By 2100, we could be heading towards a loss of life in our oceans that rivals some of the largest extinction events in Earth's history if we don't continue to tackle the climate catastrophe, new modeling warns. But "it is not too late to enact the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to avoid a major extinction event," Princeton geoscientists Justin Penn and Curtis Deutsch explain in their paper. Using modeling calibrated against ancient fossil records, they predict the consequences of runaway climate change on marine animals and provide a plausible explanation for an enduring ocean mystery in the process. - Science Alert

Note: This different GeoNews seems worth including.  Dr. Hayhoe has been a featured speaker at AGU, the yearly conference of ~25,000 geoscientists in San Francisco. 

​Climate Scientist Dr. Hayhoe talks about living in Texas, how the issue of climate change became Republican vs Democrat, which groups of Americans we need to target to make change, fossil fuel companies paying to spread disinformation, how to communicate with someone who doesn’t believe in climate change, and her new book "Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing In A Divided World." - YouTube

The fossil fuel industry has a big methane problem, and we’re only just beginning to realize how serious it is. The IEA released a new analysis finding that methane emissions from energy production are being severely undercounted and are up to 70% higher than official estimates provided by countries around the world. While methane stays in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than carbon dioxide, it packs a real punch while it’s up there - about 80X more potent over a 20-year period. Reducing methane emissions as soon as possible is key to warding off the worst impacts of climate change. The oil and gas industry is responsible for a big chunk of methane emissions, from processes during production including venting and flaring—releasing excess gas into the atmosphere—as well as leaks (that can be substantial) along the supply chain.- Gizmodo

The climate is running hot. Evolving knowledge of climate sensitivity and polar ice melt-rate makes clear that sea-level rise is ramping, along with destructive storm, storm surge, severe precipitation and flooding, not forgetting wildfire. With mounting concern and recognition over the speed and pace of the low carbon energy transition that’s needed, nuclear has been reframed as a partial response to the threat of global heating. But at the heart of this are questions about whether nuclear could help with the climate crisis, whether nuclear is economically viable, what are the consequences of nuclear accidents, what to do with the waste, and whether there’s a place for nuclear within the swiftly expanding renewable energy evolution. As key experts who have worked on the front-line of the nuclear issue, we’ve all involved at the highest governmental nuclear regulatory and radiation protection levels in the US, Germany, France and UK. In this context, we consider it our collective responsibility to comment on the main issue: Whether nuclear could play a significant role as a strategy against climate change. The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction. The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm. Nuclear isn’t cheap, but extremely costly. Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design. - Nuclear Consulting Group