In December 2015, diplomats from 160+ countries met to discuss the looming issues of global warming and climate change. The New York Times has been extensively covering the results coming from this conference, as many of the countries begin to enact policies resulting from this conference. China, for instance, the largest polluter in the world, has pledged to either plateau or show decline in pollution by the year 2030, including stating that twenty percent of their energy will come from non-fossil fuel sources. China further committed to control public interest in future construction projects and industry with high amounts of pollution. Additionally, they pledged to set up a market for greenhouse gas quotas by 2017.

The United States pledged to cut emissions levels to more than 25 percent of 2005 levels by the year 2025. However, with The Donald looking like a possible president, this would be unlikely to occur, seeing as he does not accept the established science of human caused global warming.

The European Union vowed to cut emissions by forty percent by 2030, which seems possible given the fact that they are cutting them based on 1990 levels.

Russia has long been at odds with the United States over various issues, dating back many decades. Most of this has to do with Putin and his divisive world views. Putin, for example, strongly denies the evidence supporting global warming and climate change, and does his best to keep it out of mainstream Russian media, according to this article. Putin’s opinions on climate change mimic it as a joke, with claims as outlandish as global warming being good because it will reduce spending on fur coats and increase grain production. Critics of Putin claim he believes the evidence is fraudulent and has the intention of economically restricting industrial countries like Russia. Grist author Katie Herzog believes that this could have a lot to do with money, and the recently breaking Panama Papers could back this statement up. The Panama Papers link enormous amounts of money to close advisers and friends of Putin with no explanation for how they came up with the money. For instance, payments of up to $200 million to a cellist and totaling $2 billion to Putin’s inner circle, with very little reasoning behind them, have been found. While it’s merely speculation now, these payments very easily could have come from oil tycoons, and with Russia being the largest producer of oil in the world, this seems logical. And seeing as retreating ice caps open up new areas for oil exploration, this seems to be a solid connection.

In a 2014 report, researchers for NASA concluded that sea levels could rise as much as two feet by 2050, and more recently a study concluded that sea levels could rise as much as six feet by the end of the century. Seeing as two thirds of NASA’s $32 billion worth of structures are within sixteen feet of mean sea level and much of it coastal, this will have huge impacts for the leader in space exploration. NASA reports that coastal flooding at Johnson Space Center in Texas could double in frequency, flooding at Kennedy Space Center in Florida could as much as triple in frequency and flooding at Ames Research Center in San Francisco could increase as much as ten-fold. NASA uses their status as the leader in space exploration to spread information and raise awareness about global warming and change and how it impacts the rise of sea levels and other aspects of our planet. Astronaut Scott Kelly, while aboard the ISS for a year, took numerous photographs of the planet. These photographs show increases in pollution in Asia and India. The smoke from the California wildfires is visible all the way to Chicago. Smog above Mexico City can be seen clearly. Storm systems are occurring in unexpected places. NASA and their astronauts attribute these storm systems to the increased pollution and the fragile atmosphere. Satellite pictures taken by U.S. and international satellites show a clear rise in sea level that NASA believes is linked to the melting of the polar caps from this increased pollution and global warming.

Unless global warming is addressed in a serious manner, this could end up costing NASA billions of dollars in repair, moving and environmental rebuilding.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/science/nasa-is-facing-a-climate-change-countdown.html

Following statements from his campaign that Sanders would not run attack ads, Sanders has begun to attack Clinton. A lot of these attacks have to do with Clinton’s taking of money from the fossil fuel industry. The implications behind taking money from the fossil fuel industry are long reaching and are a major issue in this election. In fact, in only half of the first six democratic debates has climate change even been brought up for debate, despite 11% of would-be democratic voters ranking it the most important issue, third only behind the economy and healthcare. It ranked higher than terrorism, gun policy, and immigration combined, according to this MotherJones article. The lack of debate about climate change might stem from the common belief that Clinton and Sanders agree on climate change policy. While they agree that climate change exists, their plans are extremely dissimilar. Clinton’s plan increases renewable energy by increasing solar installations by 700% and offers tax breaks to companies using renewable energy but does little more than that. On the other hand, Sanders’ plan combats serious issues such as offshore drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline running through the heart of the country known for its serious opposition due to leaks and running through protected grounds. There are also serious differences in their stances on fracking and the impact of climate change on national security. Sanders’, for instance, believes that climate change is the single biggest threat to U.S. National Security, while Clinton’s views are far more reserved.

The entire debate boils down to Clinton’s softer stance on climate change and large acceptance of money from the fossil fuel industry. If elected, will that money impact her decisions when it comes time to crack down on climate change?

Recently published findings in the European journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, have proven quite controversial in the scientific community. While the generally accepted timeline for global warming is over centuries and millennium, James Hansen warns that the timeline could be leaning more towards decades and centuries, reports the New York Times. Hansen warns of increasingly strong storms, such as the ones occurring towards the end of the last warm period the earth experienced, approximately 120,000 years ago. The authors cite the rates at which we burn fossil fuels as a major reason for this, as well as mentioning the fact that the warm fresh water melting into the oceans from the ice caps will lead to a feedback loop that will only increase the rate at which the ice caps melt. A Penn State climate scientist, Michael Mann, notes that the claims are rather contradictory to mainstream climate predictions and that because of this, the standard of proof for these claims must be significantly higher than the standard of proof for claims that are more in line with mainstream climatology.

While most of the paper is refuted or questioned by mainstream scientists, the one part that almost everyone in the scientific community agrees upon is that the rate of global warming is still entirely too quick. If the rate of global warming is not decreased, the next generation will be handed a situation they will not be able to handle.

In an article titled “Wind Farm May Be Built Off Long Island,” New York Times writer Tatiana Schlossberg discusses the effects and possibilities of building a wind farm off the coast of Long Island, New York. The area under discussion is slightly larger than 125 square miles and would contain 194 wind turbines, capable of producing 3.6 megawatts each. The combined 700 megawatts of generated electricity would be enough to power nearly 300,000 homes, according to some estimates. According to the Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs of Massachusetts, this would offset approximately 1.8 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. However, the area is still under consideration. According to the article, the wind turbines likely would not be built for a number of years. The planning began in 2011, with a proposal submitted to the ocean energy bureau. A stage has been reached where they have begun to target financiers and investors to find funding for the project, but the project will likely face opposition. Homeowners feel the wind turbines ruin their views and fishermen and businesses relying on fish sales also oppose the construction of wind turbines as it may have negative impacts on business. There are 11 other locations under consideration for the construction of wind farms along the Atlantic Coast and most of them are facing similar opposition.

In a regularly updated NASA post, top climatologists and NASA scientists write about the effects of global warming on the planet. They mention that the effects of global warming have already begun showing, including negative effects such as more intense and more frequent heat waves, the loss of glacial ice which results in an increase in the rate at which sea levels rise and a shift in when plants and trees are flowering and crops are growing. The article discusses IPCC findings stating that global temperatures will increase by between 2.5 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Some regions will experience more significant warming than others, and some regions could even see benefits from the warming. The article states that an increase in mean global temperature of 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1990 levels will produce “beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others” and that net annual costs will increase over time as the rate of increase of the mean global temperature increases.

At the end of the article, they link to numerous other articles and give summaries or excerpts of the article. The articles focus on the numerous effects of global warming including stronger hurricanes, more droughts and heat waves, drastic changes in precipitation patterns, and a longer frost free season which means a longer growing season. They also talk briefly about the effects in different regions of the U.S. Effects that we will see will include heavy downpours, flooding and the breakdown of infrastructure in coastal regions.

This past week, Fiji was struck by the most powerful storm ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere. Now that the storm, Tropical Cyclone Winston, has passed the island, authorities are beginning to assess the damage done to the island. CNN affiliate TVNZ reported that homes have been destroyed and low lying areas on the island are flooded more often than not. The Prime Minister indicates that much of the issues the island now faces has to do with the widespread confusion by its citizens. Many citizens left their homes for shelters and there are reports of power outages in much of the country. The country announced a nationwide curfew to keep the streets clear for cleaning. The airport has reopened, however, schools will remain closed for up to a week. As of now, 17 people have died.

The cyclone had wind speeds that would categorize it as a Category 5 hurricane, breaking the previous record of 178 mph by 6 mph (184 mph). Fiji attributes storms of this strength to the recent climate change according to this article from Vice. The island has taken steps to solve these issues, ratifying the UN’s climate change agreement unanimously and vowing to move entirely to renewable energy in the next 15 years. Fiji already has a program in place to relocate citizens who lose their homes to rising sea levels and had to move residents two years due to this issue.

In this article from The Guardian, Robin McKie discusses how water shortages will lead to the next global crisis. He discusses last year’s drought in Sao Paulo and the impact that it had on residents, starting with the story of how residents are drilling through basement floors to attempt to reach water reservoirs. Officials in Sao Paulo announced one week prior to the writing of the article that rationing of water supplies would likely be implemented soon, with limits on water access being as infrequent as two days per week. In August of 2015, the severity of the drought was deemed critical. This allowed for the suspension of agricultural and industrial permits that let companies draw water directly from local supplies. The water level in the two main reservoirs is below 20% of capacity, whereas it usually lies around 60% of capacity at the same time. Per The Guardian, similar situations are also occurring in the area extending from Pakistan through India and northern Bangladesh, Northern Africa, and the southwestern United States. Droughts like this leading to rationing of water and supplies, food shortages, increased temperature and many more issues. And because 99% of the earths water is inaccessible groundwater, unless a new way to access groundwater is developed, these widespread droughts will continue to occur.

Between 1998 and 2014, scientists noted a marked decrease in the rate at which the average temperature was increasing. Originally, this period was attributed to an increase in the heat being absorbed by the deep oceans and weak solar activity. Recently, scientists have determined that up to one-third of this hiatus of warming can be attributed to volcanic activity and aerosols. Volcanoes release aerosol particles that collect above the rain clouds in between the stratosphere and troposphere layers of the atmosphere. These lead to an increase in the albedo of the earth, leading to an estimated .05 to .12 degree Celsius decrease in the average temperature. This is particularly noticeable in the polar regions, where the stratosphere extends as low as six miles above the earths surface. Typically this area is discounted when scientists are testing for aerosols due to volcanic activity because the cloud cover interferes with the measurements.

Because of this decrease in temperature, scientists are speculating that the models used to inform senators and congressmen about policy decisions are actually incorrect. It is wholly possible that the atmosphere is significantly more delicate and responsive to carbon dioxide emissions than is currently believed, and should the models be updated to account for this finding, climate policy could change again in the near future.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2906874/Volcanoes-cooling-Earth-Aerosols-small-eruptions-reduced-global-temperatures-tropical-rainfall.html

In this article, David Goldstein discusses the impact of oil prices on the environment. Goldstein mentions that while low oil prices will reduce the attention given to policies pushing clean energy, they also make policies promoting dirty energy less financially viable. For instance, the Keystone XL pipeline, a project designed to send tar sands from the Arctic south to Houston, Texas, stops being financially viable with the price of oil near $30 a barrel. However, with the price of oil anywhere north of $70, the Keystone XL becomes financially viable.

Further, with the price of oil this low, fracking becomes less financially viable. Fracking releases hundreds of dangerous chemicals into drinking water. Other drilling projects have been cancelled. According to this article and this article, Chevron indefinitely shelved its offshore Arctic drilling project due to falling oil prices. And since oil prices are predicted to stay low for possibly up to a decade, this significantly impacts the viability of similar projects, like the Imperial Oil project that has yet to be cancelled.

The article then states that since consumers were okay with paying $120 a barrel, it would be fair to charge producers $80 a barrel to produce oil. This money could be used to eliminate the national debt, and since the producers do not earn that money, it allows for clean energy initiatives to continue to grow.

Top climatologists, meteorologists and climate professors have long linked global warming to increased snow totals across the country and specifically in the Northeastern United States. Joe Romm, a writer for ThinkProgress, spoke with Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth, two of the top climatologists about the trend. Mann notes that increased snowfall totals are due to the increased ocean temperatures off the coast. He speaks about ocean surface temperatures off the coast of Virginia, which are up to 3 degrees Celsius higher than normal. This leads to increased moisture in the air, which powers these superstorms. In Washington, D.C., the National Weather Service issued the first blizzard warning for the city since 1986, due in part to the 75 degree Celsius ocean surface temperature off the coast of Virginia.

Critics generally claim that superstorms like this are evidence against global warming, but they actually support global warming. Global warming hasn’t impacted temperatures in the Northeast enough to raise midwinter temperatures above freezing but they have impacted temperatures enough to increase the moisture in the air.

Paul O’Gorman, an MIT professor, noted that between 1901 and 2000, the heaviest snowfalls (top 1% of snowstorms) occurred in years with above average temperatures. The study concluded that in warmer futures, we will continue to experience more intense snow storms in areas above the rain snow line and more intense storms in areas below the rain snow line.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/22/3741287/climate-science-blizzards/