Climate Letter #1430

A new approach to estimating sea level rise is getting much attention (BBC News).  The results of a new study of an essentially conservative type has excited interest because it makes a convincing case that IPCC estimates have been much too conservative and will need to be revised.  BBC has a clear review:

Chiropractors educate the patient about how they can stress to obviate viagra sale such occurrences. Whole wheat contains Vitamin-E in high concentration which protects generic levitra online the skin. Maintaining a good sexual health is very sildenafil cheap http://robertrobb.com/2016/10/ important in a man’s life to prove himself a better lover. The dysfunction of any of these parts or lack of emotional attachment with the partner can cause erectile dysfunction include Atherosclerosis viagra prices browse this drugstore (fatty deposits on the walls of the uterus) Endometriosis Common Causes For Men Low sperm count High percent of abnormally shaped sperm High percent of sperm that are not moving forward Ejaculation dysfunction Sperm production can be affected by health or sickness and by many emotional factors.

Inside Climate News looks at the story from the standpoint of how city planners along the coasts will need to make adjustments to their policies based on having a better understanding of the risks they face:
–Two of the authors of the study, writing for The Conversation, provide their own explanation of how the study was made and why it is significant.  Based on these facts, there is simply no way the IPCC can either belittle or improve upon the way this study handled a difficult issue.
–Extra comment:  I believe these estimates are destined to become the new conservative standard for sea level projections, but do not quite cancel out the potential for even higher estimates that appear now and then from individual experts who talk about eight feet or more being possible by 2100.  Of a yet more critical nature, in yesterday’s Climate Letter there was an abundance of high-level discussion about what the planet would be like, and living conditions for human populations, if we raise the average temperature “only” four degrees (C) by 2100, not all of five.  With five there might be more to worry about than a mere six or seven feet of sea level rise on coasts that have already been abandoned.
—-
The term, “climate change” is now being replaced by “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” in some places, and not any too soon.  David Spratt, the author of Climate Code Red,  presents a rundown of antecedents, beginning with the work of Lester Brown back in 2003, advocating “climate action on the scope of the WWII mobilization.”  The idea of an emergency has become more timely today because there is so much real evidence of unwanted change actually being felt.
—–
A scientist explains why allowing ocean waters to warm rapidly involves extraordinary risks that need to be avoided (The Conversation).  The author has studied past instances where large quantities of pure carbon dioxide have been released in an abrupt manner from deep reservoirs, including some on the ocean floor, causing global temperatures to increase in a substantial way.  His conclusion:  “Earth’s pre-historic record clearly demonstrates that geologic reservoirs can be destabilized – and that when they are, it leads to rapid increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming. In my view, this represents an important unknown risk that cannot be ignored.”
—–
People who say they are worried about climate change and want something done to keep it from happening don’t always vote in favor of measures that would help (Axios).  It happened again this past weekend in Australia.  The next test will come in Canada later this year, and the US will have its turn in 2020.
–The New York Times has published an editorial with an analysis of the Australian vote:
–And finally, the perspective of a native Australian from Queensland (The Guardian):
Carl

This entry was posted in Daily Climate Letters. Bookmark the permalink.