28 May 2017, The Guardian, Australia will still support Paris climate deal if Trump pulls out, Frydenberg says. The Turnbull government will support the Paris agreement on climate change regardless of whether or not the US president, Donald Trump, pulls out, the environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, has signalled. Trump upset world leaders on the weekend by refusing, at the conclusion of the G7 summit in Italy, to declare his support for the UN’s landmark treaty signed in Paris in 2015. Despite two days of urging from leaders from Europe, Canada and Japan to pledge his support for the agreement, Trump tweeted on Saturday: “I will make my final decision on the Paris accord next week!” His position left his counterparts frustrated, with some warning if the US pulled out of the Paris agreement other countries may want to reduce their commitments too. But when asked about Australia’s commitment in the wake of Trump’s tweet, Frydenberg told Guardian Australia the Turnbull government takes its emissions targets seriously “and we’re going on and trying to meet them”. “Issues about domestic climate change policy in the United States is a matter for the Trump administration,” Frydenberg said. He also pointed to a quote from Malcolm Turnbull from November last year, when Turnbull was asked if Australia would remain in the Paris agreement if then president-elect Trump followed through on his threat to cancel the emissions reductions commitments made by Barack Obama in December 2015. Turnbull had said: “When Australia makes a commitment to a global agreement, we follow through and that is exactly what we are doing.” Turnbull also described the Paris agreement as “a watershed and a turning point” that would deliver international action on climate change. “My government is committed to [the Paris agreement]. We have ratified it,” he had said. Read More here
hmcadmin
28 May 2017, Climate News Network, Antarctica heights settle polar warming puzzle. Computer simulation shows that Antarctica is warming far slower than the Arctic region because of its much greater height. Scientists believe they have settled one of the great polar puzzles − why Antarctica is warming at a rate so much slower than the Arctic region. And the answer is a simple one: Antarctica is so much higher. To ram the point home, they used a computer simulation to hammer the entire southern continent until it was no more than a metre above sea level. At which point, in their simulation, warming at the South Pole became much more dramatic. The two poles are very different: the Arctic is an ocean almost entirely surrounded by land, while Antarctica is a vast continent entirely surrounded by frozen ocean. Landmass of ice As the north polar ocean ice melts, dark seas begin to absorb more radiation. In the southern hemisphere, the landmass of ice reflects radiation back into space to insulate the continent and keep its temperatures far below freezing. But the new study published in Earth System Dynamics journal shows that what makes the biggest difference is the elevation of the surface. Antarctica is not just an enormous continent: thanks to many millions of years of snowfall at very low temperatures, it is banked high with ancient ice. Its average elevation is 2,500 metres − far higher than the highest peaks in the UK, for example − and its highest mountain, Mount Vinson, reaches 4,892 metres, which is higher than any alpine peak in Europe. Evidence from the distant past and climate models both show that, in a warming world, the poles should warm faster than the rest of the planet. But while the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe, change in Antarctica has been much more sluggish. Read More here
27 May 2017, Climate News Network, Climate change is turning Antarctic green.Plant life is flourishing on the Antarctic Peninsula, indicating a dramatic increase in the rate of warming due to climate change. Antarctica is getting greener. British biologists have documented a four-fold or even five-fold increase in plant growth on the Antarctic Peninsula. They identify the sudden burgeoning of green things as an indicator that the continent is responding to climate change. In fact, only a tiny fraction of the south polar land mass is home to any plant life, but the first explorers observed mosses growing on the 600km of the peninsula.Antarctic climate In a climate in which temperatures rarely go much higher than freezing, mosses grow slowly – and hardly ever decompose. So any mossy bank becomes a reliable record of shifts in climate dating back thousands of years. Researchers from the University of Exeter in the UK, and colleagues from the University of Cambridge and the British Antarctic Survey, report in Current Biology that they tested five ice cores from three sites and found major biological changes had occurred over the past 50 years right across the Antarctic Peninsula. “Temperature increases over roughly the past half-century on the Antarctic Peninsula have had a dramatic effect on moss banks growing in the region” The Arctic has entered a phase of dramatic warming: researchers have documented the advance of green growth across the tundra and even the advance of exotic infections in the animal population. Warming in the southern continent has been much more sluggish, but, even in the frozen interior, melting has been observed. And where there is sunlight and liquid water and bare rock, there are the conditions for green growth. Read More here
24 May 2017, DeSmogUK, Op-Ed: Glacial Progress at Bonn Climate Talks Shows Why we Need to Exclude Big Polluters From Negotiations. When it comes to the fossil fuel industry participating in UN climate negotiations, it’s clear there is a conflict of interest – and demands for this to end are nothing new. But after fierce resistance to this idea during talks in Bonn last week from the EU, US and Australia, more needs to be done, argues Pascoe Sabido of Corporate Europe Observatory. With just six months to go before November’s COP23 climate negotiations, calls for big polluters to be excluded from the talks are growing. Last May at the same ‘intersessional’ climate talks in Bonn, a group of countries representing more than 70 percent of the world’s population insisted on adding a conflict of interest provision in the negotiating text. It almost made it, were it not for an underhand move by the European Union and the USA which saw it removed. Pulling the strings behind such moves: the world’s largest fossil fuel companies. Taken to its logical conclusion, addressing conflicts of interest would mean kicking out the same corporations whose profits are built on causing climate change. Research shows that at least 80 per cent of known fossil fuel reserves need to be kept in the ground to keep global warming below 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees. But a look at BP and Shell’s future energy projections allege that we can continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely. Ending fossil fuels would put them out of business. This is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet getting it even discussed – let alone addressed – has been an uphill struggle. However, persistence of those countries at the frontline of climate change – particularly Ecuador, which is seeing increasing water shortages and crop failures – as well as increasing public outrage and civil society’s call on the UN to ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ of climate policy, has ensured the issue has remained on the agenda. This year’s two-week intersessional talks in Bonn saw an official workshop on the topic organised by the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Read More here