Feed aggregator

Vast quantities of climate and environmental information have been removed from official websites in the past months. Scientists are trying keep it available.

Amid dizzying changes caused by a warming climate and global attention, Greenlanders don’t want to have to choose between embracing the future and honoring their heritage.

Unesco report highlights ‘unprecedented’ glacier loss driven by climate crisis, threatening ecosystems, agriculture and water sources

Retreating glaciers threaten the food and water supply of 2 billion people around the world, the UN has warned, as current “unprecedented” rates of melting will have unpredictable consequences.

Two-thirds of all irrigated agriculture in the world is likely to be affected in some way by receding glaciers and dwindling snowfall in mountain regions, driven by the climate crisis, according to a Unesco report.

Continue reading...

A Times reporter co-wrote a guide to buying a home in an era of record heat, floods and billion-dollar disasters.

The ancient Mediterranean city is at risk as sea levels rise. But most people in the vulnerable fishing village of El Max believe it will always weather the storms of time

On a sunny January morning in El Max, west of Egypt’s second city, Alexandria, where a canal meets the Mediterranean Sea, Ahmed Gaz is untangling his fishing net on the beach after landing his catch at dawn.

Like almost everyone in the neighbourhood, Gaz was born and raised by the water, destined to fish for a living: “My whole life is in the sea. My life, my work and my livelihood.”

Continue reading...

The run-up to 2016 shows ‘common sense’ isn’t enough. Even ignorant, reactionary arguments must be properly countered

Kemi Badenoch’s speech on climate this week was not interesting of itself: she said net zero couldn’t be achieved by 2050 “without a serious drop in our living standards or by bankrupting us”. She has no expertise in climate science, no background in renewables or apparent familiarity with the advances made in their technology, no qualification in economics – just about the only bit of that sentence she knows anything about is bankrupting us.

Yet even if Badenoch can take its particulars and shove them, the fact of its existence is interesting for a number of reasons. First, this attack on net zero has been predicted, not secretly by new-Conservative fellow travellers, though conceivably them too, but by progressives – and for years. Among the first was the Cambridge academic David Runciman, who predicted a backlash against action on the climate crisis as the new galvanising issue on the radical right after it had moved on from Brexit. On his Talking Politics podcast, he was in conversation with Ed Miliband, who took that point but said he hoped Runciman was wrong. He was not wrong.

Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist

Continue reading...

As birds begin long journey north, climate-driven seasonal changes may leave late arrivals struggling to find food for young

Thursday is the spring equinox, when day and night are more or less equal all over the world. For naturalists, it marks the official start of spring, though judging by the birdsong in my Somerset garden, the season began several weeks ago.

As we eagerly await the return of swifts, swallows, warblers and flycatchers – all long-distance migrants from sub-Saharan Africa – we should reflect on how shifts in the world’s climate are causing them problems.

Continue reading...

The environmental group had said the lawsuit, over its role in a protest movement, could mean an end to its operations in the United States.

Non-profit, which will appeal decision, says lawsuits like this are aimed at ‘destroying the right to peaceful protest’

A jury in North Dakota has decided that the environmental group Greenpeace must pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the pipeline company Energy Transfer and is liable for defamation and other claims over protests in the state nearly a decade ago.

Energy Transfer Partners, a Dallas-based oil and gas company worth almost $70bn, had sued Greenpeace, alleging defamation and orchestrating criminal behavior by protesters at the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017, claiming the organization “incited” people to protest by using a “misinformation campaign”.

Continue reading...

Climate models are the main tool climate scientists use to predict how Earth will respond to more heat-trapping pollutants in the atmosphere.

But what exactly is a climate model? Let’s start off easy by breaking down the phrase “climate model.” The “climate” is simply the weather averaged over a long period of time. A “model” in this case is a physical approximation of a complex system. So a climate model is an approximation of the Earth’s weather over a long period of time.

Since their debut in the 1960s, scientists have been improving and increasing the complexity of climate models (check out my History of Climate Models blog), and my colleagues and I at UCS continue to use them today. 

General circulation models 

When climate scientists reference a climate model, they are generally referring to a general circulation model (GCM), which is the main tool climate scientists use to simulate and understand how the Earth’s oceans, land, atmosphere, and cryosphere (a word to describe the planet’s sea and land ice) respond to changes in both its own internal dynamics as well as changes in heat-trapping pollutants.  

Just by looking at the name, you can see that a GCM is a model that simulates the circulation of Earth’s different physical systems like the atmosphere and ocean. What causes a circulation? In my blog on the potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which is the conveyor belt of water moving in the Atlantic Ocean, I discussed how regions around the equator are warmer than the poles due to different amounts of incoming solar radiation, that is, energy from the sun.

The Earth’s climate system doesn’t like imbalances in heat given the difference in density: Earth will do everything in its power to mix the cold poles and the hot tropics. The Earth’s atmosphere and oceans create circulations in order to mix temperature differences between regions; GCMs, or climate models, simulate these circulations quite well. 

The AMOC is an oceanic circulation that transports warm, fresh water from the Equator to the North Atlantic and cold, salty water from the North Atlantic to the Equatorial region. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/amoc.html. 

How exactly do GCMs simulate circulations? In order to model the climate system, a GCM uses a set of equations that explains how energy, momentum (e.g., moving air), and water interact and change within the atmosphere and oceans. GCMs simulate the Earth as a giant three-dimensional grid and calculate how different variables (e.g., temperature, rainfall, etc.) change at each grid point. The models further simulate how heat and other climate variables travel to and influence values in other grid points. 

A climate model splits the Earth into a three-dimensional grid, with calculations of momentum, heat, and water changes at each grid point. https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html A climate model is made up of many models 

In my blog on the history of climate models, I discussed how the first climate model back in the mid 20th century was actually just a single model of the atmosphere, which is just one part of the climate system. We know that there are other components of Earth’s climate besides the atmosphere, for example, the ocean, the land, and ice. Today’s climate models are so complex because they are made up of all of these components: atmosphere, land, ocean, and ice. We also have scientists who specialize in each component, allowing for further complexity and improvement in prediction of the Earth’s climate system. Today, a climate model is made up of smaller, component models of the atmosphere, ocean, land, and cryosphere.

How exactly do all these different components of Earth’s climate system communicate with each other while a climate simulation is running? Through something called a coupler, which connects the different model components so that data can easily flow between the different sub-models. 

Modern-day climate models incorporate multiple subcomponents that are integrated by means of a coupler. 

Why do we need so many different models? Each model simulates something specific in its respective system. An ocean model calculates ocean circulation (like the AMOC) as well as ocean biogeochemistry, which is the science of how different molecules, such as carbon or nitrogen, cycle through the ocean. A land model will simulate:  

• vegetation  

• snow cover  

• soil moisture  

• evapotranspiration (process by which water moves from the land surface or vegetation to the atmosphere)  

• river flow

• and carbon storage 

A sea-ice model will calculate  

• reflection of incoming sunlight  

• air-sea heat exchange

• and moisture interaction between ice and water  

An atmospheric model calculates changes in  

• atmospheric circulation  

• radiation  

• clouds  

• and aerosols  

All of the different processes each climate sub-model will calculate. https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsearth-system-and-climate-models.  Model parameterizations 

You might be thinking, how could we possibly simulate clouds if they’re created from many tiny water droplets and ice crystals? If we were to simulate a cloud and all of its tiny droplets, our three-dimensional grid would have to be extremely detailed. Unfortunately, we don’t have the computer power to perform these kinds of detailed calculations (we also don’t fully understand the dazzling complexity of all the physics involved), so scientists developed something called a parameterization. A parameterization can be thought of as a model within a model.

Let’s say there’s a cloud in the eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean near the Galápagos Islands. This cloud exists under certain atmospheric conditions (temperature, moisture, wind) that support its existence.  

If we were to simulate this cloud in a GCM, these atmospheric conditions would first be reported to the cloud parameterization scheme from the main atmospheric model. The parameterization then calculates certain properties of the cloud, like how much sunlight the cloud reflects or how much cloud coverage there is in the cloud’s surroundings. The parameterization then reports back its findings to the main atmospheric model, which allows for continuous communication between the main atmospheric model and the parameterization to follow the cloud through its lifecycle. 

Many small-scale processes are parameterized in GCMs. Beyond clouds, air quality and turbulence are also parameterized. Turbulence is just the word for abrupt, small-scale changes in wind (think of being in a plane and suddenly experiencing a bump, or playing frisbee in a park and the frisbee changes direction or elevation as it suddenly experiences a gust of wind).

What are climate models used for?

The obvious use for climate models is to predict how the Earth’s climate may change given a “forcing” applied to Earth’s atmosphere. A forcing is typically a change in the composition of Earth’s gases in the atmosphere or a change in incoming solar radiation that leads to a radiative imbalance.  

What do I mean by this? A key feature of the Earth’s climate system is that it is always trying to maintain equilibrium—that is, the energy coming into the planet must always equal the energy leaving the planet. Why? Because the whole of the Earth’s climate system is subject to the laws of thermodynamics: energy in = energy out. But if the composition of gases in the atmosphere changes, then this can affect the energy balance.

When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, an energy imbalance is established, and the only way to reach energy equilibrium again is for the planet to warm up. This is why the Earth is warming in response to added CO2 in the atmosphere. 

In the 1960s, it started to become clear, with the help of climate models and theory, that fossil fuel use would warm the planet. The National Academy of Sciences released The Charney Report in 1979, which used climate models to predict, and warn the U.S. government, that the planet would warm due to fossil fuel emissions (though the U.S. government was warned about global warming as early as 1965). The authors estimated that the world would warm 3°C (5.4°F) given a doubling of atmospheric CO2 based on their climate model simulations in the 1970s. 

But this is just one example. You could use a climate model to ask any question that would affect the climate system: “What would happen if the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted?” “What if the sun disappeared for five days?” “What if all atmospheric nitrogen was removed?” You can also construct a climate model with any arrangement of continents—for example, a climate model to represent Pangea Earth or a “Waterworld” planet with no continents at all. Some scientists even built a climate model to simulate the climate of Westeros from the Game of Thrones TV show.

Today, climate models are so complex that we can study how climate may be changing on a more regional level. In my research, I’ve run climate models to study how drought in the U.S. Northeast is changing with climate change, how the Earth may start to rapidly warm in the near-future given a change in oceanic warming, and how precipitation patterns might shift in the Southwestern U.S.   

Climate models will continue to become more complex and more accurate 

GCMs are complex, made up of multiple sub-models, and have a few parameterizations. They have been improved on for decades and are the combined work of climate scientists, physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists. They’re also incredibly accurate—model simulations run in the 1990s predicted how much the Earth would warm by 2025, which matches our current observations. 

In the future, climate models will become even more complex, perhaps resolving small-scale features, like clouds, rather than parameterizing them. We need these improved climate models to better predict and reduce uncertainty of regional climate change. The more scientists can equip society and decision makers with the best available climate science, the more we can sufficiently respond, adapt, and prepare for the changes underway.

Tariffs, tax credits and deregulation are among the industry’s top priorities.

Deciding where to live has always been a high-stakes financial decision, but a changing climate makes it even more critical. This guide will get you started.

Moves to roll back 31 pollution regulations risk public health and big annual healthcare savings, Guardian analysis shows

A push by Donald Trump’s administration to repeal a barrage of clean air and water regulations may deal a severe blow to US public health, with a Guardian analysis finding that the targeted rules were set to save the lives of nearly 200,000 people in the years ahead.

Last week, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provoked uproar by unveiling a list of 31 regulations it will scale back or eliminate, including rules limiting harmful air pollution from cars and power plants; restrictions on the emission of mercury, a neurotoxin; and clean water protections for rivers and streams.

Continue reading...

Here are some tips on how to defend your home against floodwaters, dangerous winds and wildfires.

The potential layoffs listed in documents reviewed by Democrats are part of the White House'’s broader push to shrink the federal government

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to eliminate its scientific research office and could fire more than 1,000 scientists and other employees who help provide the scientific foundation for rules safeguarding human health and ecosystems from environmental pollutants.

As many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists – 75% of the research programme’s staff – could be laid off, according to documents reviewed by Democratic staff on the house committee on science, space and technology.

Continue reading...

A report from the World Meteorological Organization confirms that 2024 was the hottest year on record and the first year to be more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial era.

Floods, heatwaves and supercharged hurricanes occurred in hottest climate human society has ever experienced

The devastating impacts of the climate crisis reached new heights in 2024, with scores of unprecedented heatwaves, floods and storms across the globe, according to the UN’s World Meteorological Organization.

The WMO’s report on 2024, the hottest year on record, sets out a trail of destruction from extreme weather that took lives, demolished buildings and ravaged vital crops. More than 800,000 people were displaced and made homeless, the highest yearly number since records began in 2008.

Continue reading...

The Orbital and Morningside authors join Abi Daré, Roz Dineen and Kaliane Bradley in the running for the £10,000 award, for inspiring ways to ‘rise to the challenges of the climate crisis with hope and inventiveness’

Samantha Harvey and Téa Obreht are among the writers in the running for the inaugural Climate fiction prize.

Harvey’s Orbital, her Booker-winning novel set on the International Space Station, and Obreht’s novel The Morningside, about refugees from an unnamed country, have both been shortlisted for the new prize, which aims to “celebrate the most inspiring novels tackling the climate crisis”.

Continue reading...

Representative Andrew Garbarino of New York is at the center of a Republican push to save a key part of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s climate agenda.

The fossil fuel industry’s role in driving climate change is undeniable, yet corporate accountability remains a contested space. As the scientific evidence strengthens, courts around the world are increasingly considering the role of major fossil fuel companies in climate-related damages. Our latest research—published today in Environmental Research Letters—adds a critical piece to this legal and scientific puzzle by quantifying how emissions from the world’s largest fossil fuel and cement producers have directly contributed to sea level rise, both historically and in the centuries to come. 

Advancing Climate Attribution Science 

Attribution science has evolved to the point where we can now link certain climate impacts to emissions from identifiable entities, including corporations. Our study applies the well-established MAGICC7 climate model to trace heat-trapping emissions from the 122 largest fossil fuel and cement producers—the Carbon Majors—and assess their contributions to present-day and future global mean sea level rise. 

Our findings are stark: emissions traced to these industrial actors are responsible for 37-58% of the observed global surface temperature increase and 24-37% of historical sea level rise. Moreover, our research projects that these past emissions alone have all but guaranteed an additional 10 to 22 inches (0.26-0.55 meters) of sea level rise by 2300 —even if all emissions were to stop today. Importantly, this projected rise is in addition to the sea level rise driven by emissions from all other sources. This long-term impact reflects the delayed response of ocean temperatures and ice sheet dynamics to past greenhouse gas emissions. 

These results demonstrate that the damages we are experiencing today, and those that will continue to unfold for centuries, are directly tied to the actions of a small number of corporate actors whose products and deceptive conduct have been driving climate change. 

Why This Matters for Climate Litigation 

Climate litigation has become a powerful tool for holding corporations accountable for their role in fueling climate change. Cases such as Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell , Saúl Luciano Lliuya vs. RWE, and Delaware v. BP et al. are among those seeking to hold fossil fuel companies legally accountable for their contributions to climate change.  

Our study provides quantitative, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that may help inform litigation strategies in several ways: 

• Strengthening Causation Arguments: Courts require clear scientific evidence linking defendants’ actions to damages. Our research quantifies the specific share of global temperature rise and sea level rise that can be attributed to emissions from major fossil fuel producers, reinforcing claims of causation. 

• Informing Liability and Damages Assessments: The long-term costs of sea level rise, ranging from infrastructure damage to displacement, are expected to reach trillions of dollars. By establishing a direct link between historical emissions and projected sea level rise, our findings contribute to discussions on liability and potential financial responsibility. 

• Countering Industry Defenses: Fossil fuel companies often argue that climate change is the result of collective emissions rather than the responsibility of any particular entity. Our study results directly challenge this premise by demonstrating that a share of sea level rise can be attributed to the products traced to a limited number of companies. 

• Emphasizing the Urgency of Action: Delayed emissions reductions all but guarantee future damages. Our study highlights that earlier mitigation efforts could have significantly reduced today’s impacts—and further delays will only increase the severity of future sea level rise and its consequences. The longer action is delayed, the greater the avoidable consequences for coastal communities worldwide. 

The Role of Science in Accountability and Justice 

Scientific research has played a role in informing policy and its importance in litigation is growing. Our study builds on past attribution work that has already been cited in legal arguments worldwide. This growing body of evidence works hand in hand with research showing that fossil fuel companies have long understood the climate consequences of their extraction, production, promotion, and sale of oil, gas, and coal.  

Rather than taking responsibility, they have actively misled the public about the dangersand the harms we are now experiencing. The consequences of their actions are no longer speculative; they are quantifiable, they are unfolding before our eyes, and they are disproportionately affecting people and communities with the least capacity to withstand devastating climate impacts. 

Looking Ahead 

As legal battles over climate accountability continue, science will remain a cornerstone of these efforts. Our study contributes to the broader understanding of how industrial emissions have shaped global climate impacts and provides courts with data to inform their deliberations. 

While litigation alone won’t solve the climate crisis, it is one piece of the broader landscape of climate governance. Establishing clear scientific links between emissions and damages is a critical step in ensuring that those responsible are held accountable and that decision-makers have the evidence needed to act. 

The scientific reality is clear: emissions traced to major fossil fuel producers have played a significant role in driving present-day sea level rise, and the long-term consequences of these emissions will continue to shape our world for centuries to come.