Climate change

From ScienceForSustainability
Jump to: navigation, search

There is an enormous amount of evidence, and agreement amongst scientists working in relevant fields, that the Earth's Climate is getting warmer due to human activities.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a body comprising experts in various relevant fields who periodically (re-)assess the evidence for climate change and its effects and for strategies to mitigate and adapt to its effects. The IPCC's working groups present their findings in individual reports and also produce a Synthesis Report, bringing together the Working Groups' report. The latest is 2014's Fifth Assessment Report. These findings are presented together via a new, beta, Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report website (which also links to the separate reports).

Evidence and explanations

What's really warming the world? Bloomberg - graphic illustration of how observed temperatures match with models of changes due to earth's orbit, solar variation, volcanic activity, deforestation, ozone pollution, aerosol pollution, greenhouse gases

Example of observed temperatures compared with what would be caused by a particular source - in this case volcanic effects

Climate Lab Book Ed Hawkins' blog

The 1981 TV documentary that warned about global warming Leo Hickman; Carbon Brief; 02 May 2017

On the evening of Tuesday, 8 December, 1981, the UK’s only commercial TV channel, ITV, broadcast an hour-long documentary called “Warming Warning”. It was among the earliest occasions – possibly the earliest – anywhere in the world where a major broadcaster aired a documentary dedicated solely to the topic of human-caused climate change.
The clips provide a poignant, historical insight into what scientists knew about climate change almost four decades ago – and how the world was beginning to react in terms of the resulting geopolitical, technological and societal ramifications. Many of themes still resonate strongly today.
To put it in context, the documentary was broadcast seven years before Dr James Hansen’s famous “it is already happening now” Senate testimony in 1988, nine years before the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report was published, and 25 years before Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was released.

Skeptical Science

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.

The Logic of Science

25 myths and bad arguments about climate change (abridged version)

covers:
Claims that climate change isn’t happening:
#1: It snowed, so global warming must not be true
#2: The ice in Antarctica is actually increasing
#3: Global warming has paused
#4: Global warming wasn’t happening so they changed to name to climate change
#5: The models have all been wrong
#6: Polar bear numbers are actually increasing!
Climate change isn’t caused by us
#7: The climate has changed in the past, so the current warming is natural. It’s the sun, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles, etc.
#8: During past climate changes, the CO2 follows the temperature increase
#9: CO2 only makes a small portion of the atmosphere
#10: We only emit a tiny portion of the earth’s CO2
#11: Water vapor is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2
Scientists have been wrong before and/or they are incompetent and corrupt
#12: In the 70’s scientists predicted an ice age
#13: It’s just a theory, not a fact
#14: But scientists have been wrong in the past, and we can’t be totally certain that climate change is true
#15: There are thousands of scientists who disagree (e.g., the Oregon Petition)
#16: “Climategate” showed that scientists are corrupt
#17: Scientists are manipulating the data to make it look like warming!
#18: It’s a liberal conspiracy/It’s all about the money!
Miscellaneous
#19: But politicians and the media…
#20: Climate change is being caused by the ozone hole (or vice versa)
#21: But CO2 is actually good for plants
#22: It’s not really a big problem, because the planet will only warm by a few degrees
#23: It will make humans go extinct/it will be the end of the world
#24: God is in control
#25: Man is not powerful enough to cause climate change

Peter Hadfield / potholer54

Peter Hadfield has made a series of videos explaining the evidence for man-made global warming, and examining scientific and non-scientific arguments against it:

There is a lot of inaccurate nonsense about climate science written in blogs and the media, whether exaggerating the effects of climate change or seeking to undermine the science behind it. This series checks the sources of these claims and shows how they have been misinterpreted or deliberately altered. I have no expertise in climatology, I am a former science journalist, so checking facts is what I do. And I always cite these sources so you can check them for yourselves. Along the way, I explain the real science as relayed by researchers in published papers, in a way that makes it easy to understand.
A basic look at how climate scientists infer that man-made carbon gases are changing the climate, and how this view is contradicted by other climate scientists who are skeptics.
This video... looks at alternative hypotheses explaining global warming. I am only looking at alternative hypotheses put forward by real, professional climate researchers, and the findings of real, professional climate researchers who disagree with them.
I had planned to put several myths in this video, but discovered such an appalling web of deceit and fabrication in this first one that I felt I had no choice but to thoroughly debunk it.
This video, the fourth in my Climate Change series, looks at urban myths spawned by two iconic films -- An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle. Whatever you "believe" about climate change, there is no excuse for the kind of exaggerations, fallacies and fabrications we see in films like these.
More urban myths about climate change are busted as I look at the Earth's climate over the last 500 million years. What causes it to change? Since carbon dioxide was much higher in the past, why do climatologists say higher CO2 now poses a problem? And of course there's the familiar myth that CO2 can't influence temperatures because the climate was much colder in the past when carbon dioxide levels were much higher.
... a more sober analysis of those e-mails and what they mean. ... I've taken the two ... Phil Jones's e-mail about "Mike's Nature trick" and Kevin Trenberth's e-mail about a "travesty."
Are climatologists censoring scientific journals and silencing alternative hypotheses on climate change?
This video also looks at whether other planets are also warming, and an Internet myth that NASA is now attributing warming to the sun.
a quote from Professor Phil Jones that there has been no global warming since 1995. But is that what he actually said? Once again, we need to go to the source -- Jones's own words -- rather than Internet gossip based on an interpretation of what he said.
In 2005 the media told us we were on the brink of another ice age. What happened?
Three more myths, misunderstood by both proponents and critics of climate science: Global Warming means more hurricanes, drowned islands and dead coral reefs. It's not that simple.
a paper by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies led to sensational headlines that the Earth will only warm by as much as 1.64 degrees centigrade -- in a couple of centuries. Sound too good to be true? Of course it does.
This addresses a response to my video "Climate Change -- Hurricanes, atolls and corals," which, on investigation, revealed a major error by a news agency and a TV network. The moral of the story is that sticking the label "Global Warming" onto anything that moves is not going to help public understanding of climate science.
This will have to be the last video in the Monckton Bunkum series, because he's made so many mistakes in his presentations it will take at least three more videos to debunk them all, and I'm getting tired of having to correct him.
This video looks at the scientific research to answer three basic questions: 1) Was the Medieval Warm Period global? 2) Was it warmer than today? 3) And what does this all mean anyway?

CO2 levels

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist Andrew Freedman; Climate Central; 3 May 2013

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now. As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now. According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

methane

Temperatures

animated display of temperatures over time

xkcd: Earth Temperature Timeline

Sea surface temperature measurements

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus Thomas R. Karl, Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay H. Lawrimore, James R. McMahon, Matthew J. Menne, Thomas C. Peterson, Russell S. Vose, Huai-Min Zhang; AAAS Science; 26 Jun 2015

Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming “hiatus” is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion.
Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
Hausfather analysis of NOAA data

NOAA challenged the global warming ‘pause.’ Now new research says the agency was right. Chris Mooney; Washington Post; 4 Jan 2017

In the summer of 2015, a team of federal scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a blockbuster paper in Science that appeared to wipe away one of global warming doubters’ favorite arguments. The skeptics had for years suggested that following the then-record warm year of 1998 and throughout the beginning of the 21st century, global warming had slowed down or “paused.” But the 2015 paper, led by NOAA’s Thomas Karl, employed an update to the agency’s influential temperature dataset, and in particular to its record of the planet’s ocean temperatures, to suggest that really, the recent period was perfectly consistent with the much longer warming trend.
This didn’t merely surprise some scientists (who had been busily studying why global warming had appeared to moderate its rate somewhat in the early 21st century). It actually led to a congressional subpoena from Rep. Lamar Smith, chair of the House Committee on Science, who charged that “NOAA’s decision to readjust historical temperature records has broad national implications” and requested more information on why NOAA had made the dataset adjustment, including data and communications from the scientists involved.
That controversy is likely to be stirred anew in the wake of a new study, published Wednesday in Science Advances, that finds the NOAA scientists did the right thing in adjusting their dataset. In particular, the new research suggests that the NOAA scientists correctly adjusted their record of ocean temperatures in light of known biases in some observing systems — and indeed, that keepers of other top global temperature datasets should do likewise.

New analysis shows Lamar Smith’s accusations on climate data are wrong SCOTT K. JOHNSON; Ars Technical; 1 Jan 2017

It wasn't a political plot—temperatures really did get warmer.
roducing a dataset of global surface temperature is more complicated than calculating the average of a few numbers—especially when it comes to the temperature of the seawater that covers most of the planet’s surface. Since the oceans are sparsely monitored, researchers need all the measurements they can get their hands on, which include instruments on buoys and measurements made in a variety of ways on ships.
Not only do different measurement techniques have the potential to give slightly different temperature readings, but practices change over time. At one point, wooden buckets were thrown over the side and hauled up. Then it was canvas buckets, which allowed a little more evaporative cooling on the way up. Then it was mainly sensors at the engine’s coolant water intake. And in recent years, the number of scientific buoys and autonomous floats has exploded. Getting all the data collected over the years linked up on an apples-to-apples basis takes careful analysis.

Debunking the myth of climate change 'hiatus': Where did it come from? Eva Botkin-Kowacki; CS Monitor; 4 Jan 2017

A team of researchers independently replicated NOAA's recalibration of sea surface temperature data to investigate what really happened from 1998 to 2012.
From around 1998 to 2012, the rise in global temperatures seemed to plateau, according to NOAA's Extended Reconstruction Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) dataset. To most climate scientists, this so-called hiatus was another puzzle of our complex climate system for them to work out. But to people who were already skeptical of global warming, this data was evidence for the idea that human-induced climate change is a hoax. But the data itself was unsound, scientists now say. There is no evidence of a hiatus.
Climate scientists use sea surface temperature data in their calculations of global warming trends. But "a fair bit of the apparent hiatus seems to be due to problems in our ocean measurements, and not a real thing," as study lead author Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst and data scientist at the University of California Berkeley and Berkeley Earth, tells The Christian Science Monitor in a phone interview.
Dr. Hausfather and his colleagues aren't the first team to say this. But in 2015, when National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists first identified the errors in the data, political turmoil ensued. So, as replication is a tenet of science, Hausfather and his colleagues set about seeing if they could come to the same conclusion as the NOAA team. Their results are detailed in a paper published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.

Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, David C. Clarke, Peter Jacobs, Mark Richardson, Robert Rohde; AAAS Science Advances; 4 Jan 2017

Sea surface temperature (SST) records are subject to potential biases due to changing instrumentation and measurement practices. Significant differences exist between commonly used composite SST reconstructions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Extended Reconstruction Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST), the Hadley Centre SST data set (HadSST3), and the Japanese Meteorological Agency’s Centennial Observation-Based Estimates of SSTs (COBE-SST) from 2003 to the present. The update from ERSST version 3b to version 4 resulted in an increase in the operational SST trend estimate during the last 19 years from 0.07° to 0.12°C per decade, indicating a higher rate of warming in recent years. We show that ERSST version 4 trends generally agree with largely independent, near-global, and instrumentally homogeneous SST measurements from floating buoys, Argo floats, and radiometer-based satellite measurements that have been developed and deployed during the past two decades. We find a large cooling bias in ERSST version 3b and smaller but significant cooling biases in HadSST3 and COBE-SST from 2003 to the present, with respect to most series examined. These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.

consensus

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming NASA

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

CLIMATE SCIENCE SURVEY - Questions and Responses Bart Strengers, Bart Verheggen, Kees Vringer; PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; 10 Apr 2015

In the Spring of 2012, PBL, in collaboration with other researchers from the Netherlands and Australia, conducted a detailed survey about climate science. More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including e.g. climate physics, climate impacts and mitigation, responded to the questionnaire. Certain results were selected from this survey, namely those pertaining to the causes of recent global warming (attribution), and have since been published in Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T).
This document presents the responses to each survey question, both as an absolute number of responses and as a fraction of the total. In some cases, the responses were also divided into seven groups of respondents: co-authors of the Working Group I report of IPCC AR4 (‘AR4 authors’); signatories of public declarations critical of mainstream climate science as embodied by IPCC (‘unconvinced’); and four subgroups divided by their self-declared number of climate-related articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (0–3; 4–10; 11–30; more than 30). The four subgroups constitute similar numbers of respondents.

The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

Consensus is more like 99.9% than 97%

Essentially All Climate Scientists Agree: Man-Made Global Warming is Real Henry Auer; The Energy Collective; 4 May 2016

Virtually Complete Unanimity of Acceptance of Man-Made Global Warming. James Lawrence Powell recently published an article (Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 1–4, 2016; DOI:10.1177/0270467616634958) which found that during 2013 and 2014 only 0.0058% of authors of peer-reviewed journal articles rejected the reality of man-made global warming. Of the almost 70,000 authors of those articles only 4 reached that conclusion, giving a ratio of 1:17,352.

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True James Lawrence Powell; Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society; 2016

The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.

persuaders

The arguments that convinced a libertarian to support aggressive action on climate

Jerry Taylor, policy brief, "The Conservative Case for a Carbon Tax," which argues for a steadily rising "revenue-neutral" fee on fossil fuel producers.

Skeptical Science

Baldwin and Lammers / University of Cologne

Past-focused environmental comparisons promote proenvironmental outcomes for conservatives Matthew Baldwina, Joris Lammers; PNAS; 31 Oct 2016

Political polarization on important issues can have dire consequences for society, and divisions regarding the issue of climate change could be particularly catastrophic. Building on research in social cognition and psychology, we show that temporal comparison processes largely explain the political gap in respondents’ attitudes towards and behaviors regarding climate change. We found that conservatives’ proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors improved consistently and drastically when we presented messages that compared the environment today with that of the past. This research shows how ideological differences can arise from basic psychological processes, demonstrates how such differences can be overcome by framing a message consistent with these basic processes, and provides a way to market the science behind climate change more effectively.
Conservatives appear more skeptical about climate change and global warming and less willing to act against it than liberals. We propose that this unwillingness could result from fundamental differences in conservatives’ and liberals’ temporal focus. Conservatives tend to focus more on the past than do liberals. Across six studies, we rely on this notion to demonstrate that conservatives are positively affected by past- but not by future-focused environmental comparisons. Past comparisons largely eliminated the political divide that separated liberal and conservative respondents’ attitudes toward and behavior regarding climate change, so that across these studies conservatives and liberals were nearly equally likely to fight climate change. This research demonstrates how psychological processes, such as temporal comparison, underlie the prevalent ideological gap in addressing climate change. It opens up a promising avenue to convince conservatives effectively of the need to address climate change and global warming.

Environmental messages that promote a return to a positive past found to be more effective in convincing conservatives Bob Yirka; Phys.org; 13 Dec 2016

A pair of researchers with the University of Cologne in Germany has found that phrasing pro-environmental messages in past-focused ways was received more warmly by people who described themselves as conservatives than messages that warned of future problems. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Matthew Baldwin and Joris Lammers describe the study they carried out with online volunteers and why they believe their results could have a real-world impact.

Wouldn’t it be great if the planet went back to how it used to be? CATHLEEN O'GRADY; Ars Technica; 16 Dec 2016

Climate skepticism decreases if the message is past-oriented.

AGW denial *

AGW effects *

mitigation

Adaptation and Mitigation IPCC synthesis report: Topic 4

Many adaptation and mitigation options can help address climate change, but no single option is sufficient by itself. Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link mitigation and adaptation with other societal objectives.

IPCC: rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 2 Nov 2014

Most important assessment of global warming yet warns carbon emissions must be cut sharply and soon, but UN’s IPCC says solutions are available and affordable
The report, released in Copenhagen on Sunday by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the work of thousands of scientists and was agreed after negotiations by the world’s governments. It is the first IPCC report since 2007 to bring together all aspects of tackling climate change and for the first time states: that it is economically affordable; that carbon emissions will ultimately have to fall to zero; and that global poverty can only be reduced by halting global warming. The report also makes clear that carbon emissions, mainly from burning coal, oil and gas, are currently rising to record levels, not falling.
The report calculates that to prevent dangerous climate change, investment in low-carbon electricity and energy efficiency will have to rise by several hundred billion dollars a year before 2030. But it also found that delaying significant emission cuts to 2030 puts up the cost of reducing carbon dioxide by almost 50%, partly because dirty power stations would have to be closed early.
Tackling climate change need only trim economic growth rates by a tiny fraction, the IPCC states, and may actually improve growth by providing other benefits, such as cutting health-damaging air pollution.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) – the nascent technology which aims to bury CO2 underground – is deemed extremely important by the IPPC. It estimates that the cost of the big emissions cuts required would more than double without CCS.
Linking CCS to the burning of wood and other plant fuels would reduce atmospheric CO2 levels because the carbon they contain is sucked from the air as they grow. But van Ypersele said the IPCC report also states “very honestly and fairly” that there are risks to this approach, such as conflicts with food security.
In contrast to the importance the IPCC gives to CCS, abandoning nuclear power or deploying only limited wind or solar power increases the cost of emission cuts by just 6-7%. The report also states that behavioural changes, such as dietary changes that could involve eating less meat, can have a role in cutting emissions.
  • As part of setting out how the world’s nations can cut emissions effectively, the IPCC report gives prominence to ethical considerations. “[Carbon emission cuts] and adaptation raise issues of equity, justice, and fairness,” says the report. “The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective [international] cooperation.”
These issues are central to the global climate change negotiations and their inclusion in the report was welcomed by campaigners, as was the statement that adapting countries and coastlines to cope with global warming cannot by itself avert serious impacts.


economic action

Leading insurers tell G20 to stop funding fossil fuels by 2020 Karl Mathiesen; The Guardian; 30 Aug 2016

Three of the world’s biggest insurers have called on G20 leaders to implement a timeframe for ending fossil fuel subsidies when they meet in China this week.
G20 members contribute $160-$200bn each year to the production of coal, oil and gas, according to the OECD.

Carbon Pricing *

legal action

Netherlands

Netherlands loses landmark global warming case, ordered to cut emissions Sebastian Anthony; ars technica; 24 Jun 2015

In a landmark case that may set a very important precedent for other countries around the world, especially within Europe, the Dutch government has been ordered by the courts to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent.

Phillipines

World's largest carbon producers face landmark human rights case John Vidal; Guardian; 27 Jul 2016

The world’s largest oil, coal, cement and mining companies have been given 45 days to respond to a complaint that their greenhouse gas emissions have violated the human rights of millions of people living in the Phillippines. In a potential landmark legal case, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR), a constitutional body with the power to investigate human rights violations, has sent 47 “carbon majors” including Shell, BP, Chevron, BHP Billiton and Anglo American, a 60-page document accusing them of breaching people’s fundamental rights to “life, food, water, sanitation, adequate housing, and to self determination”.

USA

Judge Denies Motions by Fossil Fuel Industry and Federal Government in Landmark Climate Change Case EcoWatch; 9 Apr 2016

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin of the Federal District Court in Eugene, Oregon, decided in favor of 21 young plaintiffs in their landmark constitutional climate change case against the federal government. Judge Coffin ruled Friday against the motion to dismiss brought by the fossil fuel industry and federal government.

Climate Change Litigation - The Children Win In Court James Conca; Forbes; 1 Mar 2016

Against all odds, the 21 children, ages 8 to 19, who are suing the government to protect the environment against the harm of global warming in their future, have won in court. Again. In a surprise ruling on Friday from the bench in the ongoing climate case brought by these youths against the State of Washington’s Department of Ecology, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill ordered the Department of Ecology to promulgate a carbon emissions reduction rule by the end of 2016 and make recommendations to the state legislature on science-based greenhouse gas reductions in the 2017 legislative session. Judge Hill also ordered the Department of Ecology to consult with the young plaintiffs in advance of that recommendation.

Children Win Another Climate Change Legal Case In Mass Supreme Court James Conca; Forbes; 19 May 2016

In another surprising victory for children suing the government over climate change, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last Friday found in favor of four youth plaintiffs against the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The Court found that the DEP was not complying with its legal obligation to reduce the State’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and ordered the agency to “promulgate regulations that address…greenhouse gas emissions, impose a limit on emissions that may be released…and set limits that decline on an annual basis.” This case is one of several similar cases in federal district courts in Oregon and Washington, and in the state courts of North Carolina, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Colorado. All of these legal cases are supported by Our Children’s Trust, that seeks the legal right of our youth to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate in the future.

Trump could face the ‘biggest trial of the century’ — over climate change Chelsea Harvey; Washington Post; 1 Dec 2016

A few weeks ago, a federal judge in Oregon made headlines when she ruled that a groundbreaking climate lawsuit will proceed to trial. And some experts say its outcome could rewrite the future of climate policy in the United States.
The case, brought by 21 youths aged 9 to 20, claims that the federal government isn’t doing enough to address the problem of climate change to protect their planet’s future — and that, they charge, is a violation of their constitutional rights on the most basic level. The case has already received widespread attention, even garnering the support of well-known climate scientist James Hansen, who has also joined as a plaintiff on behalf of his granddaughter and as a guardian for “future generations.”
The U.S. government under President Obama, along with several others representing members of the fossil fuel industry, filed to have the lawsuit dismissed. But on Nov. 10, federal judge Ann Aiken denied the motion, clearing the case to proceed to trial. According to Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit representing the youth plaintiffs, a recent case management conference indicated that the case would likely go to trial by summer or early fall of 2017.

political action

China’s climate actions turn the tables on American deniers Reuters; 26 Sep 2015

How a selfish world can still avoid catastrophic climate change New Scientist; 26 Oct 2015

Each country generally defines “fair” according to what will mean the least effort for them, says Malte Meinshausen at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Getting them all to agree on that point seems utopian, he says. “Every country agreed to a 2°C or lower climate target, and they all make up their own story about why their own target is fair,” says Meinshausen. But the voluntary pledges to cut national greenhouse gas emissions made ahead of December’s climate summit in Paris aren’t enough to keep warming below 2°C. So Meinshausen and colleagues looked at what is needed to reach the target and how to get nations to agree to them, allowing for every country to define “fair” the way that burdens them the least. The team’s imagined scenario involves one country or group of countries leading with ambitious emissions cuts, and every other country following. But each follower country interprets its fair contribution according to what costs it the least. “If any country wants to claim to be a leader – and they all say that they’re a leader – this is now the first litmus test,” says Meinshausen.

National post-2020 greenhouse gas targets and diversity-aware leadership Malte Meinshausen, Louise Jeffery, Johannes Guetschow, Yann Robiou du Pont, Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Niklas Höhne, Michel den Elzen, Sebastian Oberthür & Nicolai Meinshausen; Nature Climate Change; 26 Oct 2015

Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics George Marshall; The Guardian; 27 Mar 2009

In my 25 years of environmental campaigning I have seen lots of inspired protests and lots of daft or pointless ones. But the WWF Earth Hour campaign has to be one of the most misguided and counterproductive actions I have ever seen.

What Do the Presidential Candidates Know about Science? Christine Gorman; Scientific American; 13 Sep 2016

Clinton, Trump and Stein answer 20 top questions about science, engineering, technology, health and environmental issues

Military Leaders Urge Trump to See Climate as a Security Threat Erika Bolstad, Climate Wire; Scientific American; 15 Nov 2016

a bipartisan group of defense experts and former military leaders sent Donald Trump’s transition team a briefing book urging the president-elect to consider climate change as a grave threat to national security.
The Center for Climate & Security in its briefing book argues that climate change presents a risk to U.S. national security and international security, and that the United States should advance a comprehensive policy for addressing the risk. The recommendations, released earlier this year, were developed by the Climate and Security Advisory Group, a voluntary, nonpartisan group of 43 U.S.-based senior military, national security, homeland security and intelligence experts, including the former commanders of the U.S. Pacific and Central commands.
The briefing book argues that climate change presents a significant and direct risk to U.S. military readiness, operations and strategy, and military leaders say it should transcend politics. It goes beyond protecting military bases from sea-level rise, the military advisers say. They urge Trump to order the Pentagon to game out catastrophic climate scenarios, track trends in climate impacts and collaborate with civilian communities. Stresses from climate change can increase the likelihood of international or civil conflict, state failure, mass migration and instability in strategically significant areas around the world, the defense experts argue.

Rex Tillerson Suggests The U.S. Should Stay In Paris Climate Agreement Alexander C. Kaufman; Huffinton Post; 11 Jan 2017

Rex Tillerson, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of state, hinted on Wednesday that he would support keeping the United States in the historic Paris climate agreement. Asked during his Senate confirmation hearing whether the U.S. should maintain its commitments in the accord, the former Exxon Mobil Corp. chief executive said the 180-country deal allows the country to influence the necessary “global response” to climate change. “It’s important that the United States maintain its seat at the table with the conversations around how to deal with the threats of climate change,” he said.

How to Resist an Unjust Regime Nonviolently John Horgan; Scientific American blogs; 18 Nov 2016

Gene Sharp advocates nonviolent activism for practical rather than moral or spiritual reasons. He rejects religious exhortations that we should turn the other cheek and love our enemies. People in power often deserve to be despised and fought, he contends, but violence, even in the service of a just cause, often causes more problems than it solves, leading to greater injustice and suffering. Hence the best way to oppose an unjust regime is through nonviolent action.

HFCs - Montreal Protocol