For this study, the authors used longitudinal and latitudinal data for each recorded observation of the 100,000 plant and animal species and then, based on that information, calculated what type of climate the individual species need to survive.

Here, climate does not just meant temperature, although that's part of it, Warren said. It also includes rainfall and seasonal changes.

For example, some plants and animals require temperatures to drop below freezing in the winter to reproduce.

Next, researchers consulted computer models to see how these geographic ranges will shift as the globe gets hotter.

"Picture looking down on North America and seeing shadows that represent the geographical range, what we call the climate envelope," Warren said. "As the earth gets warmer, these shadows start to move northward.

"The tropics get hotter, the temperate zones get more like the tropics and the polar zones get more like the temperate zones," she added.

You might imagine that Earth's biomass also would move northward to remain in its preferred climate shadow, but of course it's not as simple as that.

Sometimes the models show a climate shadow moving northward into the ocean or into a mountain range that is not a suitable home for certain plants and animals.

The authors also considered the varying abilities of plants, animals and insects to migrate as part of their analysis.

Previous work has shown that mammals and butterflies are adept at moving in response to climate change, while insects, plants and amphibians are not.

The research team was surprised to find that insects were especially susceptible to changes in climate, and Warren said she'd like to investigate that more.

"So far, we have warmed the world 1 degree," Warren said. "If we warm it another .5 degree by 2100, then some birds and mammals can catch up, but if it gets to 2 degrees, far fewer can catch up and at 3 degrees they won't be able to keep pace with it."
Deborah Netburn is a science reporter for the Los Angeles Times. She began her journalism career at the New York Observer in 1999, and has covered residential real estate, rich kids in Manhattan, entertainment, home and garden, national news, and technology. She has worked at the Los Angeles Times since 2006.
Thanx Deborah Netburn
Knight Sha  C.

Friday, May 18, 2018


 Imagine an ecosystem as a tiny world within our world. Here, living things, like plants and animals, interact with non-living elements, including water, rocks, soil and temperature. Every portion of the ecosystem influences everything else. An ecosystem exists within a larger area called a biome.
Here’s an example of an Ecosystem: The Sonoran Desert in Arizona is a harsh landscape. Within the desert, though, there are streams and creeks. Here, fish, birds, turtles and snakes live. There are trees and plants. This is one type of an ecosystem. In other parts of the desert, there is little water. Here, only a few plants, such as cactus can survive. The animals that live here – snakes, ground rats, and scorpions – must adapt to harsh conditions. This is a different ecosystem within the same biome.
Fun Facts About Ecosystems for Kids
Animals and plants within an ecosystem depend on each other for their survival. If conditions change, the animals and plants have to adapt.
Plants can’t migrate when conditions change. During drought and heat, they might die. If they die, then herbivores won’t have anything to eat. They must either find new plants to eat or move to a new place. If they move, then carnivores have no food. They must move too.
Sometime ecosystems change because of a climate change or a natural disaster. Sometimes, ecosystems are destroyed by humans.
Think about the ecosystems that might exist in your neighborhood or even in your own yard. If you have a vegetable garden, the plants attract plant-eating insects. The insects attract birds, snakes and frogs. These animals might attract predators, including fox, raccoons, coyotes and owls. Who knew there was so much going on right outside your door! A vegetable garden is a man-made ecosystem, but you get the idea.

Ecosystems Vocabulary :
Portion: piece, part
Harsh: severe, tough
Survive: live
Adapt: change
Drought: lack of water
Herbivore: plant eater
Carnivore: meat eater
Ecosystems Vocabulary Ecosystem Q&A
Question 1: How can I protect ecosystems in my area?

Answer 1: Pay attention to what you do in your own yard. Be careful with pesticides and fertilizers. Pesticides can poison birds, frogs and snakes. When fertilizers run into streams and rivers, they encourage algae to grow. The algae grow too much and smother other aquatic animals and plants. Grow flowering plants, vegetables and berries to give animals something to eat.
Question 2: What are the different types of Ecosystems?

Answer 2: The different types of environment ecosystems are as follows: Forest Ecosystems – Marine Ecosystems – Desert Ecosystems – Grassland Ecosystems – Tundra Ecosystems and Freshwater Ecosystems
Question 3: Is the ecosystem important?

Answer 3: The ecosystem is very important. Without a healthy ecosystem we would suffer terribly or simply would not exist. We need to protect nature to protect our drinking water, our crops and even the air we breathe. Everyone should care about the ecosystem, no matter how old or how young. By caring today we are caring for tomorrow’s world.
Question 4: What is destroying the ecosystem?

Answer 4: Unfortunately it’s our Human daily activities that are causing harm to our ecosystem. Examples of this are: Over hunting (Rhino, Tigers, Elephants, Lions and many more). Over Fishing, Deforestation and of course pollution.

thanx Easy Science  for Kids
I found my article  I ask  daddy to write  put the picture on it  
kids know about climate change  my sister say I learn to spell better  I can do  climate change post   thank you for reading  .
I have more Poppa and Me  story
Knight Man C .

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

The Walruses of the Shrinking Chukchi Sea Ice Forced to Come Ashore

New images captured by NOAA aerial surveys of the Alaska coast on September 27 show an estimated 35,000 walruses ashore near Point Lay

Pacific walruses have long relied on floating sea ice in the Arctic. They use it as a resting place between dives as they forage for shrimp, worms, and mollusks on the ocean floor. Female walruses also give birth on these ice platforms and raise their pups there.
But thanks to global warming, all that Arctic sea ice is dwindling. And so, in recent summers, many walruses have been seeking refuge on the northern shores of Alaska and Russia instead.
This September, scientists observed one of the biggest land haul-outs in recent memory in northern Alaska — with an estimated 35,000 walruses crowding the shore of a remote barrier island near Pt. Lay. Surveyors from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration photographed the event on September 13 during their annual aerial survey of Arctic marine mammals:

This seems to be an increasingly common occurrence, and the US Geological Survey has blamed it on climate change.
Major walrus haul-outs have now been observed in Alaska in six of the past eight years — at a time when Arctic sea ice has been shrinking. In 2010, some 20,000 walruses came ashore near Pt. Lay. In 2011, nearly 30,000 came ashore.  In 2013, another 10,000 came ashore.
Several thousand walruses were killed in stampedes last year after the disappearance of the ice caused them to crowd onto the shoreline in extraordinary numbers, deaths some scientists see as another alarming consequence of global warming.
The deaths took place during the late summer and fall on the Russian side of the Bering Strait, which separates Alaska from Russia.
"It was a pretty sobering year — tough on walruses," said Joel Garlach-Miller, a walrus expert for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Unlike seals, walruses cannot swim indefinitely. The big, tusked mammals typically clamber onto the sea ice to rest, or haul themselves onto land for just a few weeks at a time. But when the ice disappeared in the Chukchi Sea last year because of warm summer weather, ocean currents and persistent eastern winds, walruses came ashore earlier and stayed longer, congregating in extremely high numbers, with herds as big as 40,000 at Point Shmidt.
Walruses are vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. The appearance of a polar bear, a hunter or a low-flying airplane can send them rushing to the water, crushing  older adults and most of their young pups.
The sad story of the Arctic animals decline continues. Most people are not aware of it and I wonder how much they would care if they knew.


Monday, May 14, 2018

What can trees tell us about climate change ?

Quite a lot, actually!
But to understand what the trees tell us, we first have to understand the difference between weather and climate.
Weather is a specific event—like a rain storm or hot day—that happens over a short period of time. Weather can be tracked within hours or days. Climate is the average weather conditions in a place over a long period of time (30 years or more). 
Scientists at the National Weather Service have been keeping track of weather in the United States since 1891. But trees can keep a much longer record of Earth’s climate. In fact, trees can live for hundreds—and sometimes even thousands—of years!
One way that scientists use trees to learn about past climate is by studying a tree’s rings. If you’ve ever seen a tree stump, you probably noticed that the top of the stump had a series of rings. It looks a bit like a bullseye.
/review/tree-rings/tree-rings.jpg /review/tree-rings/tree-rings.jpg
The light and dark rings of a tree. Image credit: Flickr Creative Commons user Amanda Tromley
These rings can tell us how old the tree is, and what the weather was like during each year of the tree’s life. The light-colored rings represent wood that grew in the spring and early summer, while the dark rings represent wood that grew in the late summer and fall. One light ring plus one dark ring equals one year of the tree’s life.
/review/tree-rings/tree-rings-diagram.jpg /review/tree-rings/tree-rings-diagram.jpg
The color and width of tree rings can provide snapshots of past climate conditions.
Because trees are sensitive to local climate conditions, such as rain and temperature, they give scientists some information about that area’s local climate in the past. For example, tree rings usually grow wider in warm, wet years and they are thinner in years when it is cold and dry. If the tree has experienced stressful conditions, such as a drought, the tree might hardly grow at all in those years.
Scientists can compare modern trees with local measurements of temperature and precipitation from the nearest weather station. However, very old trees can offer clues about what the climate was like long before measurements were recorded.
/review/tree-rings/old-tree.jpg /review/tree-rings/old-tree.jpg
This is said to be the Methuselah Tree, one of the oldest living trees in the world. Methuselah, a bristlecone pine tree in White Mountain, California is thought to be almost 5,000 years old. Image credit: Oke/Wikimedia Commons
In most places, daily weather records have only been kept for the past 100 to 150 years. So, to learn about the climate hundreds to thousands of years ago, scientists need to use other sources, such as trees, corals, and ice cores (layers of ice drilled out of a glacier).
Thanx NASA Climate Kids

Knight  Jonny  C.

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Jim Carrey Bestows Scott Pruitt With A Savage Nickname In Latest Painting

Actor/artist Jim Carrey is still pounding on the Trump administration with his sharp, political portraits. 

Carrey returned to a familiar target in his latest piece, not only ripping into scandal-plagued EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, but also giving him a new nicknam
Pruitt was Carrey’s target last month too
Jim Carrey

 I looked on Trivago. The cheapest room in Washington is a youth hostel with bunkbeds at $81 a night. The $50 room Scott Pruitt got was a bribe from an energy lobbyist. Need your pipeline approved? Do it through Pruitt!
Jim Carrey

 Dear Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery @NPG, I know it’s early but I’d like to submit this as the official portrait of our 45th President, Donald J. Trump. It’s called, 'You Scream. I Scream. Will We Ever Stop Screaming?'
This article originally appeared on
Mama wants to know  where is the idiot's bib... HeHe
Knight Mama  C .