16/08/2016

Climate Urgency: We've Locked In More Global Warming Than People Realize

The Guardian - 

Today's carbon pollution will have climate consequences for centuries to come. We're in the midst of a critical decade
An Adelie penguin standing atop a block of melting ice in East Antarctica. Slowly-melting ice is a 'feedback' through which today's carbon pollution will heat the planet for centuries to come. Photograph: Reuters
While most people accept the reality of human-caused global warming, we tend not to view it as an urgent issue or high priority. That lack of immediate concern may in part stem from a lack of understanding that today's pollution will heat the planet for centuries to come, as explained in this Denial101x lecture:

Denial101x carbon cycle lecture by Gavin Cawley.

 So far humans have caused about 1°C warming of global surface temperatures, but if we were to freeze the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at today's levels, the planet would continue warming. Over the coming decades, we'd see about another 0.5°C warming, largely due to what's called the "thermal inertia" of the oceans (think of the long amount of time it takes to boil a kettle of water). The Earth's surface would keep warming about another 1.5°C over the ensuing centuries as ice continued to melt, decreasing the planet's reflectivity.
To put this in context, the international community agreed in last year's Paris climate accords that we should limit climate change risks by keeping global warming below 2°C, and preferably closer to 1.5°C. Yet from the carbon pollution we've already put into the atmosphere, we're committed to 1.5–3°C warming over the coming decades and centuries, and we continue to pump out over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year.

The importance of reaching zero or negative emissions
We can solve this problem if, rather than holding the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide steady, it falls over time. As discussed in the above video, Earth naturally absorbs more carbon than it releases, so if we reduce human emissions to zero, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline. Humans can also help the process by finding ways to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and sequester it. Scientists are researching various technologies to accomplish this, but we've already put over 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Pulling a significant amount of that carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it safely will be a tremendous challenge, and we won't be able to reduce the amount in the atmosphere until we first get our emissions close to zero.
There are an infinite number of potential carbon emissions pathways, but the 2014 IPCC report considered four possible paths that they called RCPs. In one of these (called RCP 2.6 or RCP3-PD), we take immediate, aggressive, global action to cut carbon pollution, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels peak at 443 ppm in 2050, and by 2100 they've fallen back down to today's level of 400 ppm. In two others (RCPs 4.5 and 6.0) we act more slowly, and atmospheric levels don't peak until the year 2150, then they remain steady, and in the last (RCP8.5) carbon dioxide levels keep rising until 2250.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the four IPCC RCP scenarios. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli
As the figure below shows, in the first scenario, global warming peaks at 2°C and then temperatures start to fall toward the 1.5°C level, meeting our Paris climate targets. In the other scenarios, temperatures keep rising centuries into the future.
Global annual mean surface air temperature anomalies (relative to 1986–2005) from CMIP5 climate model runs. Discontinuities at 2100 are due to different numbers of models performing the extension runs beyond the 21st century and have no physical meaning. No ranges are given for the RCP6.0 projections beyond 2100, as only two models are available. Illustration: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
This is the critical decade
We don't know what technologies will be available in the future, but we do know that the more carbon pollution we pump into the atmosphere today, the longer it will take and more difficult it will be to reach zero emissions and stabilize the climate. We'll also have to pull that much more carbon out of the atmosphere.
It's possible that as in three of the IPCC scenarios, we'll never get all the way down to zero or negative carbon emissions, in which case today's pollution will keep heating the planet for centuries to come. Today's carbon pollution will leave a legacy of climate change consequences that future generations may struggle with for the next thousand years.
Five years ago, the Australian government established a Climate Commission, which published a report discussing why we're in the midst of the 'critical decade' on climate change:
The risks of future climate change – to our economy, society and environment – are serious, and grow rapidly with each degree of further temperature rise. Minimising these risks requires rapid, deep and ongoing reductions to global greenhouse gas emissions. We must begin now if we are to decarbonise our economy and move to clean energy sources by 2050. This decade is the critical decade.
Our is the first generation to understand the problems our carbon pollution is causing, and the last that can take the necessary action to prevent them from causing a climate destabilization. In addition to the Australian Climate Commission, 31 major scientific organizations recently warned policymakers that:
To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced.
We have no excuse for inaction or complacency; the experts have clearly warned us. If we refuse to urgently act on this information, future generations will suffer the consequences of our failures today.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

Malcolm Roberts Leaves NASA 'Flummoxed' With Q&A Climate Claims

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

It probably takes a lot to faze Gavin Schmidt, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, but the outlandish views of Malcolm Roberts, the newly elected One Nation senator, can do it from half a world away.
On Monday night's Q&A program on the ABC, Roberts was venting his now well-worn view that there was no empirical evidence of climate change.
Q&A: Malcolm Roberts v science: The debate turned to Climate Change on Q&A and even physicist Brian Cox was dumbfounded by One Nation sentator-elect Malcolm Roberts' arguments.

 Among those exasperated was fellow panelist, Brian Cox, the physicist and rock star science communicator of this generation, who told Roberts: "I could sit here and read out figures until I'm blue in the face".
Indeed, how much data do you want?
Richard Muller, a former prominent sceptic US scientist, re-examined 14 million temperature observations from 44,455 sites across the world going back to 1753. The results prompted a "total turnaround" in his views, as my colleague Ben Cubby wrote in 2012.
"Our results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by 2½ degrees fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1½ degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases," Professor Muller wrote.
Roberts, a former coal engineer, and then manager of the Galileo Movement, was unimpressed.
"We've based our views on empirical science, and there's nothing in the Muller study to undercut that," Roberts told Cubby at the time. Climate change science had been captured by "some of the major banking families in the world" who form a "tight-knit cabal", he insisted.
Record global temperatures are being set at an unprecedented rate. Photo: Iwan van Hagen
That sense of capture - if not the sinister anti-semitic hints that prompted even fellow denier commentator Andrew Bolt to distance himself from Roberts - remains four years on.
Anyway, when Cox pulled out some charts on Q&A from US space agency NASA showing a clear upward trend in global temperatures, Roberts readily dismissed the data as "corrupted" and "manipulated".
Former coal miner and now One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts says NASA data on climate change is 'corrupted'. Photo: Robert Shakespeare
Roberts' argument, apparently, is that the world was hotter in the 1930s but NASA had altered the figures to make the current era look warmer. (According to one take, the issue is whether the continental US was warmer in 1934 than in the hot years of 1998 or 2006 - but 2012 then blew away all previous records.)

Record heat - again
Roberts wasn't to know it but NASA's regular monthly readings on global temperature were just hours from being released.
A glance at the chart below released overnight suggests herculean efforts would be needed to make the 1930s look warmer than any recent decade, let alone the current one. Note, too, the prediction for this year.
Meanwhile, Schmidt, the climate modeller who is also the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, was clearly following the live Australian debate on Q&A.
In rapid succession, Schmidt fired out a dozen tweets, bemused by the claims of manipulation.
His world-renowned centre had been estimating global temperature changes since 1981, and the data has been available to the public since 2007, Schmidt said.

Spot the 'pause'
Mind you, the NASA data is scary enough to concern anyone paying attention.
Since July is typically the hottest month of the year given the preponderance of land in the northern hemisphere now in summer, a record hot July also means we just posted the warmest for any month on record.
For more than a year, each month has set records for heat, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
However, Roberts and his friends routinely claim the world hasn't warmed in the past two decades - the senator plucked out 1995 as the beginning of the "pause" on Monday.
Usually the starting point is 1998 when a record large El Nino made for a temperature spike that took some years of background warming to eclipse.
But now we have 2005, 2010, 2014 and 2015 all exceeding 1998, with 2016 a 99 per cent chance of being yet hotter, Schmidt says. (NOAA in 2015 ruled out any slowdown in global warming.)
Here's how this year is tracking, courtesy of Schmidt again:
July 2016 was the hottest month since the instrumental records began.
Japan 'corrupted' too
Other data out on Monday from the Japan Meteorological Agency - no doubt corrupted too, in Roberts' musings - echoed NASA's results.
According to JMA, last month was the hottest July in records going back to 1891.
It was 0.44 degrees above the 1981-2010 base that it uses, and narrowly above the previous record set just a year earlier.
Last month's temperature anomaly was also 0.14 degrees above the July that came at the end of that huge 1997-98 El Nino.
(See chart below with the black line indicating surface temperature anomaly, the blue line showing the five-year running mean and the red line showing the long-term linear trend.)

Roberts, of course, won't be moved.

'It does sound outlandish'
For Roberts to be right, at least 80 science academies around the world have to be wrong, as would almost 100 per cent of the scientists publishing work in the field.
John Cook, a climate communications research fellow at the University of Queensland, is part of a crew offering a free lecture series  "Making Sense of Climate Science Denial" to help explain why "empirical science" will never sate Roberts or sceptics like him.
As Cook notes, the onus really should sit with Roberts to explain why so many changes predicted by climate science are being observed - such as cooling in the upper atmosphere as less heat escapes to space because of the additional greenhouse gases accumulating in the biosphere.
But Roberts and One Nation find an easier target in the messengers.
The party wants "a Royal Commission (or similar) into the corruption of climate science and identify whether any individual or organisation has misled government to effect climate and energy policy".
One Nation also demands a "review the Bureau of Meteorology to ensure independence and accountability for weather and climate records including public justification of persistent upward adjustments to historical climate records", while the CSIRO must also be investigated.
If Monday night's QandA was any guide, Roberts now will be granted a regular perch to air his nonsense, serving a useful purpose for those wanting to delay or reverse action to curb consumption of coal, oil and gas.
"It does sound outlandish," Roberts told Cubby in 2012. "I, like you, was reluctant to believe it [but] there are significant things going on in Australia that people are waking up to".
For Australian voters, the nightmare of electing Roberts and One Nation to the senate has just begun.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

The Australian Government Just Gave Millions Of Dollars To An Overseas Coal Mining Company

Junkee - Osman Faruqi

The federal Coalition government has been crying poor when it comes to investing in science and innovation. They've slashed more than $100 million and hundreds of jobs from the CSIRO, and wound back a number of climate change focused programs. Which is a smart thing to do when sea levels are rising and ice caps are melting, right? But despite cutting environmental programs and research, the government has managed to find $24 million to fund so called "clean coal" technologies.
Last week the Minister for Resources, Senator Matt Canavan, announced the details of seven grants worth nearly $24 million funded through the "Carbon Capture and Storage Research Development and Demonstration Fund". The largest grant, worth nearly $9 million, was handed over to Swiss company Glencore. The government also handed over $700,000 to multi-national oil firm Shell, and gave millions to the CSIRO — but only to test carbon dioxide storage programs.
So what are carbon dioxide storage programs, why are we funding them and do they work?

What Is Carbon Capture And Storage?
Coal is the biggest contributor to global climate change. The burning of fossil fuels like coal leads to the release of carbon dioxide, which then enters our atmosphere and leads to global warming through the greenhouse effect. Scientists are telling us that we need to stop burning coal and rapidly invest in clean, renewable energy technologies that are less harmful to the environment if we want to avoid runaway climate change.
But because this is Australia and our politicians love ignoring the advice of scientists, we've managed to avoid the shift to renewable energy, and are still obsessed with mining and burning coal. That's where carbon capture comes in. The idea is to physically capture the carbon dioxide released from the burning of coal and bury it somewhere underground so it doesn't enter the atmosphere. Sounds like a crazy plan cooked up by a Bond villain? That's because it basically is.
The problem with carbon capture and storage is that it doesn't work. And trying to make it work will cost a lot of money. Money that would be better spent on building proven alternatives to coal like solar and wind power. The UK government this year scrapped its $1.7 billion carbon capture and storage program and will instead look at alternative ways of reducing emissions.
Last week's announcement shows that our government is still committed to carbon capture and storage. They've slashed $100 million from the CSIRO, much of it from climate change mitigation and adaptation programs, and spent $24 million on an unproven, expensive technology.

Subsidising Massive Coal Companies Doesn't Make Any Sense
Glencore is a massive, multinational commodities company that made a $10.5 billion profit last year. So why exactly are Australian taxpayers giving them millions of dollars to experiment with carbon capture and storage? The grant will be used to test whether or not it's viable to inject carbon dioxide emissions from a nearby coal fired power plant deep underground. The Group Executive for Glencore's global coal business, who also happens to be Chairman of the World Coal Association, is absolutely stoked.
"The Project highlights the important role Australia is playing in developing innovative, practicable and scientifically sound solutions" he said in a press release. Though when you think about it there's nothing particularly innovative, practical or scientifically sound about spending millions of dollars trying to bury carbon dioxide underground.
Regardless of the wider context, spending tens of millions of dollars on an unproven technology would be a very silly thing to do. But in the face of massive funding cuts to the CSIRO and environment programs more generally, it's particularly dumb and reckless. We know how to reduce emissions: we need to invest in renewable energy. Australia is the sunniest country on Earth but solar power only makes up 2.4 percent of our energy mix.
This latest announcement makes the government's priorities perfectly clear. Despite all of Malcolm Turnbull's talk about innovation and creating jobs in new industries, he's choosing to cut the CSIRO, the organisation that gave us Wi-Fi, in order to fund an old industry like coal. The rest of the world is making the switch to renewables. We desperately need to catch up before we get left behind, and we can't do that if we're paying companies like Glencore and Shell to literally bury our emissions underground.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

15/08/2016

We Have Almost Certainly Blown The 1.5-Degree Global Warming Target

The Conversation -  | 

The Great Barrier Reef is already feeling the effects of climate change. AAP/Supplied
The United Nations climate change conference held last year in Paris had the aim of tackling future climate change. After the deadlocks and weak measures that arose at previous meetings, such as Copenhagen in 2009, the Paris summit was different. The resulting Paris Agreement committed to:
Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.
The agreement was widely met with cautious optimism. Certainly, some of the media were pleased with the outcome while acknowledging the deal's limitations.
Many climate scientists were pleased to see a more ambitious target being pursued, but what many people fail to realise is that actually staying within a 1.5℃ global warming limit is nigh on impossible.
There seems to be a strong disconnect between what the public and climate scientists think is achievable. The problem is not helped by the media's apparent reluctance to treat it as a true crisis.

The 1.5℃ limit is nearly impossible
In 2015, we saw global average temperatures a little over 1℃ above pre-industrial levels, and 2016 will very likely be even hotter. In February and March of this year, temperatures were 1.38℃ above pre-industrial averages.
Admittedly, these are individual months and years with a strong El Niño influence (which makes global temperatures more likely to be warmer), but the point is we're already well on track to reach 1.5℃ pretty soon.
So when will we actually reach 1.5℃ of global warming?
Animated timeline showing best current estimates of when global average temperatures will rise beyond 1.5℃ and 2℃ above pre-industrial levels. Boxes represent 90% confidence intervals; whiskers show the full range. Andrew King, Author provided
On our current emissions trajectory we will likely reach 1.5℃ within the next couple of decades (2024 is our best estimate). The less ambitious 2℃ target would be surpassed not much later.
This means we probably have only about a decade before we break through the ambitious 1.5℃ global warming target agreed to by the world's nations in Paris.
A University of Melbourne research group recently published these spiral graphs showing just how close we are getting to 1.5℃ warming. Realistically, we have very little time left to limit warming to 2℃, let alone 1.5℃.
This is especially true when you bear in mind that even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions right now, we would likely experience about another half-degree of warming as the oceans "catch up" with the atmosphere.

Parallels with climate change scepticism
The public seriously underestimates the level of consensus among climate scientists that human activities have caused the majority of global warming in recent history. Similarly, there appears to be a lack of public awareness about just how urgent the problem is.
Many people think we have plenty of time to act on climate change and that we can avoid the worst impacts by slowly and steadily reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades.
This is simply not the case. Rapid and drastic cuts to emissions are needed as soon as possible.
In conjunction, we must also urgently find ways to remove greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. At present, this is not yet viable on a large scale.
Heatwaves in Europe in 2003 killed tens of thousands of people. EPA PHOTO/BELGA/JACQUES COLLET
Is 1.5℃ even enough to avoid "dangerous" climate change?
The 1.5℃ and 2℃ targets are designed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. It's certainly true that the more we warm the planet, the worse the impacts are likely to be. However, we are already experiencing dangerous consequences of climate change, with clear impacts on society and the environment.
For example, a recent study found that many of the excess deaths reported during the summer 2003 heatwave in Europe could be attributed to human-induced climate change.
Also, research has shown that the warm seas associated with the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef in March 2016 would have been almost impossible without climate change.
Climate change is already increasing the frequency of extreme weather events, from heatwaves in Australia to heavy rainfall in Britain.
These events are just a taste of the effects of climate change. Worse is almost certainly set to come as we continue to warm the planet.
It's highly unlikely we will achieve the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, but that doesn't mean governments should give up. It is vital that we do as much as we can to limit global warming.
The more we do now, the less severe the impacts will be, regardless of targets. The simple take-home message is that immediate, drastic climate action will mean far fewer deaths and less environmental damage in the future.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

'Calm Waters' Likely To Elude Embattled CSIRO Chief Larry Marshall

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Larry Marshall, the embattled chief executive of the CSIRO, is clearly hoping for anger within his agency over his handling of the hundreds of job cuts will subside.
In the past few weeks, he has visited sites from Canberra to Hobart, hobnobbing at morning and afternoon teas with small groups of staff, apparently avoiding the large Q&A sessions that sparked staff booing, a complaint of bullying and at least one walkout earlier this year.
CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall can expect fierce grillings from senators if he retains his job. Photo: Andrew Meares
"Thanks to everyone in Team CSIRO who has worked tirelessly across the organisation to navigate us through this storm, to calmer waters ahead," Dr Marshall said in an email on Monday.
The prompt for the email, though, is one reason those calmer times may remain out of reach of the former Silicon Valley venture capitalist charged with running Australia's premier research agency, which marks its centenary in 2016.
The email was to welcome the move by Greg Hunt, the new Science Minister, to intervene in the agency's affairs, directing it to restore 15 climate research positions that Dr Marshall had deemed surplus to "Team CSIRO's" needs.
Removing Mr Hunt's spin on the $37 million funding during 10 years revealed Dr Marshall was given no extra cash to top up its $730 million-plus annual funding from the budget for the move. Instead, the CEO has to find the money from within.
Mr Hunt's rapid action marks a complete reversal of the mantra of his predecessor, Chris Pyne, that CSIRO was "an independent statutory agency governed by a board of directors", largely left to its own devices.
"I would think Larry Marshall could have had a stiff drink when he discovered Hunt was appointed science minister," says Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science based at the University of NSW.

CSIRO cuts: Scientist questions future in Australia
Climate expert Dr Annette Hirsch is currently working in Switzerland and says the recent cuts to the CSIRO will make a 'huge influence' on her decision to come back to Australia. 

As Environment Minister Mr Hunt had already been active, working with Chief Scientist Alan Finkel and others to salvage a climate science centre that would preserve at least 40 of the 140 climate researchers. CSIRO managers had been exploring how to cut, transfer or outsource almost all of them.
Mr Hunt has offered his "strong support" for Dr Marshall in his role, and a senior government source denies patience with the chief has run out.
Not out?: Larry Marshall at the SCG, trying to rouse CSIRO leaders in September 2015. 
Still, that official says "it's going to be interesting" to see how Dr Marshall will cope with having to adjust his previous downgrading of climate research and handle a more hands-on minister who is himself "intent on repurposing the agency".
Another signal test will come when the CSIRO board decides whether to extend Dr Marshall's tenure beyond the end of 2016. The board had been tipped to accept the endorsement by the Turnbull government – made barely a week before the election was called – at its June meeting.
"Not yet" was reportedly Dr Marshall's answer to staff in Canberra asking about his contract extension last week. Fairfax Media sought confirmation from CSIRO.
Whether Dr Marshall can cast off the disarray of the past six months, which included multiple grillings by a Senate and incessant leaks to the media by disgruntled staff, remains an open question.
Response to his plans revealed by Fairfax Media in February to slice 350 jobs so soon after the Paris climate summit in late 2015 included international alarm and a petition signed by thousands.
In the end, just 20 climate positions are now slated to go. The other divisions hit– Land and Water, Data61 and manufacturing – were less successful in mounting a public case, and they will carry the bulk of about 275 job losses all up.
Ken Lee, one of the architects of the climate cuts, has opted to exit too. The head of the Oceans and Atmosphere unit and an expert in oil leaks, will depart for his native Canada in early 2017, according to an email sent to staff on Thursday.
Longer term, the loss of top scientists and capability will make it harder to lure and retain the next generation of talent, says John Church, a world-renowned sea-levels expert who will leave on August 19 after his position was made redundant.
Those going include researchers such Saul Cunningham, an award-winning ecologist, or Fiona Walsh, whose work on Indigenous communities will disappear with the closing of the Alice Spring research centre.
Dr Church declines to join the Greens in demanding Dr Marshall join those departing but wonders if an exit might not be too far off.
"If he's come this far and still not had his contract extended, why does he want to stay?," Church says.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

Gulf Storm August 2016

Climate Signals


A slow-moving storm system, fed by unusually warm seas in the Gulf of Mexico, began on August 7 to unleash heavy rains in the Southeastern United States.
From Tuesday, August 9 through Sunday, August 14 the storm inundated Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas, killing three people.
Five cities in Louisiana have reported rainfall totals of over two feet.
On August 11, a measure of atmospheric moisture, precipitable water, was in historic territory at 2.78 inches, a measurement higher than during some past hurricanes in the region.
Increased moisture in the air and unusually heavy rainfall are classic signals of climate change.
As the world warms, storms are able to feed on warmer ocean waters, and the air is able to hold and dump more water.
These trends have led to a pronounced increase in intense rainfall events and an increase in flooding risk.
In the Southeastern US, extreme precipitation has increased 27 percent from 1958 to 2012.

Southeastern US sees extreme rainfall, a classic signal of climate change
Beginning Sunday, August 7, a slow moving storm system headed northward from the superheated Gulf of Mexico and unleashed heavy rains on the Southeastern US, first targeting Florida's panhandle and northwestern coast.
Perry, Florida, saw 4.5 inches of rain in just two hours on August 8, and Hatch Bend, Florida, reported up to 12.4 inches of rain from Sunday until 9am on Monday.[1]
From Tuesday, August 9 through Sunday, August 14, the slow-moving storm inundated Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas, killing at least three people.[2]
Five cities in Louisiana have reported over two feet of rain, with Watson, Louisiana, topping the list at 31.39 inches.[3]
The town of Lafayette, in the heart of the wettest part of the storm, reported 10.39 inches of rain on Friday, setting the town's record of wettest day until Saturday topped that at 10.40 inches.[4]
Record flooding has been observed on at nine river gauges in Louisiana.[12]
One of the clearest changes in weather globally and across the United States is the increasing frequency of heavy rain.[5]
A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. And like a bigger bucket, a warmer atmosphere dumps more water when it rains.
The storm in the Southeastern US was supercharged by running over a warmer ocean and through an atmosphere made wetter by global warming.
Climate change is now responsible for 17 percent of moderate extreme rainfall events, i.e. one-in-a-thousand day events.[6]
The more extreme the event, the more likely climate change was responsible,  as climate change affects the frequency of the extreme events the most. In the instance of a one-in-a-thousand year event, the odds that climate change was responsible is dramatically higher.[6]

High sea surface temperatures feed moisture and energy into storms
The storm system was fed by moist winds coming off the Gulf coast where sea surface temperatures are running hot, bumped up by global warming.
On August 7, sea surface temperatures in the Gulf hovered near 90°F (32°C) at temperatures 3.6°F-5.4°F (2-3°C) above average.[7][8]
Along the central Gulf Coast, a measure of atmospheric moisture (from the surface up to the jet stream level) known as precipitable water is in the top percentile of historical values (3 to 3.5 standard deviations above normal).[9]
In New Orleans, the precipitable water was determined to be 2.78 inches Wednesday, which ranks among the top-five highest levels on record in August.[10]
As the world warms, storms are able to feed on warmer ocean waters, and the air is able to hold and dump more water.

Extreme rains and floods are consistent with climate change trends
Over the past century the US has witnessed a 20 percent increase in the amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest downpours, which has dramatically increased the risk of flooding.[5]
Since the 1980s, a larger percentage of precipitation has come in the form of intense single-day events, and nine of the top 10 years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990.[11]
In the Southeastern US, extreme precipitation has increased 27 percent from 1958 to 2012.[5]

Discover how Climate Signals are related
This tree of climate signals illustrates factors that link this event to climate change.
This tree of climate signals is schematic only. It illustrates factors that link individual events to climate change. The diagram does not quantify the relative strength of each factor, nor does it illustrate the natural factors that often shape extreme events, including natural variability and regular circulation changes. For more information, read more about this event.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gases from human activities—mainly the burning of fossil fuels like coal and gas—are likely responsible for all the observed warming since 1950. The fundamental physics of heat trapping greenhouse gases has been understood since the nineteenth century. Scientists have understood since the late 1970s that humans—by increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from 280 parts per million in preindustrial times to what is now over 400 ppm—have effectively wrapped the Earth in a thicker blanket, trapping more of the Earth’s infrared energy close to the surface.

Global Warming
From 1880 to 2012, the Earth warmed by 1.5°F (0.85°C) reversing a long term cooling trend. The physics behind the Earth’s temperature imbalance is simple. Scientists first realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a greenhouse effect in the 19th century and have known since the late 1970s that humans are now driving this effect, trapping more of the Earth’s infrared energy close to the surface through fossil fuel emissions. The atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has increased from 280 parts per million in preindustrial times to what is now over 400 ppm.

Increased Sea Surface Temperature
The amount of heat absorbed by the oceans has surged in the past few decades, contributing to more intense storms, sea level rise, sea ice melt, storm surge flooding and widespread ecosystem change.

 Increased Atmospheric Moisture
A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture—about 7 percent more per 1°C of warming—and scientists have already observed a four percent increase in atmospheric moisture due to the air’s ability to hold more moisture as it warms. Storms supplied by climate change with increasing moisture are widely observed to produce heavier rain and snow. Increased atmospheric moisture content may also affect the El Niño Southern Oscillation, which is a major driver of interannual climate variability, by intensifying regional precipitation variability, and associated extreme precipitation and drought events. Research indicates that the increase in atmospheric moisture is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases.

Increased Extreme Precipitation
Global warming leads to an increase in both ocean evaporation into the atmosphere and the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. High levels of water vapor in the atmosphere in turn create conditions more favorable for heavy precipitation in the form of intense rain and snow storms.

Increased Flooding Risk
Heavy precipitation is contributing to increased flooding around the world. Flooding is worsened by regional climate trends such as increases in heavy rain and snow, early snowmelt, and increased seasonal precipitation. Flooding is also affected by non-climatic factors such as land development, deforestation, levee placement and local topography, making it challenging to determine an overarching climate signal in flood trends.

 Gulf Storm August 2016
A slow-moving storm system, fed by unusually warm seas in the Gulf of Mexico, began on August 7 to unleash heavy rains in the Southeastern United States. From Tuesday, August 9 through Sunday, August 14 the storm inundated Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas, killing three people. Five cities in Louisiana have reported rainfall totals of over two feet. On August 11, a measure of atmospheric moisture, precipitable water, was in historic territory at 2.78 inches, a measurement higher than during some past hurricanes in the region. Increased moisture in the air and unusually heavy rainfall are classic signals of climate change. As the world warms, storms are able to feed on warmer ocean waters, and the air is able to hold and dump more water. These trends have led to a pronounced increase in intense rainfall events and an increase in flooding risk. In the Southeastern US, extreme precipitation has increased 27 percent from 1958 to 2012.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

14/08/2016

Warming World May Put Most Cities Off-Limits For Summer Olympics

UC Berkeley - Joel Bahr

Olympic organisers have made climate change a central theme at the current games — and for good reason. A sobering new study shows that by the 2084 Olympics, rising temperatures will make it practically impossible for most cities to host the summer games. Image: NASA Goddard
Health and safety of Olympians has been an ongoing story at Summer Olympic games. In 2008, air quality raised concerns in Beijing, while 2016 has been dogged with questions about polluted water and the Zika virus. Now, a new commentary co-written by UC Berkeley professor Kirk Smith says the future of the summer Olympics may be in jeopardy for another reason: rising heat and humidity due to climate change.
Among the findings, appearing in the The Lancet today: By 2085, only eight Northern Hemisphere cities outside of western Europe are likely to be cool enough to host the summer games. San Francisco would be one of just three North American cities that could serve as hosts.
The commentary, “The last Summer Olympics? Climate change, health and work outdoors,” is coauthored by UC Berkeley public health professor John Balmes, Alistair Woodward of the University of Auckland and Cindy Chang, the physician in charge of UC Berkeley’s athletic teams and the chief medical officer for Team USA at the 2012 London Olympics.
In the commentary, which comes from a larger study about climate change, the authors explain how their findings can be used to examine the viability of future Olympic sites based on a measurement that combines temperature, humidity, heat radiation, and wind — their wetbulb globe temperature (WBGT). Researchers used two climate models to project rising temperatures over the next century and applied those results to current safety procedures used in determining the viability of a host city.
The final study, which is still forthcoming and holds much broader implications than the future of outdoor Olympics, examines the relationship between health and productivity as the global climate continues to warm. The opening ceremonies of the 2016 games in Rio on Friday, however, did acknowledge climate change, and the impact that rising temperatures could have on the future of the games was not lost on Smith and his colleagues.
“Climate change could constrain the Olympics going forward,” said Smith, a professor of global environmental health in the School of Public Health. “And not just because of rising sea levels.”
The findings focused on the Northern Hemisphere, home to 90 percent of the world’s population. The authors considered only cities with at least 600,000 residents, the size considered necessary for hosting the games. Cities with elevations over a mile above sea level were omitted, as the most recent Olympic games hosted at such an altitude (Mexico City in 1968) faced challenges of their own.
The findings assumed that any venue with more than a 10 percent chance of having to cancel a marathon — one of the summer Olympics’ signature and exclusively outdoor events — on short notice would not be a viable host city.
“If you’re going to be spending billions of dollars to host an event, you’re going to want have a level of certainty that you’re not going to have to cancel it at the last minute,” Smith said.
The 10 percent criterion is currently used to evaluate potential sites of the winter games. If a potential host city is too unlikely to produce enough snow or cold enough temperatures, the chances of its bid winning decreases.
The findings indicate that by 2085, Istanbul, Madrid, Rome, Paris and Budapest – all cities that are or were in contention for either the 2020 or 2024 Summer Olympics – would be unfit to host the games. Tokyo, the city that has secured the 2020 summer Olympiad, would also be too hot to ensure athlete safety, should these projections come to pass.
According to the findings, eight out of 543 cities outside of western Europe would qualify as “low-risk” sites, including St. Petersburg, Russia; Riga, Latvia; Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; and Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
In North America, Calgary and Vancouver would join San Francisco as the only three suitable sites. Both Canadian cities have hosted Olympics before — but the winter games, Calgary in 1988 and Vancouver in 2010. San Francisco explored the possibility of hosting this year’s summer games, but ultimately withdrew the bid in 2006.
Latin America and Africa combined would fail to provide a single viable city.
Western Europe is home to 25 cities that would be “low-risk” sites in 2085, according to the calculations.
But by the 22nd century, if their projections play out, the scientists concluded that only four Northern Hemisphere cities would be left on the list: Belfast and Dublin, Ireland; and Edinburgh and Glasgow in Scotland.
While these findings are concerned with the more distant future, being able to ensure athlete safety in the face of spiking temperatures is already an issue in outdoor summer competitions. In October 2007, the Chicago Marathon was canceled mid-race as hundreds of runners succumbed to the heat and sought medical attention. High temperatures also wreaked havoc this year during the U.S. Olympic Team trials marathon in Los Angeles, where 30 percent of the Olympic hopefuls failed to finish as the temperature on race day pushed 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Should the findings reported in this commentary bear out, obvious work-arounds exist, such as running the Olympics indoors entirely or eliminating heat-sensitive endurance events like the marathon. Both solutions, however, would require a dramatic reimagining of how the modern Olympics are constructed.
“Climate change is going to force us to change our behavior from the way things have always been done,” said Smith. “This includes sending your kids outside to play soccer or going out for a jog. It is a substantially changing world. If the world’s most elite athletes need to be protected from climate change, what about the rest of us?”

 Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative