NASA made an adorable video explaining climate change

NASA made an adorable video explaining climate change. l think a lot of people will FINALLY get it.

SOURCE OF ARTICLE

 Curator: Phoebe Gavin

You've probably *heard* that the earth is warming. But how do scientists actually *know* it's happening?

Here's your Hot Planet 101, courtesy of NASA. Take a minute to watch it, then we'll see how it's affecting life on earth right now.

If the symptoms of planetary fever are shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels, hotter heat waves, stronger hurricanes, and shifting plant and animal ranges, it's worth asking: Is that stuff really happening? Well, let's take them on one at a time.

1. Are the glaciers shrinking?

 "The collapse of the Larsen [Ice Shelf] appears to have been due to a series of warm summers on the Antarctic Peninsula, which culminated with an exceptionally warm summer in 2002. Significant surface melting due to warm air temperatures created melt ponds that acted like wedges; they deepened the crevasses and eventually caused the shelf to splinter." — NASA Earth Observatory

Yo, this ice shelf the size of Rhode Island disintegrated in four months.

NASA's scientists estimate that the Larsen Ice Shelf Complex shed 2 to 4 billion metric tonnes into the ocean per year in 1996 and 2000. But in 2006, that increased a startling 10 times to 22 to 40 billion tonnes lost.

2. Are plants and animal ranges shifting?

Plants and animals get cues from the world around them. They know when to go dormant, where to grow, and when to reproduce by the temperature patterns around them.

As weather patterns change, those same cues lead them to live and breed in new areas. It might sound harmless, but scientists are concerned. Not every species is welcome in its new haunt.

An invasive species is any organism that is not native to an area and poses a threat to plants or wildlife native to the area. Usually, an invasive species is brought to an area by humans (sometimes by accident and sometimes intentionally to adorable and horribleeffects).

But climate change is transforming the temperature trend lines across the United States, and species like the kudzu that normally stay in warmer climes are taking notice andslowly creeping their way north.

Many species that live in colder climates are simply migrating north as their stomping grounds become too warm for them. For some species, this is a gradual change, but for others, it's astonishingly fast ( the comma butterfly's habitat has shifted north nearly 7 miles annually over the last 20 years).

But this cutie pie (above — OMG, look at those ears!) lives in the mountains of the western U.S. The America pika can't fly to a new mountain range like a bird or butterfly. And because it can die from overheating in just hours, it can't hop to another zone either. It may just be doomed to slowly lose its habitat completely to warming.

3. Are sea levels rising?

Increases in sea level have tracked strongly with human activity. We started burning fossil fuel during the Industrial Revolution (1760-1850), and our use of coal, oil, and natural gas has increased every year. Sea levels, in response to steadily warming temperatures, also rose steadily.

Unfortunately, the sea level projections don't look like a straight line. It looks like an upward sloping curve. Sea levels aren't increasing at the same rate every year — thatrate is increasing.

At present, sea levels are projected to rise by as much as 3 feet by 2100.

With the planet's ice reserves falling into the oceans faster than humanity has ever seen,the excess water has to go somewhere. 1.6 million people live in the islands scattered across the Pacific (3 million, if you count Hawaii), and they are all in danger of slowly losing their homelands.

But rising sea levels won't just affect faceless people of nations you've never heard of that you don't pronounce correctly (like Kiribati).

Ever heard that saying "A rising tide lifts all boats"? Let's revise that: "A rising tide sinks all coastal communities."

Nearly 40% of Americans live in a coastal county.

Rising sea levels could make significant portions of New York City unlivable.

4. Have recent heat waves been more intense?

Heat waves — unusually long periods of unusually hot weather — have become more frequent in the last 30 years.

The heat patterns that have emerged in the last 30 years have been shared across the globe. (I see you eyeing that big spike in the middle, but the extreme heat and drought that created the Dust Bowl was an anomaly almost exclusively experienced by North America.)

Global temperature has been rising since the end of the Industrial Revolution; there's no question about it.

Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average.

"Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years." — NASA Global Climate

It seems Earth's hottest days are ahead of it.

5. Have recent storms been more intense?

Damn skippy. In the 23-year period from 1980 to 2003, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recorded 58 weather related disasters that cost at or over a billion dollars in damages.

"But yesterday it was unseasonably cold, and there's a massive blizzard in the Northeast."

Well, weather and climate are different. Weather is an event. Climate is a pattern of events. Any one of these years is an example of a weather event, but the red line is climate pattern (warming, obvi).

It's time to take our medicine. Let's change the way we treat the planet so we can keep on having it.

The TRUTH will set you free.

The Hidden Effects of Cheap Oil

MOISÉS NAÍM       MAR 31 2015, 10:36 AM ET 
Moisés Naím is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and a distinguished fellow in the International Economics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is author of more than 10 books, including, most recently, The End of Power.

shared from

VIA

The Daily Digg Wednesday, April 1, 2015 THE RIG IS UP The Hidden Consequences Of Low Oil Prices theatlantic.com From Russia to your local gas station, the consequences of low fuel prices are clear. But the consequences of those consequences are less apparent.

An oil field in the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk ( Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters )

From Russia to your local gas station, the consequences of low fuel prices are clear. But the consequences of those consequences are less apparent.

What do Russia, Exxon Mobil, and ISIS have in common? Not much, except that they’re all grappling with an inconvenient but incontrovertible truth: a sudden, significant, and prolonged shift in the price of oil changes the world.

That truth was on display in 1974, and it’s on display again now. Over the course of just a few months in 1973-1974, the price of oil surged from $3 to $12 per barrel. The new price created new global economic powers: oil-producing countries primarily in the Middle East and North Africa. It also dealt a severe blow to the economies of the United States, Europe, Japan, and other oil importers. The oil shock altered power relations between the world’s main geopolitical players and created new ones. Higher oil prices had many unexpected consequences—from breeding oil wars to fueling the

international spread of Islamic fundamentalism thanks to funding from newly super-rich countries like Saudi Arabia. Today’s drop in crude-oil prices, which began in the summer of 2014, may be as disruptive as the quadrupling of oil prices that created the oil shock of 1974.

Some of the effects of this decline in oil prices have been clear and immediate; picture happy Americans at gas stations and frantic government officials in oil-exporting countries forced to cut public budgets and consequently risk social and political turmoil.

The elements of a changing world, from technology and business to politics and culture.
Read More  

In Russia, for instance, the ruble has suffered a steep devaluation, stock-market prices have fallen, the Central Bank’s reserves are shrinking, capital is fleeing the country, export revenues are down, and foreign investment has practically dried up. Russia’s sovereign bonds have been downgraded to junk status by credit-rating agencies. All of this largely stems from contracting oil and gas revenues(which account for 68 percent of Russia’s total export revenues and 50 percent of its federal-budget revenues) and economic sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe as a result of the Kremlin’s behavior toward Ukraine. Some fear that a belligerent Vladimir Putin could stir trouble abroad to distract from the deteriorating economic situation at home.

In Venezuela, the economy was already in shambles when oil was at $120 per barrel, and it’s now spinning out of control as a result of rampant corruption, woeful management, and lower oil prices. President Nicolas Maduro has responded by blaming the dire situation on a U.S.-led international conspiracy and ramping up repression of critics and opposition politicians.

But these direct consequences are having consequences of their own, and these second-order effects are only beginning to become apparent. In December, Chevron canceled a $10billion shale-gas exploration project in Ukraine, which the Ukrainian government was counting on to help stimulate its troubled economy and, eventually, lower its dependence on Russian gas. It’s just one example of a broader, industry-wide trend: scrapping or postponing energy projects that have suddenly become too risky or not economically viable at a lower oil-price level. According to Goldman Sachs, $1 trillion worth of investments in energy projects could now be at risk. In the long run, this may mean less oil production and higher energy prices. But in the short run, the abrupt disappearance of this enormous investment flow is bound to hurt energy companies—and especially their equipment suppliers and the construction and engineering firms that were planning to execute these projects. It will also hurt the cities and regions, from Texas to Lagos, where these companies operate.

Not all of the second-order consequences of lower oil prices are negative. Consider this comment from a recent International Monetary Fund report on Malaysia’s economy:

After raising electricity tariffs in early 2014, [the government] took advantage of lower energy prices in the second half of 2014 to reduce and ultimately remove remaining gasoline and diesel subsidies. … [Subsidy reform should] help broaden the base of [the] federal revenue system and diversify it away from volatile oil and gas revenues. A strengthening of Malaysia’s social safety net is an integral part of the authorities’ fiscal strategy. The removal of subsidies freed up resources that can be redirected to better support poorer households through better targeted cash transfers.

Countries from Oman to Indonesia have undertaken similar campaigns to scale back or  eliminate fuel subsidies. In India, the Modi government cut costly public subsidies of diesel fuel, which were long understood to be counterproductive but were nevertheless politically unpopular to shed. Energy subsidies, which amount to more than $540 billion per year worldwide, are as common as they are damaging to economies, the poor, and the environment, since they stimulate consumption and undermine efforts to save energy and use it more efficiently. According to the World Bank, these subsidies are highly regressive: As much as 60 or even 80 percent of what governments in the Middle East and North Africa spend to subsidize energy benefits the richest 20 percent of the population, with the poor receiving less than 10 percent of these public funds.

Lower oil prices could also reduce incentives to produce the kind of extra-heavy, extra-polluting oil that is found at some of the world’s largest oil reserves, including those in Venezuela’s Orinoco river region. Due to the high production and upgrading costs associated with heavy oil, the development of these reserves is likely to be postponed. The problem is that low oil prices are eroding the economic viability of cleaner energy sources like solar and wind. Optimists hope that plummeting oil-and-gas prices will encourage producers of renewable-energy sources to improve their technologies and production methods, making these sources cheaper and more economically viable. This, in turn, could make renewable energy more commercially attractive once the price of oil rebounds.

Financial markets, too, are being reshaped by the cost of crude. Falling prices can harm the balance sheets of energy companies by driving down the volume of proven reserves that these corporations can count as marketable assets—reserves, mind you, that are one of the main drivers of the market value of these companies. As oil prices drop, the increasing production costs of some oil reservoirs will make these reserves commercially unviable. Such reservoirs will become a new kind of “stranded asset,” a term coined to describe fossil fuels that will not be used as climate-change concerns lead governments to stimulate alternative-energy sources and make the consumption of hydrocarbons more expensive. Upheaval in corporate valuations could lead to a wave of mergers and acquisitions among energy companies, transforming the structure of the industry.

How low will oil prices drop? And how long will this period of low prices last?

Meanwhile, some of the world’s largest sovereign-wealth funds—or state-owned investment vehicles—belong to oil-and-gas producing countries. The Norwegian fund, for example, owns about 1.3 percent of all global securities. A prolonged depression in oil prices might force Norway to finance its fiscal shortfall with resources from its sovereign fund. This would entail the liquidation of sizable investments, and thus exert downward pressure on global equity markets. In fact, Norway’s $840-billion fund has already set up an expert group to evaluate whether it should stop investing in fossil-fuel companies, in anticipation of hydrocarbon assets losing significant value.

In the geopolitical realm, the relationship between Russia and Europe has already been disrupted, both by low oil prices and the conflict over Ukraine; the cancellation of Gazprom’s South Stream pipeline across the Black Sea and Southeastern Europe is just one manifestation of the evolving energy equation in the region. Russia’s relationship with China is also in flux. Matt Ferchen of Beijing’s Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy envisions closer economic cooperation between the two large nations: “China’s calculations in terms of energy deals hinge on a more advantageous bargaining position over the price of oil. … Russia, now under fire from sanctions and a drop in commodity prices, therefore needs a partner.”

In Latin America and the Caribbean, Venezuela’s political influence is waning as a result of many factors, paramount among them that the Bolivarian government no longer has the flush oil revenues that allowed Hugo Chavez to gain enormous influence by subsidizing oil supplies to friends and denying those supplies to foes. Countries that have been dependent on its largesse will have to look for alternatives, which might require engagement with other political forces in the hemisphere. The collapsing price of oil played a role in the recent rapprochement between Cuba and the United States. Venezuela’s economic crisis heightened the risk that Havana would no longer be able to count on the enormous subsidy it has enjoyed for more than a decade from Caracas. The Cuban regime was thus eager to find another source of economic support. It found one in America.

Nowhere are the second-order consequences of cratering oil prices more varied, important, and unpredictable than in the Middle East. In a Financial Timesarticle in February titled “ISIS struggles to balance books as finances are squeezed,” reporter Erika Solomon wrote, “The world’s richest jihadi group is not as flush as it once was. It has cut spending on fuel and bread subsidies, while increasingly shaking down locals for cash. Fighters themselves may be feeling the squeeze, too.” Analyst Torbjorn Soltvedt estimated that the militant group’s revenue from selling oil had dropped to $300,000 per day, down from between $1 million and $2 million a day in 2014. “I don’t think [the oil-revenue decline] will lead to [the Islamic State’s] collapse. … But it might accelerate their implosion,” Soltvedt told Solomon. Iran, meanwhile, has entered into negotiations with world powers over its nuclear program for a variety of reasons. But the fact that Iran is one of the world’s hardest-hit oil producers is surely one of them.

All of these outcomes—both the direct and immediate, and the indirect and distant—hinge on two questions: How low will oil prices drop? And how long will this period of low prices last? Venturing answers is risky business; virtually no expert, corporation, or government anticipated the revolutionary drop in prices that began in the summer of 2014. But there are signs that the new normal could remain normal for some time. As Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil, put it, “The world should ‘settle in’ for a period of relatively weak oil prices. U.S. shale production is more resilient than many people had expected and demand growth in China and elsewhere has slowed. Those conditions could persist.”

---

This post has been adapted from Moisés Naím’s article, "The consequences of the consequences of low oil prices."

The TRUTH will set you free.

Who Wants to Build a Football Stadium We Could Nickname ‘The Rain Barrel’?

BY JOE MATHEWS

View image | gettyimages.com

In Exactly Four Years From Today, L.A.’s Thirst for Water and the NFL Could Be Quenched

Could a new pro football stadium help California beat its drought?

That’s the ambitious goal of the latest stadium proposal to appear in Los Angeles. The project—details of which are only now becoming public—would provide more than merely a home for the National Football League’s Jacksonville Jaguars, who are looking to leave their smaller market in North Florida. The proposed stadium would double as one of the world’s largest and most advanced water recycling facilities.

The new stadium would be designed to help capture and clean rainwater from Los Angeles’ infrequent storms, thus fulfilling two longstanding Southern California dreams. After 20 years of pro football drought, L.A. would again have a team. And Southern California could become far less reliant on imported water by collecting more of the billions of gallons of water that fall during a storm.

This second dream had seemed too impractical and expensive, because it would require a costly remaking of Southern California’s basic water infrastructure, which—instead of collecting rainwater for reuse—funnels it into storm drains and out into the ocean. But the idea of building a stadium that is itself a water recycling facility could change the game, capitalizing on the public mania and nearly limitless financing for pro sports to build a facility that significantly expands L.A.’s water supply. It also could inspire similar projects across California and the parched Southwest.

City officials are racing to incorporate the new stadium into a highly anticipated storm water capture plan due out this summer; the plan had been expected to make storm water 4 percent of the city’s annual water budget, but the stadium-water recycling project could add significantly to that.

Already, political momentum is building for what would effectively be a 21st century application of an ancient technology, the rain cistern. And time is of the essence: Mayor Eric Garcetti last fall ordered the Department of Water and Power to reduce its purchases of imported water by 50 percent within a decade. City officials are racing to incorporate the new stadium into a highly anticipated storm water capture plan due out this summer; the plan had been expected to make storm water 4 percent of the city’s annual water budget, but the stadium-water recycling project could add significantly to that.

The location of the stadium would be in the Sun Valley section of the northeast San Fernando Valley, which has been a target for rainwater capture projects because of its favorable geology. The stadium would build on an existing project, the Strathern Wetlands Park, a joint effort of the county and the city of L.A. Those plans would transform a World War II-era gravel pit and landfill into a park to capture and clean rainwater, provide some flood control and habitat for native plants, and also be open to the public for recreation.

Next door to the wetlands park, the stadium would be built into a slope on one end to facilitate capture of storm runoff from local mountains. That runoff, in addition to rain falling on the stadium footprint, would be funneled through drains into a massive cistern underneath the playing field, where water would be recycled and fed into adjacent earthworks; the ground itself would also serve to clean the water, in an effect that has been compared to a drip coffeemaker.

The NFL’s Jaguars believe that bringing water along with football to the region gives them an edge in the fierce competition to return the NFL to L.A. Since the project would be within the city of L.A., the stadium-water plant would have broader business and civic backing than the competing proposals in smaller Southern California cities—the St. Louis Rams’ stadium in Inglewood and the joint San Diego Chargers-Oakland Raiders stadium in Carson. And those competing proposals are all privately financed, while the Jaguars’ stadium could tap public funds—including Proposition 1 state water bond monies—because of its water impact.

Among the other water-friendly features would be an indirect potable reuse system to capture liquid waste from the stadium’s bathrooms and recycle it, using so-called “toilet to tap” technology already in place in Orange County. A survey commissioned by the NFL found that football fans in L.A. are strong supporters of recycling, and would be more likely to support a team committed to environmental sustainability. And NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is said to be supportive of the water stadium plan, as a way of countering bad publicity his league has received over its handling of head injuries and domestic violence among players.

Engineers are also wrestling with the question of how much the stadium might move as the levels of recycled water stored below the field rise; the effect might produce a slight feeling of motion for fans and players, thus creating a home-field advantage of sorts, since visiting teams would be unaccustomed to the sensation. The Jaguars could end up playing on the gridiron equivalent of a waterbed.

The Jaguars believe that their lack of history in L.A. should give them an advantage over the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams, all of which previously abandoned L.A. after playing here. And besides helping to quench Angelenos’ thirst for more than just pro football, the Jaguars are prepared to argue that their location in the northeast San Fernando Valley—today among the poorest places in Los Angeles—would provide a major boost to local efforts to reduce income inequality.

While plans are only being disclosed now, documents suggest the new facility might be called The Rain Barrel, and the Jaguars could be renamed the Los Angeles Splash.

To promote use of the facility for concerts and conventions, the stadium also could have a retractable “green roof” that would capture half of all rain that falls on it.

Team officials with baseball’s Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, who play in a stadium along the Santa Ana River, are privately exploring various rainwater capture technologies as part of their own planned stadium renovation. And the state’s high-speed rail agency has been approached about altering the path of its Palmdale-to-Burbank link to come within a quarter mile of the stadium, so that The Rain Barrel would have its own station.

Of course, the project faces enormous obstacles, and it starts months behind competing stadium proposals. It also might require local and state legislation to speed environmental review.

But if those considerable challenges can be surmounted, an aggressive construction timetable calls for completion of the stadium-water facility by April 1, 2019—exactly four short years from today.

Joe Mathews
Zócalo Public Square

POSTED ON APRIL 1, 2015

SHARED ARTICLE FROM

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2015 Who Wants to Build a Football Stadium We Could Nickname ‘The Rain Barrel’? Joe Mathews: In Exactly Four Years From Today, L.A.'s Thirst for Water and the NFL Could Be Quenched READ MORE Democracy Rocks: April 15th Join California Common Cause on the evening of April 15th as we celebrate some of democracy's rock stars - inlcuding Dick and Sharon of LA Progressive.   READ HERE The Government We Deserve; The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance Lorena Ojeda: The electoral campaign has become a theater of the absurd. There seems to be a new corruption scandal every day. The country’s major political parties are embroiled in internal struggles.   READ MORE A Time for Change Robert Nelson:Hamilton’s film is particularly important to those who were too young to experience the period. This film defies the popular image that the ‘60s were about sex, drugs and rock and roll. READ MORE Mike Gatto -- In a Hole, Should Stop Digging Ron Kaye: The latest twist in Gatto’s appeal of the outcome, in which a rival slate of grassroots Democrats outpolled his group, has shown the lengths some elected officials will go to seek advantage and save face, while actually putting their own credibility and reputation with voters in danger. READ MORE

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Shell responds to federal decision on Alaskan waters

Shell responds to federal decision on Alaskan waters

Apr 2nd, 2015 

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

UPI article by Daniel J. Graeber published April 2, 2015:

Shell responds to federal decision on Alaskan waters

Company CEO said in February drilling in the arctic waters of Alaska could start this year.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska, April 2 (UPI) — Shell said there are a series of contingencies to consider after a U.S. federal decision to reaffirm a lease for the arctic waters off the coast of Alaska.

The Department of Interior this week affirmed a 2008 lease sale for exploration in the Chukchi Sea off the coast of Alaska. The decision clears the way for a formal review of exploration plans in the region, which will include an environmental analysis.

The lease was tied in up the court system amid complaints about the extent of environmental vetting.

read more

Share this:

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print

Like this:

Loading...

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Beaufort Sea, Ben van Beurden, Chukchi Sea, Environment,Oil Spill, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Ben van Beurden · Chukchi Sea · Oil ·Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Shell

The TRUTH will set you FREE.