Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,449
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    wagsphoto
    Newest Member
    wagsphoto
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
chubbs

2018 Temperatures

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

Top 100m of ocean. Tends to go up in steps, with this decades last step unusually large.

Yeah, ocean heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense as the planet warms.

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ocean-heatwaves-devastate-wildlife-worse.html

Invisible to people but deadly to marine life, ocean heatwaves have damaged ecosystems across the globe and are poised to become even more destructive, according to the first study to measure worldwide impacts with a single yardstick.

The number of marine heatwave days has increased by more than 50 percent since the mid-20th century, researchers reported in the journal Nature Climate Change.

"Globally, marine heatwaves are becoming more frequent and prolonged, and record-breaking events have been observed in most ocean basins in the past decade," said lead author Dan Smale, a researcher at the Marine Biological Association in Plymouth, Britain.

Above the ocean watermark, on Earth's surface, 18 of the last 19 years have been the warmest on record, leading to more severe storms, droughts, heatwaves and flooding. 

"Just as atmospheric heatwaves can destroy crops, forests and animal populations, marine heatwaves can devastate ocean ecosystems," Smale told AFP.

Compared to hot spells over land, which have claimed tens of thousands of lives since the start of the century, ocean heatwaves have received scant scientific attention.

But sustained spikes in sea-surface temperatures can also have devastating consequences.

A 10-week marine heatwave near western Australia in 2011, for example, shattered an entire ecosystem and permanently pushed commercial fish species into colder waters.

Corals have been the marquee victims of shallow-water heatwaves, and face a bleak future. Even if humanity manages to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius—mission impossible, according to some scientists—up to 90 percent of corals are likely to die, the UN's top climate science body said in October.

But other bedrock species have suffered too: the 2011 surge of heat killed off large swathes of seagrass meadows and kelp forests, along with the finfish and abalone that depend on them.

Another ocean hot spell off the coast of California warmed waters by 6 C (10.8 F) and lasted for more than a year.

Known at "The Blob", it generated toxic algae blooms, caused the closure of crab fisheries, and led to the death of sea lions, whales and sea birds.

More frequent and intense ocean heatwaves also have a direct impact on people by reducing fisheries harvests and adding to global warming, the researchers noted.

"Species of fish and crustaceans targeted for human consumption may be locally wiped out," Smale said.

"And carbon stored by sea grasses and mangroves may be released if they are hit by extreme temperatures."

To determine the full extent of marine heatwave impacts across different oceans, Smale and an international team from 19 research centres crunched data from more than 1,000 field studies that reported on how organisms and ecosystem responded. 

By definition, marine heatwaves last at least five days. Sea water temperatures for a given location are "extremely high"—the top 5-to-10 percent on record for that time and place.

"Marine heatwaves can penetrate to hundreds of metres, though for our analysis we used data which only captures warming at the surface," Smale said.

As manmade global warming heats the planet, oceans have absorbed some 90 percent of the extra heat generated.

Without that heat sponge, air temperatures would be intolerably higher.

Even if humanity does manage to cap global warming at "well below" 2C (3.6 F), as called for in the Paris climate treaty, marine heatwaves will sharply increase in frequency, intensity and duration, earlier research has shown.

1x1.gif Explore further: Climate change multiplies harmful marine heatwaves (Update)

More information: Dan A. Smale et al. Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services, Nature Climate Change (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0412-1 

Journal reference: Nature Climate Change search and more info



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ocean-heatwaves-devastate-wildlife-worse.html#jCp

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's that cloud feedback. The ocean profile is the canary in the coal mine for climate change over land regions. I am skeptical of outdoor agriculture being tenable in CFA and DFA zones in the coming decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think we will look to 2018 as a precursor for 2019?

The continued Chinese 'clean up' of their pollution continues to grow and now the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation is positive ( since 2014) the extra heat reaching the ocean surface now stays at the surface instead of being buried in the ocean as it is under I.P.O. negative....... only another 25yrs of that to come and , I'd guess, a continuation of China cleaning up its act?

So we begin to shed the heat accrued over the noughties in the Pacific whilst the incoming solar stays at the surface to interact with the atmosphere even as more and more solar gets through to the surface as 'dimming' reduces........

That's the Pacific Basin and its part in it all but what of the rest of the globe?

How will Arctic Sea Ice fare this year?

Already both ocean entrances are near ice free and so soaking up the incoming solar. With surface warmth ,under IPO positive, also flowing into the basin from the Bering side how low will our ice go? ( we are still in the return period for the 'Perfect Melt Storm' as well)

Then we have Yamal.

3 years ago ( nearly) over 7,000 'pingo like structures' grew out of the permafrost. We ( I'm sure) have all seen images of the 'blowouts' of such structures back in 2015? 

Prof Semiletov ( Shakova and Semiletov?) tells us it is 3 years from formation to eruption so what happens this year across Yamal? If Shakova is correct and there is a huge reserve of 'free methane' capped below the permafrost ice then what if one , or more ,of these structures taps into that reserve? 

Yamal is a major natural gas producer and Russia has just committed to year round export from there........do they think they might lose their reserve if they do not act fast?

With the Southern hemisphere posting such a hot summer are we to see a repeat in our hemisphere over the coming months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emissions growth in United States, Asia fueled record carbon levels in 2018

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/emissions-growth-united-states-asia-fueled-record-carbon-levels-2018

Global carbon levels reached a record high last year, as surging demand for fossil fuels in the United States and Asia sent emissions soaring, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris said today.

The 33.1 gigatons of energy-related carbon dioxide reported in 2018 represents a 1.7% increase over the previous year. It also means emissions have risen in each of the first two full years since the signing of the Paris climate agreement, leaving the world far short of the 26% to 28% cut in emissions targeted by 2025.

We see that there is a growing disconnect between those calls and what is happening in the real markets,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a call announcing the findings. “Once again, we have a major increase in global CO2 emissions, which brings us further to reach the climate targets which were established by several countries internationally.”

Surging energy consumption fueled by strong economic growth in the United States and Asia was the primary cause of the emissions spike, the agency said. Global energy consumption was up 2.3% in 2018, roughly double the average annual growth rate since 2010. Fossil fuels met almost 70% of the new demand for the second year running, with demand for natural gas especially strong.

Global natural gas consumption was up 4.6%, while oil rose 1.3% and coal increased 0.7%. China, India, and the United States accounted for 70% of all energy demand and 85% of the net increase in emissions, IEA reported.

Robert Jackson, a professor who tracks energy and climate policy at Stanford University, said the findings reflect the confluence of several long-term trends that could prod emissions even higher in the future.

While coal use is declining in the United States and Europe, coal consumption is increasing in Asia, where governments have turned to the fuel to power economic development efforts. Strong economic growth in India saw coal consumption increase by roughly 5%, while coal generation was up 5.3% in China, according to IEA figures.

At the same time, growing oil and natural gas use in the United States has offset emissions reductions associated with coal’s decline in America, Jackson said.

“I don’t see global emissions dropping anytime soon,” Jackson said. “We had three years where global emissions were essentially flat. 2017 was a slight uptick. We wondered if it was a blip. It’s not. This increase in global emissions is real and more difficult to address than I expected.”

There were some positives in the report for climate hawks, said Nathan Hultman, director of the University of Maryland’s Center for Global Sustainability in College Park and a former Obama administration official. Solar deployment increased by more than 30% on the year, while wind was up 12%. Improvements in energy efficiency rates fell from 1.9% in 2018 to 1.3% in 2018, the fourth consecutive year of decline, but still were the largest source of global carbon abatement.

The problem is those gains were offset by growing demand for fossil fuels, he said.

“You have the solutions at hand,” Hultman said. “They need to be deployed more quickly, and this is what happens when you don’t.”

In the United States, natural gas demand spiked 10%, or by 10 billion cubic meters, an increase roughly equivalent to the gas consumption of the United Kingdom. That spike was complemented by strong demand for oil, especially from the petrochemical sector. American oil demand was up by 540,000 barrels per day in 2018, the largest increase in the world. That resulted in a 3.1% increase in U.S. carbon emissions.

 

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. Copyright 2019. E&E provides essential news for energy and environment professionals at www.eenews.net.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 4:21 PM, bluewave said:

Emissions growth in United States, Asia fueled record carbon levels in 2018

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/emissions-growth-united-states-asia-fueled-record-carbon-levels-2018

Global carbon levels reached a record high last year, as surging demand for fossil fuels in the United States and Asia sent emissions soaring, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris said today.

The 33.1 gigatons of energy-related carbon dioxide reported in 2018 represents a 1.7% increase over the previous year. It also means emissions have risen in each of the first two full years since the signing of the Paris climate agreement, leaving the world far short of the 26% to 28% cut in emissions targeted by 2025.

We see that there is a growing disconnect between those calls and what is happening in the real markets,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a call announcing the findings. “Once again, we have a major increase in global CO2 emissions, which brings us further to reach the climate targets which were established by several countries internationally.”

Surging energy consumption fueled by strong economic growth in the United States and Asia was the primary cause of the emissions spike, the agency said. Global energy consumption was up 2.3% in 2018, roughly double the average annual growth rate since 2010. Fossil fuels met almost 70% of the new demand for the second year running, with demand for natural gas especially strong.

Global natural gas consumption was up 4.6%, while oil rose 1.3% and coal increased 0.7%. China, India, and the United States accounted for 70% of all energy demand and 85% of the net increase in emissions, IEA reported.

Robert Jackson, a professor who tracks energy and climate policy at Stanford University, said the findings reflect the confluence of several long-term trends that could prod emissions even higher in the future.

While coal use is declining in the United States and Europe, coal consumption is increasing in Asia, where governments have turned to the fuel to power economic development efforts. Strong economic growth in India saw coal consumption increase by roughly 5%, while coal generation was up 5.3% in China, according to IEA figures.

At the same time, growing oil and natural gas use in the United States has offset emissions reductions associated with coal’s decline in America, Jackson said.

“I don’t see global emissions dropping anytime soon,” Jackson said. “We had three years where global emissions were essentially flat. 2017 was a slight uptick. We wondered if it was a blip. It’s not. This increase in global emissions is real and more difficult to address than I expected.”

There were some positives in the report for climate hawks, said Nathan Hultman, director of the University of Maryland’s Center for Global Sustainability in College Park and a former Obama administration official. Solar deployment increased by more than 30% on the year, while wind was up 12%. Improvements in energy efficiency rates fell from 1.9% in 2018 to 1.3% in 2018, the fourth consecutive year of decline, but still were the largest source of global carbon abatement.

The problem is those gains were offset by growing demand for fossil fuels, he said.

“You have the solutions at hand,” Hultman said. “They need to be deployed more quickly, and this is what happens when you don’t.”

In the United States, natural gas demand spiked 10%, or by 10 billion cubic meters, an increase roughly equivalent to the gas consumption of the United Kingdom. That spike was complemented by strong demand for oil, especially from the petrochemical sector. American oil demand was up by 540,000 barrels per day in 2018, the largest increase in the world. That resulted in a 3.1% increase in U.S. carbon emissions.

 

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. Copyright 2019. E&E provides essential news for energy and environment professionals at www.eenews.net.

 

 

The whole climate-change causality-crisis circuitry is wired by a particular failure in the ballast of most of those walking the Earth. 

This species has difficulty accepting threat and/or peril ... unless it is directly perceivable via at least one of the five senses.  Here's the interesting aspect; it is not really the fault of humans ...

All biology responds to sensory input.  Global Warming's effective destruction moves too slowly, is too subtle, when moving daily temperatures short decimals, from year to year, means "oh my god!"  That sense of urgency is intrinsically incongruous with lacking perception of threat.

Gives rise to a catch-22; because it is precisely an immediate response,to a threat they cannot readily perceive, that is necessary. By the time GW-related climate change is palpable to the senses in that way ... you're dying from the apocalypse.  "Oh, seems GW was re -"  ...death gasp.  gone.

Simply put... tell someone to get off the train tracks ...they may take a few moments to look around, eventually stepping off... maybe not.  That same person sees the train?  They dive off those track... with the lithe dexterity of a paratrooper!

Speaking with Professors at MIT and BU ... the consensus among peers is that this problem is as much a sociological one as it is chemical. It's a functional conclusion that bears both intuition as well as an explanation that fits empirical data.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The whole climate-change causality-crisis circuitry is wired by a particular failure in the ballast of most of those walking the Earth. 

This species has difficulty accepting threat and/or peril ... unless it is directly perceivable via at least one of the five senses.  Here's the interesting aspect; it is not really the fault of humans ...

All biology responds to sensory input.  Global Warming's effective destruction moves too slowly, is too subtle, when moving daily temperatures short decimals, from year to year, means "oh my god!"  That sense of urgency is intrinsically incongruous with lacking perception of threat.

Gives rise to a catch-22; because it is precisely an immediate response,to a threat they cannot readily perceive, that is necessary. By the time GW-related climate change is palpable to the senses in that way ... you're dying from the apocalypse.  "Oh, seems GW was re -"  ...death gasp.  gone.

Simply put... tell someone to get off the train tracks ...they may take a few moments to look around, eventually stepping off... maybe not.  That same person sees the train?  They dive off those track... with the lithe dexterity of a paratrooper!

Speaking with Professors at MIT and BU ... the consensus among peers is that this problem is as much a sociological one as it is chemical. It's a functional conclusion that bears both intuition as well as an explanation that fits empirical data.

 

 

Energy transitions are slow and challenging. Look how difficult it has been for a country like Germany that takes climate change seriously. 

https://e360.yale.edu/features/carbon-crossroads-can-germany-revive-its-stalled-energy-transition

Northern Germany, from the Polish borderlands in the east to the Netherlands in the west, is the stronghold of Germany’s muscular onshore wind power industry. This is where the lion’s share of the country’s nearly 30,000 wind turbines are sited, a combined force equal to the power generation of about 10 nuclear reactors. Where Germany’s northernmost tip abuts Denmark, soaring turbines crowd the horizon as far as the eye can see. And many more are coming as Germany strives to go carbon neutral by 2050. 

Yet despite their impressive might, the north’s wind parks are a reminder not only of how much has been accomplished in Germany’s Energiewende, or clean energy transition, but also of what remains to be done. Although the country has made a Herculean effort to shift to a clean energy economy — in just the past five years government support and costs to consumers have totaled an estimated 160 billion euros ($181 billion) — Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions have not declined as rapidly as expected in response to the vigorous expansion of renewable energy, which now generates 40 percent of the country’s electricity. Germany’s politicians are even resigned to falling significantly short of the country’s 2020 goal of reducing emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Germany’s failings have come as a vexing shock to its environmentally conscious citizenry. While Germans still overwhelmingly back the energy transition — for years polls showed support in excess of 90 percent — about three-quarters say the government is not doing enough to slow global warming. 

Today, the Energiewende finds itself stalled and floundering. Germany’s carbon emissions have stagnated at roughly their 2009 level. The country remains Europe’s largest producer and burner of coal, which generates more than one-third of Germany’s power supply. Moreover, emissions in the transportation sector have shot up by 20 percent since 1995 and are rising with no end in sight, experts say. German consumers have seen their electricity bills soar since 2000, in part because of the renewable energy surcharge.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cautionary tale, the windmills output approximates that of the country's nuclear sites, which are getting shut down.

The effect is to trade one low emission power source for another, leaving the bulk of the electrical production reliant on conventional power plants, many fueled by brown coal, an especially dirty fuel.

A better way to store power and a more aggressive implementation of a Europe wide power sharing infrastructure would help a lot, but technology gaps and political NIMBY opposition to big power transmission lines are real obstacles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×