This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sealevel rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty.
For the first time, the Arctic Report Card assessed that the Arctic is faltering as a reliable area for storing carbon away from the atmosphere ( Natalie et al., It was its first failing grade after thousands of years holding onto more carbon than released to the atmosphere. in Arc2024 ). Methane releases were sustained as well.
The problems with the SPM are similar those from the previous fifth assessment report which prompted me to write a post in 2013. I think in hindsight that my concerns from 2013 to some extent were supported by the fact that the IPCC organised an Expert Meeting on Communication, Oslo, Norway, 9–10 February 2016.
By comparing these two data sets, scientists can determine the probability that human activities are responsible for observed changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, sealevel rise, and other climate change indicators. A study of a 2018 South African drought found that climate change made it three times more likely.
Sealevel rise is a big deal Use, abuse and misuse of the CMIP6 ensemble The radiative forcing bar chart has gone full circle Droughts and floods are complicated Don’t mention the hiatus. SeaLevel Rise: The previous IPCC reports, notably AR4 and AR5 (to a lesser extent) , have had a hard time dealing with SLR.
are used all over the world, based on calculations that quantify the effects of physical mechanisms and the way different parts of the atmosphere are connected to each other. The physics-based models describe how energy flows through the atmosphere and ocean, as well as how the forces from different air masses push against each other.
That 2013 headline resulted from the first effort to quantify emissions from the ‘carbon majors’ —fossil fuel companies and cement manufacturers whose businesses have contributed an outsized amount of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. Nearly two-thirds of industrial heat-trapping emissions can be traced to just 90 entities.
The new paper in Science summarizes key statements by ExxonMobil executives between 2000 and 2013 that cast doubt on the science. Research produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has shown that rising temperatures, sealevel rise , and ocean acidification have all been made worse by fossil fuel companies’ activities and products.
Part of this movement is an oscillation on a timescale of about a year – caused by short-term fluctuations such as changes in ocean currents and atmospheric pressure. This allowed GRACE to determine the shape of the Earth and monitor changes in sealevel, glaciers and groundwater. Amazing GRACE.
1) The science of climate change has made amazing progress since the last report in 2013! 4) Increased emissions and concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases cause warming on land and water over relatively short periods of time (years, decades). Sealevel has risen about 8? the extent to which we reduce emissions).
Even before adoption of the 1992 Framework Convention, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) had proposed an “International Insurance Pool” to pay vulnerable countries based on observed sealevel rise. The first explicit use of the term L&D was in the 2007 Bali Action Plan , in a section on enhanced action for adaptation.
In 2013 a gamer by the name “DOTA_Teabag” was playing Nintendo’s Super Mario 64 and suddenly encountered an “impossible” glitch – Mario was teleported into the air, saving crucial time and providing an advantage in the game. It was set up in 2009 to specifically study the effects of irradiating microelectronics with atmospheric-like neutrons.
Compared to an earlier version published in 2013, the Strategy gives more thought to adapting China’s social and economic systems, including agriculture, cities and public health. The design of the port was strengthened to account for higher sealevels and stronger storms, and an emergency response plan was drafted. “I
CLF’s allegations included that the landfill’s coastal location “makes it extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts, including sealevel rise and damaging storm surge, creating a significant risk of erosion and of pollution from the Landfill washing into the surrounding rivers and coastal wetlands.” California v. Bernhardt , No.
I first wrote about ExxonMobil in March 2013 after I saw the company’s then-CEO, Rex Tillerson, on the Charlie Rose talk show, who provided me with fodder for perhaps my favorite of two dozen ExxonMobil-related columns. But before he was able to do that in my imaginary scenario, I corrected the record.
The 2021 New Hampshire Climate Assessment states unequivocally: “Without significant reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG), extreme precipitation events are projected to increase a minimum of 20%, leading to an increase in freshwater flooding regionally.”
The plaintiffs alleged that Peabody (and a number of other fossil fuel companies) caused greenhouse gas emissions that resulted in sealevel rise and damage to their property. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , No. Center for Biological Diversity v. 1:17 -cv-02031 (D.D.C., filed Oct.
The federal district court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed for lack of standing a lawsuit against the EPA in which an individual pro se plaintiff asserted that EPA restrictions since 1990 on aerosols in the atmosphere had caused global warming. Delta Stewardship Council Cases , Nos.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content