Logon
Translate

User login

GTranslate

French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish

Eco-Community with Spirit

Universe Spirit Blogs

  • IT WAS OFFICIALLY NEW ZEALAND'S HOTTEST SUMMER ON RECORD...
  • POWERFUL WINTER STORM SHOWS DAMAGE HIGH TIDES WITH SEA LEVEL RISE CAN DO...

    Waves from a winter storm in early March washed over houses in Scituate, Massachusetts, and flooded the streets. The nor'easter hit as tides were already high because of the nearly full moon. Credit: Scott Eisen/Getty Images

     

    Two nor’easters fueled record tides in Boston in recent weeks, causing coastal flooding. Advocates warn infrastructure isn't being built to weather climate change...

    With two powerful storms generating record high tides that inundated parts of the Atlantic Coast just weeks apart—and a third nor'easter on its way—environmental advocates are urging greater efforts to address climate change and adapt cities to sea level rise.

    The governors of Massachusetts, Maryland, New York and Virginia declared states of emergency as high tides and hurricane force winds ravaged the Eastern Seaboard last week raising concerns about coastal infrastructure damage and beach erosion as far south as North Carolina's Outer Banks.

    On Friday, Boston experienced its third-highest high tide since record keeping began in 1928, with waters just inches below the record of 15.16 feet set on Jan. 4, during the city's last major winter storm.

    The National Guard rescued more than 100 people from rising tides in nearby Quincy. Waves lashed three-story homes in Scituate, Massachusetts, and high tides washed over a bridge near Portland, Maine.

    Hundreds of thousands of homes across the Mid-Atlantic and New England remained without power on Monday, and much of Long Island continued to experience coastal flooding as the region braced for another powerful storm forecast for Wednesday.

    "It's given the region a very stark picture of what climate change looks like and a reminder of the urgency of changing, not just our energy platform, but also our building and development practices," said Bradley Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston-based environmental advocacy group.

    "There is roughly $6 billion of construction planned or occurring in Boston's Seaport District, known as the 'innovation district', but in fact it's the 'inundation district,' and very little of that construction is designed to contend with climate conditions that are already here let alone those that lie in the near future," Campbell said.

    A man walked along Scituate's flooded Front Street as a nor'easter slammed the New England and Mid-Atlantic coast with heavy snow, rain, strong winds and coastal flooding. Credit: Scott Eisen/Getty Images

    A man walked along Scituate's flooded Front Street as a nor'easter slammed the New England and Mid-Atlantic coast with heavy snow, rain, strong winds and flooding. Credit: Scott Eisen/Getty Images

    As the planet warms, scientists say cities will need to play an increasingly active role in both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to a changing climate.

    "Conventional urban planning approaches and capacity-building strategies to tackle increasing vulnerability to extreme events and growing demands for a transition to a low-carbon economy are proving inadequate," researchers wrote in a policy paper published Feb. 27 in the journal Nature Climate Change. "These efforts must now shift to hyper-speed."

    One possible solution now being considered to protect Boston—where the city's latest outlook says sea level rose about 9 inches during the last century and could rise 1.5 feet in the first half of this century—is the construction of a massive barrier across Boston harbor with gates that close to protect the region from storm surges. The project would likely cost billions of dollars to complete, money that Campbell said could be better spent on other solutions.

    "There isn't a wall that is going to be effective to protect all of the New England coastal areas that are at risk," he said. "We are going to have much more cost-effective solutions by improvements of design, by incorporating the need for sacrificial and buffer areas into design, and by updating standards for storm water management and runoff."

    Sign up for the Global Warming Blog for free by clicking here. In your email you will receive critical news, research and the warning signs for the next global warming disaster.

    Click here to learn how global warming has become irreversible and what you can do to protect your family and assets.

    Click here to learn about the most disruptive new book on global warming facts and research. Climageddon, The Global warming Emergency and How to Survive it.

    To share this blog post: Go to the original shorter version of this post. Look to lower right for the large green Share button.

    To view our current agreement or disagreement with this blog article, click here.

  • FROM THE HEAD OF OUR EPA? : EVOLUTION'S A 'THEORY,' 'MAJORITY' RELIGIONS UNDER ATTACK...

    Scott Pruitt described the Second Amendment as divinely granted, and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy." | Pete Marovich/Getty Images

     

    Radio archives from Oklahoma also show him warning of ‘judicial monarchy’ and advocating constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage...

    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005.

    Pruitt, who at the time was a state senator, also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today." And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”

    The six hours of civics class-style conversations on Tulsa-based KFAQ-AM were recently rediscovered by a firm researching Pruitt’s past remarks, which provided them to POLITICO on condition of anonymity so as not to identify its client. They reveal Pruitt's unfiltered views on a variety of political and social issues, more than a decade before the ambitious Oklahoman would lead President Donald Trump’s EPA.

    The views he states, in discussions peppered with references to inalienable rights and the faith of the nation's founders, are in line with those of millions of other conservative, devout Christians. But they also show stances that at times are at odds with the broader American mainstream, and in some cases with accepted scientific findings — an issue that has more recently come up with his skepticism about the science behind climate change.

    “There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint,” he said in one part of the series, in which Pruitt and the program's hosts discussed issues related to the Constitution.

    EPA would not say this week whether any of Pruitt’s positions have changed since 2005. Asked whether the administrator’s skepticism about a major foundation of modern science such as evolution could conflict with the agency's mandate to make science-based decisions, spokesman Jahan Wilcox told POLITICO that “if you're insinuating that a Christian should not serve in capacity as EPA administrator, that is offensive and a question that does not warrant any further attention."

    Republicans in Congress defended Pruitt, saying his religious beliefs should factor into how he does his job.

    "All of us are people of faith and obviously influenced by our faith and the role it played in our life … and continue[s] to play in our life on a daily basis," said Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which oversees EPA. "It’s a part of who we are."

    Sen. Jim Inhofe, a fellow Oklahoman, said Pruitt's faith does and should play a role in his work.

    “He’s a believer. He is a Jesus guy. He believes in the principles,” Inhofe said. “I think it does [have an impact], and I think it has to. Anyone who denies that that has an impact isn’t being totally honest."

    Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists — a group that has criticized Pruitt’s environmental policies — said Pruitt’s religious beliefs aren’t relevant to his leadership of EPA “because the job is not to be the nation’s pastor.” But his group still worries that Pruitt has chosen to “sideline science" and “wants to make decisions on a wholly political basis.”

    “If I had to say if there was a philosophy behind his decisions, it’s 'Industry is always right and we should just get out of the way,'” Rosenberg said.

    Pruitt expounded his philosophy on a wide variety of topics during the radio discussions, which originally appeared under the heading “KFAQ University — Standing Up For What’s Right.” Five years after they originally aired, the programs were posted on Pruitt’s campaign website in 2010 when he ran for Oklahoma attorney general.

    The discussions among Pruitt and the hosts always began with the Pledge of Allegiance and often stuck to dry reviews of the historical context of the Revolutionary War and the Constitution’s origins. But they sometimes swerved into modern-day political frustrations, often with religious overtones.

    Pruitt, a former Baptist deacon who was previously a trustee of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., acknowledged that the founders of the United States did not want a church to run the government. But still, he explained at length, society should be centered on certain religious ideals or it will fall into “chaos.”

    In the current political atmosphere, he said, “We're saying to a certain category of religion, 'No, you can't be a part of the public square, because you are the majority religion, historically. We're going to make sure that the minority religions are built up and encouraged, but the majority religion is going to be shifted aside.' Now that violates, again, individual liberty.”

    He frequently referred to atheism and humanism, which stresses the potential for humans to be good, as religions that enjoy more rights to expression than Christianity.

    “I believe that it’s time for us to say, let us be truthful and honest about who we are as a country because if we protect the principles of the First Amendment, we will respect all religions and each will be able to freely exercise what they believe in the public square,” Pruitt said.

    History has proven that people will not do what's right without religious principles to guide them, Pruitt said.

    “When you take out this aspect of who we are as a republic, and you try to eradicate it from who we are, it leads to what? 'Each man did what was right in his own eyes,' and you have chaos,” Pruitt said.

    He added that without changes to protect constitutional rights, "it leads to anarchy, it leads to rebellion,” which he predicted could happen within the next few decades or sooner.

    In one episode, a host suggested that Islam “is not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization, in many instances.” The host, Gwen Freeman, added: “You can believe whatever you want to, but if you’re going to be hiding behind a mosque and teaching people in your mosques to harm other people, that’s where you have to draw the line.”

    “Absolutely,” Pruitt responded, going on to talk about the relationship between God and believers and saying that people should be able to practice any religion unless it is manifested in violence. “Our First Amendment should preserve the right of Hindus and Muslims to practice their faith. I believe that with all my heart. But what I don’t agree with is that because of that relationship, if it is manifested in violence as Gwen is saying, that we don’t have the right to deal with that.”

    Pruitt didn’t explicitly endorse or dispute her description of Islam as a terrorist organization.

    Throughout the programs, Pruitt suggested that states might need to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments that would allow expression of religion in government, declare abortion illegal and bar same-sex marriage.

    Pruitt acknowledged some trepidation about holding a constitutional convention, which could make wholesale changes to the nation’s founding charter.

    “It scares me to a large degree to go into something like a constitutional convention, ’cause that means that we’re going to have to really be educated, and informed, and debate,” he said. “But you know what? Maybe it’s time.”

    Federal courts have interpreted the Constitution to require the separation of church and state and have expanded upon that in a series of cases, including a 1947 decision prohibiting New Jersey from using public funds to bus students to Catholic schools.

    Pruitt disagreed, saying: “I think the most grievous threat that we have today is this imperialistic judiciary, this judicial monarchy that has it wrong on what the First Amendment's about and has an objective to create religious sterility in the public square, which is wholly inconsistent with the Founding Fathers’ view.”

    He also weighed in on a 2005 Supreme Court case that involved a display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas State Capitol. He argued that prohibiting such displays elevated atheist beliefs above Jewish and Christian ones.

    Two years earlier, Pruitt had supported an unsuccessful bill that would have required textbooks in Oklahoma to carry a disclaimer that evolution is a theory. The show hosts joked that Pruitt had been compared to Adolf Hitler and the Taliban for backing the measure.

    “I’m a bit better-looking than them,” Pruitt quipped. “My wife tells me so anyway.”

    In the 2005 recordings, Pruitt also backed a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, saying it derives from a divine mandate and thus cannot be limited.

    “If you can tell me what gun, type of gun, I can possess, then I didn’t really get that right to keep and bear arms from God,” he said. “It was not bequeathed to me, it was not unalienable, right?”

    Even some issues that aren’t explicitly faith-based, such as global warming and fossil fuel production, have often split different groups of religious believers. Some polls show that less than 30 percent of white evangelical Protestants believe that human activity is the driving factor behind climate change.

    And Pruitt has echoed that sentiment, telling CNBC last year that he did not believe carbon dioxide was a primary contributor to climate change. Last week, he told the Christian broadcaster CBN News that he supports developing the nation’s energy resources, a stance that he believes aligns with Scripture’s teachings.

    "The biblical worldview with respect to these issues is that we have a responsibility to manage and cultivate, harvest the natural resources that we've been blessed with to truly bless our fellow mankind,” he said.

    Pruitt isn’t the first EPA administrator to openly express his or her religious faith, of course. His immediate predecessor, Gina McCarthy, was a Roman Catholic who visited top officials at the Vatican in 2015 as church officials worked to write Pope Francis' climate change encyclical. She oversaw the creation of the major climate change and water regulations that Pruitt's EPA has started to unwind.

    Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian and climate scientist, said the evidence of climate change does not conflict with the teachings of the Bible — so anyone who rejects the science is making more of a cultural or political decision than a faith-based one.

    "I think you probably could run Boeing if you thought gravity was optional, as long as you were willing to let people who didn't think it was optional actually do the design of the plane," Hayhoe said. "Here's the thing: If we think it is optional to agree that the planet is warming, humans are responsible and the impacts are serious ... we will be making decisions that are not based in reality."

    By and

    03/02/2018 05:00 AM EST

    Anthony Adragna contributed to this report.

    source: https://www.politico.com/

    original story HERE

    Sign up for the Global Warming Blog for free by clicking here. In your email you will receive critical news, research and the warning signs for the next global warming disaster.

    Click here to learn how global warming has become irreversible and what you can do to protect your family and assets.

    Click here to learn about the most disruptive new book on global warming facts and research. Climageddon, The Global warming Emergency and How to Survive it.

    To share this blog post: Go to the original shorter version of this post. Look to lower right for the large green Share button.

    To view our current agreement or disagreement with this blog article, click here.


  • UNUSUALLY HIGH TEMPERATURES IN ARCTIC RISE IN FREQUENCY...

    http://katharinehayhoe.com

     

    Weather patterns in the Arctic have been described as "freakishly warm." NPR's Michel Martin talks with climate science professor Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University about what's behind it...

    Listen HERE

    Transcript:

    NPR MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

    The weather has been a big story across the country this week - dangerously high winds in the Northeast, heavy snow in the Midwest and heavy rains in the West. But there's another strange weather story that isn't as visible as the broken trees and flooding you've probably seen on the news, but it's still cause for concern. It's in the Arctic. Even though the sun hasn't come out there in months, temperatures in some areas have been above freezing, and in some areas were the highest ever recorded in February.

    We wanted to hear more about this, so we called Professor Katharine Hayhoe. She's a professor of climate science at Texas Tech University, and she's with us now from Lubbock, Texas. Professor, thanks so much for speaking with us.

    KATHARINE HAYHOE: Thank you for having me.

    MARTIN: Would you give us some sense of how unusual these temperatures have been in the Arctic?

    HAYHOE: Well, the Arctic does get winter heat waves - not what you or I would consider a heat wave, but what you'd consider in the Arctic to be a heat wave - about once every 10 years. But what we're seeing is that these heat waves are getting more and more frequent. And they are getting stronger and stronger to the point where last week, almost all of Europe except for southern Spain and Italy was colder than northern Greenland.

    MARTIN: And what does it have to do with the Arctic?

    HAYHOE: What happens is the polar vortex, which seals the Arctic off in the winter, it's been weakening. And last week, it actually weakened and split in half, which effectively opened the refrigerator door. And all of that cold air in the Arctic came cascading down over Europe.

    MARTIN: And so what have been some of the other effects of this?

    HAYHOE: Well, the Arctic is one of the most sensitive parts of our planet. We've known since the 1890s that the Arctic would be warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the world in response to human-induced change. What's happening up in the Arctic is as it warms, sea ice is melting. And that exposes dark ocean, which absorbs even more heat. And that is why the Arctic is warming so much faster. And we are just starting to understand how the Arctic warming is affecting the weather patterns down here where we live.

    MARTIN: I know that you're about to embark yourself on a number of talks with your colleagues. What are you saying to each other? And what do you want the rest of us to know about this?

    HAYHOE: In terms of the conversation about climate change in general, I think the two most important things for us to understand are we care about it not just because it affects the polar bear - because it affects us. Climate change affects our food, our water, our energy, our economy, our national security, our health. It affects us in the places where we live by exacerbating or amplifying the risks that we already face naturally.

    And the second most important thing, I think, that people need to know is the fact that we can fix this thing if we take it seriously and we act now. I mean, there's more solar energy jobs now in the U.S. than in the coal industry. The Museum of Coal Mining in Kentucky put solar panels on their roof. Here in Texas, we got 18 percent of our electricity from wind last year, and we're going up and up every year. Things are changing, but we just need them to change faster and happen quicker to avoid the most serious and dangerous impacts.

    MARTIN: It's not a secret that this administration in the United States is very skeptical about climate change. As a climate scientist, does that make your job harder?

    HAYHOE: Well, gravity doesn't care if we believe in it or not. If we step off the cliff, we're going down. And climate doesn't care whether we believe that temperatures are going up and humans are responsible. The world is warming, and humans are responsible. And the impacts are serious... So what are the consequences of ignoring facts? The consequences are serious repercussions for all of us who are affected by the decisions that are made if they are made ignoring reality.

    MARTIN: That's Katharine Hayhoe. She's a professor of climate science at Texas Tech University. She spoke to us from Lubbock. Professor, thank you so much for speaking with us.

    HAYHOE: Oh, thank you for having me.

    March 3, 20185:58 PM ET
     
     
     
    original story HERE

    Sign up for the Global Warming Blog for free by clicking here. In your email you will receive critical news, research and the warning signs for the next global warming disaster.

    Click here to learn how global warming has become irreversible and what you can do to protect your family and assets.

    Click here to learn about the most disruptive new book on global warming facts and research. Climageddon, The Global warming Emergency and How to Survive it.

    To share this blog post: Go to the original shorter version of this post. Look to lower right for the large green Share button.

    To view our current agreement or disagreement with this blog article, click here.

  • STOP BLAMING ‘BOTH SIDES’ FOR AMERICA’S CLIMATE FAILURES...

    Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson was impressed with the way Donald Trump watched the solar eclipse without glasses. Carlson described it as ‘perhaps the most impressive thing any president has done’. Photograph: Fox News

     

    The fault lies entirely with the GOP. Focus on fixing it, not laying blame where it doesn’t belong...

    Steven Pinker is a cognitive psychologist, linguist, and author of Bill Gates’ two favorite books. However, his latest – Enlightenment Now – has some serious shortcomings centering on Pinker’s misperceptions about climate change polarization. Pinker falls into the trap of ‘Both Siderism,’ acknowledging the Republican Party’s science denial, but also wrongly blaming liberals for the policy stalemate, telling Ezra Klein:

    there is implacable opposition to nuclear energy in much of the environmental movement ... There are organizations like Greenpeace and NRDC who are just dead set opposed to nuclear. There are also people on the left like Naomi Klein who are dead set against carbon pricing because it doesn’t punish the polluters enough ... the people that you identify who believe in a) carbon pricing and b) expansion of nuclear power, I suspect they’re a tiny minority of the people concerned with climate … What we need are polling data on how many people really would support carbon pricing and an expansion of nuclear and other low carbon energy sources.

    Here Pinker has created a strange straw man that bears no resemblance to the real population of American liberals and environmentalists. In fact, the polling data he wonders about already exists.

    For example, a 2016 survey by Yale and George Mason universities found that 73% of Democrats support a carbon tax or a combination of tax and regulations (a further 17% favored carbon pollution regulations only). In fact, most consider putting a price on carbon pollution the single most crucial step in tackling global warming. Even Naomi Klein has said, “I don’t think a carbon tax is a silver bullet, but I think a progressively designed carbon tax is part of a slate of policies that we need.”

    While it’s true that a majority of liberals oppose building more nuclear power plants, 38% support the idea. Some environmental groups like Greenpeace do oppose nuclear power, but Pinker’s other example, NRDC merely points out that new nuclear plants are currently uneconomical, and even suggests, “The federal government should continue to fund research into nuclear energy.” There are strong economic reasons to oppose building new nuclear power as an inefficient use of resources when renewables today are cheaper and can be deployed more quickly. That being said, were nuclear power funding included in comprehensive legislation to tackle climate change, most liberals and environmentalists would accept that deal in a heartbeat.

    Science rejection is predominantly a conservative phenomenon

    There’s cultural pressure to place the blame on ‘both sides,’ for example by claiming that while conservatives reject science on climate change and evolution, liberals reject it on the safety of GMOs and vaccines. However, research has shown this is simply not the case – Democrats and Republicans are equally likely to distrust GMOs, and conservatives are the group that most opposes vaccines.

    It’s also important to remember that the Republican Party is the only major political party in the world whose leaders reject the need to tackle climate change. And their president made America the only country to reject the Paris climate agreement. There simply is no equivalent on the political left.

    In The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof pointed to research led by Yale’s Dan Kahan showing that when presented with data about a politically charged issue like gun control, the mathematical and cognitive abilities of “Democrats and Republicans alike went to pieces,” as Kristof interpreted it. But Kahan’s data showed the problem was much more pronounced among conservatives.

    In the experiment, numerically-adept Democrats were about 33% more likely to misinterpret (made-up) data when it suggested that gun control increases crime, but numerically-adept Republicans were 70% more likely to misinterpret the same data when it suggested that gun control decreases crime. Democrats who are weak at math weren’t biased at all, whereas Republicans who are bad at math were 50% more likely to get the answer right when it confirmed their ideological biases. The difference between conservatives and liberals in both cases was stark.

    Kristof makes a prominent reference to an experimental study that, he says, shows that “Democrats and Republicans alike went to pieces” in calculating the efficacy of a gun control measure—both groups let their partisanship get the better of them. pic.twitter.com/vGBwB4ZXeA

     

    I tracked down this study. It wasn’t easy since Kristof’s column doesn’t link to it. Or provide the title. Or name any of the authors. Or say when it was published. The study can be found here, and its main results are in the screencap below. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/22105/833.pdf … pic.twitter.com/NJTbWLB4nZ

    Surveys have shown that increased general science knowledge makes Democrats more likely to accept human-caused global warming – the same is not true for Republicans. Thus, it’s certainly true that ideology is preventing conservatives from accepting certain scientific realities. The problem is in the temptation to assume ‘both sides’ are equally guilty of letting ideological bias cloud their judgment. As Kahan’s research showed, some liberals are certainly guilty of this sort of bias, but it’s a far bigger problem among conservatives.

    Blame the Fox Newsification of America

    So how did America get here? Political polarization has been on the rise in America on both sides of the political spectrum for the past four decades. But a rating of ideology-based voting in Congress created by Kenneth Poole and Howard Rosenthal found that while Democrats are gradually becoming more liberal, Republicans in Congress have become radically more conservative since 1980.

    In 1987, the FCC under Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, which required television and radio stations to be equitable and balanced. The Rush Limbaugh Show then launched in 1988, and so came the rise of right-wing radio. Fox News launched in 1996, providing conservatives a source of politically-biased news coverage. Combined with conservative news websites like Breitbart, Drudge, and Infowars, the right-wing echo chamber can envelop anyone who seeks only news spun to confirm their ideological biases.

    In a 2012 survey, participants who only watched Fox News were less likely to correctly answer questions about domestic or international events than viewers of any other news source (NPR, Sunday political shows, The Daily Show, talk radio, MSNBC, or CNN), or even people with no news exposure. And on the subject of climate change, the vast majority of Fox News coverage has been factually inaccurate.

    Unsurprisingly, public trust in science over the past 40 years has only fallen among one group – conservatives. That aligns with research showing that watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh decreases viewer trust in scientists.

     

    Here's how it works--the "liberal" New York Times has 3 right-wing columnists who each write 2 columns a week; the right wing Wall Street Journal has no liberal columnists. "Liberal" PBS just created a new show for conservatives, no liberals ever appear on right-wing Fox.

    Focus on fixing the broken GOP

    America’s climate inaction simply cannot be blamed on ‘both sides.’ Democrats have proposed cap and trade legislation – a concept invented by Republicans – to address the issue. House Democrats even passed the legislation before a lack of Republican support doomed it in the Senate. More recently, Democrats have proposed revenue-neutral climate legislation in order to appeal to small-government, free market conservatives. President Obama took America’s first comprehensive steps to tackle climate change by joining the Paris climate accords and implementing the Clean Power Plan – his Republican successor revoked both.

    Quite simply, the Republican Party is the problem. Some within the party are slowly making progress in fixing it, for example in the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. But breaking through America’s climate policy gridlock may require bursting the right-wing media bubble.

    Mon 5 Mar 2018 06.00 EST

    Climate Consensus - the 97%

    source: https://www.theguardian.com/us

    original story HERE

    Sign up for the Global Warming Blog for free by clicking here. In your email you will receive critical news, research and the warning signs for the next global warming disaster.

    Click here to learn how global warming has become irreversible and what you can do to protect your family and assets.

    Click here to learn about the most disruptive new book on global warming facts and research. Climageddon, The Global warming Emergency and How to Survive it.

    To share this blog post: Go to the original shorter version of this post. Look to lower right for the large green Share button.

    To view our current agreement or disagreement with this blog article, click here.

  • WE’VE RADICALLY UNDERESTIMATED HOW VULNERABLE AMERICANS ARE TO FLOODING...

    A Texas National Guardsman carries a resident from her flooded home following Hurricane Harvey on August 27, 2017, in Houston, Texas.Lt. Zachary West/Army National Guard via Getty Images

     

    New research claims that official estimates lowballed the risk by, uh, about a factor of three...

    A giant nor’easter — incongruously named Winter Storm Riley, like some Brooklyn kid’s play date — is expected slam into New England coast today, bringing snow, rain, high tides, and damaging winds.

    The Boston Globe reports that the National Weather Service has “high confidence” that the eastern coast of Massachusetts is going to experience “moderate to major flooding.” It has “moderate confidence” that heavy rains of two to three inches could cause urban and street flooding throughout southeastern Massachusetts, including Boston.

     

    [HAZARDS] Updated. Coastal flood warning E MA, advisory S MA & RI; hurricane / storm force wind warnings for the waters; high wind warning & advisory across the interior; flood watch for E MA, RI & CT; winter storm warning for the high terrain ... Mainly Friday through Saturday

    So it is somewhat ironic (if that’s the word) that this week also features the publication of a new paper in Environmental Research Letters showing that Americans are at far greater risk from flooding than official estimates reveal — as in, three times the risk.

    New spatial analysis reveals that officials have wildly underestimated flooding risk

    A team of researchers led by PhD student Oliver Wing of the University of Bristol in the UK set about to do the first high-resolution, national-level assessment of flood risk in the US.

    Why don’t we already have one? Well, the Federal Emergency Management Agency maintains the official maps of flood risk that inform programs like federal flood insurance. But FEMA maps are an aggregation of local maps “of varying age and levels of quality,” the researchers write, which share “notably poor coverage of smaller catchments,” i.e., smaller streams, which are often near residential areas.

    Combining various datasets on weather, water, population, and building density from the US Geological Survey, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, and elsewhere, they derived a layered picture of US flood risk that is “significantly higher [in] quality and spatial coverage than those that have previously informed exposure and risk estimations.” (There’s a long section on methodology in the paper if you’re hungry to hear more about datasets.)

    Flooding is by far the most common reason for presidential declarations of disaster.

    Flooding is by far the most common reason for presidential declarations of disaster.

    Pew

    The news is not good. To wit: the analysis reveals that the population of Americans exposed to serious flooding risk is “2.6–3.1 times higher than previous estimates.”

    FEMA estimates that around 13 million people are at risk. This is what Wing’s team found:

    The analysis shows that 40.8 million people (13.3% of the population) are currently exposed to a 1 in 100 year (1% annual exceedance probability) fluvial or pluvial flood in the [conterminous United States], which translates to a GDP exposure of $2.9 trillion (15.3% of total GDP).

    Louisiana, Arizona, and West Virginia are particularly exposed to risk, but Florida is the hot spot. Louisiana has a higher percentage of its land at risk (32 versus 28 percent), but Florida has more assets at risk, at $714 billion. (California has less land at risk but a whopping $763 billion in assets at risk.)

    The researchers also run a few projection scenarios with different rates of population and economic growth. They estimate that by 2100, more than 16 percent of Americans — around 75 million people — along with $10 trillion in assets will be located in flood plains. The graphic below shows where that risk will be concentrated (“SSP2” is a moderate growth scenario, while “SSP5” is a high-growth scenario).

     

    That’s a pretty nasty stripe of red up in New England. And Florida becomes mostly red...

    Climate change will only add to that elevated risk

    To be clear, Wing’s analysis has nothing to do with climate change; that’s not why he’s raising the estimate of risk. All the researchers did is (literally) look more closely at the landscape and find a bunch of stuff previous flood maps missed. It’s a correction based on a level of detail in spatial and data analysis that has only recently become possible.

    And the future projections of risk are not premised on climate change either. Right now, they write, “there is not yet compelling evidence of a climate change signal” in freshwater flooding losses, research on how climate change might affect it has been inconclusive, and the IPCC has “low confidence” in its projection of flood risk effects.

    Meanwhile, the overwhelming determinants of flood risk — population and economic development (i.e., how many buildings, roads, and factories are built in risky areas) — are clear, so Wing’s analysis is based on those figures.

    The paper focuses on freshwater flooding (heavy rain-induced, basically) rather than coastal inundation from rising sea levels. There is evidence suggesting that the latter is going to be a serious climate-driven problem this century, but that’s for another analysis. What Wing’s analysis shows that that the baseline of US flood risk from heavy rainstorms is much higher than we thought.

    Inland states are not safe from flooding.

    Inland states are not safe from flooding.

    Pew

    And that risk is rising, irrespective of climate change. We are moving to flood plains at an increasing rate — not only that, but “more frequently inundated areas are experiencing faster population growth than less frequently inundated ones.” We’re literally concentrating ourselves in the riskiest areas, putting more and more lives and assets on the line.

    If climate change is an accelerant of flooding, as many scientists expect, it will only make that already dubious decision look worse.

    In the meantime, all you Bostonians, try to stay dry! And don’t forget that a little flood water carries a lot of power.

     

    With the potential for coastal flooding, river flooding and urban and small stream flooding we want to send a reminder to not underestimate the power of water. Turn Around Don’t Drown! http://tadd.weather.gov

     

    By David Robertsdavid@vox.com

    Mar 2, 2018, 1:20pm EST

    Sign up for the Global Warming Blog for free by clicking here. In your email you will receive critical news, research and the warning signs for the next global warming disaster.

    Click here to learn how global warming has become irreversible and what you can do to protect your family and assets.

    Click here to learn about the most disruptive new book on global warming facts and research. Climageddon, The Global warming Emergency and How to Survive it.

    To share this blog post: Go to the original shorter version of this post. Look to lower right for the large green Share button.

    To view our current agreement or disagreement with this blog article, click here.


  • HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS REMAIN WITHOUT POWER AFTER DEADLY WINTER STORM RILEY...

                              Scott Eisen/Getty

     

    At a Glance

    • Winter Storm Riley has killed at least nine people on the East Coast.
    • Nearly 200,000 remain without power.
    • States of emergency were declared in Maryland and Virginia.

     

    Hundreds of thousands were still without power Sunday after deadly Winter Storm Riley battered parts of the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast and New England.

    The storm has been blamed for at least nine deaths. Two of the victims – a 6-year-old boy in Chester, Virginia, and an 11-year-old boy in Putnam Valley, New York – were children.

    The governors of Massachusetts, Maryland and Virginia declared states of emergency due to the conditions. National Guard members were activated in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania to assist in the aftermath.

    As of Sunday, nearly 200,000 are still without electricity, the Associated Press reports. At the height of the storm, more than 1.9 million lost power.

    New York electric utility Central Hudson described Riley as one of the strongest storms to hit its customers in 50 years, the Associated Press reports. It hopes to have most of the power restored to the thousands remaining in the dark by Wednesday.

    Emergency officials in Danbury, Massachusetts, announced it may be days if not a week before power is fully restored

    (MORE: Check the Forecast for Winter Storm Riley)

     

    Incredible washover on Rebecca road in Scituate, MA. Still have another high tide to go through at noon. Winds still gusting over 45mph.

    Since Friday morning, nearly 4,000 domestic flights have been canceled, mostly in the Northeast, according to the flight-tracking website FlightAware. More than 500 of those cancellations occurred on Saturday as impacts from the storm persisted.

    Amtrak temporarily suspended all service along its Northeast Corridor between New York City and Boston, and wind damage shut down one of the tracks along the Washington-Maryland corridor, AP reported. In eastern Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel was closed Friday morning and part of the afternoon.

    Coastal Flooding, Massive Waves Hammer New England Coast

    Along the New England coast, officials performed water rescues and responded to reports of wind damage as Riley intensified. In Quincy, Massachusetts, floodwaters were so severe that officials had to use front-loaders to rescue residents.

    "I'm fortunate to get rescued," resident Christine Way-Cotter told CBS Boston. "Our house is lifted, so like nothing came into our first floor, but our whole basement is probably six feet under water."

     

    Ladies and gentlemen.. PLEASE... This not only endangers your life, but the lives of first responders

     

    Please avoid Arsenal St until further notice.

    Members of the National Guard, activated by Gov. Charlie Baker ahead of the storm's arrival, assisted in the rescues. In Quincy, where some 100 people were rescued from high water during the storm, residents said it among the worst flooding they'd ever seen.

    "I’ve lived here for five years. I've seen lots of snowstorms, rainstorms, wind, but I have never seen anything like this before," resident Wayne Adams told WBZ. "That kind of flooding, I didn’t think it was possible."

    (MORE: Here's Why March Brings the Widest Variety of Extreme Weather)

    Those living in coastal areas were urged to evacuate by Friday morning because of the flooding that occurred. Scituate and Duxbury residents who evacuated were told to not return to their homes until at least Saturday afternoon, the Boston Globe reported.

    "The biggest message here is not to go back to your homes," Scituate Fire Chief John Murphy told the Globe.

    Flooding extended north to the coasts of New Hampshire and Maine on Friday afternoon, flooding streets and some structures. Some schools were closed in southern Vermont Friday as officials tried to keep children home and out of the storm's damaging winds.

    Mechanic St. in continues to just before high tide. @seacoastonline
     

    At Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, an unoccupied building partially collapsed early Saturday morning after it was battered by strong winds all day Friday and overnight, WTNH.com reported. No injuries were reported, and the building will be demolished, the report added.

    'Pretty Much Everyone ... Threw Up'

    United Airlines Flight 3833 had a violent descent into Dulles Airport just after 7 a.m. Friday morning, and the turbulence made virtually every passenger sick.

    "Very bumpy on descent. Pretty much everyone on the plane threw up," said a pilot in a report filed with the National Weather Service's aviation center.

    (PHOTOS: Winter Storm Riley, in Pictures)

    The plane, a CRJ-200 that can hold about 50 passengers, took off from Charlottesville, Virginia, less than an hour before the landing, according to NBC Washington.

    The pilots were reportedly close to also vomiting due to the extreme nature of the turbulence, the report also added. Despite the frightening landing, no injuries were reported, NBC Washington also said.

    Widespread Wind Damage in D.C. Area

    Trees and power lines were downed all across the mid-Atlantic, including the Washington D.C. area. Trees collapsed into roadways and onto homes, and some injuries were reported.

     

    Secret Service installing temporary fencing around the Vice Presidents residence after a tree fell and knocked down part of the protective fence.

    A 100-year-old woman was rescued from her Kensington, Maryland, house after a tree fell through the roof and trapped her overnight Thursday, NBC Washington reported. She was pulled from the debris and hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries, the report added.

    In Suitland, Maryland, located southeast of Washington D.C., a wall collapsed at the Andrews Ridge apartment complex on Friday, the Washington Post said. More than 300 residents were evacuated after strong winds peeled the roofs off several buildings near the complex, and a medic was injured while sitting in an ambulance struck by flying debris, the report added.

    Federal offices were closed Friday because of the storm, and residents were urged to stay home.

    Travel Advisory Issued, Flights Grounded in New York, Jersey

    As conditions worsened on Friday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued a travel advisory for areas north of New York City. The advisory limited travel for certain types of vehicles in some areas and Cuomo asked residents to stay off the roads if possible.

    After three tractor-trailers overturned on the Mario Cuomo Bridge, formerly known as the Tappan Zee Bridge, officials banned all buses and trucks from traveling across the span until further notice, the AP reported.

    "I have not seen the wind at that strength on any bridge that I've traveled in my time," driver Bill Morris told CBS News. "It was pretty intense."

    Strong winds set adrift several barges carrying construction materials for the bridge, the Journal News reported. Two of the barges ran ashore near Alpine, New Jersey, and another fully sank near the Yonkers wastewater treatment plant. The others were retrieved from the Hudson River.

    (MORE: 6 Historic Storms That Caused Major Coastal Floods in the East)

    image
     
    Roof damage to the American Airlines terminal is seen at LaGuardia Airport on Friday, March 2, 2018.

    (Instagram/Chris Rudnick)

    Hundreds of flights were grounded by the storm Friday. John F. Kennedy International Airport saw more than 420 flights canceled by Friday evening.

    LaGuardia Airport saw roughly 600 cancellations, according to the terminal's Twitter. A video posted on the social media site showed winds tearing what appears to be roofing or a covering off an American Airlines hangar at the terminal.

    A spokeswoman for the airline told the AP there were no injuries or planes damaged, and the hangar is still structurally sound.

    Officials at Newark Liberty International Airport tweeted there have been more than 480 cancellations.

    A family walks down a snowy street during a winter storm, Friday, March 2, 2018, in Marple Township, Pa. A nor'easter pounded the Atlantic Coast with hurricane-force winds and sideways rain and snow Friday, flooding streets, grounding flights, stopping trains and leaving 1.6 million customers without power from North Carolina to Maine. At least five people were killed by falling trees or branches. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
    A family walks down a snowy street during a winter storm, Friday, March 2, 2018, in Marple Township, Pa. A nor'easter pounded the Atlantic Coast with hurricane-force winds and sideways rain and snow Friday, flooding streets, grounding flights, stopping trains and leaving 1.6 million customers without power from North Carolina to Maine. At least five people were killed by falling trees or branches. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
    1 of 204 photos.
    See many more photos at original story HERE
     

    By Sean Breslin and Ada Carr

    source: https://weather.com/

    original story HERE

    Sign up for the Global Warming Blog for free by clicking here. In your email you will receive critical news, research and the warning signs for the next global warming disaster.

    Click here to learn how global warming has become irreversible and what you can do to protect your family and assets.

    Click here to learn about the most disruptive new book on global warming facts and research. Climageddon, The Global warming Emergency and How to Survive it.

    To share this blog post: Go to the original shorter version of this post. Look to lower right for the large green Share button.

    To view our current agreement or disagreement with this blog article, click here.

  • ARCTIC NEWS: WARNING SIGNS...

    The Arctic is warming up more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, due to numerous feedbacks. At times, large areas over the Arctic Ocean can become 30°C or 54°F warmer than 1979-2000, as illustrated by the image below...

     

                                 

    On February 27, 2018, large parts of the Arctic Ocean north of Greenland had turned into open water, as illustrated by the image below...

                              

    Yet, while the situation in the Arctic is desperate, with sea ice north of Greenland collapsing and more, mainstream media do not seem to care. If there ever were warning signs of what could eventuate, this is one. The sea ice north of Greenland is typically the thickest, as it is the least affected by melting and can build over many years. Early February 2018, sea ice north of Greenland was up to 5 m thick. To see sea ice this thick getting pushed away and open water emerging north of Greenland in the middle of winter is simply stunning.

    For years, I've been warning about the situation in the Arctic, in particular the 'Open Doors Feedback', which is accelerating Arctic warming. Such feedbacks were taken into consideration in an earlier analysis that warned about a potential 1.6°C warming globally due to albedo changes in the Arctic, in combination with associated changes such as loss of the ice buffer (latent heat), more heat transfer from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arctic Ocean due to stronger winds along the path of the Gulf Stream, and more heat entering the atmosphere or remaining in the atmosphere, due to more open water in the Arctic Ocean and as oceans get more stratified and take up less heat from the atmosphere.

    So, the current situation doesn't come as a big surprise, but it's stunning to see sea ice collapse north of Greenland.

    Back in March 7, 2007, I posted the article 'Ten Dangers of Global Warming', describing events getting progressively worse, with one danger feeding and reinforcing the next one, culminating in panic. Then, I thought that reading that post could at least help people better understand what's going on, and thus help people avoid panicking, but right now, I wonder whether most people do want to understand at all. Anyway, here are some images and words describing what happened over the past few days.
     

    Jet Stream over Arctic Ocean on February 25, 2018

    As Arctic warming keeps accelerating, there's ever less temperature difference between the North Pole and the Equator, and this slows down the speed at which the jet stream circumnavigates Earth.
     

    Jet Stream over Arctic Ocean on February 26, 2018

    The jet stream is getting more wavy and a more wavy jet stream makes it easier for cold air to move out of the Arctic and for warm air to move into the Arctic, so this 'Open Doors Feedback' is a self-reinforcing feedback that further accelerates warming in the Arctic.

    During the northern winter, the Arctic is increasingly getting warmer than North America, Europe and Siberia. This increases the temperature difference between these continents and the oceans, which at times is causing winds to strongly speed up over the North Atlantic and the North Pacific, making an already wavy jet stream extend even further over the Arctic Ocean, reaching areas well beyond the North Pole.
     

    Atmospheric river of heat reaches the North Pole; temperatures were as high as 1.1°C or 34.1°F on February 25, 2018

    As the jet stream makes this detour, a huge amount of heat enters the Arctic from the south.
     

    Temperatures above 6°C at Kap Morris Jesup, Greenland's northernmost weather station, on February 25, 2018

    These events were preceded by the Polar Vortex splitting up. On February 9, 2018, the Polar Vortex was split up into 4 vortices and reached speeds as fast as 425 km/h or 264 mph.
     

    Polar Vortex split up into 4 vortices

    A Sudden Stratospheric Warming event occurred on February 16, 2018, with temperatures reaching as high as 8.9°C or 47.9°F over Hudson Bay.
     

    Polar Vortex splitting up into 4 vortices with a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event occurring on February 16, 2018

    The image below is an animation of sea ice thickness, from the Naval Research Laboratory.
     

    Arctic sea ice extent was at record low for the time of the year on February 26, 2018, at 14.159 million km². Arctic sea ice extent typically reaches its maximum in March, but maximum extent in 1991-2000 was reached on February 24. So, there is a chance that Arctic sea ice extent will go all downhill from now on this year.

    Zero sea ice volume is within the margins of the trend depicted on the image above on the right. Disappearance of the sea ice also means loss of the buffer that until now has consumed huge amounts of heat.
     

    The Buffer has gone, feedback #14 on the Feedbacks page

    Here's another warning sign. High methane releases followed this chain of events on February 27, 2018, pm, likely originating from the seafloor of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS).

    Methane levels as high as 2892 ppb on February 27, 2018

    On March 1, 2018, methane levels as high as 3087 were recorded. Note the solid magenta-colored areas over the ESAS on the image below.
     

    As the image below illustrates, methane levels were again very high over the ESAS the next day, i.e. March 2, 2018, confirming earlier indications that this is where the very high methane releases did occur. 
     

    An earlier analysis calculated that seafloor methane could cause a warming of 1.1°C within one decade. Given a possible additional warming of 2.7°C due to just two elements (i.e. Arctic albedo changes and associated changes, and seafloor methane), an further warming of 2.1°C due to extra water vapor in the warmer atmosphere does seem well possible within a decade. Add up the impact of all warming elements of this analysis and the rise in mean global temperatures from preindustrial could be more than 10°C within one decade, as illustrated by the images below.
     

    A rise of a few degrees Celsius would be devastating, especially when considering that the speed at which such a rise could occur leaves little or no time for plants and animals to adapt, let alone in case of a 10°C rise.
     

    The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.

    Links

    • Climate Plan
    https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

    • Feedbacks in the Arctic
    https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feedbacks.html

    • Extinction
    https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html

    • Ten Dangers of Global Warming
    https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/ten-dangers-of-global-warming.html

    • Warning of mass extinction of species, including humans, within one decade

    WARNING SIGNS

    The Arctic is warming up more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, due to numerous feedbacks. At times, large areas over the Arctic Ocean can become 30°C or 54°F warmer than 1979-2000.

    Changes to the jet stream are behind this extreme situation.

    ... See More

    Image may contain: text
    No automatic alt text available.
    Image may contain: text
     
     
     
     
     
    -0:05
     
     
     
    64
    12
    125
     

    Sign up for the Global Warming Blog for free by clicking here. In your email you will receive critical news, research and the warning signs for the next global warming disaster.

    Click here to learn how global warming has become irreversible and what you can do to protect your family and assets.

    Click here to learn about the most disruptive new book on global warming facts and research. Climageddon, The Global warming Emergency and How to Survive it.

    To share this blog post: Go to the original shorter version of this post. Look to lower right for the large green Share button.

    To view our current agreement or disagreement with this blog article, click here.

  • 2018 SKS WEEKLY CLIMATE CHANGE & GLOBAL WARMING NEWS ROUNDUP #9...

    NWS Boston‏@NWSBoston [HAZARDS] Updated. Coastal flood warning E MA, advisory S MA & RI; hurricane / storm force wind warnings for the waters; high wind warning & advisory across the interior; flood watch for E MA, RI & CT; winter storm warning for the high terrain ... Mainly Friday through Saturday

     

    Here is a a chronological listing of news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week... 

    Editor's Pick:

    We’ve radically underestimated how vulnerable Americans are to flooding...

    New research claims that official estimates lowballed the risk by, uh, about a factor of three.

    A giant nor’easter — incongruously named Winter Storm Riley, like some Brooklyn kid’s play date — is expected slam into New England coast today, bringing snow, rain, high tides, and damaging winds.

    The Boston Globe reports that the National Weather Service has “high confidence” that the eastern coast of Massachusetts is going to experience “moderate to major flooding.” It has “moderate confidence” that heavy rains of two to three inches could cause urban and street flooding throughout southeastern Massachusetts, including Boston...

    So it is somewhat ironic (if that’s the word) that this week also features the publication of a new paper in Environmental Research Letters showing that Americans are at far greater risk from flooding than official estimates reveal — as in, three times the risk.

    We’ve radically underestimated how vulnerable Americans are to flooding by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Mar 2, 2018


    Links posted on Facebook

    Sun Feb 25, 2018

    Mon Feb 26, 2018

    Tue Feb 27, 2018

    Wed Feb 28, 2018

    Thu Mar 1, 2018

    Fri Mar 2, 2018

    Sat Mar 3, 2018

    Posted on 3 March 2018 by John Hartz

    source: https://skepticalscience.com/

    original story HERE

    About Skeptical Science

    Sign up for the Global Warming Blog for free by clicking here. In your email you will receive critical news, research and the warning signs for the next global warming disaster.

    Click here to learn how global warming has become irreversible and what you can do to protect your family and assets.

    Click here to learn about the most disruptive new book on global warming facts and research. Climageddon, The Global warming Emergency and How to Survive it.

    To share this blog post: Go to the original shorter version of this post. Look to lower right for the large green Share button.

    To view our current agreement or disagreement with this blog article, click here.


  • SEA LEVEL RISE DAMAGING MORE U.S. BASES, FORMER TOP MILITARY BRASS WARN...

    The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine is one of several military sites at risk from sea level rise, at new report from a panel of retired military officers warns. Credit: U.S. Navy

     

    The retired admirals and generals say climate change is putting key military facilities at risk of costly damage that could knock out critical operations for weeks...

    A growing number of U.S. military sites are being damaged by sea level rise fueled by climate change, and that will threaten the military's ability to protect vital national security interests if the Pentagon and Congress don't take faster action, a panel of retired admirals and generals warns in a new report.

    More than 200 domestic installations reported in a recent Defense Department assessment that they had been flooded by storm surges, compared to about 30 in 2008, the new report released Monday by the Center for Climate and Security says.

    The report spotlights flooding and erosion risks to installations as diverse as the Marine Corps' boot camp at Parris Island in South Carolina, the nuclear submarine repair site in Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine and a missile defense system against possible attacks from Asia based in the Marshall Islands. It's based on a synthesis of Congressional testimony by Pentagon officials and several federal studies in the last 18 months about the impact of climate change on national security.

    "A number of coastal military bases and training sites are already experiencing the effects of sea level rise, tidal flooding and storm surge, and recent research shows that these effects are accelerating and will continue to do so more quickly than previously thought," said Heather Messera, who chaired the committee that wrote the report.

    "Now is both the operationally practical and fiscally responsible time to act," she said.

    Despite widespread denial of climate change in the Trump administration, led by the president himself, Defense Secretary James Mattis has said that climate change poses risks to global stability and national security. So far, the Pentagon has been left alone as it works on improving the military's resilience to climate change. But the efforts are patchy and often dependent on the priorities of installation commanders, which can vary from base to base, national security experts said.

    Related:NEW STUDY Military site faces 'shocking' risk of being swamped...

    A 2017 report by the federal Government Accountability Office concluded that the military is failing to properly plan for climate change and that bases seldom include foreseeable impacts into planning. To date, the Pentagon has not concluded a full assessment "of sea level rise and broader climate impacts on U.S. military and national security," the new analysis says. This, despite the fact that 1,774 military installations in the U.S. and abroad are in coastal areas.

    "Many actions to adapt to climate change are happening sporadically, and those gaps should be addressed," said Francesco Femia, co-president of the Center for Climate and Security, a Washington, D.C., think tank whose fellows include many former high-ranking military officers. "It's up to our nation's policy makers to support the DoD."

    Growing Security Fears about Climate Change

    The new report arrives during an uptick of scrutiny into climate change's potential impact on national security.

    In November, President Trump signed the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which included a mandate from Congress for the Pentagon to identify the 10 top sites threatened by climate change. The language was a departure for the Republican-controlled Congress, which has worked for years to halt rules and bills to address climate change. The Pentagon's list is due by November 2018.

    In January, the Pentagon issued a report based on surveys of nearly 1,700 domestic military sites in which respondents from about 50 percent of the installations said they face risks from climate change.

    In mid-February, the country's intelligence agencies said in their annual report on global threats that "the impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate, more air pollution, biodiversity loss and water scarcity are likely to fuel economic and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018."

    The new report describes the great breadth of vulnerabilities to sea level rise, including loss of life; loss of infrastructure; loss of the electricity to run sites, including critical cybersecurity and communications installations; damage to equipment used in missions; loss of training lands; and loss of transportation means and corridors.

    Risks in the South China Sea

    The report described what could happen because of climate change in one region of increasing strategic importance: the South China Sea.

    U.S. installations in the area face seasonal tropical cyclones, which research suggests could grow more intense over time. If hit by a cyclone, a base risks enduring what the civilian population would also face: loss of life, electricity, buildings, roads and equipment. The base would either have to rebound quickly or reduce the chances of such damage in the first place, the report says. Otherwise, it risks leaving American interests vulnerable in a volatile region, possibly for weeks or months.

    Further, the U.S. benefits from deploying "soft power" around the world when the military brings in humanitarian aid and rescue equipment to other nations after a disaster. An installation coping with its own damage from a Pacific cyclone would be hampered in its ability to help regional allies, the report says.

    Ways the Military Can Respond

    The panel issued a series of recommendations for the military as the risks increase, including:

    • Continuously identifying infrastructure and strategic and operational vulnerabilities and concretely addressing them.
    • Integrating climate scenarios into planning.
    • Using not just the most-likely scenarios in planning but also the possibility of catastrophic failures.
    • Working with local communities and international partners.

    The Center for Climate and Security said in an earlier analysis that the Pentagon had estimated the overall value of its infrastructure in the Pacific is about $180 billion, more than "the combined 2014 budgets of the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, State and Transportation." 

    According to John Conger, senior policy advisor at the Center for Climate and Security and a former assistant secretary in the Department of Defense, the overall value of the Defense Department's installations around the world, including the U.S., exceeds $1 trillion.

    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 neela.banerjee@insideclimatenews.org. For encrypted communication, use neela_banerjee@protonmail.com.

    Sign up for the Global Warming Blog for free by clicking here. In your email you will receive critical news, research and the warning signs for the next global warming disaster.

    Click here to learn how global warming has become irreversible and what you can do to protect your family and assets.

    Click here to learn about the most disruptive new book on global warming facts and research. Climageddon, The Global warming Emergency and How to Survive it.

    To share this blog post: Go to the original shorter version of this post. Look to lower right for the large green Share button.

    To view our current agreement or disagreement with this blog article, click here.

Pages