Global Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) are once again nearing their record high of 21.17°C, hit way back on March 1st & 2nd. Yesterday's global SST was 21.15°C.
Also this post is worrisome. Please don't look it up.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Global Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) are once again nearing their record high of 21.17°C, hit way back on March 1st & 2nd. Yesterday's global SST was 21.15°C.
Also this post is worrisome. Please don't look it up.
According to NOAA El Niño will be replaced by ENSO neutral in April-June 2024. The odds that La Niña (cool flip-side of El Niño) will come in June-August will be 62%.
Then we will see if the rising trend for the Global Temperature Deviation will continue or not.
Actually this is the question that has been put by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS, who is worried for the anomaly of the Global Temperature Deviation which has overtaken the threshold of 1.5°C set by the Agreement of Paris (Current 365-day Global Temperature Deviation 1.58°C).
When La Niña will kick in will the anomaly of the Global Temperature Deviation stabilize or not?
The Global Temperature Deviation is still increasing!
Current 365-day Global Temperature Deviation at April 8th, 2024 1.59°C.
This post is VERY worrisome. Please don't look it up.
Tenth consecutive monthly heat record alarms and confounds climate scientists
If the anomaly does not stabilise by August, ‘the world will be in uncharted territory’, says climate expert
www.theguardian.com
Dr. Gavin Schmidt the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, noted that temperature records are being broken each month by up to 0.2C. “It’s humbling, and a bit worrying, to admit that no year has confounded climate scientists’ predictive capabilities more than 2023 has,” the successor to Jim Hansen wrote in a recent article for Nature.
Dr. G. Schmidt listed several plausible causes of the anomaly – the El Niño effect, reductions in cooling sulphur dioxide particles due to pollution controls, fallout from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcanic eruption in Tonga, and the ramping up of solar activity in the run-up to a predicted solar maximum.
But based on preliminary analyses, he said these factors were not sufficient to account for the 0.2C increase: “If the anomaly does not stabilise by August – a reasonable expectation based on previous El Niño events – then the world will be in UNCHARTED TERRITORY. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated.”
Tenth consecutive monthly heat record alarms and confounds climate scientists
If the anomaly does not stabilise by August, ‘the world will be in uncharted territory’, says climate expert
Dr. Gavin Schmidt the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, noted that temperature records are being broken each month by up to 0.2C. “It’s humbling, and a bit worrying, to admit that no year has confounded climate scientists’ predictive capabilities more than 2023 has,” the successor to Jim Hansen wrote in a recent article for Nature.
Dr. G. Schmidt listed several plausible causes of the anomaly – the El Niño effect, reductions in cooling sulphur dioxide particles due to pollution controls, fallout from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcanic eruption in Tonga, and the ramping up of solar activity in the run-up to a predicted solar maximum.
But based on preliminary analyses, he said these factors were not sufficient to account for the 0.2C increase: “If the anomaly does not stabilise by August – a reasonable expectation based on previous El Niño events – then the world will be in UNCHARTED TERRITORY. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated.”
Wish to point out that Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS, mentions August as period to check the Anomaly of the Global Temperature Deviation because in August ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) Neutral will replace El Niño for sure and maybe also La Niña, the cool flip-side of El Niño, will kick in.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Toxic gas, livelihoods under threat and power outages: how a seaweed causes chaos in Caribbean
Leaders have failed to tackle invasion of sargassum, which may have a bumper year in 2024
www.theguardian.com
Scientists have blamed the explosive growth of the seaweed on global pollution, climate breakdown and other international problems that Caribbean islands did little to cause and lack the political power to resolve.Seaweed must be seen as an impact of global warming, with the opening up of the right to compensation on the grounds that we are small, vulnerable islands,” said Sylvie Gustave-dit-Duflo, the vice-president of the Guadeloupe region in charge of environmental issues and president of the French Biodiversity Office.Since the 1980s the world population has nearly doubled, explained Lapointe, a professor at Florida Atlantic University. This in turn has led to a massive increase in the sargassum-boosting nutrients washing out of major rivers such as the Mississippi in the US, the Amazon and Orinoco in South America, and the Congo in Africa. “To grow that world population we’ve used these fertilisers, we’ve deforested along all the major rivers in the world,” he said. “The nitrogen has gone up faster than the phosphorus from all these human activities, including wastewater; sewage from the increasing human population.” Another likely culprit is climate breakdown. Martínez said warming waters may have disrupted the giant gyre that held the Sargasso Sea in place for thousands of years, releasing sargassum to float south and form the new belt.
Actually the use of nitrogen fertilizers in agriculture produces significant quantities of nitrogenous gases including ammonia, nitric oxide, and nitrous oxide N2O which is a potent GHG, 300 times more powerful than Carbon Dioxide CO2.Toxic gas, livelihoods under threat and power outages: how a seaweed causes chaos in Caribbean
Leaders have failed to tackle invasion of sargassum, which may have a bumper year in 2024
Scientists have blamed the explosive growth of the seaweed on global pollution, climate breakdown and other international problems that Caribbean islands did little to cause and lack the political power to resolve.Seaweed must be seen as an impact of global warming, with the opening up of the right to compensation on the grounds that we are small, vulnerable islands,” said Sylvie Gustave-dit-Duflo, the vice-president of the Guadeloupe region in charge of environmental issues and president of the French Biodiversity Office.Since the 1980s the world population has nearly doubled, explained Lapointe, a professor at Florida Atlantic University. This in turn has led to a massive increase in the sargassum-boosting nutrients washing out of major rivers such as the Mississippi in the US, the Amazon and Orinoco in South America, and the Congo in Africa. “To grow that world population we’ve used these fertilisers, we’ve deforested along all the major rivers in the world,” he said. “The nitrogen has gone up faster than the phosphorus from all these human activities, including wastewater; sewage from the increasing human population.” Another likely culprit is climate breakdown. Martínez said warming waters may have disrupted the giant gyre that held the Sargasso Sea in place for thousands of years, releasing sargassum to float south and form the new belt.
As it can be seen in these graphs the Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide N2O is increasing (together with all other GHGs Carbon dioxide CO2 and Methane CH4) and is now 337 ppb (parts per billion).
mspohr
Well-Known Member
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25386831/1252297876.jpg)
Taking CO2 out of the air would be an absurdly expensive way to fight climate change
It could cost the US $100 billion a year.
www.theverge.com
Attempting to filter enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to make a significant impact on climate change would require hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending, according to a new report.Machines that suck carbon dioxide out of the air or seawater are supposed to be better at keeping track of the amount of CO2 they trap. But the enormous amount of energy they use makes these devices inefficient and exorbitantly expensive. It costs upward of $600 to filter a ton of CO2 out of the air. Multiply that by a gigaton (a billion metric tons) and you get to hundreds of billions of dollars of spending.
The two most urgent things that we have to do now, are stopping deforestation and stopping putting more CO2 into the air,”
Great Barrier Reef suffering ‘most severe’ coral bleaching on record – video
Marine researcher says widespread event is 'absolutely heartbreaking' and that Australia is 'running out of time' to save the reef
www.theguardian.com
Concern that the Great Barrier Reef may be suffering the most severe mass coral bleaching event on record has escalated after a conservation group released footage showing damage up to 18 metres below the surface.
Dr Selina Ward, a marine biologist and former academic director of the University of Queensland’s Heron Island Research Station, said it was the worst bleaching she had seen in 30 years working on the reef, and that some coral was starting to die.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority last week said aerial surveys of more than 1,000 individual reefs revealed more than half were rated as having high or very high levels of bleaching, and a smaller number in the south – less than 10% of the total – had extreme bleaching. Only about a quarter were relatively unaffected.
It confirmed the 2,300-kilometre reef system was experiencing its fifth mass bleaching event in eight years. The authority said sea surface temperatures had been between 0.5C and 1.5C hotter than expected for this time of year.
The Australian Marine Conservation Society on Thursday released video and photos that it said showed bleaching on the southern part of the reef extended to greater depths than had been previously reported this year.
Ward said the impact of bleaching had been extensive across 16 sites that she visited in the reef’s southern section, affecting coral species that had usually been resistant to bleaching. Some coral had started to die, a process that usually takes weeks or months after bleaching occurs.
“I feel devastated,” she said. “I’ve been working on the reef since 1992 but this [event], I’m really struggling with.”
Ward said sea temperatures at two of the sites she visited were the same at the surface and 20 metres below the surface. This was “very unusual”, and reinforced the need for rapid action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, she said.
"What are we doing to stop the reef from being lost?” Ward said. “We cannot expect to save the Great Barrier Reef and be opening new fossil fuel developments. It’s time to act and there are no more excuses.”
Coral bleaching occurs when the coral becomes heat stressed and ejects the tiny marine algae, known as zooxanthellae, that live in its tissue and give most of its colour and energy. With the zooxanthellae gone, the coral starves and its bone-white calcium skeleton becomes visible.
If the elevated temperature doesn’t last long, the coral can recover. Otherwise, it starts to die. In the most severe cases, the bleaching is skipped and the coral dies almost immediately, usually turning a dirty brown.
Terry Hughes, an emeritus professor at James Cook University and longtime reef bleaching researcher, said the aerial surveys showed “the most widespread and most severe mass bleaching and mortality event ever recorded on the Great Barrier Reef”.
He said the scale of the damage was comparable to 2016, the worst previous year experienced, but there were now fewer individual reefs untouched by bleaching between southern Queensland and the Torres Strait. He said the area south of Townsville had been particularly badly hit this year.
"We’re already seeing extensive loss of corals at the time of peak bleaching,” he said. “It’s heartbreaking to see damage as severe as this as soon as this.”
Hughes said every part of the reef system had now bleached at least once since 1998. Some reefs had bleached three or four times. He said the cumulative damage made it harder for reefs to recover and more likely they would succumb.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2018 found that most tropical coral reefs would be lost if global heating was limited to an average of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and 99% were likely to be lost of heating reached 2C. They found they would be at high risk at 1.2C, a level that may have already been reached.
Actually, as we know, Current 365-day Global Temperature Deviation is 1.59°C.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Climate target organisation faces staff revolt over carbon-offsetting plan
Employees at SBTi have called for their CEO to resign over controversial plans which they fear will enable greenwashing
www.theguardian.com
Staff at one of the world’s leading climate-certification organisations have called for the CEO and board members to resign after they announced plans to allow companies to meet their climate targets with carbon offsets. They fear that companies will use the offsets for greenwashing, while avoiding making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions – without which the world faces climate catastrophe.
But scientific studies into popular offsetting schemes have found that, in practice, many do almost nothing to limit global heating. It is often unclear how much money from the sale of offsets makes it to communities on the ground.
Actually there is difference between Carbon ZERO and Net ZERO.Climate target organisation faces staff revolt over carbon-offsetting plan
Employees at SBTi have called for their CEO to resign over controversial plans which they fear will enable greenwashing
Staff at one of the world’s leading climate-certification organisations have called for the CEO and board members to resign after they announced plans to allow companies to meet their climate targets with carbon offsets. They fear that companies will use the offsets for greenwashing, while avoiding making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions – without which the world faces climate catastrophe.
But scientific studies into popular offsetting schemes have found that, in practice, many do almost nothing to limit global heating. It is often unclear how much money from the sale of offsets makes it to communities on the ground.
Carbon ZERO means same Carbon emitted same Carbon absorbed which can be easily achieved with Carbon Offsets.
Net ZERO means doing efforts to lower Carbon Emissions while trying to absorb as much Carbon as possible.
Of course because of the gravity of the Climate Change issue we cannot afford Carbon ZERO and we need to aim to Net ZERO.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Global net zero emissions describes the state where emissions of carbon dioxide due to human activities and removals of these gases are in balance over a given period. It is often called simply net zero.[2] In some cases, emissions refers to emissions of all greenhouse gases, and in others it refers only to emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2] To reach net zero targets requires actions to reduce emissions. One example would be by shifting from fossil fuel energy to sustainable energy sources. Organizations often offset their residual emissions by buying carbon credits.
Net zero claims vary enormously in how credible they are, but most have low credibility despite the increasing number of commitments and targets.[14] While 61% of global carbon dioxide emissions are covered by some sort of net zero target, credible targets cover only 7% of emissions. This low credibility reflects a lack of binding regulation. It is also due to the need for continued innovation and investment to make decarbonization possible.[15]
But net zero standards require reducing emissions to more than 90% and then only offsetting the remaining 10% or less to fall in line with 1.5°C targets.[7]
Climate scientists James Dyke, Bob Watson, and Wolfgang Knorr argue that the concept of net zero has been harmful for emissions reductions. This is because it allows actors to defer present-day emissions reductions by relying on future, unproved technological fixes. Examples are carbon offsetting, carbon dioxide removal and geoengineering. "The problems come when it is assumed that these [technological fixes] can be deployed at vast scale. This effectively serves as a blank cheque for the continued burning of fossil fuels and the acceleration of habitat destruction", they said.
I like this more precise definition of Net ZERO.
Global net zero emissions describes the state where emissions of carbon dioxide due to human activities and removals of these gases are in balance over a given period. It is often called simply net zero.[2] In some cases, emissions refers to emissions of all greenhouse gases, and in others it refers only to emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2] To reach net zero targets requires actions to reduce emissions. One example would be by shifting from fossil fuel energy to sustainable energy sources. Organizations often offset their residual emissions by buying carbon credits.
Net zero claims vary enormously in how credible they are, but most have low credibility despite the increasing number of commitments and targets.[14] While 61% of global carbon dioxide emissions are covered by some sort of net zero target, credible targets cover only 7% of emissions. This low credibility reflects a lack of binding regulation. It is also due to the need for continued innovation and investment to make decarbonization possible.[15]
But net zero standards require reducing emissions to more than 90% and then only offsetting the remaining 10% or less to fall in line with 1.5°C targets.[7]
Climate scientists James Dyke, Bob Watson, and Wolfgang Knorr argue that the concept of net zero has been harmful for emissions reductions. This is because it allows actors to defer present-day emissions reductions by relying on future, unproved technological fixes. Examples are carbon offsetting, carbon dioxide removal and geoengineering. "The problems come when it is assumed that these [technological fixes] can be deployed at vast scale. This effectively serves as a blank cheque for the continued burning of fossil fuels and the acceleration of habitat destruction", they said.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Due to massive ice loss, Greenland's gravity is weakening, which is bad news for the S. Hemisphere.
William Colgan, a Canadian senior researcher with the Geological Survey of Denmark in Greenland, recently remarked on a study published in Nature that found the Greenland ice sheet is losing twenty percent more ice than previously thought. An area...
www.dailykos.com
The scientists said: “There is some concern that any small source of freshwater may serve as a ‘tipping point’ that could trigger a full-scale collapse of the Amoc, disrupting global weather patterns, ecosystems and global food security. Yet freshwater from the glacier retreat of Greenland is not included in oceanographic models at present.” The influx of less dense freshwater into the sea slows the usual process of heavier salty water sinking in the polar region and driving the Amoc.
For the hottest global March ever in the data record, Greenland has reached the highest average anomaly of the last 18 years, according to the latest ERA5 data, with a max of +6°C in the central area. This will not help against its huge ice loss.Due to massive ice loss, Greenland's gravity is weakening, which is bad news for the S. Hemisphere.
William Colgan, a Canadian senior researcher with the Geological Survey of Denmark in Greenland, recently remarked on a study published in Nature that found the Greenland ice sheet is losing twenty percent more ice than previously thought. An area...www.dailykos.com
The scientists said: “There is some concern that any small source of freshwater may serve as a ‘tipping point’ that could trigger a full-scale collapse of the Amoc, disrupting global weather patterns, ecosystems and global food security. Yet freshwater from the glacier retreat of Greenland is not included in oceanographic models at present.” The influx of less dense freshwater into the sea slows the usual process of heavier salty water sinking in the polar region and driving the Amoc.
Wish to point out that the raising temperatures at Greenland are caused by the ALBEDO Feedback Loop which, as it's stated by the article mentioned by mspohr, could make the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) collapse.
I mean here we have a true domino effect which could kick in.
This post is worrisome. Please don't look it up.
NOAA is warning us that we had 10 straight months of record-setting temperatures and counting, meaning "How many more straight months of record-setting temperatures we will have?"
After this warning from NOAA I think that everybody should be concerned about the Global Temperature Deviation in the following months to see if this trend continues or not.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS and maximum Climate Expert of the USA, said that if in August this anomaly of the Global Temperature Deviation will not stabilize we will be in UNCHARTED TERRITORY.
Last edited:
Love this Climate Action took by the Biden-Harris Administration. Think that also Governments all over the world should take Climate Actions of this kind.
Last edited:
Climate Change Is Likely Impacting Marine Life More Than Previously Thought, Study Finds - EcoWatch
Climate change impacts on marine life, from rising sea surface temperatures to ocean acidification, could be greater than previously thought.
www.ecowatch.com
The impacts of climate change on marine life, from rising sea surface temperatures to ocean acidification, have long been studied, but new research is shedding light on the extent of these effects both currently and in the future.
Scientists developed a method that fully considers the consequences of warming oceans and acidification on fish and invertebrate animals, without canceling out certain other impacts, such as when one species begins eating more and another eats less.
“To gain a better understanding of the overall worldwide impact of climate change, marine biologists calculate its effects on all fish or all invertebrate species lumped together,” Katharina Alter, of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ) and lead author of the study, explained in a statement. “Yet, effects determined in different individual studies can cancel each other out: for example if invertebrate animals such as snails profit from a certain environmental change and other invertebrates, such as sea urchins, suffer from it, the overall effect for invertebrates is concluded to be zero, although both animal groups are affected.”
Previously, scientists determined three main ways that climate change can affect marine life, including reduced chances of survival, increased metabolism and weakened skeletons of invertebrates. By using the new method to evaluate the effects of climate change on marine life, researchers found negative impacts on behavior, physiology, reproduction and physical development for fish and invertebrates.
According to Alter, these findings, which were published in the journal Nature Communications, showed that the negative consequences on marine life are likely greater than previously thought.
The researchers also estimated how acidification, which happens as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the air dissolve into the ocean, could continue to impact marine life in the future, both with and without intervention.
“Our new approach suggests that if ocean warming and acidification continue on the current trajectory, up to 100% of the biological processes in fish and invertebrate species will be affected, while previous research methods found changes in only about 20 and 25% of all processes, respectively,” Alter said.
Even in a lower carbon emissions scenario, the researchers determined that acidification will impact about 50% of biological processes in invertebrates and 30% of biological processes in fish, still higher than previous estimates.
In addition to calculating negative impacts of climate change on fish and invertebrates, the researchers considered any potential beneficial outcomes for species for a more comprehensive look at all “hidden impacts” that ocean warming and acidification have on marine life.
“The new calculation method weighs the significant deviation from the current state irrespective of its direction — be it beneficial or detrimental — and counts it as impact of warming and acidifying seawater,” Alter said. “With our new approach, you can include the broadest range of measured responses and detect impacts that were hidden in the traditional approach.”
The study authors noted that more research is needed to determine links between the changes to biological processes, both positive and negative, in marine life and how these could affect ecosystems at large.
Similar threads
