Global Warming is occurring at a rapid rate and yet people believe it is a minor issue in the United States.  This can be contributed to a common phrase for people who do not want to address Global Warming “I like warm weather so how can Global Warming be bad”.  People overall enjoy a more mild winter that has been contributed to with Global Warming.  According to a study eighty percent of Americans live in places that have better climates than 40 years ago.  In this period summer temperatures have risen slightly with a decrease in humidity, while winter temperatures have risen drastically, causing people to enjoy warmer winters.   Since Americans associate daily weather, this will have a negative effect on convincing people global warming exists.  The other issue is the trend of warmer winters and slightly warmer summers will change later in the century when it is to late to address climate change.

To counteract this issue global warming should not be talked about in warming temperatures, but instead about the temporary/short lived positive weather effects.  We should also talk about the increase in severity in storms, since humans understand the impact on the economy of storms.

-http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/global-warming-feels-quite-pleasant.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGlobal%20Warming&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Recently papers have been released by The Center for International Environmental Law.  The papers show that Humble Energy has know about rising CO2 levels since 1957 which is nearly 60 years.   The data also demonstrated that rising CO2 levels would cause warming earth temperatures.  Humble Energy now belongs to Exxon a major energy company. The papers also reveal that Exxon used the information to plan against regulation.  This is because oil would be less profitable with more regulations to prevent CO2 from rising.  Investigations by four attorneys in the US Virgin Islands are underway.  Exxon does not have an ties to the Virgin Islands meaning their courts hold little influence.  However Exxon has already challenged the investigation in Texas.

Although Exxon denies any involvement of hiding or abusing climate science, the papers seem to be evidence of the contrary.  The company once again acknowledged that climate change may be a threat.  Showing the issue is whether Exxon withheld valuable information when they first discovered the problem in 1957.

Clouds are made up of water and ice. The more water in the cloud influences the amount of solar radiation reflected into the atmosphere.  As the earth warms the ratio of ice to water increases in favor of water.  Since there is more water this should result in more reflection and hence cooling.  However with less ice there is less capacity for water to replace ice, causing more warming.  This means that warming could occur faster than previously predicted by scientists.  A recent study has suggested this could be the difference of 1.3 degrees C.

This would render the goals set by the Paris climate almost useless as their goal was to stop warming above 1.5 degree C.  At the same time the 1.3 degree C rise is only one study so it the actual value is still unknown it could be more or less.  Overall the trend shows warming caused by unpredicted water in clouds ratio. Scientist at Yale who preformed the study stressed that study needs to trigger action not despair or a feeling of hopelessness in combating climate change.

I think that following this discovery makes sticking to the Paris conference even more important.  It also highlights the need for even more action to counter climate change.

In a closely contested primary Sander’s has started attacking Clinton for taking money from the fossil fuel industry.  Although Clinton has taken no personal donations from fossil fuel companies she has received money from individuals in charge of these companies totaling over 300,000 dollars.  Her super-packs have also taken in 4.5 million dollars from fossil fuel companies.  Bernie Sanders by comparison only has risen 50,000 dollars from the energy industry.  Sanders suggests that this means he will be a stronger supporter of preventing climate change.  Greenpeace an environmental activist group demanded this week that Clinton stop taking money from fossil fuel industry.  Another difference between the two is Clinton only came out against the Keystone pipeline in the summer while Sanders has been against it from the beginning.  Another difference between the two is how serious of an issue they see global warming, when asked at a debate what was the greatest security threat to the United States Clinton answered terrorism. Sanders answered climate change.

Clinton has however put out a policy proposal to install half a billion solar panels nation wide.  Clinton also has acknowledged the seriousness of climate change throughout her campaign.

Sanders strong environmental views have lead him to make progress at Clinton’s lead in her home state of New York which the environment is a major issue in.  Both candidates overall appear to be strong supporters of environmental regulation to help stop climate change.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/bernie-sanders-climate-change-greatest-security-threat-and-directly

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/01/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-spar-over-fossil-fuel-donations/

After another major terrorist attack in Brussels fear is once again rampant of an attack on America.  The fear has lead to policies being suggested by Donald Trump that could never be implemented like the barring of Muslims from the United states.  Fear of terrorism has however led to other expensive policies like the invasion of Iraq.  President Obama was recently cited saying that more people die falling in their bath tubs every year than form terrorist attacks.  Although this does not mean terrorism is not a serious issue, it could be argued that terrorism has been overacted.

Another issue that could have far more long term effects than terrorism is global warming. Yet global warming has been consistently ignored by presidential candidates like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Brussels is a city a less than 100 feet above sea level meaning that global warming is risk there.  James Hansen of NASA released a paper the same day of the attacks stating the earth the effects of global warming were rising faster than predicted.  This paper went largely ignored while the attacks on Brussels were focused on immensely and leading for immediate calls for policy action to the president.

-http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/opinion/terrorists-bathtubs-and-snakes.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGlobal%20Warming&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0

The E.P.A. carries out and enforces regulations under existing laws like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.  The upcoming elections will have a dramatic result on the agency largely responsible for environmental regulation.  Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have both threatened to dismantle the agency over concerns of overreach on state rights.   The Republican platform no matter the nominee will likely try to decrease the power of the E.P.A. Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are not out spoken in support for the agency either after the Flint water crisis.  Other Democrats have argued that the E.P.A completely failed in regulation of Flint’s water supply.

President Obama has used and stretched the Clean Air Act to help fight global warming. Although a Republican president could not repeal the act, they could cut back on the way President Obama has used it to combat global warming.  The EPA while acting on the President Obama’s wishes has faced a substantially decreased budget going from 10.6 billion under Bill Clinton to 8.8 billion dollars now form a Republican congress.  This also causes the EPA to have the smallest staff since 1989. Making the EPA less effective.

The upcoming elections will influence the EPA at two levels, the executive branch will determine whether global warming policies stay in place with the election of Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.  Congressional elections will determine how much of a budget the EPA will receive, democrats will most likely supporting a higher budget.  A larger budget will hopefully avoid major issues like Flint, Michigan.

The sea level is rising around the world at the fastest rate since at least the founding of ancient Rome.  Scientist have attributed this rapid sea rise to the increasing in Greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.  Many areas like Miami beach and Norfolk have been affected by the floods from higher sea level.  The floods have caused streets to be blocked and for freshwater to be contaminated.  These events however are seen as small scale to what will come.  The study also found if emissions continue at the current rate the ocean could rise up to three to four feet by 2100.  This startling statistic would cause the need to abandon many coast cities. Sea level rise is also causing flooding on the east coast that would normally not happen in fact as much as three-quarters of the flooding would not naturally happen.  Although sea level rise will does not largely contribute to power of storms like hurricane Katrina or Sandy, it does substantially increases the number of floods an area can have such as Annapolis.

Unfortunately to stop the rapid sea level rise the plans in Paris are not nearly strict enough to make a major change to stop the rising sea levels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/sea-level-rise-global-warming-climate-change.html?ref=topics&_r=0

Two months ago the Paris Climate summit representing 98% of the worlds carbon emissions met with the goal of cutting emissions.   The US at the meeting made a goal of cutting emissions 26% by 2025. The supreme court ruling last week put the United States in an awkward position of not keeping their promises to the rest of the world.  Another issue is even if the Supreme Court did not make this ruling analysis has shown emissions following this plan would at best case cut emissions by 23% and worst case 10%.  Obama tried to use the Clean Air Act to implement the plan thinking congress would not pass anything.  This however set up court battles instead.

With Justice Scalia death last week, Obama is presented with the opportunity to nominate someone who will strive for carbon regulation.  In fact, the new court could even allow more aggressive policies by the Obama administration. For example the Clean Air act has a provision that would allow the EPA to make states cut emissions that are dangerous to other countries if those countries do the same.  A week ago this would have been extremely difficult to achieve through the Supreme Court, now it may be possible goal to achieve.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/10/us/what-supreme-court-decision-to-halt-climate-regulation-means.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/business/economy/next-supreme-court-justice-will-be-crucial-to-climate-change.html?ref=topics&_r=0

The Arctic is warming the fastest of any area in the world.  Since the Arctic is warming so faster the changes there are expected to be more dramatic.  The permafrost is thawing faster and is causing a system of positive feedback, where as the frost thaws it releases methane a greenhouse gas.  The greenhouse gas causes more warming causing a cycle.  Less permafrost will mean more plant life in the Arctic region shown by in the increase in shrubs in recent years by 2100 shrubs and trees will take over the land which is now covered in grass.  Shipping routes will be faster if there is less ice, ships will no longer have to go though the Panama and Suez canals.  The fishing industry will also have a new place to fish.  There are also many untaped energy sources in the Arctic that would become available.  Ecosystems will be affected by migration patterns being less important as areas are warmer throughout the entire year, for example gray whales stayed in the Beaufort Sea instead of traveling to the warmer California coast starting in 2004.  Although many animals will suffer from the change of climate some may benefit such as bowhead whale, the musk ox and the barren ground grizzly bear.

Although the Arctic will continue to warm for centuries no matter what we do, the future does not have to be so bleak.  If we move away from fossil fuels eventually the Arctic environment will  begin recover.  The economic benefits also are not worth it as the Arctic has no way to clean up large oil spills form ships or oil drilling.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-end-and-beginning-of-the-arctic-18407

A common point of view in America is addressing Global Warming is going to require major political changes.  On the right they believe the economy will be majorly effected by a switch to renewable energy.  On the left the view is that politicians including Obama are doing to little to address environmental issues specifically global warming and there is need for major changes in government to address global warming.   Depending on the results of the 2016 election these views could be completely wrong.  Through tax credits for using renewables and the Clean Power Plan which will help move away from coal the most dirty carbon based fuel.  Both of these plans led by the Obama administration will help lead a energy revolution but will not cause a major shift in the economy as the right fears.  The plan would also not require a political revolution as many on the left believe. The 2016 results are important because they will determine whether we continue the Obama administrations policies or remove them completely as many of the political right would prefer.  Although global warming is a world issue, hence the USA’s policies will not change all issues many other countries are adopting similar policies.  Meaning renewables are becoming more validated and popular world wide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/opinion/wind-sun-and-fire.html?ref=topics

Global Warming  is often viewed as a major negative, but there could be a few positive impacts. One positive may be the increase of productivity in the colder parts of the world as the temperature rises meaning growing seasons in places such as the Northeast United States could increase.  Another possible positive is the decrease in energy use towards heating since there would be warmer winters.

Global Warming has many major negative impacts.  One impact would be the 1 to 4 foot sea level rise by 2100, which would increase flooding around the world, specifically the South Pacific.  Although the amount of storms would not necessarily increase the severity of storms likely would.  Another negative would be the increase of rain in some areas which would increase flooding.  This goes along with drought would show up in more areas as well. All in all, the side effects of global warming are vastly more negative than the few positives.

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23746

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-change.html?_r=0