Indian Ocean climate impacts

In the recent post regarding the continuing impacts of Cyclone Nargis, I noted some unusual behaviour in the Indian Ocean SST. In particular, I noted that we are quite possibly headed into an apparently unprecedented third consecutive occurrence of the so-called Indian Ocean Dipole.

This behaviour of the IOD has not only been observed during the last few years, but is also a part of a longer trend of the past decades. The years 1994 and 1997 saw unusually strong positive IODs (e.g. this time series to 1990); 2006 was a moderate to strong event and this year remains to be determined...

In recent days, several instances of the impact of the Indian ocean have been noted. Both short- and long(er)-term impacts are noted.

The first item notes that tuna catches across the Indian Ocean have fallen sharply in the last two years and early indicators for this year show catches to be markedly below recent averages. Conservationists blame years of unchecked exploitation while processors say climatic conditions may be driving the fish deeper away from their nets.

As before, this illustrates the complexity of environmental problems and the difficulty of assigning ultimate cause and effect (and hence legal blame punishable by lawsuits). There are merits to both sides of the argument, and the reality of the situation is some nebulous gray between the two extremes. Years of overfishing have undoubtedly occurred and weakened the population, making it more susceptible to an unusual climatic event.

The recent IOD behaviour and The timing of the fishing loss event provides strong circumstantial evidence in favor of a climate effect. Normally a negative dipole follows a positive event. Fish populations are affected by changes in ocean conditions (El Nino was known for years by Peruvian fisherman for its impact of the anchovy haul, and the first(?) 'ENSO' paper explicitly linking ocean and atmosphere appeared in a tuna fishery journal...) and breaking the 'regular cycle' with the recent double IOD may have disrupted the fish's recovery. A triple positive IOD event could prove a disaster for Indian Ocean fisheries, hastening the inevitable end from overfishing.

The second item notes a recent study which identifies a link between a warming Indian Ocean and less rainfall in Africa. Rainfall in eastern Africa during the rainy season, which runs from March through May, has declined about 15 percent since the 1980s. Declines in rainfall in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe were linked to increases in rainfall over the ocean.

Using both diagnostic (to identify how the observed decline work) and predictive modeling, the authors suggest "We can be quite certain that the decline in rainfall has been substantial and will continue to be. This 15 percent decrease every 20-25 years is likely to continue."

The study also notes that with current trends in emissions and local agricultural capacity the number of undernourished people could increase by more than 50 percent in eastern Africa by 2030. Coupled with the fishing problems noted above, the region looks set for continued troubles for years as a result of climate change.

A few final thoughts. As I've hinted at before (see also this post at Atmoz), these seemingly natural (but unusual) events are not caused by climate change, rather they are the climate change. This is how climate change manifests itself: increasing climate instability and an 'exaggeration' of normal behaviour.

The atmosphere and ocean radiate and stir, flux and transport, edging towards equilibrium, while never fully achieving it. This is in response to myriad of climate forcings on a variety of time scales. The forcing from a slowly-varying orbit and a reasonably well-behaved Sun has brought a certain dynamic equilibrium to the climate in recent millennia. Unfortunately, the relentless radiative forcing from the Great CO2 Enhancement Experiment is particularly large at this moment in Earth's long history and is driving the Earth's climate system in new ways (releasing the stored solar energy of millions of years in a century will do that...).

We are witnessing but the beginning of a long process of change; there are no stopping points in the immediate future. The CO2 already in the atmosphere will remain* for 100 years or so, committing us to a lengthy period of climate instability. Continuing the emissions of CO2 just adds to the forcing and drives the Earth systems harder, resulting in more chaos. These events in the Indian Ocean are just a foretaste of things to come.

*barring the unlikely event of successful geo-engineering project or some such...

***
Image: Extracted from Africa: Atlas of our Changing Environment

Scandinavia ablaze

The Scandinavian countries of Norway and Sweden are experiencing some significant wildfire activity this season, particularly during June.

Earlier this month in Sweden:

Eight helicopters and some 150 firefighters, home guards and other volunteers were Tuesday combating a large blaze that has raged for several days in central Sweden, reports said. The blaze near Hassela, some 350 kilometres north of Stockholm, was one of two blazes in the region...

A week later:

Gusting winds are fueling forest fires raging near Lämmetorp outside of Finspång in east central Sweden...

Dry ground and hard winds on Tuesday caused a number of other forest fires...in south central Sweden....

[T]he fires which have been raging for twelve days outside of Hassela in northern Sweden are now under control.

Even more recently in Norway:

Norway may seek foreign help to extinguish its biggest forest fire since World War Two, which has been raging for five days...

The fire has burned out about 5,000 acres, or 2,000 hectares, near the town of Arendal, about 260 km (160 miles) southwest of Oslo.

Norwegian media reported smoke had wafted as far as Denmark, some 120 km (75 miles) away across the Skagerrak strait.

The fire broke out after an unusually warm and sunny start to June. No lives have been lost but holiday houses have been destroyed and dozens of people evacuated.

The image was captured from the real time imagery from the NASA MODIS Terra satellite on 11 June 2008 and shows the Arendal fire. A small cluster of hotspots can be seen, along with the smoke plume extending towards Denmark. The image is a true colour image roughly 270 x 170 km, with north pointing about 20-25 degrees to the left. Oslo, Norway's capital, is just off-image to the left of the 'N' in NASA. I have slightly tweaked the image to attenuate the 'murkiness' of the original.

Compared to the sizes of wildfires which occurring the United States and other regions of the world, these fires are relatively small. But they are obviously straining the the resources of the local firefighting agencies. The largest fire since WW2 is something to take seriously.

These fires, along with those seen in Russia during April, raise an interesting question in light of a recently published paper suggesting that melting Arctic ice has a warming impact several hundreds of km inland, as well. As suggested over at Hot Topic, this is consistent with the pattern of temperatures observed this past winter with the record ice melt. These unusually warm temperatures likely played a role in producing the enhanced fire weather conditions driving the current fires. Are the carbon reservoirs within circumboreal forests at risk through increasing fire activity from the melting polar ice (as well as from the potential of melting permafrost)?

The last few years in Alaska and Yukon have seen some very severe fire seasons (e.g. Here and here). A paleo-climate record of fire activity in these regions [PDF] is more unclear. The fire activity noted this year, in both Scandinavia and Russia, could also be a sign. Obviously, one data point doesn't prove anything one way or the other. The Scandinavian fires could just be the result of short-term weather fluctuations. It will be interesting to see what happens in other northern areas this year as well. Wildfire activity is expected to be above normal this summer [PDF] in much of northern North America. The impacts of any fires need to be carefully monitored as well.

Is this case overstated? Quite possibly. Wildfire probably won't kill the forest by itself, but it could weaken the ecosystem enough to allow something else to do the job. Possibly another one of the myriad of unexpected impacts of humanity's reckless CO2-enhancement experiment. It's all happening now, and humans will know where we stand in a few years time. We can only hope it is not too late.

Why do dolphins strand themselves?

It's been a particularly rough patch for dolphins as of late...

In Madagascar, 55 melon-headed whales (a species of dolphin) have died after coming ashore in the northwest part of the country. In Cornwall, 26 dolphins have died in a mass stranding. A pathologist who examined some of the 26 dead mammals said today: "On the face of it, it looks like some sort of mass suicide - but the question is why? The dolphins had swallowed and inhaled big chunks of mud from the estuary. Their lungs and stomachs were full of it. That is very bizarre indeed." An unusual number of dolphin strandings was also noted in Cornwall earlier this year, as well.

The question is indeed 'Why?'.

One hypothesis suggests a natural mechanism, a combination of particular weather conditions and a gently sloping coastline, which can cause the dolphins to not 'see' the approaching shore and result in a stranding. Other, human-induced causes may also be to blame.

Pesticides and other aquatic toxins could play a role. Dolphins stranded in Victoria, Australia over the past two years have shown elevated levels of mercury contamination. "Dolphins may be becoming stranded as a direct consequence of mercury contamination which damages their neurological system. They become potentially confused and disorientated, and strand themselves." Similarly, toxic algal blooms (on the increase in recent years, likely due to agricultural fertilizer runoffs) may lead to epilepsy and behaviourial abnormalities in California sea lions. Even low-levels of chemical contamination can lead to these difficulties in marine mammals. And such persistent chemical pollution is pervasive in the ocean, even affecting the deep-sea cephalopods on which dolphins and whales feed.

Other factor could be sonar and other loud noises produced by ships in coastal waters. Military exercises, including the use of sonar, were noted nearby in the recent Cornwall case. In the Madagascar case, ExxonMobil was carrying out seismic surveying roughly 50 km from the stranding site. The coincidence is certainly interesting, and worthy of further consideration. But determining ultimate cause-and-effect is an extremely difficult process.

I've noted previously, dolphins and other marine mammals have been sighted in unprecedented locales in recent times. Much of this shift in range of these creatures is believed to have been driven by climate change. The melon-headed dolphins in the example fit this pattern, having never before been seen in Madagascar.

Allowing myself to anthropomorphicize for a moment, one chain-of-reasoning that fits these (admittedly selected) facts: As climate changes, the animals-- affected to some degree by persistent chemical pollution -- move to new (and unfamiliar) territories. Not knowing a particular area may mean the creatures are not familiar with the pitfalls (e.g. 'sonar-terminating' coastlines) of a given area. So when startled or panicked, by say sonar or depth charges, the dolphins may make 'poor decisions' (being neurologically damaged) and stumble into a blind alley (a la the natural mechanism noted above).

This is just a homemade hypothesis, unlikely to withstand serious scientific scrutiny. But it illustrative of the problem at hand. Like the Blind Men and the Elephant, we have a collection of facts and perceptions, each of which likely contain some grain of truth. The trick is to discern the true nature of what we face. ExxonMobil and/or the military make easy and tempting targets for blame, but it is difficult to escape the idea that the elephant in the room is really Our Way of Life. The real solution lies in changing our destructive lifestyles so that they better harmonize with the rhythms of Nature.

***
Image: ENN

On raising environmental awareness

The defining issue of the early-21^st century is the environment. Widespread awareness of humanity's climate and environmental issues is growing. The global adoption of Earth Hour this past Saturday is symbolic of the dawning realization that our lifestyle is increasingly damaging the planet. People are gradually developing some mindfulness towards the issues and demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice, even in a small way, to solve the problems.

For all the good of Earth Hour, though, much remains to be done. The event was only a symbol. “Turning off lights for 60 minutes isn't going to stop the Antarctic ice sheets melting, stop thousands of Pacific Islanders losing their homes from rising sea levels or stop the Earth's temperature rising one jot.” Many didn't participate. In general, the paramount importance of climate change and other environmental issues remains understated and unappreciated in broader society. This is not accidental.

Using ethically-questionable tactics akin to those derived by the tobacco lobby, huge amounts of resources are dedicated to obfuscating the issues at hand ultimately creating confusion, delay and apathy towards the issues. Creating a desire to wait until some later time to act is a risky tactic. The motivations for such behaviour are unclear to me; I would guess extreme self-interest, a rigid ideology and/or a profit uber alles worldview. But missing from this paradigm is the awareness that we are all in this together. Money may buy a temporary refuge, but we all need the ecosystem to survive.

Unfortunately, these tactics are having an effect. The desire for delay is working. But time is running short for society to act. The window to affect positive environmental change is closing. Failure to decisively act within the next 5-10 years likely guarantees radical (irreversible) alterations to the natural environment. Indeed, such changes are already beginning to be observed – The canaries are dying, one by one. But it is apparently not enough to create the critical mass required to tackle the issues

So what will bring about the shift in worldview required to tackle this 21^st century challenge? It will likely require some an event of phenomenal magnitude -- a Cataclysm – to galvanize the world into unified action. A event so large that any lingering doubts of the environmental perils we face will be obliterated.

Sadly, I suspect that we will see such an event in the coming years. The exact form remains unknown and, in fact the Cataclysm will probably be something we didn't see coming at all. The tragedy is that this is the alarm needed to shake the complacency of society. There will still be doubters after the event, just as there are still people today who believe in creationism and that the earth is flat. But we won't listen anymore; the lies and distortions will no longer have any sway. We can only hope that it is not too late for meaningful action.

A full understanding of the environment-at-large is still a way off. The feedbacks and interactions between the different spheres are subtle and difficult to discern. But we know enough to get a general idea of what will likely happen. And research from both the arts and sciences demonstrate that the outcome is likely to be bad. The consequences of our actions are potentially enormous. If we don't want to pay the price, then the best course for humanity is prompt action to stabilize anthropogenic climate change, stop polluting, reduce the population and adopt a 'bright green' lifestyle. Proaction, not the more-typical reaction, is a more sensible course to follow. But it won't come unless we demand it of ourselves and our leaders.

***

Image: NASA Visible Earth

Composite satellite image of 5 Atlantic TCs in 2005. Image via EurekAlert!

Great Game 2.0: Antarctica

A new version of Great Game is afoot, this time centred on Antarctica and its potential resources. The region will likely be a flashpoint in the medium- to long-term future as oil gets scarce and the region becomes more accessible due to climate change. The players are already lining up and the opening moves are being made. It's every man for himself.

As a result of humanity's CO2 enhancement experiment, the climate of Antarctica is changing. Sea ice surrounding the continent is expanding, but the significance of any trend is small. The mechanisms controlling the size of the sea ice are poorly understood, but it is known that there is some link with ENSO (which itself may be changing from global warming). A new, comprehensive study shows that as a whole, the Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass. This is apparently focused on the West sheet and on the Antarctic Peninsula. The melting of the ice sheet could have serious implications for sea level rise around the world. Some caution is urged, as more studies are needed to confirm the result. Still the results seem consistent with earlier research (using a different method) noted earlier on planet doom?. There is some suggestion that these sorts of changes could result in the local extinction of Adelie penguins on the Peninsula within a decade.

Antarctica also potentially represents a vast, untapped source of resources, especially oil. As it was once part of the super-continent Gondwanaland (along with South America, Africa and Australia) and covered with extensive vegetation, many believe it may contain a so-called supergiant oil field. The Ross and Weddell Sea regions alone are estimated to contain 50 billion barrels of oil, roughly equivalent to Alaskan reserves. While this oil is difficult to obtain given Antarctica's extreme conditions, oil prices of $150-200 a barrel (later this year?) make extraction here more economically feasible. Climate change may act to make the area more accessible. The treaty prohibiting mineral resource exploitation is set to expire in 2048, but as peak oil bites this will probably fall by the wayside before then.

Indeed, like dogs marking the trees they pass, many nations are already acting in such a way as to establish (or reinforce) claims to the continent. Some of these efforts were noted in an earlier post. They have picked up pace in the ongoing austral summer. Korea is looking to establish another base. The Chinese have climbed the highest peak on the Antarctic ice sheet for the second time. Venezuela is showing some interest (but no action yet). Chile is also acting to protect its claim, with the re-establishment of bases and visits by high-level military officials.

It is Australia, already claiming some 42% of the continent, who are making the boldest moves in the game. Many of these moves are made ostensibly for scientific and environmental reasons. These are likely just cover stories. The country has established a passenger air service to the continent, the first of its kind, reducing the time it takes to reach the continent (from Hobart) to a mere five hours. The ongoing kerfuffle with Japan over their 'scientific whaling' program is another bold gambit. While essentially a policy that I personally support (let's hear it for the 'sea-hippies'), we should not be fooled about what it really means. This started when the protesters tried to serve notice that the whalers are in violation of Australian law, a claim which Japan doesn't recognize, and which is unenforcible anyway. Rudd (the Australian PM) is obviously thinking several moves ahead, attempting to establish some moral validity to back up the claims to sovereignty, looking to gain a large slice of any future pie to be had. Nations don't risk diplomatic incidents over whales.

The game has begun. It's likely to be long and arduous, and we will likely all be losers in the end as we ravage the last pristine place on Earth to continue living our unsustainable lives.

***

Image: NASA Visible Earth

Just say no to geo-engineering

Geo-engineering, defined here as “artificial modification of earth systems to counteract anthropogenic effects”, is gaining momentum. A commonly proposed method of doing this is to dump stuff into the ocean in the hopes that it will spur the growth of phytoplankton, which in turn will result in an uptake in CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean. Once the plankton die they sink to the ocean floor, sequestering the CO2. As has been noted on planet doom? previously, this is a well intentioned but (likely) short-sighted attempt at a 'quick-fix' to the problems confronting humanity; a shortcut so that we can avoid making any hard choices about the world we have created.

So what is wrong with it? It is, after all, part of the natural order of things; phytoplankton blooms occur regularly now. A recent event was just observed off the coast of Namibia, in southern Africa, as shown in the MODIS imagery to the right. Phytoplankton undeniably act to sequester CO2. But, as the article notes, they have other effects as well.

After the plankton sink, they are decomposed by bacteria. If the amount of plant material is too large, the water becomes anoxic -- depleted of oxygen –- and a 'dead zone', where fish and other marine fauna are unable to survive, is created in the ocean . Needless to say, this is bad for the marine ecosystem. If material remains to be decomposed, anaerobic bacteria -- which don't need oxygen -- take over. These bacteria initiate a reaction which produces hydrogen sulfide (H2S) --a poison -- which seeps to the surface and kills the fish and other fauna.

In the local region and at the times where this occurs, it becomes a serious issue, but remains generally unimportant on larger scales. But creating more phytoplankton through geo-engineering could become a broader issue. Dead zones are already becoming a problem worldwide, particularly near the mouths of large river systems, due to agricultural runoff. Other regions with restricted water flow, like the Black Sea, are natural anoxic zones. The fact that we have these major environmental problems already being seen suggests that the amount of phytoplankton which would need to be produced to offset the 35% increase in CO2 we have put into the atmosphere to date would be very large. We probably couldn't do it without destroying a large part of the marine ecosystem.

In a paper from last year (Oct 2006) in Scientific American entitled “Impact from the Deep”, an intriguing hypothesis was put forth that a similar mechanism involving anoxic oceans and the production of H2S, rather than the more commonly assumed bolide impacts, may have driven several of the five mass extinctions which have been noted in the fossil record. In this hypothesis, anoxic zones producing H2S rise to the ocean surface and releases the gas to the atmosphere, killing nearby land flora and fauna. Further, the gas may rise to the stratosphere, where there is some indication that it may reduce the protective ozone layer, finishing off the organisms which avoid the initial impact of the gas. In that paper, the chain of events starts with rapid global warming. With geo-engineering we could possibly skip a few steps, and proceed right to the extinction.

This is only a supposition. The fact is that we simply don't know what effect such geo-engineering schemes may have. We don't have a good history at avoiding the so-called Law of Unintended Consequences and so we probably shouldn't tempt fate. Although we can and have altered the environment, it is pure hubris to think that we have any sort of control over it. As a result, we should really put aside these grandiose schemes to save the world and instead focus on the more mundane chores of adapting to the unavoidable changes already in the system and reducing our carbon emissions to mitigate any future effects. Societal collapse and the sixth extinction are distinct futures we face with our current way of life. We need to act with wisdom and forethought to avoid these fates.

The more things change...

As the months pass, it becomes more and more obvious that the climate is changing. Yet many of the developed nations of the world, particularly the United States and Australia continue their recalcitrant foot-dragging ways, refusing to enact even the simplest measures to combat anthropogenic climate change.

In a just-published study in Geophysical Research Letters, there is now a suggestion that we have weakened the so-called Walker circulation, the Pacific-wide east/west circulation, an crucial part of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. Record sea-level pressures in Darwin, Australia, weaken trade winds and high sea surface temperatures in the Pacific are all linked, resulting in a period of unprecedented El Nino dominance of the climate. These changes are profound, and destined to wreak further havoc on the climate system, particularly in Australia.

AS events unfold, more of the populace of the world seek positive climate action. Two of three people polled in a 21-nation survey indicate that 'major steps' are needed soon to effectively combat global warming. Eighty percent believe humans are the source of the observed climate change.

At the same time, the leaders of the world's two leading emitters of greenhouse gases, the United States and Australia (per capita), remain with their heads stuck in the sand, refusing to take meaningful action. Bush refuses to attend UN climate negotiations organized in New York to kick off post-Kyoto negotiations for fear of 'damaging the economy'. Alexander Downer, Australia's Foreign Affairs minister, says we need to move on from the Kyoto protocol (which it is not a part of), apparently preferring the 'aspirational' targets of the toothless APEC proposal negotiated a few weeks ago in Sydney. The nations seem to be waiting for some technological miracle (which may or may not come), rather than making the hard choices required to effectively manage the situation.

To be fair, not all of the citizenry of these two countries are ignorant of the dangers of climate change. Australia's top policeman notes that the impacts of climate change are the biggest security threat of the future. US-based studies are suggesting that centralized coal and nuclear power plants should be phased out in favor of alternate energy sources. Australians also desire alternate energy sources, but would prefer some subsidies from the government to lower the cost. The token gestures made to date are not satisfactory.

There is hope and the time to act in these countries is coming soon. An election is immanent in Australia, expected to occur by the end of the year. National US elections will be held in little over a year. The citizenry of these nations must see through the sophistry of the current leadership and elect insightful leaders who are willing to place the environmental and climate issues of the forefront of the public policy agenda where they belong. The stakes are high and the time for dithering is past. We must act now to insure stability for future generations.

Karangetang: Will it blow?

A bit off the main topic of this blog, but interesting and relevant nonetheless is this recent news item from Indonesia:

• Erupting Indonesian volcano threatens more villages -- Reuters

Lava and hot gas clouds from a volcano in eastern Indonesia are threatening more villages, officials said on Tuesday.

...The volcano, on the diving resort island of Siau off Sulawesi and 2,325 km (1,445 miles) northeast of the capital Jakarta, is one of Indonesia's most active volcanoes.

...The alert status on the 1,827 meter (5,994 feet) volcano was raised to maximum at the weekend after hot clouds started moving eastwards, posing a threat to hundreds of people.

Another volcano 175 km (110 miles) south of Mount Karangetang has also been spewing ash and sending debris down its slopes.

But Mount Soputan, which lies on the northern tip of the Sulawesi island, is not yet seen as a threat to nearby villages.

The relevance to climate is the possibility that it might explode with sufficient force to inject aerosol into the stratosphere. A recent example of the climates impacts of volcanic eruptions would be Mt Pinatubo in 1991:

The cloud over the earth [from the eruption] reduced global temperatures. In 1992 and 1993, the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was reduced 0.5 to 0.6°C and the entire planet was cooled 0.4 to 0.5°C. The maximum reduction in global temperature occurred in August 1992 with a reduction of 0.73°C. The eruption is believed to have influenced such events as 1993 floods along the Mississippi river and the drought in the Sahel region of Africa. The United States experienced its third coldest and third wettest summer in 77 years during 1992.

The short- and longer-term climate impacts are potentially quite significant. Other 'recent' eruptions with a global climate impact were observed Mt. Agung in 1963 and El Chichon in 1982. How likely is an event of this magnitude from this volcano? (Keeping in mind that I have no specific knowledge in this field, and may not know what I am talking about...)

The eruption history of Karangetang suggests that this is unlikely. The volcano erupts quite often, with small to moderate eruptions. The largest Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) from this volcano is 3 (Moderate to Large)**. This table suggests that stratospheric injection is 'Possible'. These events are rare in the history of this volcano, more likely is a 1 or 2. These facts suggest that most likely, this volcano will not have a significant impact on the global climate.

**For comparison with other eruptions, Pinatubo has VEI=6 , and the other two eruptions noted above had VEI=4. Its apparently not all VEI, though. Location is also important in determining the overall climate impact. Tropical eruptions are more efficient at cooling the globe. I would also guess that the amount of ejecta, particularly sulfur dioxide, from the volcano would also play a role.

Decadal-scale forecasting

Here's more on the decadal forecasting scheme I posted earlier. I think that was the first one that came across the feed, and it not especially clearly written...It was very late, too

Anyway, Nature News has the best report I've seen so far (I have to wait to read the paper...we get Science a few weeks late in the library for whatever reason...). I really like the accompanying graphic, reproduced here. To my mind, the graphic alone raises all sorts of questions and thoughts. More on that below, on to the story

• Model approach to climate prediction – nature.com

British researchers have substantially improved the performance of a global climate model by adding observations about the actual state of the ocean and atmosphere. The results are of seminal importance for those trying to produce reliable short-term 'climate forecasts' on global and regional scales, experts say.

The team, led by Doug Smith of the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter, has developed a climate prediction system that is capable of including natural variability in the climate system — such as that arising from anomalies in ocean circulation or ocean heat content — into modelling carried out by a global climate model...

I would think that there is small (but finite) chance the model follows that consensus forecast path. I suppose it really depends on what the ocean does and how well the model reflects that reality. That especially presumes there will not be some major, new climate forcing like a major volcanic eruption, an asteroid strike or a regional nuclear war (If there is a global nuclear war, the forecast doesn't really matter...) to throw the climate completely off-track.

[On a bit of a speculative tangent: I find the behaviour of the global temperature in the post-Pinatubo period quite intriguing. The focus of volcanoes and climate seems primarily on the immediate cooling. We see that cooling here. As this post-eruption cooling fades, the result is what appears to be an amplifying oscillation, which culminates in the 1997-8 El Nino event. Are the two things related? Perhaps conincidentally, the similarly huge 1982-3 El Nino also closely follwed a major volcanic eruption...]

If the model is correct, in the next few years natural variability — mainly in factors affecting the heat content of the ocean — will offset some of the climate warming resulting from humanity's greenhouse emissions. But global warming will be taking only a brief breather: half the years from 2009 to 2014 will be warmer than 1998, which is currently the warmest year on record.

Again, I can;t really see the predictions being correct in anything but a broad sense...it's going to get warmer by so much by some time

This prediction is still rather tentative, though. While setting up the initial conditions helps, the various inherent difficulties in the model's attempts to capture all the processes going on mean that the system's forecasts will be far from perfect. The predicted temperatures carry healthy error bars, but Smith points out that the flattening it foresaw in the first few years seems so far to be accurate.

I think this guy sums it up pretty well...

"This study is not primarily important for the brave temperature prediction it makes," he says. "The key thing is that we now have a convincing concept for combining observations and models. It may not be the last word, but it does prove that concrete decadal predictions are possible."

Another area of interest: How is this going to be used for, say, future public planning? Someone, somewhere (justifiably) is going to want to do something along those lines. How do these predictions get turned into useful proposals/actions? What happens when the prediction goes wrong (or at least different)? Who gets blamed in our litigious society?

A brave climate forecast

I don't know any of the relevant details, but this looks to be a mighty brave forecast. I hope it fails miserably, not due to hard feelings or anything, but because I would prefer not to live through the consequences!

Scientists predict surge in global warming after 2009 -- ABC News

A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record.

An interesting question

From Climate Progress

Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?

Those who argue against strong action today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — the adapters who are essentially saying to climate change, “Bring it on!” — cannot criticize those who then ask the obvious adaptation question — how will climate change impact this country and its infrastructure?

Certainly climate change will have the biggest infrastructure impact on our coastal cities, water and sewage systems, levees, and electric grid. But given that a remarkable 70,000 other bridges in the country are also structurally deficient, we should seek to learn whether such troubled bridges can take the ever-growing stresses generated by global warming.

Our old friend Ozone

Ozone (O₃) is a trace component in our atmosphere. It is a largely transient substance, with molecules being both created and destroyed mainly by the light of the Sun. Its presence is beneficial in the stratosphere, where it acts to absorb short-wavelength EM radiation. Nearer the surface, the photolysis of the gases (NOX) --in among other things, automobile exhaust -- allows for the production of tropospheric ozone, which typically results in range of health issues, particularly for those with respiratory problems. It is also a greenhouse gas, to boot.

Given this, we generally try to prevent the depletion of stratospheric ozone, while trying to suppress the creation of tropospheric ozone. As a result of climate change, those things may become more difficult.

• Rising Surface Ozone Reduces Plant Growth And Adds To Global Warming – ScienceDaily

...projections of increasing ozone near the Earth's surface could lead to significant reductions in regional plant production and crop yields. Surface ozone also damages plants, affecting their ability to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and accelerating global warming.

This is a pretty good example of a secondary effect and of a positive feedback. Something unintended come back to bite, and make things worse at the same time. However, with the following item, the relation to and the impact from climate change isn't as clear at this time.

• New Clues To Ozone Depletion – ScienceDaily

Large quantities of ozone-depleting chemicals have been discovered in the Antarctic atmosphere by researchers from the University of Leeds...[finding] found high concentrations of halogens - bromine and iodine oxides -- which persist throughout the period when there is sunlight in Antarctica (August through May).

[...]

"Halogens in the lowest part of the atmosphere have important impacts on ozone depletion, the ability of the atmosphere to remove potentially harmful compounds, and aerosol formation. All these atmospheric phenomena are linked to climate change. We still have to work out what the ramifications of this discovery are. These exciting results also show how important it is to keep exploring the atmosphere - there seems to be plenty more to find out."

It is not clear to me that any real impact has been measured, only that it is a possible impact. Still, it is good to know beforehand, rather than finding out too late.

The story continues here

In this post we will revisit some earlier posts where new information has been reported.

Following up on Climate impacts in China...Tibet is apparently doing it tough, with a warming rate 10 times as great as China as a whole.

• Tibet warming up faster than anywhere in the world – Reuters

The average annual temperature in Tibet, the roof of the world, was rising at a speed of 0.3 degrees Celsius every 10 years, Xinhua said.

In a follow-up of Glacier follow-up, multiple sources reported the following story on the impact of melting glaciers on sea-level rise.

• Small Melting Glaciers Will Speed Sea Level Rise, Study Says – National Geographic News

The rapid melt of small glaciers and mountain ice caps will be the main source of sea level rise over the next century, according to a new study.

There have also been two items related to the Coral Controversy. The first is that near-misses by hurricanes appear to reduce the threat of coral bleaching from warm water.

• Near Miss by Hurricane Can Bring a Big Chill to Overheated Coral Reefs – New York Times

...[A]ll hurricanes and tropical storms that passed within about 450 miles [~720 km] of the reefs caused surface-water cooling, with the greatest effect — a drop in average temperatures of as much as 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit [~3.3 C] — from storms that passed within 250 miles [~400 km].

The second is an skeptical (and vitriolic) op-ed piece about the impacts of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef and indeed, the whole idea of global warming.

• The Great Great Barrier Reef Swindle – On Line Opinion

So why have we been swindled into believing this almost pristine system is just about to roll over and die when it shows so few signs of stress. There are many reasons and processes that have caused this and some of them are the same as why we should all be more than a little sceptical about the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming.

The first reason is that there is some very bad science around. Second, a mainly biological oriented scientific community seems to take little heed of the geological history of corals...

If it is part of the natural cycle, then why is it happening more frequently at this point in time? It's not the sun and it's not cosmic rays. It's the CO2. Its not pleasant to think about, but humans did it. Accept it, and let's move on to practical solutions for mitigation and adaptation. No more denial.

Ice: Going, going...

The cryosphere includes regions with snow, ice, ice shelves, sea ice, glaciers, frozen ground and icebergs. It plays several important roles in the climate of our planet, from reflection of solar radiation to driver of ocean circulation. Recent observations have highlighted the continuing damage it has suffered due to climate change.

Glaciers

• Crisis looms for Bolivia as glaciers melt – ABC News

  The glaciers in the Andes mountains of Bolivia provide about half the drinking water for two million people down the mountain. But the glaciers are now melting at an unprecedented rate and will be completely gone within 20 years.

• Tianshan Glaciers Shrinking Fast -- Reuters via Climate Ark

Glaciers in the Tianshan mountains of Xinjiang, near China's western border, are shrinking at "alarming speeds", the Xinhua news agency said on Thursday, citing a local scientist.

• Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania is also melting, but unlike most other glaciers around the world, this one is apparently NOT melting due to climate change.

Permafrost

• Study Sees Climate Change Impact on Alaska – New York Times

Higher temperatures, melting permafrost, a reduction in polar ice and increased flooding are expected to raise the repair and replacement cost of thousands of infrastructure projects as much as $6.1 billion for a total of nearly $40 billion — about a 20 percent increase — from now to 2030, according to the study, by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

Sea Ice
The trends of sea ice concentration presents many problems now and in the future. The amount of sea ice has been declining in recent years.

• Ice 'factories' under climate crunch – ScienceAlert

Future climate change may affect global ocean circulation because of reduced Antarctic winter sea ice formation in large open water areas...

• Polar bears deserting unstable ice to give birth – New Scientist

Melting sea ice is driving mother polar bears onto land in northern Alaska to give birth, scientists have found.

Pregnant polar bears build snow dens to protect new cubs from the Arctic winter. The researchers found that between 1985 and 1994, 62% of polar bear dens were built on sea ice – but that number dropped to 37% between 1998 and 2004

Ice Sheets

• Whipsawed: Climate Emergency Looms – Far North Science

A new NASA analysis of climate change warns that the Earth’s remaining ice sheets could melt much faster than predicted, drowning even the most alarming projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in a sea of unprecedented disaster.

The cryosphere is one of the more sensitive regions to climate change. Changes to the cryosphere, once they reach a particular point, should be a readily visible indicator of climate change. With the items listed above, and other data found at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the oncoming threat to humanity should be more than obvious. Its time to take action.

The above images are from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The top shows a glacier in the Cascade Mountains in 1928 (left) and in 2000. The bottom image shows a near real-time satellite composite of the extent of Arctic Sea Ice from 13 July 2007.

Increase in Mediterranean TCs?

Beyond Katrina highlights an article on the possibility that climate change may bring more tropical cyclones to the Mediterranean region, linking to this story in the Times Online. The gist of the story:

“We have detected for the first time a risk of tropical cyclone development over the Mediterranean based on anthropogenic climate change,” said Miguel Gaertner, lead researcher at the environmental sciences faculty of the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Toledo, Spain.

The Times article also notes some recent occurrences of similar phenomena.

Recently, however, researchers found hurricanes forming where they had never been seen before. In 2004 Cyclone Catarina became one of the very few ever to form in the South Atlantic, hitting the coast of Brazil.

Then, in 2005 Hurricane Vince formed around Madeira, an area that had never before produced such storms. It even struck Spain – another first.

A quick search on Wikipedia suggests that while events like Catarina and Mediterranean TCs are rare. Looking at the times of occurrence noted in those articles, it would appear that they are becoming more frequent in recent years,consistent with the hypothesis of climate change. However, whether that is due to better observing and/or data in the modern era or an actual trend remains unclear at this time (and likely to remain so...).

There is also the issue of the categorization of these storms. Are they polar lows, subtropical cyclones or tropical cyclones? In some sense, it is really a matter of semantics. The fact is that unusual storms are occurring at unusual times and in unusual places. This is the issue.

The consequences may be relatively minor now, but they are potentially large in the future. A sensible risk management approach would be to act now to prevent catastrophe down the road.

Over the Top Down Under

A lot about climate change and Australia in recent days. Most of it is speculation, but interesting and relevant nonetheless. First, some likely impacts:

• Barra could head south as climate change hits -- ABC News
  

North Australian barramundi may be forced to migrate as far south as New South Wales as climate change impacts on sea temperatures.

• Climate change reduces bat population in Queensland, Australia -- Science Daily

A central eastern Queensland mine has turned up bat fossils which show climate change has had a negative impact on the state's bat population.

• Buttongrass global warming warning -- ABC News

An ecology professor from the University of Tasmania has warned the World Heritage Area in the state's south is under extreme threat from climate change.

Only one of these (the bats) is an observed impact. The other two are speculation. Maybe they won't happen. Shall we hope the Deniers are right and take the chance? I suspect that we are going to. If (and when) it does turn out badly, Australia cannot claim that they were not at least partially to blame. We've led and continue to lead (myself included!) an irresponsible lifestyle.

• Australia’s oversized footprint -- ScienceAlert

For a country of just 21 million, Australia has a huge impact on the global ecosphere. Domestically, the CSIRO have just estimated that our less than one third of a per cent of the world's population produces 1.43 per cent of its CO2 (more than 4½ times our share proportionally) and there is much we could and should be doing to address that. Unfortunately, our government has been a standard bearer for the “business as usual” lobby - preferring to deny, delay and dodge any movement to address the issues.

It's not much CO2 in the grand scheme of things, but it is a lot per capita (second highest). There are several problems:

1. Australia’s reliance on coal for our nation’s energy and its unwillingness to adopt alternative energy sources has contributed greatly to our status as a high carbon emitter.
2. Australia is also in the unenviable position of being geographically isolated both internationally and domestically. As a result, we rely heavily on high carbon emitting air transport for travel both intra and interstate as well as internationally.
3. ...[O]ur heavy reliance on livestock both domestically and for export. The impact of livestock in terms of carbon dioxide and methane is something that has received little attention to date but it impacts more on greenhouse gas emissions than travel.

None of these are excuses not to act, though.

Our inaction and lack of leadership continues to harm the global ecosystem, global co-operation and action. We must not continue to use other nation’s lack of action or vastly different circumstances as an excuse not to change our behaviour. By introducing emissions targets along with developing and implementing strategies and technologies to achieve them, we can show leadership in our region. It makes economic and environmental sense.

There is no single strategy that will address all the challenges of climate change, but to have no strategy, is a betrayal of our children and future generations - it is their future we are trashing through our inability or unwillingness to act now.

The last article linked above is an opinion piece by Andrew Bartlett , a member of the Australian Democrats and has been a Senator for Queensland since 1997.