[TheClimate.Vote] May 10, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu May 10 09:39:05 EDT 2018
/May 10, 2018/
[encompasses Seattle region]
*King County suing oil giants for climate change impacts
<https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/king-county-suing-oil-giants-for-climate-change-impacts/281-550675606>*
KING5.com May 9, 2018
King County is suing oil giants BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch
and ConocoPhillips.
King County says oil companies need to start paying for the impacts of
climate change, so it's suing Chevron, Exxon and other oil giants.
The county alleges the companies knowingly contributed to climate
disruptions, and that they put King County residents at greater risk for
floods, landslides, ocean acidification, and other impacts.
"The science is undisputable: climate change is impacting our region
today, and it will only cause greater havoc and hardships in the
future," said King County Executive Dow Constantine in a released statement.
"The companies that profited the most from fossil fuels should help bear
the costs of managing these disasters. Big Oil spent many decades
disregarding and dismissing what is our most pressing generational
challenge. We must hold these companies accountable as we marshal our
resources to protect and preserve what makes this region great."
King County wants the oil companies to pay for adapting infrastructure,
like storm-water management and other costs. Attorneys for the county
say this could result in hundreds of millions of dollars.
KING 5 has reached out to an oil industry group for reaction, but has
not gotten a response yet.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/king-county-suing-oil-giants-for-climate-change-impacts/281-550675606
- - - -
[Press Release]
https://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/constantine/news/release/2018/May/09-climate-lawsuit.aspx
[3 minute video interesting local solution]
*The Ecoblock Project: Urban Retrofitting for Sustainability
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKmfGI5Ogik>*
University of California Television (UCTV)
Published on May 8, 2018
(Visit: http://www.uctv.tv/) This entrant in the Le Monde Smart Cities
Urban Innovation Awards 2018 is a brief overview of the Oakland Ecoblock
Project to revitalize an urban block with sustainable retrofit
technologies and strategies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKmfGI5Ogik
[No pipelines needed]
*Off-grid power pioneers pour into West Africa
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-africa-power-insight/off-grid-power-pioneers-pour-into-west-africa-idUSKCN1G41PE>*
Joe Bavier - ABIDJAN (Reuters)
Buoyed by success in East Africa, off-grid solar power startups are
pouring into West Africa, offering pay-as-you-go kits in a race to claim
tens of millions of customers who lack reliable access to electricity.
At least 11 companies, including leading East African players such as
Greenlight Planet, d.light, Off-Grid Electric (OGE), M-KOPE Solar, Fenix
International and BBOXX, have moved into the region, most within the
last two years.
With a potential market worth billions of dollars, major European energy
companies such as French utilities EDF and Engie are taking notice too.
"It's important to be there now, because the race has already started,"
said Marianne Laigneau, senior executive vice president of EDF's
international division.
The main challenge facing smaller companies now is how to raise enough
capital to supply the expensive solar kits in return for small upfront
payments from customers...
More at:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-africa-power-insight/off-grid-power-pioneers-pour-into-west-africa-idUSKCN1G41PE
- - - -
[Solar only with sunshine]
*This "duck curve" is solar energy's greatest challenge
<https://www.vox.com/2018/5/9/17336330/duck-curve-solar-energy-supply-demand-problem-caiso-nrel>*
Renewables require a change in the how we supply electricity.
By Carlos Waters
Electricity is very difficult to store. But most consumers use it in a
very predictable pattern. So utility managers use demand curves to
anticipate the electric needs of their customers. And as solar energy
expands, their job is getting a bit more difficult.
Solar energy production peaks at mid-day, and this causes demand for
other energy to drop off. Researchers in California call this seeming
drop in demand the "duck curve." The more solar energy capacity
increases, the more the curve looks like the belly of a duck
See the video <https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs> https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/9/17336330/duck-curve-solar-energy-supply-demand-problem-caiso-nrel
[Chicago Tonight TV interview - clip: 11 minutes]
*Harvard Scientist: Climate Change May Be Worse Than We Think
<http://www.pbs.org/video/harvard-scientist-climate-change-may-be-worse-we-think-qej5d/>*
Daniel Schrag's professional credentials are impressive: He's the
director of the Center for the Environment at Harvard University where
he's a professor of environmental science and engineering. At Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government, Schrag is co-director of the Science,
Technology, and Public Policy program. Throughout President Barack
Obama's eight years in office, Schrag served on the President's Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology, contributing to many reports...
But nowhere in his extensive resume' will you find "prophet of doom."...
As it stands now, Schrag concludes the "experiment" is not going well.
He says that "over the next few decades, Earth's atmosphere will return
to a state not seen for millions of years."..
"We're likely to see 4 maybe even 6 degrees (Celsius) of (global)
warming over the next 100 years," says Schrag, "and it's happening more
than 100 times faster than climate change we've experienced in the
past." Schrag believes there might be even more to be concerned about,
saying there might be additional factors worsening climate change that
scientists have not anticipated.
Adding to his grim forecast, Schrag says reversing the trend will be
neither easy nor quick. For one thing, more than half of the CO2
currently affecting climate change will remain in our atmosphere 1,000
years from now. "A silver-bullet solution is not around the corner. It
will require innovative investments sustained for at least the next
century," he says.
Schrag says public policy energy choices made "over the next decade or
two will have profound effects on the Earth's system, on every living
thing on the planet." Schrag says determined and sustained energy
choices that reduce CO2 emissions are urgently needed to prevent his
doomsday prophecies from becoming realities of biblical proportions.
http://www.pbs.org/video/3012332925/
http://www.pbs.org/video/harvard-scientist-climate-change-may-be-worse-we-think-qej5d/
Capital Weather Gang
*Because of climate change, hurricanes are raining harder and may be
growing stronger more quickl
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/05/08/due-to-climate-change-hurricanes-are-raining-harder-and-may-be-growing-stronger-faster/?utm_term=.d06e76cff876>*y
By Jason Samenow
Hurricanes are fueled by heat, and in late August, before Harvey struck,
ocean heat content reached record high levels in the western Gulf of Mexico.
The study determined that the energy released into the atmosphere from
Harvey's rainfall matched the amount of energy which was removed from
the ocean in the storm's wake. In other words, the study found that the
amount of heat stored in the ocean is directly related to how much rain
a storm can unload.
The implication is that if climate change, driven by increasing
greenhouse gases from human activity, increases the heat content of the
ocean, storms passing over it will be able to draw ever more moisture
that they can unload as rain.
Harvey dumped more than 60 inches of rain in parts of Southeast Texas,
the most ever recorded from a single storm in the United States in
recorded history.
"[R]ecord high ocean heat values not only increased the fuel available
to sustain and intensify Harvey, but also increased its flooding rains
on land," the study said. "Harvey could not have produced so much rain
without human-induced climate change."
The implication is that if climate change, driven by increasing
greenhouse gases from human activity, increases the heat content of the
ocean, storms passing over it will be able to draw ever more moisture
that they can unload as rain...
- - - -
"Given the price tag with units of hundreds of billions of dollars for
the recent hurricanes, a modest (two orders of magnitude less)
investment in building resiliency may well have saved billions and a lot
of grief," the study concluded.
Atlantic hurricane season officially begins in less than three weeks.
More at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/05/08/due-to-climate-change-hurricanes-are-raining-harder-and-may-be-growing-stronger-faster/?utm_term=.d06e76cff876
[advanced climate lesson, heavily academic aimed at science majors]
*Simple principles underpinning climate change: Prof Bjorn Stevens
(April 2018) <https://youtu.be/Q-ExNAl7vwk?t=6m32s>*
[from Hablemos de Físicas. Simple principles
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUEAmEnrDWA> underpinning understanding
of climate change. https://youtu.be/aUEAmEnrDWA UCM - multilanguage
captions available]
English lecture start: https://youtu.be/Q-ExNAl7vwk?t=6m32s
[Water usage analysis]
*What Cape Town learned from its drought
<https://thebulletin.org/what-cape-town-learned-its-drought11698>*
Piotr Wolski - APRIL 2018
Analysts will continue to dissect the crisis in the months and years to
come. There already is a multitude, and there will be more of "Someone
should have…", "Had that been done…", "What if…" opinions. But opinions
are dependent on the particular worldview, political affiliation, and
(narrow) professional experience of the observer. Some facts are
indisputable, however. The drought was-and still is-very severe, and
beyond our control. Our water supply system was not resilient enough to
withstand it. In such a situation, other factors likely played only a
moderating role.
- -- - - -
Cape Town went through a process of learning and adaptation to
conditions that are likely to occur more often in the future-conditions
also faced by many cities in the world. The city has not only staved off
the immediate threat, but hopefully emerged more resilient. There are
many developments that are here to stay: a transformed, more resilient
water supply system; water-saving hardware in houses; water-saving
behaviors-or at least a good knowledge of such; a growing comprehension
of water as a limited resource; a greater understanding of the workings
of the water supply system; various community initiatives to support
water-saving in general; providing support to the vulnerable; experience
of government structures in working with incipient crisis; and so forth.
The list goes on and on. This all bodes well for the city to face the
challenges of the future. Learning was a hard process. But the outcomes
were worth it...
More at: https://thebulletin.org/what-cape-town-learned-its-drought11698
[Sierra Club call to action]
*New Farm Bill Full of Merde
<https://www.addup.org/campaigns/tell-congress-dont-undermine-anti-hunger-programs>*
It's hard to exaggerate how brazenly anti-environmental the farm bill
now wending its way through the U.S. House of Representatives truly is.
Let's see... it exempts pesticides from the Endangered Species and Clean
Water Acts. It boosts logging, removes environmental reviews, and makes
it easier to build roads in national forests. It undermines sustainable
agriculture, makes it tougher for people to qualify for nutrition
assistance, and tips the scales toward corporate interests and away from
small farmers. Get the picture? The bill is likely to come up for a full
House vote this month.
Urge your representative to oppose the farm bill.
<https://www.addup.org/campaigns/tell-congress-dont-undermine-anti-hunger-programs>
https://www.addup.org/campaigns/tell-congress-dont-undermine-anti-hunger-programs
(VR product )
Dutch company SIM-CI (simulating critical infrastructures) does Virtual
Reality and Augmented Reality
* SIM-CI believes that its simulation platform contributes to the
development of a more resilient world <https://www.sim-ci.com/>*. In
order to achieve these goals, set out by the UN, such as eradicating
poverty, stimulating prosperity and providing economic progress to all,
it is essential that we fortify our gas, energy, electricity and
mobility networks. Disruptions to CIs can have disastrous consequences,
from leaving citizens without power to disrupting entire economies.
Preventing and mitigating these risks serves to protect our economies,
as well as our people.
Download White Paper <https://www.sim-ci.com/download/4796/>
https://www.sim-ci.com/download/4796/
SIM-CI gains insight and foresight in these events by simulating the
cascading effects, starting with the flood itself and ending with the
number of people in areas affected by a power outage. Floods are
simulated by making use of height maps, buildings and waterway data. The
cause of the flood can be chosen, for example, a dike breakage or high
river water. The water heights in the region are calculated whilst
critical infrastructures are simulated and examined, for instance,
checking high water levels in electrical substations as they might
flood, causing failures in electricity networks. If and when this
happens, the electricity networks are recalculated and used as input for
determining possible cascading effects. Checking whether telecom towers
are up and running could be one of the examples.
https://www.sim-ci.com/
[to learn about deep throated denial, always follow the money]
*'It's all about vested interests': untangling conspiracy, conservatism
and climate scepticism
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/may/08/its-all-about-vested-interests-untangling-conspiracy-conservatism-and-climate-scepticism>*
Graham Readfearn
Study across 24 countries suggests the fossil fuel industry has reshaped
conservative political values in the US and Australia
Academics have suggested that people who tend to accept conspiracy
theories also underplay or reject the science showing humans are causing
rapid and dangerous climate change.
But anew study
<http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2>that tested
this idea across 24 different countries found the link between so-called
"conspiratorial ideation" and "climate scepticism" only really holds in
the US.
University of Queensland psychology professor Matthew Hornsey and
colleagues surveyed 5,300 people to test the link between climate
"scepticism" and acceptance of four internationally propagated
conspiracy theories around the assassination of President Kennedy, the
11 September terrorist attacks, the death of Princess Diana and the
existence of a new world order.
Only in the US did the correlation fall outside the margin of error.
This is perhaps not surprising, given thebooming online conspiracy
culture
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/dec/06/more-terrifying-than-trump-the-booming-conspiracy-culture-of-climate-science-denial>in
theTrumpocene
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/oct/21/we-are-approaching-the-trumpocene-a-new-epoch-where-climate-change-is-just-a-big-scary-conspiracy>,
with evenwould-be presidential science advisers hanging around with
conspiracy theorists
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/feb/21/trumps-potential-science-adviser-william-happer-hanging-around-with-conspiracy-theorists>.
- - --
There's been a general acceptance that people who have broadly
conservative or rightwing ideologies tend to rail against climate
science because it rubs their worldview up the wrong way. That is, that
tackling climate change will require broad interventions from governments.
But Hornsey's study finds that "there is nothing inherent to
conspiratorial ideation or conservative ideologies that predisposes
people to reject climate science".
Instead, it suggests vested interests have managed to reshape the
conservative identity with "ignorance-building strategies" in two
countries - the US and Australia.
Rather, the link between conservatism and climate scepticism only
emerges in countries that are economically threatened by the notion
of responding to climate change. When the vested interests are high
(in terms of the fossil fuel industry, for example) then there is
more of a motivation for big business to engage in an organised
campaign of misinformation around climate change. These campaigns
often develop as a collaboration between the fossil fuel industry
and conservative thinktanks, media and politicians, and are designed
to "coach" conservatives to believe that the climate science is not
yet settled. From this perspective, conservatives don't
spontaneously feel the need to reject climate science; they only do
so when they are taking their cues from conservative elites, and
these cues only emerge when the economic stakes are high.
Second, America has an unusually intense brand of conservatism, one
that has a particularly strong opposition to government interference
in the free market. Climate science is a nightmare for these people,
because in some ways it does imply a big-government response
designed to regulate industry.
- - - -
I think it's all about vested interests. When the vested interests
are high, the fossil fuel industry and conservative thinktanks,
media and politicians collaborate in an organised campaign of
misinformation. In my data, the link between conservatism and
scepticism is really only obvious in countries with high per capita
carbon emissions.
- - - -
As the negative consequences of climate change become more severe
and more immediate, I think the ideological element will fade away
(although by then it's likely to be too late, sadly).
You can read Matthew Hornsey's paper inNature Climate Change
<http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2>
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/may/08/its-all-about-vested-interests-untangling-conspiracy-conservatism-and-climate-scepticism
- - - - -
[Another explanation]
*The thinking error at the root of science denial
<https://theconversation.com/the-thinking-error-at-the-root-of-science-denial-96099>*
Jeremy P. Shapiro
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Psychological Science Case Western Reserve
Currently, there are three important issues on which there is scientific
consensus but controversy among laypeople: climate change, biological
evolution and childhood vaccination. On all three issues, prominent
members of the Trump administration, including the president, have lined
up against the conclusions of research.
This widespread rejection of scientific findings presents a perplexing
puzzle to those of us who value an evidence-based approach to knowledge
and policy.
Yet many science deniers do cite empirical evidence. The problem is that
they do so in invalid, misleading ways. Psychological research
illuminates these ways.
- - - -
In my view, science deniers misapply the concept of "proof."
Proof exists in mathematics and logic but not in science. Research
builds knowledge in progressive increments. As empirical evidence
accumulates, there are more and more accurate approximations of ultimate
truth but no final end point to the process. Deniers exploit the
distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing
empirically well-supported ideas as "unproven." Such statements are
technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no
proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides
for action we have.
I have observed deniers use a three-step strategy to mislead the
scientifically unsophisticated. First, they cite areas of uncertainty or
controversy, no matter how minor, within the body of research that
invalidates their desired course of action. Second, they categorize the
overall scientific status of that body of research as uncertain and
controversial. Finally, deniers advocate proceeding as if the research
did not exist.
For example, climate change skeptics jump from the realization that we
do not completely understand all climate-related variables to the
inference that we have no reliable knowledge at all. Similarly, they
give equal weight to the 97 percent of climate scientists who believe in
human-caused global warming and the 3 percent who do not, even though
many of the latter receive support from the fossil fuels industry.
This same type of thinking can be seen among creationists. They seem to
misinterpret any limitation or flux in evolutionary theory to mean that
the validity of this body of research is fundamentally in doubt. For
example, the biologist James Shapiro (no relation) discovered a cellular
mechanism of genomic change that Darwin did not know about. Shapiro
views his research as adding to evolutionary theory, not upending it.
Nonetheless, his discovery and others like it, refracted through the
lens of dichotomous thinking, result in articles with titles like,
"Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken" by Paul Nelson and David
Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute, which promotes the theory of
"intelligent design." Shapiro insists that his research provides no
support for intelligent design, but proponents of this pseudoscience
repeatedly cite his work as if it does.
For his part, Trump engages in dichotomous thinking about the
possibility of a link between childhood vaccinations and autism. Despite
exhaustive research and the consensus of all major medical organizations
that no link exists, Trump has often cited a link between vaccines and
autism and he advocates changing the standard vaccination protocol to
protect against this nonexistent danger.
There is a vast gulf between perfect knowledge and total ignorance, and
we live most of our lives in this gulf. Informed decision-making in the
real world can never be perfectly informed, but responding to the
inevitable uncertainties by ignoring the best available evidence is no
substitute for the imperfect approach to knowledge called science.
https://theconversation.com/the-thinking-error-at-the-root-of-science-denial-96099
- - - - -
[classic essay on climate denial from 2012]
*SOCIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL
<http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-03-17/sociological-explanations-climate-change-denial/>*
By Olga Bonfiglio, originally published by Energy Bulletin
March 17, 2012
Three years ago promises by both major political parties to do something
have gone by the wayside while today'sRepublican presidential candidates
reject evidence that humans are responsible for the warming of the earth
<http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/11/2012-gop-candidates-demonstrate-dramatic-political-shift-on-climate/>
The mainstream media routinely report on extreme weather, like this
winter's high temperatures and last summer's droughts, but reporters and
commentators typically veer away from connecting it to climate change...
- - - -
It turns out that the United States is one of the few countries in the
world still quibbling over climate change, and its influence is
stymieing progress at environmental summits likeDurbin
<http://www.cop17-cmp7durban.com/>(2011),Cancun
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cancun-climate-change-conference-2010>(2010),
andCopenhagen
<http://www.erantis.com/events/denmark/copenhagen/climate-conference-2009/index.htm>(2009).
What's going on?
As you may expect, it's about money, politics, culture and media bias.
Ron Kramer, a sociologist at Western Michigan University, has been
studying how sociological and cultural factors are preventing Americans
from talking about or acting on climate change. He drew on the research
ofsociologist Stanley Cohen, professor emeritus at the London School of
Economics
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Cohen_%28sociologist%29>,//who
says that denial//"refers to the maintenance of social worlds in which
an undesirable situation (event, condition, phenomenon) is unrecognized,
ignored or made to seem normal."
He cites three categories of denial:
- A*/literal/*denial is: "the assertion that something did not
happen or is not true."
- With an*/interpretive/*denial, the basic facts are not denied,
however, "…they are given a different meaning from what seems
apparent to others." People recognize that something is happening
but that it's good for us.
*/- Implicatory/*denial "covers the multitude of vocabularies,
justifications, rationalizations, evasions that we use to deal with
our awareness of so many images of unmitigated suffering." Here,
"knowledge itself is not an issue. The genuine challenge is doing
the 'right' thing with this knowledge."
Through*literal*and*interpretive denial*, climate change deniers declare
that the earth is not warming even though 98 percent of our scientists
have written thousands of peer-reviewed papers and reports concluding
that climate change isreal
<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html>and
caused byhuman activity
<http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf>.
Actually, deniers are organized by conservative think tanks funded by
the fossil fuel industry that attempt to create doubt about climate
science and block actions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
create clean energy alternatives.
To do this they use conspiracy theories and "fake" experts with no
background in climate science. They insist on/absolute/certainty,
cherry-pick the data and ignore the larger body of evidence or
misrepresent data and promote logical fallacies like "the climate has
changed in the past, therefore current change is natural."
"Creating doubt blocks any action," said Kramer. "This is thesame
tactic the tobacco industry used
<http://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/strategieslb.html>to deny that
smoking was harmful to people's health. And, some of the same people are
now doing this with climate change."
- - - -
Research shows that conservative white males are more likely to espouse
climate change denial than other groups for two reasons. They tend to
filter out any information that is different from their already-held
worldview because it threatens the identity, status and esteem they
receive by being part of their group, he said. Sociologists call this
"Identity Protective Cognition."
Secondly, conservative white males have a stronger need to justify the
status quo and resist attempts to change it. Sociologists call this
"System Justification."
For example, successful conservative white males stridently defend the
capitalist system because it has worked well for them. For anyone to
imply the system is not functioning is an unfathomable impossibility
akin to blasphemy. [Climatewire via Scientific American
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-conservative-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics>]
"Identity Protective Cognition" should also inform environmental
activists that the information deficit model of activism is not always a
good approach, warned Kramer. Just providing more information may not
change anyone's views given their commitment to a particular cultural
worldview.
In*implicatory denial*people recognize that something untoward is
happening but they fail to act because they are emotionally
uncomfortable or troubled about it.
For example, there are the people who are aware of climate change and
have some information about it, but take no action, make no behavioral
changes and remain apathetic.
This response occurs when people confront confusing and conflicting
information from political leaders and the media. Consequently, they
have yet another reason for denial-or they believe the problem can be
overcome with technology and they can go on with their lives.
"At some level people understand that climate change can alter human
civilization, but they feel a sense of helplessness and powerlessness at
the prospect," said Kramer. "Others feel guilty that they may have
caused the problem."
Several cultural factors also thwart any decisive action on climate
change, said Kramer.
Americans have a tendency toward"anti-intellectualism,"
<http://www.alternet.org/story/95109/?page=2>so "nerdy" climate
scientists are easily suspect.
Our strong sense of "individualism" helps us strive toward our
individual goals, but it likewise keeps us from joining together to do
something about climate change. They ask: "What good does it do to
recycle or drive less when we have such a huge, complex problem as
climate change?"
"American exceptionalism" celebrates the American way of life, which has
given us a vast bounty of wealth and material goods. We want to
continue this life and, in fact, deserve it. Nothing bad will happen to us.
Finally, "political alienation" keeps us from trusting our political
system to tackle the problem.
"What we ultimately need is international agreement about what to do
about climate change," said Kramer. "Nothing will happen, however,
until the United States commits to doing something."
More at:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-03-17/sociological-explanations-climate-change-denial/
[but we don't know when]
*Global warming is melting Antarctic ice from below
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/may/09/global-warming-is-melting-antarctic-ice-from-below>*
Warming oceans melting Antarctic ice shelves could accelerate sea level rise
John Abraham
We all know intuitively that in a warmer world there will be less ice.
And, since the North and South Pole regions contain lots of ice, anyone
who wants to see evidence of climate change can look there.
But beyond this simplistic view, things can get pretty complex. First,
it's important to recognize that the Arctic and the Antarctic are very
different places. In the Arctic, almost all the ice is floating on water
- there is very little land. So, we talk about 'sea ice' in the north,
formed from frozen sea water. On the other hand, Antarctica is a massive
land mass that is covered by ice formed from snowfall (called an 'ice
sheet'). There is some floating ice around the perimeter of the land,
but the vast majority of Antarctic ice is on land.
This difference not only affects how these regions response to climate
change, but it also impacts their importance. We know that when floating
ice melts, the ocean levels will not rise, because the ice was already
floating in the water. But, when land ice melts, the liquid water flows
into the ocean and causes the water levels to rise. So, at least from a
sea-level perspective, land ice is more important than floating ice.
There are other differences between the north and south. One feature of
the south is that there is a strong current that travels around
Antarctica and partially shields it from waters elsewhere in the ocean.
The Nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory provides a good summary of some of
the differences between the poles.
With global warming, both of the poles are warming quite quickly, and
this warming is causing ice to melt in both regions. When we think of
ice melting, we may think of it melting from above, as the ice is heated
from the air, from sunlight, or from infrared energy from the
atmosphere. But in truth, a lot of the melting comes from below. For
instance, in the Antarctic, the ice shelves extend from the land out
over the water. The bottom of the ice shelf is exposed to the ocean. If
the ocean warms up, it can melt the underside of the shelf and cause it
to thin or break off into the ocean.
A new study, recently published in Science Advances, looked at these
issues. One of the goals of this study was to better understand whether
and how the waters underneath the shelf are changing. They had to deal
with the buoyancy of the waters. We know that the saltier and colder
water is, the denser it is.
Around Antarctica, water at the ocean surface cools down and becomes
saltier. These combined effects make the surface waters sink down to the
sea floor. But as ice melt increases, fresh water flows into the ocean
and interrupts this buoyancy effect. This "freshening" of the water can
slow down or shut down the vertical mixing of the ocean. When this
happens, the cold waters at the surface cannot sink. The deeper waters
retain their heat and melt the ice from below.
The study incorporated measurements of both temperature and salinity
(saltiness) at three locations near the Dalton Iceberg Tongue on the
Sabrina Coast in East Antarctica. The measurements covered approximately
an entire year and gave direct evidence of seasonal variations to the
buoyancy of the waters. The researchers showed that a really important
component to water-flow patterns were 'polynyas.' These are regions of
open water that are surrounded by ice, typically by land ice on one side
and sea ice on the other side.
- - photo:
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/may/09/global-warming-is-melting-antarctic-ice-from-below#img-2>
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/may/09/global-warming-is-melting-antarctic-ice-from-below#img-2
When waters from the polynya are cold and salty, the waters sink
downwards and form a cold curtain around the ice shelf. However, when
the waters are not salty (because fresh water is flowing into the
polynya), this protective curtain is disrupted and warm waters can
intrude from outside, leading to more ice melt.
Based on this study, we may see increased ice loss in the future - sort
of a feedback loop. That concerns us because it will mean more sea level
rise (which is already accelerating), and more damage to coastal
communities. I asked the lead author, Alesandro Silvano about this work:
We found that freshwater from melting ice shelves is already enough to
stop formation of cold and salty waters in some locations around
Antarctica. This process causes warming and freshening of Antarctic
waters. Ocean warming increases melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet,
causing sea level to rise. Freshening of Antarctic waters weakens the
currents that trap heat and carbon dioxide in the ocean, affecting the
global climate. In this way local changes in Antarctica can have global
implications. Multiple sources of evidence exist now to show that these
changes are happening. However, what will happen in Antarctica in the
next decades and centuries remains unclear and needs to be understood.
This is just another reason to take scientists seriously and act to slow
down climate change before it is too late.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/may/09/global-warming-is-melting-antarctic-ice-from-below
*This Day in Climate History - May 10, 2005
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4647599> - from
D.R. Tucker*
May 10, 2005: The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia rules that the White House does not have to disclose
information regarding the infamous 2001 Cheney Energy Task Force.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/politics/10cnd-cheney.html?_r=0
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4647599
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/05/11/court_backs_cheney_on_energy_meetings/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
///To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
/to news digest. /
*** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
carries no images which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20180510/b58957a6/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list