At least EXXON knew big Global Warming, and melted ice of Antarctica, Arctic Sea! Badman Nishioka/rainforest action group/Osaka
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/ wrote on 2015.

Back in 1990, as the debate over climate change was heating up, a dissident shareholder petitioned the board of Exxon, one of the world’s largest oil companies, imploring it to develop a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its production plants and facilities.

The board’s response: Exxon had studied the science of global warming and concluded it was too murky to warrant action. The company’s “examination of the issue supports the conclusions that the facts today and the projection of future effects are very unclear.”

Yet in the far northern regions of Canada’s Arctic frontier, researchers and engineers at Exxon and Imperial Oil were quietly incorporating climate change projections into the company’s planning and closely studying how to adapt the company’s Arctic operations to a warming planet.　

Links: https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/borders/2016/10/oslo-and-moscow-agree-about-joint-exploration-arctic-borderline　

Anothers,,,,
MAJOR OIL CO'S STRUGGLE TO MAKE MONEY OUT OF FRACKING
Exxon, the nation's largest oil company, said Thursday that it produced 5% less natural gas in the United States during the first three months of 2014 than it did in the same period a year ago. Its domestic production of crude oil and other liquids rose 1.6%.
Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company, reported declining production. On Friday, it said it produced 4% less oil and 3% less natural gas in the United States during 2014's first quarter than it did a year ago.
Only the third-largest U.S. oil company, ConocoPhillips, did slightly better. On Thursday, it reported a U.S. production uptick of 2.4% for crude oil and 1.8% for natural gas in the first three months of 2104, compared with the same period last year.
I2Q Investment Monitor
Exxon and Chevron trailing in U.S. fracking boom

Disclosure: Editor In Chief I2Q Investment Monitor
I am long ExxonMobil (XOM), Chevron (CVX), ConocoPhillips (COP).
Additional disclosure: I own shares in ExxonMobil (XOM), Chevron (CVX), ConocoPhillips (COP) and actively trade my position. I may add or liquidate shares/options at anytime.

The United States is undergoing an energy revolution, but as new reports indicate, its biggest energy companies haven't led the way.

What boom? While the United States enjoys a surge in oil and natural gas production, its two largest oil companies — ExxonMobil and Chevron — have so far missed the party.
Big Oil was slow to jump into the fracking business, which has transformed U.S. energy markets by extracting oil and gas from shale deposits. And its latest quarterly reports show how it's struggling to get on board.
"The big oil companies were late to invest in shale. They're trying to play catch-up," says Brian Youngberg, an analyst at Edward Jones, noting smaller and more nimble companies got into fracking more quickly. He says the multinationals are now investing in new shale developments, but since they're so big, it's difficult for any single project to shift their overall bottom line.

The nation's energy boom is largely due to the combined use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which has made it cheaper to break apart shale rock and extract oil or gas trapped deep underground. Since 2005, U.S. production has risen 35% for natural gas and 44% for crude oil, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The major oil companies, which have invested heavily in mega projects offshore and abroad, report a different story.

Exxon, the nation's largest oil company, said Thursday that it produced 5% less natural gas in the United States during the first three months of 2014 than it did in the same period a year ago. Its domestic production of crude oil and other liquids rose 1.6%.

EXXON knew to rise temperature, increasing Climate Change, they paid many moneys for logging activity! Badman Nishioka/rainforest group/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/exxonmobil-faces-eu-parliaments-ban-after-climate-hearing-no-show shows.

ExxonMobil would become only the second multinational – after Monsanto – to lose access to MEPs, parliamentary meetings and digital resources if it loses a high-level vote expected by the end of April.
The oil giant publicly supports the Paris agreement but has drawn the ire of scientists, academics and environmentalists, who accuse it of peddling climate misinformation.　

The oil giant publicly supports the Paris agreement but has drawn the ire of scientists, academics and environmentalists, who accuse it of peddling climate misinformation.
The ban request is being submitted by the Green MEP Molly Scott Cato. She said: “This is the company that denied the science, despite knowing the damage their oil exploitation was causing; which funded campaigns to block action on climate and now refuses to face up to its environmental crimes by attending today’s hearing. We cannot allow the lobbyists from such corporations free access to the corridors of the European parliament. We must remove their badges immediately.”

Links: https://influencemap.org/report/How-Big-Oil-Continues-to-Oppose-the-Paris-Agreement-38212275958aa21196dae3b76220bddc　　

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/17/meps-to-scrutinise-exxonmobil-alleged-role-in-climate-change-misinformation　

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report

The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly 　$200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to 　
tackle climate change, according to a new report.
Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil were the main companies leading the field
in direct lobbying to push against a climate policy to tackle global
warming, the report said.　

　Separately, BP donated $13m to a campaign, also supported by Chevron, 　that successfully stopped a carbon tax in Washington state – $1m of 　
which was spent on social media ads, the research shows.
Edward Collins, the report’s author, analysed corporate spending on
lobbying, briefing and advertising, and assessed what proportion was
dedicated to climate issues.
He said: “Oil majors’ climate branding sounds increasingly hollow and
their credibility is on the line. They publicly support climate action while
lobbying against binding policy. They advocate low-carbon solution.

After the Paris climate agreement in 2015 the large integrated oil and gas companies said they supported a price on carbon and formed groups like the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative which promote voluntary measures.
But, the report states, there is a glaring gap between their words and their actions.

Before Arctic Sea freezed many areas, most coldest season in March, but 2019 first was few days -50C, after -50C was nothing in this 2019. Barent Sea, Greenland Sea, Bering Sea are nothing ice sheets on this March 23 2019. Continuting bad conditions since 2015. Badman Nishioka/ rainforest action group/HUTAN Group/Osaka　 Now Northern-west Greenland only be -20C, anothers nothing, +10C over of temperature!!!
The Greenland Ice Sheet has an area of 1.7 million square kilometres and in places is 3.2 kilometres thick. The Ice Sheet consists of 2.9 million cubic kilometres of ice, and if all the ice melted, the water level in the oceans would rise by around seven metres.
The Greenland Ice Sheet is the world’s third-largest ice cap. It is beaten only by the two large ice caps on Eastern Antarctica and Western Antarctica.

http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/　

The graph on the right shows the annual variation of the volume of the sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, excluding the Baltic Sea and the Pacific. The volume of the ice is calculated on the basis of the ice thicknesses from the HYCOM-CICE model. In each grid cell the volume is calculated as thickness multiplied with concentration and with area, with contributions from all grid cells to the total volume. The grey band around the climatologic mean value corresponds to plus/minus one standard deviation based on the 10-year average 2004-2013.

Read more about the model the map is based on.　

Links: http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_combine_Sm_EN.png　

http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/understanding-the-arctic-sea-ice/　

http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/more-ice-monitoring-products/

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/weather/Wthr_Anom_NAO_SM_EN.png　

https://youtu.be/vMydM-ffyx8

NASA knew the melted Berring,Barent Sea on first March 2019,and yet freezing on the end of December in 2018. Badman Nishioka/rainforest action group/ Recently some scientists say, "Melted Arctic Sea become ice-free condition by 2060s or,,,,,.

Showing up again Target of 1.5C by IPCC. The IPCC said to continue rising up temperature, why Trump's Government, Russia, Saudi, Kuwait, and Abott', and Abe's Government attack to stop the Global Warming? Datas shows Coral reefs, Ocean become crisis, Waters, foods don't keep for future,,,,,,. Badman Nishioka/rainforest action group/Osaka
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/

A.3. Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C (high confidence). These risks depend on the magnitude and rate of warming, geographic location, levels of development and vulnerability, and on the choices and implementation of adaptation and mitigation options (high confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {1.3, 3.3, 3.4, 5.6}

A.3.1. Impacts on natural and human systems from global warming have already been observed (high confidence). Many land and ocean ecosystems and some of the services they provide have already changed due to global warming (high confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {1.4, 3.4, 3.5}

A.3.2. Future climate-related risks depend on the rate, peak and duration of warming. In the aggregate, they are larger if global warming exceeds 1.5°C before returning to that level by 2100 than if global warming gradually stabilizes at 1.5°C, especially if the peak temperature is high (e.g., about 2°C) (high confidence). Some impacts may be long-lasting or irreversible, such as the loss of some ecosystems (high confidence). {3.2, 3.4.4, 3.6.3, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}

A.3.3. Adaptation and mitigation are already occurring (high confidence). Future climate-related risks would be reduced by the upscaling and acceleration of far-reaching, multilevel and cross-sectoral climate mitigation and by both incremental and transformational adaptation (high confidence). {1.2, 1.3, Table 3.5, 4.2.2, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4, Box 4.2, Box 4.3, Box 4.6, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.4.1, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.5.3}　

B.1.2. Temperature extremes on land are projected to warm more than GMST (high confidence): extreme hot days in mid-latitudes warm by up to about 3°C at global warming of 1.5°C and about 4°C at 2°C, and extreme cold nights in high latitudes warm by up to about 4.5°C at 1.5°C and about 6°C at 2°C (high confidence). The number of hot days is projected to increase in most land regions, with highest increases in the tropics (high confidence). {3.3.1, 3.3.2, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}

B.1.3. Risks from droughts and precipitation deficits are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in some regions (medium confidence). Risks from heavy precipitation events are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in several northern hemisphere high-latitude and/or high-elevation regions, eastern Asia and eastern North America (medium confidence). Heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones is projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming (medium confidence). There is generally low confidence in projected changes in heavy precipitation at 2°C compared to 1.5°C in other regions. Heavy precipitation when aggregated at global scale is projected to be higher at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). As a consequence of heavy precipitation, the fraction of the global land area affected by flood hazards is projected to be larger at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). {3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6}

B.2. By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depend on future emission pathways. A slower rate of sea level rise enables greater opportunities for adaptation in the human and ecological systems of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas (medium confidence). {3.3, 3.4, 3.6}

B.2.1. Model-based projections of global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986–2005) suggest an indicative range of 0.26 to 0.77 m by 2100 for 1.5°C of global warming, 0.1 m (0.04–0.16 m) less than for a global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). A reduction of 0.1 m in global sea level rise implies that up to 10 million fewer people would be exposed to related risks, based on population in the year 2010 and assuming no adaptation (medium confidence). {3.4.4, 3.4.5, 4.3.2}

B.2.2. Sea level rise will continue beyond 2100 even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C in the 21st century (high confidence). Marine ice sheet instability in Antarctica and/or irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet could result in multi-metre rise in sea level over hundreds to thousands of years. These instabilities could be triggered at around 1.5°C to 2°C of global warming (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {3.3.9, 3.4.5, 3.5.2, 3.6.3, Box 3.3}

B.2.3. Increasing warming amplifies the exposure of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas to the risks associated with sea level rise for many human and ecological systems, including increased saltwater intrusion, flooding and damage to infrastructure (high confidence). Risks associated with sea level rise are higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C. The slower rate of sea level rise at global warming of 1.5°C reduces these risks, enabling greater opportunities for adaptation including managing and restoring natural coastal ecosystems and infrastructure reinforcement (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {3.4.5, Box 3.5}

B.3. On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems and to retain more of their services to humans (high confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {3.4, 3.5, Box 3.4, Box 4.2, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}

B.3.1. Of 105,000 species studied, 6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are projected to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1°C, compared with 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates for global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). Impacts associated with other biodiversity-related risks such as forest fires and the spread of invasive species are lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C of global warming (high confidence). {3.4.3, 3.5.2}

B.3.2. Approximately 4% (interquartile range 2–7%) of the global terrestrial land area is projected to undergo a transformation of ecosystems from one type to another at 1°C of global warming, compared with 13% (interquartile range 8–20%) at 2°C (medium confidence). This indicates that the area at risk is projected to be approximately 50% lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). {3.4.3.1, 3.4.3.5}

B.3.3. High-latitude tundra and boreal forests are particularly at risk of climate change-induced degradation and loss, with woody shrubs already encroaching into the tundra (high confidence) and this will proceed with further warming. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C is projected to prevent the thawing over centuries of a permafrost area in the range of 1.5 to 2.5 million km2 (medium confidence). {3.3.2, 3.4.3, 3.5.5}

B.4. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2ºC is projected to reduce increases in ocean temperature as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels (high confidence). Consequently, limiting global warming to 1.5°C is projected to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries, and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans, as illustrated by recent changes to Arctic sea ice and warm-water coral reef ecosystems (high confidence). {3.3, 3.4, 3.5, Box 3.4, Box 3.5}

B.4.1. There is high confidence that the probability of a sea ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer is substantially lower at global warming of 1.5°C when compared to 2°C. With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming. Effects of a temperature overshoot are reversible for Arctic sea ice cover on decadal time scales (high confidence). {3.3.8, 3.4.4.7}

B.4.2. Global warming of 1.5°C is projected to shift the ranges of many marine species to higher latitudes as well as increase the amount of damage to many ecosystems. It is also expected to drive the loss of coastal resources and reduce the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture (especially at low latitudes). The risks of climate-induced impacts are projected to be higher at 2°C than those at global warming of 1.5°C (high confidence). Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70–90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2ºC (very high confidence). The risk of irreversible loss of many marine and coastal ecosystems increases with global warming, especially at 2°C or more (high confidence). {3.4.4, Box 3.4}

B.4.3. The level of ocean acidification due to increasing CO2 concentrations associated with global warming of 1.5°C is projected to amplify the adverse effects of warming, and even further at 2°C, impacting the growth, development, calcification, survival, and thus abundance of a broad range of species, for example, from algae to fish (high confidence). {3.3.10, 3.4.4}

B.4.4. Impacts of climate change in the ocean are increasing risks to fisheries and aquaculture via impacts on the physiology, survivorship, habitat, reproduction, disease incidence, and risk of invasive species (medium confidence) but are projected to be less at 1.5ºC of global warming than at 2ºC. One global fishery model, for example, projected a decrease in global annual catch for marine fisheries of about 1.5 million tonnes for 1.5°C of global warming compared to a loss of more than 3 million tonnes for 2°C of global warming (medium confidence). {3.4.4, Box 3.4}　

Links: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-diaries-the-hottest-climate-science-in-the-worlds-coldest-place/　

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47461199　

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-ice-shelves-buckle-weight-meltwater.html#jCp

Links: https://phys.org/news/2019-02-ocean-west-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
Ice shelves buckle under weight of meltwater lakes

West Antarctica, Amundesen Sea, Whwaites Glacier melt rapidly as same as Peninsula Antarctica! This report write, ,,,, Growing up to 5 incher thick in jast 2days! Amundesen Sea grow narrower, the sea water here is always close to freezing.,,,,. Badman Nishioka/rainforest action group
If Thwaites Glacier make worst scenario that it could go fast contributing 1 to 2 feet of Global sea level rise in 50 to 100 years by researching scientist.

Links: https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-23/what-thwaites-glacier-can-tell-us-about-future-west-antarctica

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811630491X

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org

https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-03-13/antarctica-dispatch-8-behold-grease-shuga-and-pancake-ice　

https://thwaitesglacier.org