Pegasus Research Consortium

SIGH    :(

Quotehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-taylor-oil-spill-is-up-to-a-thousand-times-worse-than-the-companys-estimate-study-says/ar-AADC5Hy?li=BBnb7Kz
CNN
The Taylor oil spill is up to a thousand times worse than the company's estimate, study says
By Harmeet Kaur, CNN  3 days ago


1/4 SLIDES © Gerald Herbert/AP
In this March 31, 2015, aerial photo, the wake of a supply vessel heading toward a working platform crosses over an oil sheen drifting from the site of the former Taylor Energy oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, off Louisiana

For 15 years, oil from one particular spill has been leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.

A new federal study estimates that each day, about 380 to 4,500 gallons of oil are flowing at the site where a company's oil platform was damaged after a hurricane. That's about a hundred to a thousand times worse than the company's initial estimate, which put the amount of oil flowing into the ocean at less than three gallons a day.

The report, released this past week and written by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one at Florida State University, also contradicted assertions from the Taylor Energy Company about where the oil was coming from.

The leak started in 2004, when an oil platform belonging to the Taylor Energy Company was damaged by a mudslide after Hurricane Ivan hit the Gulf of Mexico. A bundle of pipes and wells sank to the ocean floor and became partially buried under mud and sediment.

To respond to the leak, Taylor Energy tried to cap nine of the wells and place containment domes over three of the plumes in 2008.

But after local activists observed more oil slicks near the site of the Deepwater Horizon Spill in 2010, the Taylor oil spill started getting national attention. And last May, the US Coast Guard installed a containment system that has been collecting 30 barrels, or about 1,260 gallons, a day to help catch the oil that's continuing to surge in the ocean.

Study contradicts rig owner's conclusions
Taylor Energy liquidated its oil and gas assets and ceased production and drilling in 2008, and says on its website that it exists solely to respond to the spill. It maintains that any oil and gas now leaking at the site is coming from oil-soaked sediment and bacterial breakdown of the oil.

The federal government's study suggests otherwise.

"This shows it is in fact coming from the reservoirs, from these oil pipes, and not from the remnant oil at the bottom of the ocean," Andrew Mason, one of the study's authors, told CNN.

To reach that determination, scientists collected samples from under the ocean's surface using two methods. Previous studies had either used samples from oil slicks on the ocean surface or measurements from flying over the site.

Using an acoustic device, scientists estimated that 9 to 47 barrels, or about 380 to 1,900 gallons, of oil are leaking daily. Another device called a bubblometer put that estimate at 19 to 108 barrels, or about 800 to 4,500 gallons, a day.

The report notes that the ranges are estimates and don't necessarily represent a final definitive government estimate of the oil being released at the site.

Efforts to stop the leak
Mason called the US Coast Guard's containment system "a great step forward," but said that it still allows some oil to leak out. He also cautioned that it wasn't a permanent fix, given that the containment system would begin to degrade the longer it's in the ocean, and said that authorities needed to go in and plug the remaining 16 wells.

Taylor Energy has claimed that intervening further could release more oil and negatively affect the environment.

In a statement to CNN, the company said it had not seen the data in the latest government report and could not verify its accuracy. It added that it "continues to advocate for a response that is grounded in science and prioritizes the well-being of the environment."

Mason said that the study helps establish the extent of the problem.

"This has been a good step forward in definitively saying what's going on at this site so we can move on from saying 'There's no problem,' to saying, 'All right, there's a problem and how do we fix it now?'" he said.

Quotehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/25-countries-that-produce-the-most-co2-emissions/ss-AACscRA?li=BBnb7Kz

25 Countries That Produce the Most CO2 Emissions
Thomas C. Frohlich, Val Washington and Liz Blossom  3 days ago

Despite long-standing warnings of a climate emergency as well as efforts by some nations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the worldwide use of fossil fuels -- and with it global greenhouse gas emissions -- grew last year.

A number of potential disaster scenarios caused by climate change remain well documented. And yet, increasing demand for coal, oil, and natural gas drove the increase in GHG emissions, according to the International Energy Agency.

To determine the countries emitting the most CO2, 24/7 Wall St. ranked countries based on territorial emissions -- millions of metric tons of carbon emitted from fossil fuels and cement production within a country's borders -- in 2017 published by the Global Carbon Project 2018. This report and our analysis focuses only on fossil fuel-generated CO2 emissions, the single most important greenhouse gas and by far the largest contributor to anthropogenic warming.

Cement, in particular, and natural resources extraction and processing in general, contribute massively to CO2 emissions. A recent report found that the majority of carbon emissions are created by such processes, even before any fuel is burned.

Resource extraction has more than tripled since 1970 and continues to accelerate, even though the population has only doubled in that time, according to the United Nations' Global Resources Outlook 2019. Perhaps it is no surprise that the countries emitting the most CO2 are also often among the countries that control the world's oil.


17. United Kingdom
> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 384.7 million metric tons
> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel per person (2017): 5.8 metric tons
> Change from CO2 emissions in 1992: -35.2%
> Methane emissions (2012): 59.0 million metric tons (CO2e)
> Population (2017): 66.0 million
> GDP per capita (2017): $39,884

While the United Kingdom ranks among the top emitters of carbon, it has significantly reduced its carbon emissions -- by about 35% between 1992 and 2017. Only a few countries in the world can claim any reduction at all, and most of them not nearly the reduction that the U.K. has managed.

The biggest reason for the U.K.'s success in reducing its carbon output is the country's phasing out of coal-fired power in favor of natural gas and renewables. Other factors include improved energy efficiency from both the residential sector and industry.

16. Australia
> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 413.1 million metric tons
> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel per person (2017): 16.8 metric tons
> Change from CO2 emissions in 1992: 45.0%
> Methane emissions (2012): 125.6 million metric tons (CO2e)
> Population (2017): 24.6 million
> GDP per capita (2017): $44,643

With less than half the population of Great Britain, Australia also had less than half the carbon emissions of the U.K. in 1992. By 2017, the relative carbon output shifted dramatically, with Australia emitting more than the U.K. as Britain reduced its use of fossil fuels.

Over the last decade, Australia's emissions from energy production have leveled off, but emissions from industrial and transportation sources have increased significantly. Though Australia has added to its renewable energy resources, it is still planning a new coal-fired power plant and may have a difficult time meeting its Paris Agreement obligations.

10. Canada
> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 572.8 million metric tons
> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel per person (2017): 15.6 metric tons
> Change from CO2 emissions in 1992: 22.2%
> Methane emissions (2012): 106.8 million metric tons (CO2e)
> Population (2017): 36.7 million
> GDP per capita (2017): $44,018

Out of the 25 top CO2 emitters, Canada has close to the highest per capita carbon emission rate at 15.6 metric tons. Largely to blame for this ignominious status is its huge landmass and dispersed population as well as the country's extreme temperatures -- Canadians live energy-intensive lives. While some progress has been made in the development of renewable energy resources -- which have nearly quadrupled since 2007 to the equivalent of 10 million tons of oil -- efforts to curb CO2 have been undermined by huge subsidies to the coal and oil and gas industries, amounting to $3.3 billion annually, according to Environmental Defence, a Canadian environmental advocacy organization.

Though the government insists Canada is on track to meet its Paris Agreement goal of reducing carbon emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030, projections show the country is behind.

2. USA
> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 5,269.5 million metric tons
> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel per person (2017): 16.2 metric tons
> Change from CO2 emissions in 1992: 1.8%
> Methane emissions (2012): 499.8 million metric tons (CO2e)
> Population (2017): 325.1 million
> GDP per capita (2017): $54,471

The United States was the world's largest national CO2 emitter until 2006, when China surpassed U.S. emissions that year of 6,019 million metric tons of CO2. And while U.S. emissions have declined since, China's emissions have steadily increased.

U.S. electricity production from coal sources has dropped in recent decades, from over half in 1992 to about a third of electricity production in 2015. At the same time, however, the United States has become the world's largest producer of crude oil and significantly ramped up natural gas production and usage -- though natural gas use results in relatively less CO2 emissions, the methane output during its production and destructive extraction techniques are by no means more environmentally friendly. Over the 25-year period through 2015, U.S. electricity production from natural gas sources grew from 13.1% to 31.9% of total electricity generated. In 2012, the latest data year, nearly 500 million metric tons of methane, a far more harmful GHG, was emitted by the United States, the fourth highest amount of countries on this list.

1. China

QuoteALSO READ: 27 Effects of Climate Change That Can't Be Stopped

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/11/07/27-effects-of-climate-change-that-cant-be-stopped/?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=msn&utm_content=27-effects-of-climate-change-that-cant-be-stopped&wsrlui=45490586



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/countries-increasing-co2-emissions-the-fastest/ss-AACIP3W?li=BBnb7Kz

Countries Increasing CO2 Emissions the Fastest
Thomas C. Frohlich  3 days ago

26 slides

The first Earth Day was in 1970, and by 1977, scientists generally agree that global warming was the greatest climate risk of the century. But it was not until 1992 that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted. The 197 countries that ratified the convention -- including industrialized nations that are some of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions -- continue to work towards stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. Many have signed the Kyoto Protocols and the Paris Agreement.

On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the international accord to address climate change and the latest agreement by the UNFCCC.

Despite long-standing warnings of a climate emergency as well as efforts by some nations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the worldwide use of fossil fuels -- and with it global greenhouse gas emissions -- grew last year.

Last year's uptick in emissions is not new. Global CO2 emissions have increased by an average of 1.5% annually over the past decade, although not all nations contribute to the increase and not by the same amount. On one hand, fossil fuel CO2 emissions decreased significantly in 25 countries, including in the United States, over the past decade, and it decreased in 40 countries over the past 25 years. On the other hand, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels more than doubled in 100 nations over the past 25 years.

Such dramatic increases in CO2 emissions frequently coincide with rapid economic growth. However, most of the world's economies grew by consistently large margins over the 25-year period. While GDP growth was perhaps more dramatic in many of the countries with the largest carbon emissions growth, GDP growth was not insignificant also in the many countries reporting CO2 emissions decline over that period.

What distinguishes the economies on this list is the source of the growth. Qatar, for example, has increased its natural gas production substantially, and liquefaction processes release a lot of greenhouse gas. As is the case in other South-East Asian countries, Vietnam's economy has grown substantially since 1992, and coal is being used to power that growth.

Resource extraction -- which causes large CO2 emissions during extraction and process and later during use -- has more than tripled worldwide since 1970, and continues to accelerate, even though the world population has only doubled in that time, according to the United Nations' Global Resources Outlook 2019.

24/7 Wall St. reviewed the nations with the largest spikes in CO2 emissions between 1992 and 2017 using data from the Global Carbon Project 2018. (See our list list of the 25 Countries That Produce the Most CO2).

22. USA
> CO2 emissions increase 1992-2017: 95.47 million metric tons (1.8%)
> CO2 emissions in 1992: 5,174.06 million metric tons
> CO2 emissions in 2017: 5,269.53 million metric tons
> CO2 emissions in 2017 per person: 16.21 metric tons
> GDP growth 1992-2017: 135.1%
> GDP per capita 2017: $54,471


20. Canada
> CO2 emissions increase 1992-2017: 103.92 million metric tons (22.2%)
> CO2 emissions in 1992: 468.86 million metric tons
> CO2 emissions in 2017: 572.78 million metric tons
> CO2 emissions in 2017 per person: 15.60 metric tons
> GDP growth 1992-2017: 127.4%
> GDP per capita 2017: $44,018

17. Australia
> CO2 emissions increase 1992-2017: 128.18 million metric tons (45.0%)
> CO2 emissions in 1992: 284.91 million metric tons
> CO2 emissions in 2017: 413.09 million metric tons
> CO2 emissions in 2017 per person: 16.79 metric tons
> GDP growth 1992-2017: 171.5%
> GDP per capita 2017: $44,643


1. China

Stats seem legit alright.  ::)

Quotehttps://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/11/07/27-effects-of-climate-change-that-cant-be-stopped/?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=msn&utm_content=27-effects-of-climate-change-that-cant-be-stopped&wsrlui=45490586

27 Effects of Climate Change That Can't Be Stopped
By Michael B. Sauter   November 7, 2018 4:52 pm EDT

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body, released a report in late 2018 highlighting the importance of keeping global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. To date, average global temperatures have already increased by 1°C. The report details how much worse the effects of global climate change would be should temperatures increase by 2.0°C celsius or higher.

The IPCC press release states that limiting global warming to a 1.5°C increase — about 2.7°F — "would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society." Indeed, climate scientists estimate it would require massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions almost immediately, and zero global emissions by 2050.

The global community is nowhere near to making that goal a reality, particularly as the United States, one of the largest carbon emitters, has announced its intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, which it will do in 2020. Many experts are saying that the globe is already locked in at a 2.0°C increase, the point at which the consequences will become much more severe.

But should a major change occur in the immediate future and global warming is halted at that 1.5°C target, it is important to note that this does not mean the effects of global climate change on the Earth and its population will not be serious. Already, the approximately 1.0°C increase has had severe impacts on the globe's weather, sea levels, and ecosystems. When 1.5°C is reached, which could happen as early as 12 years from now, the impacts, as determined by scientists and experts around the world, are projected to be disastrous.

24/7 Wall St. consulted reports by groups such as the IPCC, NASA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and more, to identify the effects of global warming that either have already taken place, or will occur even if warming is limited to a 1.5°C increase.


1. Carbon dioxide levels above 400 ppm
The concentration of global atmospheric carbon dioxide now exceeds 400 parts per million (ppm), a level that hasn't been seen in about 3 million years.


2. Global warming so far: 1.0°C
Over the past 115 years, roughly since the period of human industrial production, surface temperatures have increased by approximately 1.0°C, or 1.8°F. Even such a small increase has had drastic effects.


3. Record heat
Since the year 2000, nearly every year has been one of the hottest on record. The five warmest years on record have all occurred since 2010.

4. Hotter in the US
In the United States, the number of record daily high temperatures has been roughly double the count of record daily low temperatures in the 2000s.


5. Hotter days ahead
In most parts of the U.S., annual minimum and maximum temperatures are expected to rise by at least 5°F by mid-century, and by as much as 10°F by 2100.


6. Sea ice vanishing
The total surface area of the globe covered by sea ice is at its lowest level on record.

7. Greenland is melting
The Greenland Ice Sheet has been melting, and at an accelerating rate. On one day in July 2012, melt occurred across 98.6% of the ice sheet.

8. Antarctica is melting
Antarctic sea ice minimum levels in March 2017 were the lowest on record.

9. The Arctic is melting
Arctic sea ice has declined 34% between 1979 and 2018. Climate models project the Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summers by mid-century.

10. Glaciers are vanishing
The vast majority of glaciers on earth are shrinking, many at alarming rates.

11. Sea levels have been rising
Average global sea levels have increased by at least 8 inches since 1900.

12. Sea level rise is accelerating
Since 1993 alone, sea levels rose 3 inches, or nearly half of the total rise since the turn of the 20th century.

13. Future sea levels
Under the best-case scenario, scientists are now concluding that average sea levels are expected to rise by an additional 1 to 4 feet by the end of the century. A worst-case scenario could see levels rise by more than 8 feet.

14. Flooding in the US
Rising sea levels may have already increased flooding in the United States. Today, over 90 American coastal communities flood at least partially 26 times per year. Within the next two decades, over 170 cities will be affected by chronic flooding.


15. Miami underwater
In Miami-Dade County alone, almost $15 billion worth of property is at risk of flooding in the next 15 years.

16. Growing seasons have changed
Agricultural growing season in the United States, particularly the west, has lengthened in recent years.

17. Allergy season has lengthened
Pollen season in the United States started three days earlier on average between 2001 and 2010 compared to the 1990s.

18. More heat waves
The total global land area that has 30 days of extreme heat per year has roughly doubled since 1998.

19. Increasing drought
If the increase in global average surface temperature reaches the 1.5°C mark, which it is almost certain to do, 350 million additional people will be exposed to severe drought regularly.

20. More global precipitation
More water vapor in the atmosphere as a result of global warming has led to an 8.5% increase in annual daily precipitation worldwide since 1900.

21. More precipitation in the US
Annual precipitation in the United States has increased by approximately 4% between 1901 and 2015.

22. Less snow cover
Snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased by about 0.2 million square miles since the 1970s.

23. Forest fires more common
Since the turn of the century, there have been 10 years in which at least 7 million acres burned. This has only happened once between 1956 and 1999.

24. More acidic ocean
The ocean has absorbed some 30% of the carbon dioxide emitted from man-made sources, resulting in acidification levels and other changes in the water's chemistry that have not been seen in over 65 million years.

25. Dying coral reefs
Coral reefs are dying at alarming rates due to a number of reasons, including ocean water pollution and warming, overfishing, and other human activity.

26. Coral extinction
Coral reef death will likely get much worse. The IPCC estimates that average surface temperature reaching the 1.5°C mark will lead to a 70% to 90% loss of coral reefs in the coming years.

27. Widespread extinction
Global warming has already affected the habitats of numerous species, and as temperatures continue to rise, conditions will become even worse.. A 0.5°C increase in global average temperature could put as much as 30% of all species on Earth at risk of extinction.

By Michael B. Saute

...............................

Quotehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/if-thwaites-glacier-collapses-global-coastlines-could-change-forever/ar-AADHFg5?li=BBnb7Kz

If Thwaites Glacier collapses, global coastlines could change forever
Carolyn Beeler  3 days ago


© Courtesy of Alexandra Mazur/University of Gothenburg
Drone footage shows large icebergs that have recently broken off the ice shelf in West Antarctica.

Days after the Nathaniel B. Palmer became the first ship to sail across the 75-mile face of West Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier, a piece of its floating ice shelf bigger than Manhattan crumbled off the glacier into a flotilla of icebergs.

Scientists aboard noticed something had changed when the research vessel tried to navigate to a spot in front of the Florida-sized glacier and was blocked by ice-choked seas.   

"What we didn't realize at the time is the ice [front] was coming out to chase us out," said Rob Larter, a marine geophysicist at the British Antarctic Survey and chief scientist on the ship. "The entire embayment where we'd been working for several days was littered with icebergs."

Satellite images soon showed where these icebergs were coming from. A roughly 20-mile stretch of Thwaites had fractured into mile-long icebergs that were now being blown out into the bay in front of Thwaites.

"It was quite remarkable," Larter said of the satellite images. "Suddenly, it was making sense with what we were seeing out of the windows." 

Thwaites Glacier is melting fast, and scientists fear its collapse could one day destabilize surrounding glaciers and eventually trigger up to 11 feet of global sea level rise.

(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AADHJVg.img?h=343&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f)
© Courtesy of Rob Larter/ British Antarctic Survey Satellite images of the western portion of the Thwaites ice front on March 2, 2019, and on March 6, 2019, after a large section of what had previously been called "ice shelf" crumbled into a flotilla of icebergs. The red dot shows the approximate location of the Nathaniel B. Palmer research vessel each day. Courtesy of Rob Larter/ British Antarctic Survey
This winter's expedition aboard the Palmer marked the first field season of a five-year, international research collaboration to discover just how much, and how fast, Thwaites Glacier might add to rising seas. 

The massive blowout of icebergs won't itself change sea levels, as the ice that fractured off deep into the ice shelf had already been floating. But it is a sign of the glacier's instability. 

"It's another step in the [progressive] retreat," Larter said. Coupled with the thinning of the glacier and its faster flow, "this [event] is one expression of the fact that Thwaites Glacier is putting more and more ice into the ocean."

Thwaites' ice shelf stabilizes e whole glacier, acting like a cork in a wine bottle to slow the seaward flow of ice from the continent's interior. This big blowout confirmed that there's very little actual ice shelf left in the western part of Thwaites Glacier. Instead, much of the ice there is actually what scientists call a "mélange," a slushy mix of icebergs and other floating bits of ice formed by fracturing at an ice front. 

"You'd expect it might lead to even further acceleration of flow of the glacier," Larter said of the blowout.

During the next summer thaw, scientists will watch to see if more of the ice shelf inland from the mélange starts to crumble.

"Whether it leads directly to further changes or not, we just have to wait and see," Larter said. `

a large body of water: Drone footage of the Nathaniel B. Palmer icebreaker in West Antarctica. Courtesy of Alexandra Mazur/University of Gothenburg.
© Courtesy of Alexandra Mazur/University of Gothenburg. Drone footage of the Nathaniel B. Palmer icebreaker in West Antarctica. Courtesy of Alexandra Mazur/University of Gothenburg.
An inherently unstable glacier
If the entire floating ice shelf at Thwaites fractures into icebergs, what's left at the edge of the glacier is a giant cliff of ice whose shape makes it particularly vulnerable to runaway collapse.

The seafloor underneath the glacier slopes downward as it goes inland in what scientists call a "retrograde slope," and the ice sitting on top of it gets thicker and thicker. If Thwaites retreats far enough inland and reaches a certain thickness, physics dictates it will start collapsing under its own weight. And ice cliff modeling suggests that if that process starts, there might not be anything to stop it.


"You could get a domino effect of icebergs falling off of the edge of an ice sheet," said Ali Graham, a marine geophysicist on the ship from the UK's University of Exeter.

"There's still a debate over what [this collapse] would look like," Graham said. "We could be observing it right now and not really realize that it's happening, and that's pretty scary to think about."

The ultimate goal of the five-year research collaboration is to collect data — on the glacier itself, the bedrock beneath it, and the warm water melting it —  that will improve models and fill in some of the unknowns about what the glacier's collapse might look like. And how fast it might happen once it starts.

© Carolyn Beeler/The World The front face of Thwaites glacier rises an estimated 60 to 75 feet above water in the areas where it is most intact. Roughly 90% of an ice sheet typically sits below the water line. Carolyn Beeler/The World
"How quickly can you feasibly collapse something like Thwaites?" Graham said. "Is it over a century, over a thousand years, or can you do in a decade? I don't think anyone can, hand on heart, say which of those it is yet. And that's a concern."

In a paper that outlined this marine ice cliff instability theory in 2016, authors Rob DeConto from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and David Pollard from Penn State University raised alarm by predicting that Antarctica by itself could contribute up to 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100.

New, not-yet-published research from the same pair revises the estimate for the end of the century downward substantially, but the longer-term picture is still bleak, with a rate of sea level rise that could "be very challenging for coastal planners and engineers to cope with," DeConto wrote in an email, "likely leading to large-scale retreat from the coast in some places and loss of some low lying islands."

Their 2016 research, which predicts how marine ice cliffs will react to atmospheric warming under a variety of future greenhouse gas scenarios, found that in a future where we quickly and radically cut greenhouse gas emissions, the West Antarctic ice sheet would be relatively stable for centuries. In a future where carbon emissions continue unabated, warming air temperatures would force its collapse within 250 years.

DeConto said they are still working to identify the exact tipping point that would trigger this dramatic fracturing of the West Antarctic ice sheet, but work he presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting this past winter suggests it's somewhere between 2-3 degrees Celsius of warming. If every country met its Paris Agreement commitments, the world would warm to 2.7 degrees Celsius.

© Carolyn Beeler/The World The icebreaker Nathaniel B. Palmer, chartered by the US National Science Foundation, is shown. The ship is the length of a football field and dwarfs a nearby cruise ship. Carolyn Beeler/The World
Planning for uncertainty
The questions swirling around the future of the West Antarctic ice sheet add to the considerable uncertainty policymakers and planners face when trying to prepare for sea level rise.

The United States' National Climate Assessment estimates we'll see 1-4 feet of sea level rise by 2100, citing the complicated dynamics of Greenland's and Antarctica's ice sheets as "the primary reason that projections of global sea level rise includes such a wide range of plausible future conditions." 

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects between roughly 1 1/2 to 3 feet of sea level rise under a "business as usual" carbon emissions scenario, or 1 to 2 feet if we start cutting carbon immediately and dramatically.

Each scenario includes only a small amount of melting from Antarctica.

This means that cities and countries using IPCC data to build their own localized sea level rise projections are likewise only planning for a small amount of loss from West Antarctica, which might prove to be an underestimation. Vietnam, for example, where more than a quarter of the population would face inundation if the entire West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse, uses IPCC data in its national climate report.

But the IPCC, too, serves up its estimates with an important caveat, stating that "the collapse of the marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause [global mean sea level] to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century.

a bridge over a body of water with a city in the background: Boston's affluent Back Bay neighborhood was previously a tidal bay in the city until a 19th-century land reclamation project made construction of the neighborhood possible. Steven Davy/The World
© Steven Davy/The World Boston's affluent Back Bay neighborhood was previously a tidal bay in the city until a 19th-century land reclamation project made construction of the neighborhood possible. Steven Davy/The World
Boston as a case study
Some communities are going beyond these national and international projections and incorporating potential melting from Antarctica's ice sheets into their local sea level rise estimates. 

The city of Boston is planning for more than 3 feet of sea level rise by 2070, and between 2 and 7 feet by 2100.

In the near term, these changes will mean more frequent, coastal flooding in low-lying areas, including some of Boston's most historic neighborhoods. The city is working with communities to develop neighborhood plans focusing on solutions like raised parks along Boston Harbor that serve both as spaces for recreation and flood barriers.

But the wide range of scenarios possible by 2100 makes planning for century's end impossible,  according to Alisha Pegan, coordinator of the city's Climate Ready Boston program.

"We'd like to plan for 2100. It's just the science right now is so uncertain that it's planning for a variance of 4 feet of sea level rise," Pegan said. "When we have better data, better science, then we can make more informed decisions."

None of the protections necessary to preserve coastal communities will come cheap. A recent study put the price tag of protecting the US from rising seas over the next two decades at more than $400 billion.

For some communities, 2 feet of sea level rise, which would come if Thwaites Glacier melts completely, represents an existential threat. For Boston, it's something the city plans to adapt to.

"Our challenge is that [sea levels are] going to keep going up," said Julie Wormser from the Boston-area Mystic River Watershed Association.   

© Carolyn Beeler/The World An iceberg in the Southern Ocean is pictured here as the Nathaniel B. Palmer sailed by during its return trip from Antarctica in March 2019. Carolyn Beeler/The World
Eleven feet of sea level rise, which would come from the collapse of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet, is another story entirely.

Many low-lying coastal cities, from the US to the Netherlands to Bangladesh, are built on land partially reclaimed from the sea. In Boston, much of the current downtown didn't exist prior to the arrival of European settlers.     

"They filled in a lot of the [Boston] Harbor with horses and shovels," Wormser said, "and they never contemplated sea level rise."

Now, about a third of Boston is at risk of coastal flooding if sea levels rise between 2 and 8 feet higher than they are today, Wormser said. At 11 feet, much of the city would be underwater without massive, new infrastructure projects to protect it.

But even the city government isn't sure that level of protection is possible. 

"I don't have an answer for that," Pegan said when asked if it was even feasible to protect Boston from 11 feet of sea level rise. "There are a lot of people interested in making sure that we can do this, but I can't say for sure right now."

Boston, of course, is not alone, nor is it the most vulnerable. Pacific Island nations like Kiribati, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives would be wiped off the map if the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse entirely. One World Bank estimate suggests more than 90 million people in just 12 developing countries would be displaced. In the US, just half that amount of sea level rise could prompt a coastal exodus that would rival the great migration.

Scientists studying Thwaites Glacier hope to give policymakers a better sense of just how fast sea levels might rise in coming decades, and whether it's still possible to halt the kind of massive sea level rise it could cause, or just slow its onset. 

The question then is what we choose to do about it.

Quote

Quotehttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/record-heat-europe-france-alaska-climate-change_n_5d1cf9bbe4b04c48140e23fa?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaHVmZnBvc3QuY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAF1tJLLZe7SlTAccUxO1QCoCJxJYDWp9hYPydIacgYCYxxZn_Ii9Gi5E936T15quKgvEP3xA_OMLLBr-0mfa8ttvK_XhqMIajiIDqB16iO1a7ncDMAG4FrmYlQwDgaVSwN8fFZJTi4vjxq-HWw4H5Le6O_6KZXi-EKTMR13Z2bGE


ENVIRONMENT 07/03/2019 05:59 pm ET Updated 1 day ago Scorching Temperatures Smash Records In U.S., Europe
Scientists warn that heat waves are becoming increasingly common due to human-caused climate change.

By Amy Russo

The world just recorded its warmest June ever. A deadly heat wave has been baking much of Europe ― France experiencing its highest temperature on record last week, a blistering 45.9 degrees Celsius (or nearly 115 degrees Fahrenheit). Now, Alaska is enduring what for it is an ongoing heat wave.

In short, it's hot. And scientists warn this is just a taste of what the climate crisis has in store for the Earth.

World Weather Attribution, an international organization of scientists conducting climate research, said the frequency and intensity of Europe's heat waves have been exacerbated largely by humans.

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, came to the same conclusion, blaming greenhouse gasses spewed into the atmosphere by various human activities as the main culprit.

"While this doesn't mean that every year, or every summer, will be warmer than the one before, it greatly increases the chances of record hot temperatures ― as we are seeing across the globe," he told HuffPost in an email Wednesday. "The long-term trends are very clear ― the planet has warmed about 2 degrees [Fahrenheit] since the 19th century and, without large-scale emission cuts, those trends will continue and records will continue to fall."

Damon Matthews, a professor studying climate science at Concordia University in Montreal, told HuffPost in a statement that the "new normal" would continue to intensify with the production of greenhouse gasses.

"What we are experiencing now is the 'normal' for the 1°C of global warming we have already caused," he said. "As we move towards 1.5 or 2°C (or even higher) the 'normal' will be different again, and likely considerably worse in terms of heat extremes."

Though France's heat wave has passed, Alaska's is just settling in, and will likely stretch into next week, AccuWeather meteorologist Kyle Elliott predicts.

He said he expects high temperatures across the state to surge as much as 20 degrees Fahrenheit ― roughly 11 degrees Celsius ― above normal for this time of year.

Online records dating back to the 1950s show the all-time high temperature for Anchorage, the state's major city, was 85 degrees Fahrenheit (about 29.4 degrees Celsius.) According to the National Weather Service, the next several days threaten to break that record.

The consequences of the rising thermometer have been particularly costly in southern Alaska where the Swan Lake Fire, ignited on June 5 by lightning, is still burning. According to Elliott, it has ripped through more than 77,000 acres. As of Wednesday, it was only 14% contained.

Meanwhile, the Anchorage Fire Department has canceled 4th of July fireworks in the area due to the dry conditions.

Some other states will also see intensifying heat. In the Northeast, AccuWeather predicts there will be more 90-degree-and-above days this summer than the last, thanks to a decrease in rainfall. In the Southeast and Southwest, forecasters also predict hotter and drier weather.

This article has been updated with comment from Matthews.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that 85 degrees Fahrenheit was equivalent to 24 degrees Celsius. It is equivalent to 29.4 degrees Celsius.

......................................



https://www.newser.com/story/277374/scientists-alarmed-after-deaths-of-6-endangered-whales.html

6 Endangered Whales Found Dead in a Month
Worse, females were among the half-dozen North Atlantic right whales discovered
By Newser Editors and Wire Services
Posted Jul 4, 2019 11:07 AM CDT

(NEWSER) – A half-dozen North Atlantic right whales have died in the past month, leading scientists, government officials, and conservationists to call for a swift response to protect the endangered species, per the AP. There are only a little more than 400 of the right whales left. All six of the dead whales have been found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence off Canada, and at least three appear to have died after they were hit by ships. The deaths have led scientists to sound the alarm about a potentially catastrophic loss to the population, and calls for better enforcement of rules such as speed limits for ships in certain areas. The deaths are especially troubling because they include females, said Philip Hamilton, research scientist with the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium.
"If we're going to have deaths, they just can't be female," Hamilton said, adding the population is down to only about 100 reproductive females. Right whales have suffered high mortality and poor reproduction in recent years, particularly in 2017. The whales appear to be traveling in different areas of the ocean than usual because of food availability, says Nick Record of Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Maine. That shift, linked to the warming of the ocean, has apparently brought whales outside protected zones. Fisheries and Oceans Canada said the necropsy of the sixth whale was completed in Quebec, and the death appeared consistent with blunt trauma from a vessel strike. Ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear are two top threats to right whales often cited by conservationists. (Elsewhere, Japan has resumed commercial whale hunts.)

the storm heading for  New Orleans and surround area is scary..so is this article...

Quotehttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/mississippi-louisiana-gulf-coast-environmental-disaster_n_5d262c42e4b0583e482b28ed

ENVIRONMENT 07/11/2019 05:45 am ET Updated 2 hours ago
There's An Environmental Disaster Unfolding In The Gulf of Mexico
A slow-moving flood of polluted Mississippi River water is causing serious damage to Gulf species, and a major storm threatens to make it worse.

Rocky Kistner
Guest Writer

As fishermen deep in the Louisiana bayou, Kindra Arnesen and her family have faced their share of life-altering challenges in recent years.

First came Hurricane Katrina, the 2005 monster storm that devastated her small fishing community in Plaquemines Parish before roaring up the Gulf Coast, killing more than 1,800 people and destroying $125 billion in property. Five years later, BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded 40 miles offshore, spewing nearly 200 million gallons of crude. The fisheries have not fully recovered more than nine years later, nor has her family.

But this year may be worse. A historic slow-moving flood of polluted Mississippi River water loaded with chemicals, pesticides and human waste from 31 states and two Canadian provinces is draining straight into the marshes and bayous of the Gulf of Mexico — the nurseries of Arnesen's fishing grounds — upsetting the delicate balance of salinity and destroying the fragile ecosystem in the process. As the Gulf waters warm this summer, algae feed on the freshwater brew, smothering oxygen-starved marine life.

And as of Wednesday, an advancing storm looks likely to turn into a tropical storm or hurricane by the weekend, with the potential to bring torrential downpours and more freshwater flooding.

(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5d26363c2400009d17935293.jpeg?cache=sbdbfsurif&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)

COURTESY OF THE INSTITUTE FOR MARINE MAMMAL STUDIES
Dolphins have been dying in huge numbers across the Gulf Coast region — nearly 300 this year already.
Fishermen and state government officials agree this long, hot summer may go down in history as one of the most destructive years for Gulf fisheries. The torrent of river water pushing into Gulf estuaries is decimating crab, oyster and shrimp populations. The brown shrimp catch this spring in Louisiana and Mississippi is already down by an estimated 80%, and oysters are completely wiped out in some of the most productive fishing grounds in the country, according to state and industry officials. The polluted freshwater has also triggered algae blooms, which have led to beach closures across Mississippi.

"The Army Corps of Engineers says we had the most rainfall in 124 years," said Joe Spraggins, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. "Shrimpers and crabbers are struggling. Oystermen are almost nonexistent. ... It's not going to get better soon."

"I've had grown men call me on the phone and cry," said Arnesen, who serves on the board of the Louisiana Shrimp Association and works on state coastal management issues. "This feels like the height of the BP oil spill."

Mississippi and Louisiana have already started the process of requesting federal disaster assistance for damaged fisheries. But it will likely be a long while before any money reaches the fishermen whose nets are coming up empty. To officially apply for disaster relief, Louisiana state officials say they need more data, which will take months to compile.

"We are seeing impacts across the coast in all sectors of the fishing communities," said Patrick Banks, assistant secretary for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. "We will continue to collect data to support a disaster declaration."

It's not just fisheries that are suffering. Dolphins have been dying in huge numbers across the region — nearly 300 this year already, which is three times the number in a normal year, according to federal and state officials. Fishermen report finding dead dolphins floating in water near shore or beached in the marshes, covered in painful skin lesions that scientists have linked to freshwater exposure. One fisherman reported finding a mother dolphin pushing her dead baby along in the water.

"Their skin looks like a Brillo pad," said Louisiana charter boat captain George Ricks, who heads the Save Louisiana Coalition, a coastal management advocacy organization.

Ricks and many other fishermen blame the unprecedented deluge of freshwater pouring into the Gulf. The Bonnet Carre, a huge spillway that protects New Orleans, has already opened an unprecedented two times this year to divert surging Mississippi River water and is currently pouring more than 100,000 cubic feet per second into Lake Pontchartrain. Being able to close the spillway again depends on rainfall upriver.

The Army Corps of Engineers operates the spillway and says it has no choice but to keep it open to protect property upstream. The Corps argues that some of this flooding can be beneficial to the ecosystem. "The introduction of fresh water during leakage events simulates the natural cycle of overbank flooding and provides numerous ecosystem benefits to the aquatic and terrestrial resources in the spillway," the agency notes on its website.

But some marine biologists say the flood of freshwater can be catastrophic for species such as bottlenose dolphins, which are very territorial and are reluctant to leave their spawning grounds even when salinity levels become toxic. Endangered species like Kemp's ridley turtles are also threatened by river water exposure, since they depend on rich Gulf marshlands to grow and develop.

"We are experiencing a Cat 5 aquatic hurricane," said Dr. Moby Solangi, director of the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in Mississippi. Dolphins are particularly vulnerable to incursions of river water, he said. "Every time they open the Bonnet Carre spillway, we see a spike in deaths."

Solangi's team recently found a stranded dolphin on a Gulfport beach, breathing slowly and covered in freshwater lesions. It died a short time later.

"Dolphins are like the black box found on airplanes," Solangi said. "They tell you what's happening in the environment. When dolphins are doing well, the environment is doing well."

(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5d26351b2600005000044121.jpeg?cache=njzhterkbf&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)

COURTESY OF CAPT. GEORGE RICKS
Fishermen report finding some dead dolphins covered in painful skin lesions that scientists have linked to freshwater exposure.
By all accounts, the Gulf marine environment is not well. Scientists predict the annual dead zone — a giant blob of polluted, deoxygenated water linked to algae blooms — will grow to the size of Massachusetts and suffocate even more marine life later in the Gulf this summer.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared the bottlenose dolphin deaths an "Unusual Mortality Event" in February, and its investigation is ongoing. Officials say higher-than-normal dolphin strandings spiked in May, when there were 88 discovered along the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama coasts. That's nearly eight times the average monthly number of dolphin mortalities during the BP spill from 2010 to 2014.

Total dolphin strandings have not reached the levels seen at the height of the BP spill, and there were fewer in June. Dr. Teri Rowles, NOAA's marine mammal health and stranding program coordinator, said that researchers know freshwater exposure could be contributing to the health concerns, but that it's too early in their investigation to pinpoint an exact cause.

"We do see dolphins with freshwater lesions, but not all the animals have skin lesions," said Rowles.

Some dolphin populations have yet to recover from the BP oil spill, Rowles said, mainly due to reproductive problems. NOAA reports dolphins in heavily oiled areas are still suffering from chronic health problems and higher rates of failed pregnancies and mortalities.

But many fishermen who have worked in these areas for generations suspect something else is threatening their future: politics. As part of a plan to save Louisiana's rapidly sinking coastline, state agencies want to pump in more sediment-heavy river water to help rebuild the disappearing land. Fishermen question the efficacy of freshwater diversions and worry about the dangers to fisheries and marine life posed by these projects. They question why NOAA would grant waivers to Louisiana last year to bypass the Marine Mammal Protection Act and allow the freshwater diversion construction to proceed.

Meanwhile, fishermen know a changing climate is not working in their favor. Scientists say the Mississippi River is expected to continue to flood in future years as the atmosphere heats up and produces stronger storms and more rainfall. Barry, the storm heading for the coast right now, is the latest to threaten the Gulf ecosystem, but certainly not the last.

All of this worries Acy Cooper, a fourth-generation fisherman and president of the Louisiana Shrimp Association who is leading a delegation of fishermen to Washington this month to plead their case for disaster assistance. He blames the Army Corps for not adequately managing the river and controlling and dredging the river passes that empty into the Gulf, making the effects of freshwater worse.

But his biggest worry is for his family and future generations. He comes from a long line of fishing families who have prospered and persevered in one of the most bountiful fisheries in the world, and he doesn't want to be the last.

"My sons can't make enough to feed their families," he said. "What's going to happen to them?"

Arnesen worries about this as well.

"If we keep operating like this, we're going to kill the estuaries and the oceans, yet they still dismiss us," she said. "Our fish feed America. That should matter to everyone."

............................





GULF OF MEXICO

U.S. NEWS
Tropical Storm Barry Forms In Gulf Of Mexico And Could Become A Hurricane
By Kevin McGill and Rebecca Santana, AP

"We're confident the levees themselves are in good shape. The big focus is height," a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers said.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Tropical Storm Barry formed off the coast of Louisiana on Thursday and threatened to blow ashore as a hurricane with drenching rains that could test the flood-control improvements made in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina 14 years ago.

Forecasters said the first hurricane of the Atlantic season could hit the state's swampy southern tip on Friday, with the biggest danger posed not by the wind but by downpours that could go on for hours.
.
.
Forecasters said Louisiana could see up to 12 inches (30 centimeters) of rain by Monday, with isolated areas receiving as much as 18 inches (46 centimeters).


entire article with video

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tropical-storm-barry_n_5d2750cce4b0cfb596020091

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/07/12/epa-allow-use-pesticide-considered-very-highly-toxic-bees/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ed34a8c337aa

Climate and Environment
EPA to allow use of pesticide considered 'very highly toxic' to bees
The agency says sulfoxaflor poses less risk than alternatives and is a critical tool for farmers.

Toni Burnham, president of DC Beekeepers Alliance, checks on the health of a honey bee colony where D.C. Water keeps four beehives on the rooftop of one of its buildings in 2017. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)
By Brady Dennis July 12 at 5:06 PM
The Environmental Protection Agency approved broad new applications Friday for a controversial insecticide, despite objections from environmental groups and beekeepers who say it is among the compounds responsible for eviscerating the nation's bee populations.

Alexandra Dunn, head of the EPA office that oversees pesticides, said the agency was "thrilled" to be able to approve new uses and lift past restrictions on sulfoxaflor, which she called a "highly effective" tool for growers around the country — but which the agency itself considers "very highly toxic" to bees. The decision will allow the chemical to be applied to a wide array of crops, including citrus and corn, soybeans and strawberries, pineapples and pumpkins.

"EPA is providing long-term certainty for U.S. growers to use an important tool to protect crops and avoid potentially significant economic losses, while maintaining strong protection for pollinators," Dunn said.

The agency's critics, some of whom successfully sued the EPA in federal court during the Obama administration to restrict use of the pesticide, were anything but thrilled with Friday's announcement.

"At a time when honeybees and other pollinators are dying in greater numbers than ever before, EPA's decision to remove restrictions on yet another bee-killing pesticide is nothing short of reckless," Greg Loarie, an attorney for the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, said in an email.

The news comes during a time that commercial honeybee colonies have been declining at a startling rate. The annual loss rate for honeybees during the year ending in April rose to 40.7 percent, up slightly over the annual average of 38.7 percent, according to the Bee Informed Partnership, a nonprofit group associated with the University of Maryland.

Some of the losses have been associated with events such as massive wildfires in the west, the wet winter in the Midwest and hurricanes in the Southeast. But the bee losses documented over the past decade are often blamed in no small part on the increased use of fungicides, herbicides and certain pesticides.

Sulfoxaflor was initially approved by the EPA in 2013, but a collection of beekeepers and other opponents sued the agency over its use, saying studies made it clear that it was highly toxic to honeybees. In 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that federal regulators lacked adequate data to show the pesticide did not pose serious risk to pollinators, and the court vacated the agency's approval of sulfoxaflor.

In 2016, the EPA approved use of the pesticide for crops that do not attract bees, as well as for use on certain plants after blooming was complete. The agency also has repeatedly granted emergency waivers to states to allow the use of sulfoxaflor on certain crops because of a lack of effective alternatives for farmers — including more than a dozen such exemptions this year alone for sorghum and cotton.

"That helps you see how important a tool this is," Dunn told reporters Friday.

In deciding to grant broad approval to sulfoxaflor, Dunn said the agency relied on a host of new, industry-backed studies that showed the insecticide dissipates in the environment more quickly than widely used alternatives, thereby lowering the risk to bees. In addition, the agency said sulfoxaflor often requires fewer applications than other insecticides, resulting in reduced risks to wildlife.

"Our data on this insecticide is among EPA's largest data sets on the effects of a pesticide on bees," Dunn told reporters, saying the agency had carefully considered its risks and benefits. "EPA highly values pollinator protection."

She added that farmers must still abide by numerous restrictions when using the pesticide. For instance, it can be applied to certain tree fruits, berries and other crops only after they have bloomed. Restrictions also exist to prevent drifting of the pesticide in windy conditions.

Corteva, the agricultural division of DowDuPont, welcomed the EPA's approval for what it called "critical" uses of the pesticide, saying in a statement Friday that "growers should have access to tools that can be used safely according to the product label."

The Agricultural Retailers Association, which represents suppliers of seed and other products to farmers and ranchers, also praised the EPA's decision.

"It is encouraging to see EPA take a hard look at the science about sulfoxaflor and its effects on pollinators and issue a science-based decision on its permitted use," the group's president, Daren Coppock, said in a statement. "This is how the system is supposed to work: scientific experts making science-based decisions."

But Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health program, called Friday's decision little more than a gift to industry, and one that did not come with public input.

"Their failure to provide any notice of this decision is a new low for this administration," Burd said in an interview. "But the worst part of this is that they know the effect; they know how significant this is. And yet they are allowing this even with the full knowledge we are in a pollinator extinction crisis."

Burd said she expects opponents to soon take EPA to court once again over the pesticide.

"Their job is to weigh the risks versus the benefits," she said. "But they are just touting the benefits and sweeping the risks under the rug."

248 Comments
Today's Headlines newsletter

............................................

Trump administration to approve pesticide that may harm bees ...
https://www.theguardian.com/.../2019/.../bees-pesticide-trump-epa-approves-sulfoxafl...
22 hours ago - EPA is approving the pesticide for use on some crops for the first time, including corn, grains and soybeans. The agency is also restoring the use of the chemical on citrus and cotton. ... In 2016, under the Obama administration, the EPA banned the use of the pesticide on crops that attract bees, including cotton.

.............................




https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/rapid-decline-in-honey-bee-population-unsustainable-experts-say/ar-AAE4yhQ?li=BBnbfcL

ABC News
Rapid decline in honey bee population 'unsustainable,' experts say


Scientists are researching the potential consequences of the rapid decline of the honey bee population in the U.S. and how to mitigate its effects before it causes dire problems for crop management and production.

Honey bees are essential for the pollination of flowers, fruits and vegetables, and support about $20 billion worth of crop production in the U.S. annually, Matthew Mulica, senior project manager at the Keystone Policy Center, a consulting company that works with the Honey Bee Health Coalition, told ABC News.

Worldwide, honey bees and other pollinators help to produce about $170 billion in crops, Scott McArt, assistant professor of pollinator health at Cornell University, told ABC News.

"Honey bees are one of the most important agricultural commodities in the country," Geoff Williams, an assistant professor of entomology at Auburn University who also serves on the board of directors for the Bee Informed Partnership, told ABC News.

Over the past 15 years, bee colonies have been disappearing in what is known as the "colony collapse disorder," according to National Geographic. Some regions have seen losses of up to 90%, the publication reported.

Data shows bee populations dwindling more and more each year
Between Oct. 1, 2018, and April 1, 2019, 37.7% of the managed honey bee population -- colonies kept by commercial beekeepers -- declined, 7 percentage points lower than the same time frame during the 2017-2018 winter, according to preliminary data from the Bee Informed Partnership, a nonprofit associated with the University of Maryland.

This past winter season represents the highest level of winter losses reported since the survey began in 2006, according to the report.

For the entire year -- April 1, 2018, to April 1, 2019 -- the managed bee population decreased by 40.7%, according to the report. The overall loss rate is around the average of what researchers and beekeepers have seen since 2006, McArt said.

"The main take-home from this is these are unsustainably high losses," McArt said, adding that researchers are not necessarily alarmed at the numbers because they've become "a little bit accustomed to these large loss rates."

The number of hives that survive the winter months is an overall indicator of bee health, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Worker bees tend to live longest during the winter -- up to six months -- and just four weeks in the spring and summer, according to the American Bee Journal.

(MORE: 500K bees killed after hives torn apart, burned; reward offered for culprits)
Managed colonies are shipped around the country to pollinate our food
Much of the produce seen in grocery stores -- watermelon, apples, peppers, cucumbers -- and nuts are pollinated by millions of European honey bees, or Apis mellifera, that travel across the country and are managed by commercial beekeepers, Mulica said.

These U.S. crops are produced with the help of 2.6 million colonies transported by 18-wheelers from place to place during peak flowering, McArt said. Of the $20 billion worth of U.S. crop production supported by pollinators, commercial honey bees are responsible for about half. Wild bees and other pollinators take care of the rest.

In February, about 60% of managed colonies head to California to begin almond production, McArt said.

The bees then travel to Florida to pollinate citrus crops before making their way up through the Southeast for the production of blueberries, cherries and other specialty fruits and vegetables, McArt said.

Apple pollination begins on the Northeast in June, and the last pollination event typically occurs in Maine in late June and early July for lowbush blueberries, McArt said.

The bees then go to a set location for several months, where they gather nectar and produce honey, McArt said.

Why the honey bee populations are declining
The largest contributor to the decline of bee health is the varroa mite, a parasite that invades hives and and spreads diseases, McArt said.

"This is really a big knockout blow to a lot of these hives," Mulica said.

Other reasons for the loss in population are loss of habitat and poor management practices, such as moving bees through the frigid Rocky Mountains during their winter journey to California, McArt said.

Incidental exposure to pesticides, pest and other diseases within the hive are also affecting the decrease of the population, Mulica said.

The populations of wild bees and other pollinators are suffering too, McArt said.

(MORE: Bees develop a taste for some pesticides the way humans get addicted to nicotine, say scientists)
Food prices could rise if populations continue to decrease
While Williams does not believe honey bees are under threat of extinction, if their numbers continue to dwindle they could become a much more costly commodity for farmers, he said.

High bee losses year after year could lead to fewer beekeepers, and rental prices per bee colony could increase dramatically, Williams said.

This could also lead to steeper food prices, Mulica said.

"Really, what's at stake here is rising food costs and the ability of beekeepers to deliver healthy bees to the crops," Mulica said.

The first crop that may see a price increase with the decline of honey bees could be California almonds.

"We would not have almonds if it weren't for honey bees," McArt said.

The Golden State produces about 85% of the world's almonds, Mulica said. But the cost for renting bees for almond production has increased to nearly $300 per colony in some cases, Williams said, when contracts for other crops in other states run about $80 to $150 per colony, McArt said.

The cost of colony rentals has not yet affected consumer prices for almonds, Williams said, but those costs could "eventually trickle down."

How to slow down the bee population decline
All of the reasons for the loss of the honey bee population derive from human error, McArt said.

"Every single one of these stresses that we put on pollinators is man-made," he said.

To save the bee population, researchers are looking into best management practices for beekeepers, such as how to treat hives for varroa mite, Mulica said.

They are also trying to figure out which pesticides could potentially be replaced with chemicals that are more bee-friendly, and what changes can be made to habitats to encourage more bees, such as planting wildflowers instead of green grass in the front yard and encouraging homeowners to mow their lawns less often, McArt said.

"I guess the question is, who's willing to do these things, and how can we be more efficient in doing them?" McArt said.

(MORE: Ford's hive-minded approach to save the bees)
U.S. government to devote less resources to bee research
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that it has suspended data collection for its Honey Bee Colonies survey due to budgetary reasons, just weeks after researchers reported that nearly 40% of managed honey bee colonies in the country were lost over the past winter.

"The decision to suspend data collection was not made lightly but was necessary given available fiscal and program resources," a July 1 statement from the USDA read.

The USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service report is only one of three major bee surveys published each year, Mulica said. The Bee Informed Partnership and the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service also file reports that are widely used in the industry, he added.

Williams said it is "surprising" that the USDA made the decision to stop tracking the honey bee population, stating that it compounds the importance for independent studies to continue so scientists can understand the long-term trends of honey bees, not just for the sake of research but to allow policy makers to make sound decisions in the future.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/honey-bees-usda-data-collection-cut_n_5d22cbcee4b04c4814164f5f?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaHVmZnBvc3QuY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEUYrikrldylIJaHlv5s2WhNZTswb3c7lYbOWrSkzWHFzXCC7-OO9F0cJ4Y9k0hLhi01rg_XN1CNFB8mnSAEI30TXXoRvkx5adGgCIAdsRIfb5h2qxxYZZsjjwjq_fTYCAEt5wpKXg8QnNYczy0gkrx0cd4ONeGBp1XCvT35yu6G

07/08/2019 03:10 am ET Updated 5 days ago
Agriculture Department Suspends Critical Tracking Of Plunging Honey Bee Population
That's one way to overlook a problem.

By Mary Papenfuss

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced that it's suspending tracking the plunging honeybee population because of a budget shortfall.

The department will suspend data collection for its Honey Bee Colonies report, and officials did not say when — or if — it would be restarted. It will release data already collected from January 2018 through April of this year.

The Agricultural Department has been a key source of data on the insects, which is critically important to scientists and farmers.

The number of honey bee hives, vital to pollinating crops for the agricultural industry and other plants for wildlife, plummeted from 6 million in 1947 to 2.4 million in 2008. The worst honeybee hive loss on record occurred last winter as beekeepers reported a 40% loss of their colonies over the year.

Critics say the USDA's move is the latest evidence of the Trump administration's war on science, and its goal of suppressing information about serious environmental harms increasing under Donald Trump's presidency.

"This is yet another example of the Trump administration systematically undermining federal research on food safety, farm productivity and the public interest writ large," Rebecca Boehm, an economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told CNN.

Ironically, Vice President Mike Pence's wife, Karen, gushed last month about National Pollinators Week and bragged about hives at the Pence residence.


Second Lady Karen Pence
✔
@SecondLady
This is National #Pollinators Week and we're proud to have honeybee hives and pollinator gardens at the @VP Residence. #Fact: Three-fourths of the flowering plants & about 35% of the world's food crops depend on pollinators, like bees, to reproduce. 🐝🌻#bees #pollination @USDA

4,709
4:59 PM - Jun 20, 2019


Harley Quinn
@RealHarley92
Replying to @SecondLady and 2 others
This is wonderful!!!
However, sweetie, didn't the EPA give the go ahead for use of neonicotinoids? The EU immediately stopped the use o these pesticides- but nope we sure didn't! Just one more ex that we are going backwards instead of forwards. 🎪🤹‍♀️🎪🤹‍♀️🎪


The USDA survey was begun in 2015. It collected data on the number of honeybees by state each quarter. It also counted those lost to colony collapse disorder, which is decimating honeybee populations.

Bees help pollinate a third of all the crops Americans eat. A single bee colony can pollinate 300 million flowers each day.

Just two years ago, the USDA touted its work on honeybees, pointing out that managed colonies were responsible for increasing crop yield and quality by $15 billion. "Honey bees may be some of the hardest workers you'll ever see, but they need our help," the USDA said in a statement then. "At USDA, we are making sure that they get it."

The Obama administration in 2014 launched a program to address declining bee populations — but Trump has been working to reverse those directives. Trump's Environmental Protection Agency lifted restrictions on a toxic insecticide known to be particularly lethal to bees on some 16 million acres in the U.S.

The USDA statement on cutting the program referred to fiscal restraints, but did not detail budget shortfalls nor did it reveal the cost of the program. The USDA is currently arranging to pay farmers an extra $27 billion in subsidies since 2018 to mitigate the effects of Trump's trade war.

"The decision to suspend data collection was not made lightly but was necessary given available fiscal and program resources," said a department statement.

Another annual survey is conducted by the Bee Informed Partnership, which relies on some funding from the USDA. But the USDA survey is considered to be more accurate because it has access to data from all registered beekeepers.

Two other USDA surveys — which tracked how farmers pay for honeybees to pollinate their crops and information on honey production — have also been cut back in the Trump administration, CNN reported.

California earthquake: Why are the BEES dying in DEATH VALLEY after 7.1 magnitude quake?

QuoteThe unexpected mass casualties of the 7.1 magnitude earthquake in California have been revealed as bees, according to one social media influencer who discovered them. Experts believe the huge quake somehow disrupted the Earth's magnetic fields which the bees rely on for navigation leading to mass confusion, effective paralysis and death. YouTube sensation Khalil Underwood uploaded footage of thousands of dead bees lining his driveway outside his Californian home following the USA quake. Last Friday night's mammoth tremor rocked the Mojave Desert near the town of Ridgecrest south of Death Valley National Park, causing widespread fires and gas line ruptures.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1150383/california-earthquake-7-1-magnitude-dead-bees-video-explained-khalil-underwood (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1150383/california-earthquake-7-1-magnitude-dead-bees-video-explained-khalil-underwood)

OH NO! Now ONLINE PORN causes climate change too!  :o

Online porn 'produces the same amount of carbon emissions as all the households in France'

QuoteA new study brings a whole new meaning to the term 'dirty movie', as online porn has been found to be responsible for 100 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year.
The Shift Project's 'Climate crisis: The unsustainable use of online video' report found that a third of all videos viewed online are porn, and that watching online adult entertainment emits just under 100 million tons of CO2 emissions. The emissions generated in 2018 were of the same "magnitude as that of the residential sector in France," the report found.
Online videos generated 60 percent of the world's data flows in 2018, which doesn't include Skype videos or 'camgirls' live videos, and creates 300 million tons of CO2 emissions a year.
Video streaming services like Netflix account for a third of online videos, and created the same amount of emissions as the entire Chilean economy.
The report warns that emissions will continue to grow along with our increased viewing of online content and suggests limitations are put in place, such as not autoplaying videos and not using the highest possible resolution.

https://www.rt.com/news/464109-porn-co2-emissions-report/ (https://www.rt.com/news/464109-porn-co2-emissions-report/)

We are doomed...Porn isn't going away LOL.

Finnish study finds 'practically no' evidence for man-made climate change

QuoteA new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.
In a paper published late last month, entitled 'No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change', a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.
Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature," the study said, adding that "a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing" in the models.
Adjusting for the cloud coverage factor and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers found that mankind is simply not having much of an effect on the Earth's temperature.

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/ (https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/)

Bring on the porn LMAO!!!  ;D

Quote from: Ellirium113 on July 13, 2019, 07:59:33 PM
Online porn 'produces the same amount of carbon emissions as all the households in France'

I always thought that those "produces XXX amount of carbon emissions" statements are just stupid, as they do not know the source of the electricity used.

Here in Portugal, in March 2018, the production of electricity from renewable sources (mostly wind and water) was higher than the country's needs, and on average we produce more than 50% from renewable sources.

Many countries have high percentages of renewable sources powering their national grids, some reaching 100%, so I suppose some countries can keep on watching online porn without worrying about the climate. ;)

Ellirium113, What the hell is a 'social media influencer' ?....is that suppose to be a scientist or someone who spends all day on Facebook?....

::) :o ;)

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 13, 2019, 10:18:20 PM
Ellirium113, What the hell is a 'social media influencer' ?....is that suppose to be a scientist or someone who spends all day on Facebook?....

::) :o ;)

Your not going to like the answer... LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgheGP_RZGQ

Quote from: Ellirium113 on July 13, 2019, 10:45:01 PM
Your not going to like the answer... LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgheGP_RZGQ

    Well! Don't buy anything without double checking that safety seal!  Wow, what a bunch of sick depraved jerks. 

Yeah bud, I knew the answer.  ::)

we really are doomed ..stupid is winning

well hell i knew humans have been dumbed down but sooooo many of them...? ! ? !

these folks can only acquire followers as f**kin stupid as they are

and when i headed this thread self extinction  i was going in what i thought was an intellegent direction  :o   :-[   :P

bwhahahahaha

i've had enough   i'm taking my beer and cheez-its to the garden and let the mosquitoes drain my blood
good bye cruel world

Self extinction is coming on ALL FRONTS.

Quotewell hell i knew humans have been dumbed down but sooooo many of them...? ! ? !

these folks can only acquire followers as f**kin stupid as they are

and when i headed this thread self extinction  i was going in what i thought was an intellegent direction     

i didn't know we had an earth overshoot day..but the info makes sense...maybe it answers " a question for all "

QuoteI see all this as being a distraction to keep our attention drawn away from some other issue, but what?

who has to do anything to us..we're doing it to ourselves.....sigh

Quote
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/earth-overshoot-day-natural-resources-july_n_5d39a020e4b004b6adbbd643?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaHVmZnBvc3QuY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHZWDq0t1riP93ypPKkLorw2Q5viLdod-enff5avY8IO02U2Bd82oBQk5cvO4m8kJueaK2y8x3cflkkYkxn7vP_Tz-GTC1pYNU8GWQjQx9Qsp88WtsfWLX5s3bdrIx8YwYFxw9QqAhB9T_J6Z_mnz_LiRpiVrOtHcsChy_j-Q2Q4


IMPACT 07/29/2019 05:45 am ET Updated 3 hours ago
Earth Overshoot Day Shows We're Tearing Through Resources Faster Than Ever
July 29 marks the point at which we start to consume more than the Earth can replenish. And this date is getting earlier each year.
headshot
By Laura Paddison


vid at link

On July 29, we cross an alarming threshold. This date marks Earth Overshoot Day, the point each year at which humanity starts to consume the world's natural resources faster than they can be replenished.

It's taken us only 209 days to burn through a year's worth of resources — everything from food and timber to land and carbon. We are using up nature 1.75 times faster than it can be replenished. To do this sustainably, we would need the resources of 1.75 Earths.

These latest figures come from Global Footprint Network, an international nonprofit that calculates our annual ecological budget and the date at which we exceed it. Once we bust through this budget, we start devouring resources at an unsustainable rate.

"It's a pyramid scheme," said Mathis Wackernagel, CEO and founder of Global Footprint Network. "It depends on using more and more from the future to pay for the present."

It's like being in financial debt, only much harder to recover. "There's nothing to kickstart the economy if we overuse our resources," he said, "because every economic activity depends on natural capital, and without that, it's not going to work."

The burden of this ecological debt is getting heavier. We started overconsuming resources back in the 1970s, and since then it's gotten progressively worse. Over the last 20 years, Earth Overshoot Day has crept forward by more than two months. And this year, it falls on the earliest date yet.

(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5d3aa1702600005000045843.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)

GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK
"It's a pyramid scheme," Mathis Wackernagel, founder of Global Footprint Network, said of humans' overconsumption of Earth's resources. "It depends on using more and more from the future to pay for the present."
Forests are being felled at an alarming rate to provide timber and clear land for agriculture — two football fields' worth of Amazon rainforest were cleared every minute in May. We are overexploiting water resources for industry and agriculture, and to provide drinking water for ever-expanding cities. And our addiction to fossil fuels means we are producing carbon emissions at levels that will push us further into dangerous temperature rises.



As with financial debt, we can only avoid the consequences for so long. The impact is already becoming frighteningly clear. Wildfires are becoming more frequent and more destructive. Cities around the world, from Cape Town to Chennai, are running out of water supplies, and a landmark U.N. biodiversity report published in May said up to 1 million species could go extinct thanks to human actions.

While the consequences are likely to affect poorer nations more starkly, it's the populations of richer nations that live further beyond their means, according to the Global Footprint Network. If everyone lived like people in the United States, for example, we would need five Earths. If we all consumed resources at the same rate as people in India, we would only need seven-tenths of a planet to meet our demands.

(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5d3aa0fd2400009d1793699a.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)

It's an untenable situation, and one that will not continue indefinitely, Wackernagel said. Whether it stops through disaster or by design is up to us.

Wackernagel blames the current inaction on the failure of politicians and economists to understand that the economy depends on, and is inextricably linked to, natural resources. Instead, the tendency is to treat environmental considerations as secondary, rather than fundamental to the economy's ability to survive. But the costs of ignoring them will be huge, he said.

"So as long as, for example in the United States, the Trump government doesn't think climate action is a great investment for the United States, they will do anything they can to avoid the topic," he said.

Global Footprint Network has launched a campaign to end Earth Overshoot Day for good, aiming to conserve enough resources to move the date later by five days each year — so that by 2050, we can live within the resources of one Earth.

vid with this

Christiana Figueres
✔
@CFigueres
This year's Earth Overshoot Day will be July 29th. We can #MoveTheDate – 5 days a year, so that humanity will be using less than one planet before 2050.  This is our mission to @EndOvershoot.

The organization has identified several areas in which we can reduce consumption: more efficient and low-carbon city design; moving away from fossil fuels, which make up the biggest share of our overall footprint; fixing the broken food system; and protecting nature through regenerative agriculture and large-scale conservation.

Overpopulation is also a key pressure point, Wackernagel said, adding that one of the best solutions is to provide women and girls with the same educational and economic opportunities offered to men.

"It's not about sacrifice," Wackernagel said. "It's all about investing in a future where our next generation, our children, can thrive. There are tons of solutions possible with very high impact. Again, the question is, do we want them?"

For more content and to be part of the "This New World" community, follow our Facebook page.

HuffPost's "This New World" series is funded by Partners for a New Economy and the Kendeda Fund. All content is editorially independent, with no influence or input from the foundations. If you have an idea or tip for the editorial series, send an email to thisnewworld@huffpost.com.

RELATED COVERAGE

QuoteIt's taken us only 209 days to burn through a year's worth of resources — everything from food and timber to land and carbon. We are using up nature 1.75 times faster than it can be replenished. To do this sustainably, we would need the resources of 1.75 Earths.

I find this to be nothing more than doom porn. I would agree that perhaps SOME resources are depleting faster...but I don't feel it is a matter of over consumption but a matter of poor utilization of available resources. There are empty cities in China, stores throwing out stock that won't sell, companies hoarding products to drive up the price.
There is no shortage of timber, there is no shortage of carbon, there is no shortage of oil, gas, gold, steel etc. Any existing shortages might be a matter of economic hardship vs. the resource not being there. For example the company I work for is a mine. They have vast resources and hardly developed a majority of their ore deposits into mines as they are waiting for when it becomes economically feasible. Many items can already be synthesized or have alternative products so while the report might suggest the sky is falling I am not holding my breath for it to hit me on the head anytime soon. 

Ellirium

i like the way you think and i also agree that almost everything i have posted lately could be labeled doom porn (no you didn't say that.. but i have recognized it more than once..no one said anything though.. sigh)

thanks for your opinion.. you have made me surrender

i used to be  mostly positive and believe that we humans would figure it out...obviously we are in no hurry..

BUT

i have had to limit reading on line and news feds..but then i read this stuff and want to see what anyone else has to say - so i post it .. but everyone is quiet
or totally not interested..

so thanks for stating how you feel.. you've made my day

i'll try more to be pollyanna again

:-*