# data[].attributes.body
This article outlines the idea that environmental issues are becoming increasingly bipartisan, and that this trend has no plans of stopping soon.  Fewer than a third of republicans nationwide would say that climate change is caused by humans, compared to an overwhelming majority of democrats.  As a result of today's hyper partisanship, "Being skeptical about global warming has become part of Republican or conservative identity", says Riley E. Dunlap, a professor of environmental ecology at Oklahoma State University. Due to this overall trend, it will become harder for environmental legislation to become passed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Happening?

Happening?

Over the past two decades, Republicans have grown increasingly doubtful about climate change, even as Democrats have grown increasingly convinced that it's happening and is caused by humans. But recent research published in the journal Climatic Change reveals greater nuance in partisan climate opinions across the country.

"Pockets of Republicans, or even a plurality or majority, support some pro-climate issues," said Matto Mildenberger, a professor of political science at the University of California Santa Barbara and lead author on the study. Researchers found variation in Democratic beliefs too, he said, but those findings were less politically relevant because a majority of Democrats tend to accept climate science and support related policies no matter where they live.

The study's maps show how Republican support swings between minority and majority, depending on geography and how questions are posed.

Across the country, most Republicans don't think humans are causing climate change.

Fewer than a third of registered Republicans nationwide say that climate change is caused mostly by human activities, while nearly half say it's mostly due to "natural changes in the environment," according to the study, which looked at eight years of opinion data and mapped the results by congressional district.

"Being skeptical about global warming has become part of Republican or conservative identity," said Riley E. Dunlap, a professor of environmental sociology at Oklahoma State University who was not involved in the study.

Republicans in the New York City area are about twice as likely to agree that human activities are driving global warming as their counterparts in Montana. But even in New York, barely 50 percent attribute the cause to humans.

Since the election of Donald Trump as president, belief that climate change is human-caused has declined among registered Republican voters, according to another recent poll.

Last month, more than a dozen federal agencies published a major scientific report showing that global warming is largely due to human greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet half of Republicans say that climate change is happening, with strongest support on the coasts and in places where climate effects are now being felt.

Climate views at the local level tend to reflect "where liberal and moderate Republicans live compared to conservative Republicans,"said Patrick J. Egan, a professor of politics and public policy at New York University. So it's no surprise that Republicans in major cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco and New York are most likely to say climate change is happening.

But, there are also "tantalizing hints" that geographic vulnerability to climate change may affect opinion, Professor Egan said.

For example, in south Florida, an area vulnerable to sea level rise and increased risk of extreme weather, an estimated 56 percent of Republicans agree that climate change is happening. A majority of Republicans in both Alaska and Hawaii say the same.

A majority of Republicans say they support policies to mitigate climate change.

A majority of Republicans in almost every congressional district support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, even when they don't believe those emissions are causing climate change.

That may seem like a paradox, but there's a long history of "support among people of all partisan backgrounds for regulating pollution - basic things like clean water and clean air," Professor Egan said. "To the extent global warming is framed that way, it raises support for policy interventions more than the abstract concept of 'climate change.'"

Despite this majority support, Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has worked to repeal Obama-era policies regulating power plant emissions. He has also raised questions over whether his agency should be regulating greenhouse gases at all.

Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who is working to get others in his party to accept climate change, said that Republicans are often willing to embrace solutions, even if they say they don't "believe" in climate change.

"It doesn't help to point the finger at conservatives and ask, 'Do you believe?'" he said. "By showing me a solution that fits with my values, I've got a way to accept the existence of the problem."

Republican support for various policy proposals, nationwide

When it comes to financing renewable energy research, support among Republicans is high: above 75 percent in 15 states, and at least 70 percent in all but Texas and Rhode Island, according to estimates from the recent study.

Still, Profesor Egan cautioned that people may show more support for complex public policy questions in the abstract before specific policy details, and costs, are attached.

Asked if utilities should produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, with a quantified cost of $100 per consumer laid out, overall support among Republicans dropped to 48 percent. But a close look at congressional districts showed majority support among Republicans on the East and West Coasts, as well as in Florida, a state which currently does not have a mandate for power companies to get a portion of their energy from renewable sources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Republicans Think About Climate Change - in Maps

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Happening? Happening? Over the past two decades, Republicans have grown increasingly doubtful about climate change, even as Democrats have grown increasingly convinced that it's happening and is caused by humans. But recent research published in the journal Climatic Change reveals greater nuance in partisan climate opinions across the country.

# data[].attributes.body
Tracked as a measure of the effects of global warming, the amount of Arctic Sea Ice was the second lowest this winter in recorded history. Due to temperature fluctuation, there is naturally more ice in the winter than there is in the summer, and this winter there was a historically low amount of it. Experts have even linked this change to the rise in Nor'Easters within the last few weeks, and as with many cases of global warming, this tie can reminds us that the Earth is a system where every action has an effect on something else.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Arctic sea ice behaves a bit like a human waistline, packing on weight in the winter and slimming down in the heat of summer. But while many of us struggle to lose weight, the Arctic has been struggling to gain it.

The maximum extent of Arctic sea ice cover this winter was the second-lowest since satellite record-keeping began, researchers said Friday.

The loss of sea ice is a bellwether of global warming, suggesting that climate change is not just something to worry about far off in the future: It is here.

"We've probably known for 100 years that as the climate warms up in response to loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, we would see the changes first in the Arctic," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., which issued the new data. "This is what we expected and this is exactly what has happened. It's a case where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so."

With each passing decade, the ice grows a bit less in winter, and melts a bit more in summer. The record for the least amount of sea ice gained in the winter was set last year, when the ice covered 5.57 million square miles (14.42 million square kilometers) at its peak. This winter's maximum extent was slightly greater, at 5.59 million square miles (14.48 million square kilometers), according to the data center.

Despite the small increase this year, the downward trend in winter ice coverage is unmistakable, and the past four years have been the four lowest on record.

Maximum Winter Sea Ice Extent

The disappearing sea ice is a key indicator of a warming Arctic. And the consequences of a warming Arctic can be felt further south. A growing number of researchers are linking the changes up north to unusual winter weather in North America and Europe.

In recent weeks, the Northeastern United States faced four nor'easters in as many weeks, and Western Europe encountered subzero temperatures that were far lower than at the North Pole.

These weather patterns are influenced by the jet stream, the river of wind that encircles the Northern Hemisphere, said Jennifer A. Francis, an Arctic researcher at Rutgers University. Temperature differences between the Arctic and the lower latitudes help create the jet stream. Because the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the Earth, that temperature difference is getting smaller. As a result, the jet stream is getting weaker and shifting its behavior, sending cold air south from the Arctic and pumping warm air north.

The weakening jet stream also helps keep weather patterns locked in place, Dr. Francis said. "We've been in this pattern along the East Coast that is very conducive to the formation of nor'easter-type storms," she said. "Part of the reason for that is because we've had this pattern in the jet stream that's been so persistent."

Dr. Francis's theory is not settled science, Dr. Serreze said. Other researchers have posited that changes in ocean currents in the tropical Pacific are the source of the recent weather events in the midlatitudes.

"But I would say that the weight of evidence is resting on the side of a significant Arctic influence," Dr. Serreze said.

The loss of Arctic sea ice should concern everyone, he added. "What happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arctic Sea Ice Missed a Record Low This Winter. Barely.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Arctic sea ice behaves a bit like a human waistline, packing on weight in the winter and slimming down in the heat of summer. But while many of us struggle to lose weight, the Arctic has been struggling to gain it.

# data[].attributes.body
NASA just ranked 2017 as the second hottest year since the data was first recorded in 1880. The only year to have been hotter was 2016. Even more shockingly, it came during a year without El Nino, which as we learned, naturally increases the average temperature. Gavin A. Schmidt, the man in charge of the committee that compiled that data at NASA, was quoted saying, "It's not that we've gotten to a plateau, this isn't where we're going to stay. In ten years we are going to say, 'oh look another decade of record setting temperatures'". Scientists also project that if our temperatures rise more than an average of 2 degrees celsius, the climate will hit a "disastrous point of no return".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The world in 2017 saw some of the highest average surface temperatures ever recorded, surprising scientists who had expected sharper retreat from recent record years.

Scientists at NASA on Thursday ranked last year as the second-warmest year since reliable record-keeping began in 1880, trailing only 2016. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which uses a different analytical method, ranked it third, behind 2016 and 2015.

What made the numbers unexpected was that last year had no El Niño, a shift in tropical Pacific weather patterns that is usually linked to record-setting heat and that contributed to record highs the previous two years. In fact, last year should have benefited from a weak version of the opposite phenomenon, La Niña, which is generally associated with lower atmospheric temperatures.

"This is the new normal," said Gavin A. Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the NASA group that conducted the analysis. But, he said, "It's also changing. It's not that we've gotten to a new plateau - this isn't where we'll stay. In ten years we're going to say 'oh look, another record decade of warming temperatures.'"

An analysis by a private independent group, Berkeley Earth, ranked last year as the warmest year on record without El Niño. Zeke Hausfather, a researcher with the group, said that despite the weak La Niña, "It doesn't seem like there's any evidence things are cooling down."

By both the NASA and NOAA analyses, 17 of the 18 warmest years since modern record-keeping began have occurred since 2001. Overall, fueled by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, temperatures have increased more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century.

In order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, scientists say global temperatures must not increase more than 2 degrees Celsius.

The warming trend comes at a time that President Donald Trump is dialing back many climate-related regulations and policies. Last year he announced that the United States would withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate accord and repeal the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era measure designed to reduce emissions from power plants.

But more than statements from politicians or data from scientists, events last year reminded the world that the climate is changing.

Temperatures in the Arctic, which is warming about twice as fast as other parts of the planet, soared again during parts of 2017, and the region continued to lose sea ice and permafrost.

Much of the eastern half of the United States had an abnormally warm February, an occurrence that scientists said was made more likely by climate change. Scientists found the fingerprints of warming in many other weather events as well, including a June heat wave that led to wildfires in southern Europe and extreme heat in Australia's summer.

In other cases the links to climate change were not as conclusive, but a series of catastrophes last year - including widespread hurricane damage from Texas to the Caribbean and lethal wildfires in California - seemed to indicate that such disasters were becoming much more common.

Researchers had expected that 2017 would end a string of three consecutive years with record temperatures. That string was exacerbated by a strong El Niño that began in 2015 ended in the second half of 2016. (Though 2015 was not technically an El Niño year.)

Normally, trade winds around the tropical Pacific blow from east to west, moving warmer water away from the South American coast and piling it up around Asia and Australia. In an El Niño those trade winds weaken or even reverse, allowing the typically colder parts of the ocean to warm. This extra heat at the ocean's surface releases energy into the atmosphere, increasing global temperatures.

This is why, ordinarily, El Niño years tend to be the warmest years on record.

In a La Niña year, the oceanic pendulum tends to swing the other way, with the east-to-west trade winds becoming unusually strong, strengthening the process by which cold waters emerge from the ocean. That leads to cooler than normal ocean temperatures and, as a result, cooler atmospheric temperatures.

The world is now experiencing a weak La Niña, with ocean temperatures in the Pacific slightly below normal, said Anthony Barnston, chief forecaster with the International Research Institute for Climate and Society at Columbia University.

"That will probably hold back the average mean temperatures from breaking records again," Dr. Barnston said.

The NOAA and NASA analyses both use temperature measurements from weather stations on land and at sea. The analyses differ largely in how they treat the Arctic. In NASA's method, the region has more of an influence on the overall average.

"It's startling to know there are individuals on the brink of adulthood who have spent their entire lives in a climate that, largely due to human activity, is vastly different from the one their parents experienced growing up," said Rachel Licker, a senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a research and advocacy group.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2017 Was One of the Hottest Years on Record. And That Was Without El Niño.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world in 2017 saw some of the highest average surface temperatures ever recorded, surprising scientists who had expected sharper retreat from recent record years. Scientists at NASA on Thursday ranked last year as the second-warmest year since reliable record-keeping began in 1880, trailing only 2016.

# data[].attributes.body
Data shows that the rising of sea levels around Easter Island, a remote island in the Pacific Ocean, are threatening the islands famous statues, while also eroding the land. Most of these statues lie around the perimeter of the small island, and the projected rise in sea levels by 5 or 6 feet threatens the statues. This would not only threaten the history that lies in these statues, but almost the entire economy of the small island that stems from the tourism that the statues bring in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HANGA ROA, Easter Island - The human bones lay baking in the sun. It wasn't the first time Hetereki Huke had stumbled upon an open grave like this one.

For years, the swelling waves had broken open platform after platform containing ancient remains. Inside the tombs were old obsidian spearheads, pieces of cremated bone and, sometimes, parts of the haunting statues that have made this island famous.

But this time was different for Mr. Huke. The crumbling site was where generations of his own ancestors had been buried.

"Those bones were related to my family," said Mr. Huke, an architect, recalling that day last year.

Centuries ago, Easter Island's civilization collapsed, but the statues left behind here are a reminder of how powerful it must have been. And now, many of the remains of that civilization may be erased, the United Nations warns, by the rising sea levels rapidly eroding Easter Island's coasts.

Many of the moai statues and nearly all of the ahu, the platforms that in many cases also serve as tombs for the dead, ring the island. With some climate models predicting that sea levels will rise by five to six feet by 2100, residents and scientists fear that storms and waves now pose a threat like never before.

"You feel an impotency in this, to not be able to protect the bones of your own ancestors," said Camilo Rapu, the head of Ma'u Henua, the indigenous organization that controls Rapa Nui National Park, which covers most of the island, and its archaeological sites. "It hurts immensely."

Similar fates are faced by islanders throughout the Pacific Ocean and along its margins, in places like the tiny Marshall Islands that are disappearing under the sea and the sinking megacity of Jakarta, where streets become rivers after storms hit. Kiribati, a republic of coral atolls north of Fiji, may be uninhabitable in a generation. Their residents may become refugees.

On Rapa Nui, the Polynesian name of this island, much of which has been recognized as a Unesco world heritage site, both the future and the past are threatened.

The island's economy hangs in the balance. The archaeological sites are the backbone of the main industry: tourism. Last year, this island with only 6,000 residents attracted more than 100,000 visitors. Easter Island's hotels, restaurants and tour businesses take in more than $70 million every year.

Tourists usually begin their days in Tongariki, where they gather to watch the sunrise from behind a line of monoliths facing inland. Groups split off to Anakena, the island's one sandy beach, or to the ancient platforms at Akahanga, a sprawling site of former villages on the shore where, tradition holds, the island's mythical founder, Hotu Matu'a, is buried in a stone grave.

Yet all three sites now stand to be eroded by rising waters, scientists say.

"We don't want people seeing these places through old photos," Mr. Rapu said.

Archaeologists fear the rising waves could erase clues to one of the greatest mysteries of the island: What caused the collapse of the civilization that built the stone statues?

Perhaps a thousand years ago, Polynesians discovered this island in the middle of a vast, empty sea. They created a civilization that constructed more than 1,100 moai statues, many of which were raised miles from their quarries using methods that still captivate scientists.

Less mysterious is what happened next. As the population grew, the island went from forested to barren. Europeans arrived with new diseases.

The island's vast quarry at Rano Raraku was deserted, with dozens of moai left unfinished and abandoned. By the 1870s, the population was just over a hundred, down from thousands at its peak.

Archaeologists hotly debate whether it was resource depletion, disease, civil war, or perhaps rats that came with the islanders and ravaged forests, that was ultimately to blame. And the clues may lie inside the funeral platforms, which hold some of the few remains that can be dated to establish a timeline.

Those remains "could add more data to show it's not a simple or straightforward answer to what happened," said Jane Downes, a professor of archaeology at the University of the Highlands and Islands in Scotland, who has spent many summers in Easter Island working to document the damage.

The highway circuit that runs much of the triangular island shows a landscape that is changing.

The damage has been swift on Ovahe Beach, near where Mr. Huke came across bones in the sun. For generations, there had been a sandy beach here that was popular with tourists and locals. Nearby, a number of unmarked burial sites were covered with stones.

Now the waves have carried off almost all of the sand, leaving jagged volcanic stone. The burial sites have been damaged and it's not clear how long they will survive the waves.

"I once swam in Ovahe and the sand seemed to go on for miles," said Pedro Pablo Edmunds, the Hanga Roa mayor, in his office as he flipped through a coffee-table book with images of the beach. "Now, it's all stone."

Two years ago officials buried a time capsule, to be opened by islanders in 2066, near the town hall. Among the items inside were pictures of Ovahe Beach before it lost all of its sand.

"They will dig it up in 50 years and see us standing there, where there is no beach," Mr. Edmunds said.

At a site called Ura Uranga Te Mahina on the island's southern coast, park officials were alarmed last year when blocks of a stone wall perched about 10 feet above a rocky coast collapsed after being battered by waves.

"Now, all of this will fall next," said Rafael Rapu Rapu, the chief archaeologist of Ma'u Henua, pointing to a map showing the platforms behind the collapsed wall.

Mr. Rapu has used a nearby site, called Runga Va'e, to experiment with measures to mitigate the damage. Using part of a $400,000 grant from the Japanese government, officials built a sea wall for protection against the waves. But it remains unclear whether the wall will be enough to stop the erosion, or if the island leaders will have to consider moving platforms and statues away from the coast in order to save them.

Other vulnerable areas present an even tougher challenge to conservationists. One of them is the volcanic crater at Orongo, the center of the civilization's activity around 1600, the last years before European contact. Island residents gathered for an annual swimming competition in which young men raced through open water to a nearby island, Motu Nui, to fetch bird eggs. The winner determined which clan would rule the island for the following year.

The stories of those races are told in a half-dozen large petroglyphs carved in stone perched over the edge of the caldera, vulnerable to storms and gravity.

Park officials say they are exploring the possibility of anchoring the carvings onto more stable stone, or even moving them into a museum.

"Can we take them somewhere else?" said Mr. Rapu, the archaeologist. "Yes, but you lose their context, you lose their history when doing that."

Mr. Rapu, who grew up on the island, said he regretted the environmental changes that had befallen the area. Few birds nest on Motu Nui anymore, he said, a consequence of what he suspects is changing weather patterns. He looked over the water and recalled his father's stories of big migrations that used to arrive at the island regularly, much like they did during the days of the competitions.

"He would tell me you could see dark clouds of them and you could hear the birds everywhere," he said, walking back from the crater.

Sebastián Paoa, the head of planning at Ma'u Henua, said he was sure that, ultimately, the island's inhabitants would find their way through the challenge of the rising sea levels just as they had survived the collapse in ancient times.

"They knew their environment was coming apart, but that didn't stop them from persisting here," he said. "It's the same with climate change today."

Mr. Huke, the architect, said he feels the same way.

Finding the bones of his ancestors on the beach wasn't cause for despair, he said, but a call to action. In recent months, he's been gathering information for a climate change assessment to be presented to officials tallying everything from erosion to the groundwater supply.

"Islands like us are always the first to face climate change," he said. "We have been here 1,000 years. We have gotten through things like this. The world isn't ending. And believe me, we've suffered through an ecological disaster before."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HANGA ROA, Easter Island - The human bones lay baking in the sun. It wasn't the first time Hetereki Huke had stumbled upon an open grave like this one. For years, the swelling waves had broken open platform after platform containing ancient remains.

# data[].attributes.body
President Trump and America as a whole made headlines when they did not sign the Paris Agreement, which aims at solving global warming as a world. Despite the signing by almost every other nation, emissions still climbed in all of those areas, but in the U.S. emissions actually fell. Asia accounted for two-thirds of the global increase in emissions, whereas the U.S had the biggest decrease of any modern country in history within the last year. Experts hope that it is just a blip worldwide in solving the issue, but they all also agree there is a lot of work to be done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Global carbon dioxide emissions surged to record levels the year after the landmark 2016 Paris climate agreement was signed.

Energy-related emissions climbed 1.4 percent to 32.5 gigatons in 2017, the International Energy Agency reported yesterday in its annual survey of global carbon levels. The increase is the equivalent of adding 170 million cars to the road, the agency said.

The uptick-coming on the heels of the major international climate deal-signals an abrupt end to several years of stagnant emissions growth and raises questions about the world's commitment to reducing carbon levels.

"It's not good news," said Rachel Cleetus, policy director for the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It certainly is a sign that we have a great deal of work to do to meet the commitments that countries made in Paris to limit emissions and the harmful effects of climate change."

Asia accounted for two-thirds of the increase in global carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions also climbed in the European Union.

Those increases stood in contrast to the United States, which posted the largest year-over-year decline in carbon emissions of any advanced economy. The decline was all the more notable given President Trump's outspoken opposition to global attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and his plans to withdraw from the Paris deal.

The IEA figures were not particularly surprising, analysts said, as a strong global economy and low energy prices prodded emissions higher. Growth in emerging economies like China and India has driven global emissions growth for much of the last decade, they noted. In that regard, the growth of emissions in 2017 represented a return to the norm following stagnating carbon levels in 2015 and 2016.

The numbers nevertheless laid bare the challenges facing climate hawks as they seek to tame an increase in global temperatures. An improved economic landscape worldwide resulted in a 2.1 percent increase in demand for energy. Roughly three-quarters of that increase, or 72 percent, was satisfied by fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the world backslid on other key metrics like energy efficiency. Global energy intensity still improved by 1.7 percent. But that was below an average of 2.3 percent over the last three years and short of the 3 percent annual reduction that analysts say is necessary to keep global increases in temperature to around 2 degrees Celsius.

Demand for oil remained as robust as ever. Oil demand rose 1.5 million barrels per day, or by 1.6 percent. That was twice the average annual growth rate witnessed over the last decade, IEA said.

A growing penchant for bigger and less efficient vehicles in the United States was a big reason for that jump, analysts said.

"What it underscores is why transportation as a sector is politically so difficult because you're requiring everyone to do something," said Michael Mehling, deputy director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

'Just a blip'?

The IEA report was not uniformly bleak from an emissions perspective. Some of the trends figure to be temporary or at least subject to changes in the weather.

Rising Chinese demand for electricity in 2017-which boosted power plants' appetite for coal and sent emissions from Asia's largest economy soaring-was the result of a brutally hot summer, said Dan Klein, head of global coal research at S&P Global Platts Analytics.

"I think [if it weren't for] the increase in overall demand, the biggest story would have been the increase in renewables," Klein said, noting Chinese wind and solar output were up 21 percent and 38 percent, respectively, year over year. "If you have a slowdown in power demand growth, especially if the weather is more normal, these trends will have a much bigger impact in 2018."

Indeed, the world's emissions story might have been significantly worse if not for renewables' strong year. Renewables boasted the highest increase of any energy source, with the United States and China accounting for half of the sector's growth, IEA reported.

The impact of increased renewable generation was particularly evident in the United States, where emissions fell for the third consecutive year. U.S. carbon emissions were 810 million tons in 2017, IEA reported, a decrease of 0.5 percent from 2017. Renewables and decreased electricity demand were largely responsible, the IEA said.

In contrast, emissions in the European Union increased by 1.5 percent, or 50 million tons. That represented a reversal from recent years and was mainly due to strong demand for oil and gas, IEA said.

"Time will tell if this is just a blip or a long-term trend, but the change in trend is not good," said Glen Peters, research director at the Center for International Climate Research.

The emissions discrepancy between climate-conscious Europe and the fossil-fuel-loving United States highlights the challenges facing climate hawks under the Paris Agreement, analysts said. While the carbon-cutting compact can boast an achievement in getting most of the world to set a target for emission reductions, the policy lacks teeth, they added.

"It tells us a lot about the power of innovation and the power of market fundamentals over policy commitment," said Mehling, the MIT professor. "Right now, one quick interim conclusion is it underscores just how vastly inadequate our policies are. Even some of the forefront countries are running behind."

Both scope and ambition are needed for climate efforts to succeed, said Robert Stavins, a professor of energy and economic development at Harvard University. Paris succeeded in the first by bringing countries together to settle on a target, but the second remains a question, he added.

"There is a huge amount of work to be done, there's no denying it," Stavins said.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global CO2 Emissions Rise after Paris Climate Agreement Signed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global carbon dioxide emissions surged to record levels the year after the landmark 2016 Paris climate agreement was signed. Energy-related emissions climbed 1.4 percent to 32.5 gigatons in 2017, the International Energy Agency reported yesterday in its annual survey of global carbon levels.

# data[].attributes.body
A team of researchers led by Daniel Scott, a University of Waterloo professor, recently did research that analyzed the rising temperatures in all of the previous Olympic Winter Games sites. They came to the conclusion that of the 21 sites, 9 of them will have temperatures too high to host another Winter Games by the year 2050. The researchers were also quick to point out that conditions for the Winter Games have not been ideal in recent years either. In Sochi, a record number of snowboarders wiped out during their half-pipe run. This crazy occurrence was due to the quality of the snow at the top of the pipe. The sugary texture slowed the riders down right as they were attempting their most difficult maneuvers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Richard Heathcote/Getty Images

Distill the upcoming Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, to their essence and you get 15 sports that involve gliding on snow or ice. Because of climate change, though, by 2050 many prior Winter Games locations may be too warm to ever host the Games again.

By midcentury, nine former Winter Olympics sites may not be reliably cold enough for the Games.

A team of researchers, led by Daniel Scott, a geography professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, came to that conclusion by taking climate data from previous Winter Games locations and applying climate-change models to predict future winter weather conditions.

The research, originally published in 2014, was updated this month to include the Pyeongchang Olympics, which begin Feb. 9, and the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing.

According to Dr. Scott's research, using emissions projections in which global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise through midcentury and global temperatures increase by 4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, nine of the host locations will be too hot to handle the Games. But that temperature increase won't be felt equally. Chamonix, France, the site of the first Winter Games, will have winter temperatures 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by midcentury.

Three former venues may also lack sufficient snow, even with artificial snowmaking.

Dr. Scott's model factors in artificial snowmaking, but that has its limits. The technology involves pumping water through small nozzles under high pressure. When the water hits cold air it freezes almost instantly and turns into snow - but only if the air is cold enough.

"You're relying on cold air to do the refrigeration for you," Dr. Scott said.

When the temperatures are above freezing, as they were during the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver and the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, you have to turn to more extreme measures.

In Vancouver, which melted under one of its warmest winters on record, organizers brought in 1,000 bales of straw and covered them with a mix of artificial snow and natural snow hauled in from higher elevations to cover the bare ski slopes.

When shortages of cold and snow are combined, four former venues are likely to be unreliable hosts by midcentury. Five more will be risky.

In Sochi, whose mild climate made it an unusual choice for the Winter Games, organizers banked snow from the previous winter, storing it in shady places and covering it with insulation.

Both locations also used technology that involves embedding pipes with dry ice in the sites for aerials and moguls skiing. The technique supposedly preserves snow for up to two days by cooling it from the bottom up.

Despite these efforts, athletes at both Games complained of poor snow that they said led to unfair conditions.

Skiers, for example, may consider a competition unfair when shifting conditions make a course faster or slower depending on when the skier races. At Sochi, snowboarders complained that the half-pipe was dangerous because of bumps and sugary snow that can slow down riders when they should be gaining speed for maneuvers that involve launching as much as 20 feet above the half-pipe's 22-foot top edge. During the event's qualifying runs, more than half of the athletes fell.

In the past, Olympic organizers have dealt with the vagaries of weather by bringing events indoors. Skating events were once held outside, for instance. But you can't move the mountains required for the giant slalom or the 50-kilometer course for one of the men's cross country ski events indoors.

Even in a warming world, some regions will still have cold places. But the number of possible Winter Olympics locations will decline. In the future, the Winter Games might rotate through a handful of the same cities.

At the same time, the warming climate affects not only the locations of the Olympics, but also the ability of athletes to train. In the United States, some ski locations are forecast to see seasons 50 percent shorter by 2050 and 80 percent shorter by 2090.

That will complicate life for elite athletes, but they can at least travel to find snow.

The repercussions are potentially much more serious for young athletes getting a first taste winter sports. What will happen to the pipeline that feeds elite sports programs when the local ski hill, or the frozen pond where kids play hockey, disappears?

"It's an interesting question that nobody really knows the answer to," Dr. Scott said.

Note: Locations with less than 75 percent probability for either freezing minimum temperatures or deep enough snow were categorized by researchers as unreliable hosts for the Winter Olympics. Those with greater than 90 percent probability for both metrics were considered reliable. All others were considered "marginal/higher risk" hosts.

Additional production by Claire O'Neill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Of 21 Winter Olympic Cities, Many May Soon Be Too Warm to Host the Games

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Richard Heathcote/Getty Images Distill the upcoming Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, to their essence and you get 15 sports that involve gliding on snow or ice. Because of climate change, though, by 2050 many prior Winter Games locations may be too warm to ever host the Games again.

# data[].attributes.body
Most articles about climate change have a very saddening view on the Earth's future, but this one is quite the opposite.  According to a team of researchers from Leeds, England, if we continue creating environmental legislation at even a bit of a faster rate, then we may just end up at the lowest end of their predicted average temperature range at the end of the century.  They were able to predict this using something called "equilibrium climate sensitivity". The only problem with this data is that it is just that - predictions. Should we hit temperature ranges just a tad higher, the same scientists say that we are essentially doomed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climate scientists on Wednesday suggested that they may be able to rule out some of the most dire scenarios of what would happen if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere were to double.

Unfortunately, the same scientists say the best-case scenarios are also probably unrealistic.

How a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases would affect the climate is of tremendous importance, as humans are running out of time to avoid that outcome. With current atmospheric concentrations at 405 parts per million, as opposed to about 280 parts per million before the dawn of the industrial era, the planet is already about halfway there.

In the new study in the journal Nature, Peter Cox and Mark Williams of the University of Exeter and Chris Huntingford of the United Kingdom's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology attempt to recalculate the "equilibrium climate sensitivity," a highly influential metric that describes how much the planet will warm if carbon dioxide doubles and the Earth's climate then adjusts to the new state of the atmosphere.

For decades, climate studies have found a very broad range of possibilities for this key figure - somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, with 3 degrees Celsius (or 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) sitting smack in the middle of the range. But the inability to further narrow this estimate has been a big problem, Cox said.

"The problem is the low end sort of implies maybe you don't need to do much about climate change except adapt, and the high end implies it's kind of too late," he said.

Recently, however, different teams of scientists have hit upon an approach to try to narrow the results - trying to find an "emerging constraint" on what the possible future outcome could be by comparing high-powered climate change models, which predict the future, with currently observed elements of present climate.

"You find something in the models which is well correlated to future response and can potentially be observed in the real world," Ben Sanderson, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said of the approach. Sanderson was not involved in the current study.

To that end, Cox and his colleagues focused on a simple measurement: How much the climate varies on an annual basis, irrespective of greenhouse gas emissions.

"What we did is look at how the variation from year to year, having taken out the long-term trend, was related to the sensitivity of the system, across all models," Cox said.

The result allowed the scientists to narrow the probable climate sensitivity range to between 2.2 and 3.4 degrees Celsius, with a central figure of 2.8 degrees C (5.04 degrees Fahrenheit), somewhat lower than the previous central estimate. They said this amounts to narrowing the uncertainty around the figure by 60 percent.

"We think the likely range is 2.2 to 3.4, so that kind of very much downplays high climate sensitivities above 4, and low climate sensitivities below 2," Cox said. The study asserted that there is less than a 3 percent possibility that the climate sensitivity is lower than 1.5 degrees, and less than a 1 percent possibility that it is higher than 4.5 degrees.

If correct, this would be very good news - suggesting that we may not have to reckon with truly hellish temperature increases by the end of this century. "I should thank Cox and colleagues for helping me to sleep a little easier in my bed at night," Piers Forster, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, wrote in a commentary on the new study, also published in the journal Nature.

Forster also called the new study's methodology "ingenious."

But the key question is, of course, whether it's actually right.

The new finding contrasts with a similar study, also published in the journal Nature, which found that the global climate models that best capture the current climate are also those that predict some of the warmest and most severe outcomes. That study, by the Carnegie Institute for Science's Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira, used a conceptually similar methodology but focused on the incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the planet's atmosphere, rather than annual temperature wobbles. And it actually pushed upward somewhat the estimate for how bad warming could get.

Brown and Caldeira said they are studying Cox's new research to try to figure out why it differs from their own.

Cox, meanwhile, said he saw similarities, as well as differences, with the other team's study. "What we both do is say the low values are unlikely," he said. "We also think the high values are unlikely, they think they're likely."

"It's normal for these types of studies to be apparently contradictory," Sanderson said in an email. "The way forward is to better understand the physical mechanisms for why the correlations exist . . . then we can look together at all the information to make a holistic assessment of all the evidence as it pertains to the real world."

It all suggests that scientists have plenty more work to do in figuring out a better estimate of the climate sensitivity. Their best answer will be watched closely when it arrives in the form of the next report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, expected in 2021.

In the meantime, getting the number right matters a great deal in the current moment - because it helps determine the chance of limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius, two key international targets enshrined in the Paris climate agreement.

Cox explained that with current emissions levels, we're probably committed to a warming that would be about half of the central equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) number.

"If we believe the ECS is 4, we're already committed to 2 degrees," he said. "An ECS of 3 means that the aspirational limit of Paris of 1.5 degrees is essentially about to be passed. An ECS of 2.8 means we still have the possibility of avoiding 2 degrees - we're very close to 1.5, but we could still avoid 2."

"If this study is proved correct, it wouldn't change our best guess of what the future would look like under climate change - but it would make the worst-case scenario slightly less catastrophic," Sanderson said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yes, global warming will be bad. But these scientists say it won't reach the worst-case scenario.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate scientists on Wednesday suggested that they may be able to rule out some of the most dire scenarios of what would happen if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere were to double. Unfortunately, the same scientists say the best-case scenarios are also probably unrealistic.

# data[].attributes.body
Recent research shows that the cold snap of the last few weeks is not the result of climate change.  This research was done as a result of Trump's odd tweet saying that the East Coast "could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming. Al Gore then responded to the tweet by saying that he believed that the drastic temperature change was just some more of that good old climate change. The researchers also said that these swings are just natural in North America, and that while they'll still happen, they will most likely not be severe as climate change worsens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The cold snap that sent temperatures plunging last week and brought the most frigid new year in recorded history, in some places, had nothing to do with climate change, according to a new study.

In recent years, climate scientists have studied the connection between global warming and freezing temperatures. They are examining how shifting air patterns over the Arctic, and their incursion into North America and Europe, are connected to climate change.

But the two-week deep freeze didn't carry the hallmarks of human activity, according to a rapid attribution study from Climate Central, a science communication project based in Princeton, N.J. World Weather Attribution, a group of international researchers, performed the analysis.

Temperatures in some parts of the country, including Buffalo and Detroit, were more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit below normal for this time of year. Such events are increasingly rare, and the group found that wintertime temperatures are actually increasing in the United States. That is to be expected in a warmer world, the authors wrote.

"We conclude that this was an exceptional two-week cold wave in the area in the current climate," the authors wrote. "Cold outbreaks like this are getting warmer (less frequent) due to global warming, but cold waves still occur somewhere in North America almost every winter."

That didn't stop politicians from seizing on the cold. President Trump tweeted that the East Coast "could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming," while former Vice President Al Gore tweeted that the bitter cold is "exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis."

Researchers found that such a cold spell was more likely before human-caused global warming. Now, a two-week deep freeze is about 15 times less likely to occur than a century ago, when temperatures in such an event would be 4 degrees lower, according to the international group of researchers. The cold streak was also unique in that it occurred so early in the season.

The group has looked at other extreme weather events. It found that the likelihood of Hurricane Harvey's rainfall was increased by climate change, but a drought in Somalia, in 2016 and 2017, was not connected to global warming.

There is evidence that Arctic blasts of frigid air could become more common as a result of climate change, though scientists say more study is needed to firmly draw any conclusions. That's because the jet stream around the Arctic region seems to be weakening. It typically traps and encircles the coldest air over the Arctic, but as it weakens, colder air can filter down to lower latitudes.

Scientists are looking at the link between the loss of Arctic sea ice and how it affects weather in lower latitudes, but more research is needed.

Gabriel Vecchi, a geosciences professor at the Princeton Environmental Institute and an author of the report, said the climate community is divided on whether or not colder winter temperatures can be traced to global warming. He said most experts in the field likely don't agree with that hypothesis, though he says there is evidence for it.

"The finding that cold spells could become more common due to global warming is an interesting one, but it is also a controversial one in our field," Vecchi said. "There is a lot of discussion about it in the scientific literature, and I think it's a very counterintuitive hypothesis that people have, and I think because of that, it's appealing. But we don't find any support for it in this work."

While the report failed to find human fingerprints on the cold weather, that doesn't raise questions about the broader role that people are having on the globe, he said.

"I think it would be misguided to look at any cold event as evidence for or against global warming," Vecchi said. "There is evidence for global warming on a number of levels, and the planet has been warming, the oceans have been taking up heat, sea levels have been rising, land snow has been melting, glaciers are melting, and all these other things, so the reality of global warming is uncontroversial."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The cold snap that sent temperatures plunging last week and brought the most frigid new year in recorded history, in some places, had nothing to do with climate change, according to a new study. In recent years, climate scientists have studied the connection between global warming and freezing temperatures.

# data[].attributes.body
The United Nations just announced that Carbon Dioxide levels grew at a record rate in 2016. This rate was 50% faster than the average of the last decade, taking the ppm from 400 to 403.3. The last time that the world has ever seen levels of Carbon Dioxide this high was 3 to 5 million years ago in the mid-Pliocene era. Scientists believe that this growth in Carbon Dioxide levels has contributed to the sea levels rising about 20 meters and the global average temperature also rising 3 degrees.

# data[].attributes.body
Yesterday, the U.S. released a report worked on by 13 of their agencies, that states that "humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization," entirely contradicting the views of the Trump Administration in the process.   This release is very timely, as next week the United Nations convenes in Germany for its annual conference regarding climate change.  The U.S. is expected to be heavily criticized for the fact that Trump's peers now have scientific proof that his views on climate change are incorrect, and that he seemingly will still remain out of the Paris climate accord agreement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration's position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.

Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term warming trend is "unambiguous," it says, and there is "no convincing alternative explanation" that anything other than humans - the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy - are to blame.

The report was approved for release by the White House, but the findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the American delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump's decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris climate accord and top administration officials' stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.

"This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies," said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. "It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They're obviously not getting it from their own scientists."

While there were pockets of resistance to the report in the Trump administration, according to climate scientists involved in drafting the report, there was little appetite for a knockdown fight over climate change among Mr. Trump's top advisers, who are intensely focused on passing a tax reform bill - an effort they think could determine the fate of his presidency.

The climate science report is part of a congressionally mandated review conducted every four years known as the National Climate Assessment. The product of hundreds of experts within the government and academia and peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, it is considered the United States' most definitive statement on climate change science.

The White House put out a statement Friday that seemed to undercut the high level of confidence of the report's findings.

"The climate has changed and is always changing," Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement. "As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on 'remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate'" to greenhouse gas emissions, he added.

Despite the scientific consensus presented in the report, the Environmental Protection Agency has scrubbed references to climate change from its website and barred its scientists from presenting scientific reports on the subject.

Their agencies referred questions to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversaw the research.

The report has provoked consternation in scientific circles for months. Though the study has been in the works since 2015, several scientists said the election of Mr. Trump, who has labeled climate change a " canard" and appointed cabinet members who disputed the scientific consensus, caused them to worry the report would be blocked or buried.

That did not happen. Scientists who worked on the report said none of the 13 agencies that reviewed it tried to undermine its findings or change its wording.

"I'm quite confident to say there has been no political interference on the message," said David Fahey, a NOAA scientist and a lead author of the report. "Whatever fears we had weren't realized."

Responsibility for approving the report fell to Gary D. Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, who generally believes in the validity of climate science and thought the issue would have been a distraction from the tax push, according to an administration official with knowledge of the situation.

Image

Phoenix experienced record highs in June. The report says there are "no convincing alternative explanations" other than human activity to account for rising global temperatures. Credit Ralph Freso/Getty Images

One of Mr. Cohn's top policy deputies, Michael Catanzaro, had the authority to block, delay or change the report. But Mr. Catanzaro, a former energy adviser to President George W. Bush and former Speaker John A. Boehner, chose instead to follow the lead of the Obama administration by referring the report back to more than a dozen federal agencies for feedback.

That review, according to two people familiar with the process, went relatively smoothly, surprising some scientists who worked on the report who had expected more resistance.

The only significant turbulence, according to one person familiar with the process, came from a midlevel political appointee at the Department of Energy who grilled the report's authors on changes that had been made to temperature and other climate data over the years. The authors responded by adding a more detailed explanation of their methodology and all of the agencies then gave their approval, the person said.

Mr. Trump was barely aware of the report's existence, several White House officials said.

Some critics of climate change science attacked the report as the product of holdovers from the Obama administration and chastised the Trump administration for allowing it to be published.

"I'm saddened that they have decided they will let the permanent government, the civil servants, continue down this road without supervision," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group.

Scientists said the report's findings were clear.

"This new report simply confirms what we already knew. Human-caused climate change isn't just a theory, it's reality," said Michael E. Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. "Whether we're talking about unprecedented heat waves, increasingly destructive hurricanes, epic drought and inundation of our coastal cities, the impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. They are upon us. That's the consensus of our best scientists, as laid bare by this latest report."

The report says the Earth has set temperature highs for three years running, and 16 of the last 17 years are the warmest years on record for the globe. Weather catastrophes from floods to hurricanes to heat waves have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980, and the report warns that such phenomena may become common.

"The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases," the report notes. "Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world."

In the United States, the report finds that every part of the country has been touched by warming, from droughts in the Southeast to flooding in the Midwest to a worrying rise in air and ground temperatures in Alaska, and conditions will continue to worsen.

"This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," the report states. "For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence."

The findings, other researchers said, create an unusual situation in which the government's policies are in direct opposition to the science it is producing.

"This profoundly affects our ability to be leaders in developing new technologies and understanding how to build successful communities and businesses in the 21st century," said Christopher Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. "Choosing to be dumb about our relationship with the natural world is choosing to be behind the eight ball."

Correction:

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Climate Report By U.S. Agencies Counters Trump. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration's position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
This video from the Wall Street Journal highlights why Hurricane Harvey was as devastating as it was to Houston. The video begins by stating that most storms quickly move off the coast at which they first hit, but Harvey was different and stayed inland for a very long period of time. Houston also lies very low in altitude, which does not help at all with drainage. To further worsen drainage issues, Houston has not been careful with preserving its swamp-land, and has allowed for a lot of laying down of asphalt. This means that the only place that the water has left to go is the residential streets. All of these factors contributed to the making of "the 800 year flood".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Science of Why Harvey Was So Devastating for Texas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tropical Storm Harvey dumped record rainfall along the Texas coast, and Houston was among the hardest hit areas. Here's the science of why Harvey had such a catastrophic impact. Photo: NASA

# data[].attributes.body
At the top of a 50 foot cliff in the Bahamas lies a common tourist spot -- two extremely large boulders. For decades, scientists have wrestled with the question of how they got there, but the solution may have just been found. After running data, is believed that these rocks may have landed there during a period of time around 100,000 years ago, when global temperatures were high, sea levels were too, and storms were violent enough to throw boulders from the sea as large as these. This idea is scary to a world with a rapidly heating climate, and it acts as a warning to avoid the Earth to going back to that state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Atop a jagged, 50-foot-high cliff on the Bahamian island of Eleuthera sit two enormous boulders known as "The Cow and the Bull." Each is several times taller than a person; the squatter and wider of the two, the "Bull," weighs around a thousand tons. The boulders are a tourist attraction, but in recent years, they've become much more than that - a scientific mystery that has been scrutinized because of the lessons it could hold about climate change.

Scientists don't know for sure how these boulders got to their exceptional location - they couldn't have rolled uphill to the top of the cliff; there's no higher cliff from which they could have fallen - but they suspect it has something to do with the Atlantic Ocean far below them.

One possible explanation has frightening implications for the present. Two years ago, climate scientist James Hansen, drawing on the work of the geologist Paul Hearty, a retired research associate professor at the University of North Carolina, suggested they had been put in placeby catastrophic superstorms more than 100,000 years ago at a time of higher seas and dangerous weather dynamics. These conditions, Hansen fears, could return again if polar ice sheets melt rapidly, upending ocean circulation and potentially causing a host of other difficult-to-predict scenarios.

A new scientific study, however, counters that while the boulders were indeed probably put in place by violent waves long ago, it wouldn't have required superstorms to get them there. The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, represents work by Alessio Rovere of the University of Bremen and the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research and his colleagues. It suggests that even storms of today's strength could have moved the boulders - at least back when seas were 20 to 30 feet higher, as they were during part of the Eemian warm period, circa 125,000 years ago.

The new study, though, could hardly be called good news for those who will live with the consequences of climate change. It uses the boulders to underscore the lesson that as seas rise once again in our future, they will be able to unleash even more of the ocean's destructive power upon present-day human structures. Storms won't even need to have stronger winds - the oceans will do much of the work.

"As soon as you start rising sea level, you have higher energies on that cliff," said Rovere, who conducted the new research with nine other scientists at institutions in Germany, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands.

The controversy over Eleuthera's boulders underscores just how little we know about how the oceans will react to climate change. The seas are rising, but only relatively slowly so far - we don't know how much this could speed up. And as they warm up they may also foster more intense hurricanes or perhaps even other kinds of large storm systems.

Early reaction to Monday's paper, however, suggests the ongoing debate over the mysterious boulders of Eleuthera is unlikely to end soon.

Hearty and Hansen believe that during a period of dynamic climate transition over 100,000 years ago, enormous storm waves swept the boulders upward from a lower and older cliff face. Other boulders on the island of Eleuthera, Hearty suggests, were carried even farther afield.

Hearty believes this is part of a "trilogy" of evidence of disastrous change on Eleuthera at the time. He also argues that the fossil remnants of small bubbles from vast waves were left as high as 80 feet above sea level on the island, and that long and pointed rock walls farther inland, which Hearty calls "chevrons," represent ancient sand dumps from these waves. (Hearty summarized all the evidence in a recent paper that can be read here.)

Rovere and his colleagues traveled to Eleuthera in 2016 hoping to investigate Hearty's hypothesis, and to add some mathematics and computing power to the endeavor. So they used photographic tools and samples to estimate the weight of the rocks (the Cow, they found, weighs 383 tons; the Bull they estimated at 925), and boat measurements to determine the shape of the seafloor offshore, which drops off quickly into very deep waters - a phenomenon that helps the ocean funnel its energy at the cliff.

Then, the researchers ran simulations of a variety of storms hitting the cliff with different sea levels superimposed. And they found that with Eemian sea levels, the smaller rock, the Cow, could be moved by waves moving around 20 mph or more - while at around 25 mph and higher, the same applies to the Bull. (The study assumed the boulders had stood on the edge of the cliff and were moved inland to their current position, which is contrary to Hearty's idea that they were moved from a considerably lower position.)

Depending on varying sea levels, the study found that Hurricane Andrew of 1992 and Superstorm Sandy of 2012 produced waves powerful and fast moving enough to move the boulders. (In fact, with present-day sea level, the study suggests that smaller boulders on Eleuthera were indeed moved by Hurricane Andrew.)

However, three experts on the geology of the Bahamas - including Hearty - contested aspects of the new work, while praising some others.

Hearty said the new work "contains important technical observations that shed some light on the physical characteristics and mechanisms of transport of the megaboulders," and noted that it "supports wave transport of the boulders by storms, as we have maintained since 1998, despite many challenges."

But he noted that the boulders are only one part of the evidence that he has adduced to support the superstorm hypothesis. And he posed this question: If storms of the present are powerful enough to move rocks this big, "then why aren't there many Holocene [the current geologic era] and historical boulders at lower elevations as large as the megaboulders?"

John Mylroie, a geologist at Mississippi State University who has also studied the rocks, added that during the Eemian period long ago, the cliff face was different than at present - jutting farther out into the sea, and with higher cliffs - which he believes poses a problem for the calculations.

"The authors have accounted for the +6 m sea level position 120,000 years ago, but not for how the coastline was configured at that time," said Mylroie by email. This means, he said, that "more energy would have been needed than they calculated."

Pascal Kindler, a field geologist at the University of Geneva who has studied the rocks, also questioned the analysis. On the one hand, he noted that the Bull is actually made up of three separate boulders on top of one another, which might have been easier to move than the study supposes. But at the same time, he argued (like Hearty does) that the rocks come from an older and lower cliff face, rather than the cliff edge - making them even harder to move.

"It means that the flow velocity required to lift these boulders must be greater than that calculated by Rovere et al.," Kindler said.

(Not that Mylroie or Kindler agree with the superstorm hypothesis: Mylroie has suggested that the rocks could have been created by erosion and weathering, and Kindler thinks that a large collapse of the seafloor offshore could have created a mini-tsunami that did the work of lifting the boulders.)

Asked about what it would mean if the rocks indeed came from farther below, Rovere answered that "we would probably need higher flows."

But he added that "based on what we observe basically everywhere in the Caribbean, there is no other evidence that a boulder has been taken from the base of even a small cliff and brought up, surpassing an entire cliff."

Clearly, the origin of the boulders remains debated. Nobody, though, seems to be contesting the main punchline of the current study - as seas rise, so do our risks from damaging ocean waves hurled by storms.

"If you raise sea level, you will have more energy on cliff and coastal barriers," said Rovere. "That's the real problem we will have to deal with if sea level keeps rising."
Read more at Energy & Environment: New science suggests the ocean could rise more - and faster - than we thought That's heavy: Climate-change warnings include rising seas and wild weather shifts. But giant flying boulders? We had all better hope these scientists are wrong about the planet's future For more, you can sign up for our weekly newsletter here, and follow us on Twitter here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ancient storms could have hurled huge boulders, scientists say - raising new fears of rising seas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Atop a jagged, 50-foot-high cliff on the Bahamian island of Eleuthera sit two enormous boulders known as "The Cow and the Bull." Each is several times taller than a person; the squatter and wider of the two, the "Bull," weighs around a thousand tons.

# data[].attributes.body
The article explains how the nuclear industry is really struggling in America, despite the plea by experts such as the one in the Switch Video from class, and that things aren't getting much better. FirstEnergy Solutions just announced that they plan on shutting down 3 struggling plants if the government does not intercede and help them. To make matters even worse for the future of Nuclear Energy, Rick Perry, the Secretary of Energy in Trump's Cabinet was quoted saying, "FirstEnergy Solutions will most likely file for bankruptcy by the end of the month".

# data[].attributes.body
Shell, the oil powerhouse, as reportedly devised a plan to oust oil from the energy equation, and comply with the goals of the Paris Accords of having Earth's temperatures rise no more than 2 degrees celsius over pre industrial levels by 2070.  The plan is complicated, but the CEO of Shell has stated that he plans on the company's carbon footprint to be cut by 35 percent by 2035 and 50 percent by 2050. He has also said that part of their plan is to push the advancement of nuclear energy towards reaching numbers about three times as high as they are right now.

# data[].attributes.body
In efforts to lessen the effects of flooding of the Mississippi River, humans over time have built systems to try to contain the water, such as levees. This method it turns out, seems to have been a bandaid. Research done recently states that 100 year floods now have a 20% chance of happening each year, whereas a century ago it was only a 1% chance (hence the name). "We've only channelized the river. We've strengthened it," says Sebastian Munoz, a professor at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When record rains mingled with spring snowmelt in the lower Mississippi River Basin in April 2011, liquid disaster flowed southward and forced some hard choices: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers blasted a hole in a levee in the river system to save the city of Cairo, Ill., from inundation-at the expense of more than 100,000 acres of farmland. Mandatory evacuations were ordered in Memphis, where floodwaters lapped at historic Beale Street. Officials opened two spillways in Louisiana to protect New Orleans and Baton Rouge, sacrificing farms and coastal oyster beds.

The crisis would ultimately cause $2.8 billion in damage, according to the Corps. And it is one of many recent examples of the way the restless river has pummeled surrounding communities. Unusual floods struck throughout the basin during winter 2015-16, and more swamped parts of Illinois, Arkansas and Missouri after torrential rains in 2017. Snowmelt swells the Mississippi every spring, but the river reached flood stage in Memphis a month earlier than usual in 2018 due to heavy February rains.

Now a new study raises the possibility much of the effort humans have put into trying to control the mighty river has paradoxically made its large floods more destructive. The magnitude of so-called 100-year floods-massive inundations defined as having a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year-has increased 20 percent in the past five centuries on the lower Mississippi, researchers reported this month in Nature. The bulk of the increase has been in the last 150 years, when human engineering of the river has been most intense. "We've channelized the river, we've straightened it," says Samuel Muñoz, lead author of the new study and an assistant professor of marine and environmental sciences at Northeastern University. "We've made the gradient steeper, and we've encased the river in concrete mats and lined it with levees."

The resulting physics is straightforward, Muñoz explains. With little leeway to meander and limited floodplain to spread over, the waters of the Mississippi in places are corralled into a relatively narrow chute, making peak flows higher than they would be otherwise. Muñoz and his colleagues estimate about 75 percent of the increase in 100-year-flood magnitude is due to river engineering, with the rest attributable to natural climate cycles. The study was not able to factor in the influence of anthropogenic climate change effects, though, leaving open the question of how much rising flood levels are driven by engineering and how much by a warming climate.
MAGNIFIED FLOODS
If left to its own devices, the Mississippi follows a sinuous and impermanent path. The river has "whipsawed" back and forth over the last 10,000 years, changing course when the sediment it deposits blocks its route, says Craig Colten, a geographer at Louisiana State University who was not involved in the new research. If not for Herculean human efforts, he says, the river would likely have switched its outlet during major flooding in 1973 and would empty into the Atchafalaya River-not the artificial route it now flows through before hitting the Gulf of Mexico.

Human control of the Mississippi has caused obvious problems along the Louisiana coast. Damming upstream, for example, traps sediments that would otherwise build up the river's delta; this makes the coast more prone to rapid erosion. But a natural-running Mississippi would devastate much of the economic activity that depends on the river, says Clinton Willson, a civil engineer at L.S.U. who also was not part of the new study. The river is a crucial shipping route, Willson notes, and big barges could never navigate natural meanders. Since a historic flood tested the Corps's nascent taming of the river in 1927, Colten says, the three overarching goals of river engineering have been to protect navigation, New Orleans and the petrochemical industry along the lower Mississippi's banks.

As much as humans have made over the Mississippi, there is a lack of understanding of how it behaved before we started mucking with it, Muñoz says. The oldest depth gauge records cover a mere 150 years, a period that started after human engineering began. Muñoz and his colleagues have attempted to extend this record back to roughly 1500 by sampling bottom sediments from three oxbow lakes in Mississippi and Louisiana. Oxbow lakes are former river channels that were cut off by sediment; they retain all the sands and silts the river carried when the now-lakes were still part of its main channel.

Sediment layers left by floods stand out because faster flows carry and deposit larger grains of sediment, Muñoz says. To more precisely date floods that occurred before formal record-keeping began, the team also turned to another data source-trees. Certain types including oak show cellular-level damage when swamped, and which is visible in the trees' growth rings, providing an annual record of when the river overflowed.

The researchers also pulled in data from written records kept since the late 1800s. Taken together, their results showed 100-year floods in recent decades have been about 20 percent larger (in terms of cubic feet of water per second) than 100-year deluges 500 years ago.

That increase in flood discharge, or the volume of water flowing past a given point, is "what hydrologists sometimes call 'flood magnification,'" Muñoz says. "You're taking what could have been a moderate event and turning it into a larger event." Teasing apart the factors that magnified the floods has been the tough part of the new research.
WHERE DOES CLIMATE CHANGE COME IN?
Along with the infrastructure humans have added to the river since the 19th century, climate also affects flood severity. Two natural ocean-temperature cycles influence moisture in the Mississippi Basin, but the team's modeling found these could explain only 25 percent of the increased flood magnitude. Human engineering explains the rest, Muñoz says.

But that leaves out any role that global warming-and accompanying changes in precipitation-might be having on flood levels, says Scott St. George, a paleoclimatologist who wrote an editorial in Nature accompanying the new study.

Some research has attempted to untangle these climate threads. A study led by Utah State University meteorologist Simon Wang, published in 2017 in Geophysical Research Letters, found the precipitation that caused major flooding in southern Louisiana in 2016 may have been 20 percent heavier than it would have been without warming that has occurred since 1985. A 2016 paper in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences showed warming over the past century has likely increased the chance of that flooding by a factor of at least 1.4.

But how any global warming-fueled changes in precipitation affect flooding along the vast span of the Mississippi depends on when and where those changes happen, Wang says. Most of the river's floods happen during spring when rains combine with snowmelt. So more or less spring rain or winter snow could affect flood levels. And where those precipitation changes occur-in the upper or lower Mississippi, for example-affects where the water enters the river, as well as which areas are likely to flood. Climate scientists are still trying to pick out these seasonal and regional precipitation trends.

At the same time that rainfall patterns might be shifting, rising temperatures could be affecting evaporation from soils and transpiration of moisture from vegetation, St. George says, affecting how much water ultimately makes it into the river and its tributaries. Humans have also been impacting that influx of water through changes in land use and agricultural practices, he says. "I think [the new study's] explanation is plausible-and it's possible," he adds. "But I think it's also true that we need some more information to really sort out whether human modification-river engineering-is the only thing that may have pushed the Mississippi River floods to be more severe."

The uncertainty over these factors kept Muñoz and his colleagues from addressing the climate change question in this study, but he says they hope to do so in future work. One way to approach this, St. George says, is to look toward the upper reaches of the Mississippi, which are subject to less management. If flooding has increased significantly over long time periods on the river's northern stretch, it would point to climate as the bigger driver, he notes, whereas minimal change would implicate river engineering.

Whichever turns out to be the main culprit, the Mississippi's levees, spillways and other human-made structures are not likely to go away anytime soon-particularly because there is still excess capacity to handle high water flows-Colten says. The Morganza Spillway in Pointe Coupee Parish, La., for example, has only been opened twice: once in 1973 and again in 2011. Until that excess capacity is exhausted, Colten says it is unlikely the state or the Corps will fundamentally alter their approach to the river. "Decisions about managing the river are very much a human undertaking," he says. "We have to know the size, we have to know the hydrology and the physics of rivers, but...those decisions are financial and political and regional, and don't have a lot to do with the science."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Taming the Mighty Mississippi May Have Caused Bigger Floods

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When record rains mingled with spring snowmelt in the lower Mississippi River Basin in April 2011, liquid disaster flowed southward and forced some hard choices: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers blasted a hole in a levee in the river system to save the city of Cairo, Ill., from inundation-at the expense of more than 100,000 acres of farmland.

# data[].attributes.body
According to a recent study published in the Lancet Scientific journal, pollution kills about 9 million people worldwide each year.  These deaths are the result of dirty air in China and India, tainted water in sub-Saharan Africa, toxic mining conditions in South America, as well as many other things. These 9 million deaths related to pollution are more per year than deaths caused by HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis combined. These numbers are quite astounding, and according to environmental expert Gina McCarthy,  these numbers are not only astounding, but very reliable. She is known to claim that these are the best epidemiological numbers that we have.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dirty air in India and China. Tainted water in sub-Saharan Africa. Toxic mining and smelter operations in South America. Pollution around the globe now contributes to an estimated 9 million deaths annually - or roughly one in six - according to an in-depth new study published Thursday in the Lancet. If accurate, that means pollution kills three times more people each year than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined, with most of those deaths in poor and developing countries.

"Going into this, my colleagues and I knew that pollution killed a lot of people. But we certainly did not have any idea of the total magnitude of the problem," said Philip Landrigan, dean of global health at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and co-chair of the commission behind the report. "I think all of us were really surprised when we saw this."

The two-year project, which relied on data from researchers in more than 130 countries documenting the causes of disease and premature deaths in recent decades, found that poor air quality was the most significant pollution-related killer. That includes both outdoor pollution tainted by mercury, arsenic and other harmful particulates, and household air dirtied by the burning of wood, dung and other organic materials. The result: An estimated 6.5 million deaths in 2015 from heart disease, strokes, lung cancer and other respiratory problems.

Water pollution, which includes everything from unsafe sanitation to contaminated drinking water, accounted for an additional 1.8 million annual deaths from gastrointestinal diseases and other infections, researchers found.

Pollution in the workplace also took a heavy toll on some of the world's poorest workers. From bladder cancer in dye workers to the lung disease pneumoconiosis in coal miners, researchers found that occupational exposure to various carcinogens and toxins was linked to about 800,000 deaths annually.

In 2015, the largest number of deaths attributable to pollution occurred in India and China, with an estimated 2.5 million and 1.8 million deaths respectively. Other severely affected countries include Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kenya.

Beyond the massive human toll, the authors of Thursday's report also focused on the financial toll caused by pollution-related health problems.

"Until now, people haven't recognized what an incredible hit pollution makes on the economy of a country," Landrigan said. "Pollution control can stimulate the economy because it reduces death and disease."

They estimated the hit to national budgets at about 1.3 percent of gross domestic product in low-income countries, compared to about 0.5 percent in developed, high-income countries. In addition, nations facing crippling pollution tend to spend much more on health care to treat diseases related to the problem.

"When you're looking at developing countries, you really have to address this challenge if you want to move people out of poverty and into the middle class," said Gina McCarthy, a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator who was not involved in the study but had studied its conclusions. "It is holding people back."

And the warming of the Earth's climate is likely to fuel more deaths in the absence of international action, she said.

"Climate change is going to exacerbate the very problems that are identified in this article. There will be more contagious and infectious diseases. There will be more lives lost, more injuries, if we don't identify a path that gets us out of the hole that we're in," McCarthy said. "What people don't realize is the instability that results from poverty, the instability that results from migration as a result of climate change."

The startling conclusion that pollution accounts for 16 percent of deaths worldwide is, of course, an estimate. But the findings build on previous studies, including a 2016 report from the World Health Organization, detailing the extent to which pollution represents a public health crisis. "If countries do not take actions to make environments where people live and work healthy, millions will continue to become ill and die too young," then-WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said last year.

McCarthy said the Lancet study also is built on the most complete epidemiological data available.

"These are the best numbers that we have available to us. And even if they're off by a factor of 10, you're still talking about huge, huge impacts. But they're not off by a factor of 10," she said. "It's very clear if you go to other countries and it's clear if you go to some of our own communities that they are being held back because of the impact of pollution on their kids and their elderly. And we have to stop thinking that because we can't see the pollution and it's not as visible that it's not there."

Landrigan said there is "an old wive's tale" that developing countries inevitably suffer through troublesome pollution and disease on their way to becoming more prosperous.

Rather, he and the study's other authors insisted that countries must do much to reduce pollution and improve the health of their citizens - and that they will reap economic benefits for doing so. In addition, he said developed nations can play a meaningful role in helping poorer countries slash pollution, and major nonprofit foundations that have largely steered clear of the problem must be convinced that it is a global priority.

"It doesn't have to [get worse]. It's not an inevitable outcome," Landrigan said of the annual death toll. "Pollution control is a winnable battle."
Read more: Exposure to pollution kills millions of children, WHO reports find Global cancer hotspots: Burden of disease is shifting to developing world You're more likely to die from air pollution in India than China, study says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pollution kills 9 million people each year, new study finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dirty air in India and China. Tainted water in sub-Saharan Africa. Toxic mining and smelter operations in South America. Pollution around the globe now contributes to an estimated 9 million deaths annually - or roughly one in six - according to an in-depth new study published Thursday in the Lancet.

# data[].attributes.body
In October, President Trump nominated Andrew Wheeler, a very well known, outspoken coal lobbyist for the #2 seat in the E.P.A.  Groups that promote fossil fuels and oppose most climate change legislation, such as the Institute for Energy Research, are huge fans of the nomination, while a lot of others are up in arms regarding it.  In fact, some democrats are calling for a veto of his nomination on the grounds that he has previously worked for certain powerful energy companies. This nomination is one more piece of Trump's plan to revamp America's climate laws in a way that aligns with his campaign promises.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump on Thursday nominated Andrew R. Wheeler, a coal lobbyist with links to outspoken deniers of established science on climate change, to help lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

In announcing Mr. Wheeler, a former aide to Senator James M. Inhofe, to be deputy administrator of the agency, the White House tapped an experienced legislative hand reviled by environmental activists but hailed by industry as having the know-how to dismantle Obama-era fossil fuel regulations.

The nomination comes at a critical moment for the E.P.A. as the agency prepares to repeal a sweeping climate change regulation known as the Clean Power Plan. It would also fill a key high-level position at the agency, where many top offices remain vacant. If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Wheeler would become the most powerful person at the agency behind its administrator, Scott Pruitt.

"It's a solid choice," said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a group that promotes fossil fuels and opposes most climate change policy. "Andrew is highly qualified, can work with Congress and understands what needs to be done to articulate President Trump and Administrator Pruitt's vision of resetting our energy and environmental policies."

Since 2009, Mr. Wheeler has been a leader in the energy practice of the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels. His clients at the firm have included Murray Energy, one of the nation's largest coal mining companies. Before joining the firm, he worked on Capitol Hill for more than a decade, much of that time serving under Senator Inhofe as the Oklahoma Republican's chief counsel and as the staff director for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

"He has spent his entire career working to improve environmental outcomes for Americans across the country and understands the importance of providing regulatory certainty for our country," Mr. Pruitt said in a statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Nominates a Coal Lobbyist to Be No. 2 at E.P.A.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump on Thursday nominated Andrew R. Wheeler, a coal lobbyist with links to outspoken deniers of established science on climate change, to help lead the Environmental Protection Agency. In announcing Mr. Wheeler, a former aide to Senator James M.