Climate Change Has Doubled The Frequency Of Ocean Heatwaves

[bluewave]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05978-1

Ocean heatwaves will become more frequent and extreme as the climate warms, scientists report¹ on 15 August in Nature. These episodes of intense heat could disrupt marine food webs and reshape biodiversity in the world’s oceans. 

Scientists analysed satellite-based measurements of sea surface temperature from 1982 to 2016 and found that the frequency of marine heatwaves had doubled. These extreme heat events in the ocean's surface waters can last from days to months and can occur across thousands of kilometres. If average global temperatures increase to 3.5 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, as researchers currently project, the frequency of ocean heatwaves could increase by a factor of 41. In other words, a 1-in-100-day event at pre-industrial levels of warming could become a 1-in-3-day event.

Marine heatwaves have already become more long-lasting, frequent, intense and extensive than in the past,” says lead study author Thomas Frölicher, a climatologist at the University of Bern in Switzerland. He adds that these changes are already well outside what could be expected on the basis of natural swings in Earth’s climate: the study’s analysis determined that 87% of heatwaves in the ocean are the result of human-induced global warming.

Going global

Scientists have studied heatwaves on land for decades. But it wasn’t until researchers faced episodes of extreme heat in the ocean in the past several years that they started paying more attention to the issue at sea. Those episodes included the massive warm water ‘blob’ in the northeastern Pacific Ocean that killed off sea otters (Enhydra lutris) in Alaska and sea lions (Zalophus californianus) in California, and disrupted fisheries off North America from 2014 to 2015. They also included the massive 2015–16 El Niño that ravaged coral reefs around the world.

The emphasis on marine heatwaves is really motivated by the recognition that the same kinds of extremes can happen in the ocean as on land,” says Noah Diffenbaugh, a climatologist at Stanford University in California. He adds that this latest study takes global perspective on these regional issues. 

The study provides a useful framework for disentangling short-term temperature spikes from long-term warming trends in the oceans, says Kris Karnauskas, a physical oceanographer at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. He says that marine heatwaves could be the result of natural temperature swings that become more extreme owing to a warming ocean. Or they could be a signal that global warming is changing how the ocean functions — thus altering the likelihood and intensity of marine warming events. 

Frölicher says current models suggest that more frequent and intense ocean heatwaves are largely a result of warming oceans. And now, he and his team are working to develop models that can explore marine heatwave trends and their ecological impacts at local and regional levels.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0383-9

 

 

[Vice-Regent]

A barometer for future warming or cooling on land regions. I love this field of study.

[Gray-Wolf]

We currently appear to be seeing the 'southern hemisphere' catching up with the events we have been seeing in the North for well over a decade with the development of a 'Hot Spot' to the east of New Zealand over recent months?

Again a stubborn HP system has slowed the normal overturning of the surface allowing temps up to 6c above average for the time of year to develop.

[Typhoon Tip]

Mm... nice op-ed floating around out there about the die off of the Kelp forests around/off the Tasmanian coast - the gate way to the Antarctic as it's known.  The oceanic warming in that vicinity has bested the global average by 4 times.   4 times!  ... and the consequence, that example right there is a direct one that expose how

GW that exceeds species adaptation rates

=

death                                                         

It's just a matter of degrees before the trigger is pulled. 

Gaia can't make this message any more gentle and kind ... giving us small paradigms to sample our stench. but just like all incalcitrance  ... you give them chances upon chances, break after break after break, and they don't amend.   

[rclab]

2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Mm... nice op-ed floating around out there about the die off of the Kelp forests around/off the Tasmanian coast - the gate way to the Antarctic as it's known.  The oceanic warming in that vicinity has bested the global average by 4 times.   4 times!  ... and the consequence, that example right there is a direct one that expose how

GW that exceeds species adaptation rates

=

death                                                         

It's just a matter of degrees before the trigger is pulled. 

Gaia can't make this message any more gentle and kind ... giving us small paradigms to sample our stench. but just like all incalcitrance  ... you give them chances upon chances, break after break after break, and they don't amend.   

The echo from Gaia when no one is left to hear ....... “For whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee” As always .......

[Vice-Regent]

5 minutes ago, rclab said:

The echo from Gaia when no one is left to hear ....... “For whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee” As always .......

The bell only tolls for capitalism and nobody else. You are giving civilization too much credit.

People continue to act like that the death of capitalism makes life not worth living. (Greta Thunberg)

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, rclab said:

The echo from Gaia when no one is left to hear ....... “For whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee” As always .......

wow... sorry - I didn't realize that last paragraph was a poem like that.   I should pull that one and polish it heh

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Mm... nice op-ed floating around out there about the die off of the Kelp forests around/off the Tasmanian coast - the gate way to the Antarctic as it's known.  The oceanic warming in that vicinity has bested the global average by 4 times.   4 times!  ... and the consequence, that example right there is a direct one that expose how

GW that exceeds species adaptation rates

=

death                                                         

It's just a matter of degrees before the trigger is pulled. 

Gaia can't make this message any more gentle and kind ... giving us small paradigms to sample our stench. but just like all incalcitrance  ... you give them chances upon chances, break after break after break, and they don't amend.   

IMO, today's political leaders lack the courage, foresight, and capacity to take on big problems. They are terrified of challenges, pessimistic about the human capacity to innovate, and tied to the status quo.

Past generations took on big problems over shot time frames when the existing technology did not yet exist. That's the story of the Manhattan and Apollo Projects. Had today's political leaders been in positions of authority during either project, both would never have been attempted. The world would likely be a vastly different place for such failure to lead.

[rclab]

18 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

The bell only tolls for capitalism and nobody else. You are giving civilization too much credit.

People continue to act like that the death of capitalism makes life not worth living. (Greta Thunberg)

Perhaps the end of all organized bureaucratic systems should be considered, perhaps. As always ......

[rclab]

17 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

wow... sorry - I didn't realize that last paragraph was a poem like that.   I should pull that one and polish it heh

No need Tip, it worked well for me. The bell is tolling, how many hear it before, well .....  As always .....

[Vice-Regent]

[LibertyBell]

On 1/1/2020 at 2:18 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

Mm... nice op-ed floating around out there about the die off of the Kelp forests around/off the Tasmanian coast - the gate way to the Antarctic as it's known.  The oceanic warming in that vicinity has bested the global average by 4 times.   4 times!  ... and the consequence, that example right there is a direct one that expose how

GW that exceeds species adaptation rates

=

death                                                         

It's just a matter of degrees before the trigger is pulled. 

Gaia can't make this message any more gentle and kind ... giving us small paradigms to sample our stench. but just like all incalcitrance  ... you give them chances upon chances, break after break after break, and they don't amend.   

it's only a matter of time until we see a rapid loss of ice in the Antarctic, like we've been seeing in the Arctic

[LibertyBell]

On 1/1/2020 at 6:35 PM, donsutherland1 said:

IMO, today's political leaders lack the courage, foresight, and capacity to take on big problems. They are terrified of challenges, pessimistic about the human capacity to innovate, and tied to the status quo.

Past generations took on big problems over shot time frames when the existing technology did not yet exist. That's the story of the Manhattan and Apollo Projects. Had today's political leaders been in positions of authority during either project, both would never have been attempted. The world would likely be a vastly different place for such failure to lead.

when did the change downwards begin?  the 1980s?

our crewed space program been stagnant since the 1970s too.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

when did the change downwards begin?  the 1980s?

our crewed space program been stagnant since the 1970s too.

The proverbial seeds leading to this outcome probably went back to at least the 1970s. The threshold of leadership failure is more recent. Even during the 1980s and 1990s, problems such as acid rain and the ozone hole were tackled. I doubt that would be the case today. The next generation could offer more hope, especially as it faces much greater exposure to the risks of climate change and will have a costs-benefits perspective that differs from today's status quo-oriented one.

[LibertyBell]

8 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The proverbial seeds leading to this outcome probably went back to at least the 1970s. The threshold of leadership failure is more recent. Even during the 1980s and 1990s, problems such as acid rain and the ozone hole were tackled. I doubt that would be the case today. The next generation could offer more hope, especially as it faces much greater exposure to the risks of climate change and will have a costs-benefits perspective that differs from today's status quo-oriented one.

you see the short sighted behavior of the administration on other issues too, like the vaping crisis, where the measures were half-hearted and they stated that they didn't want to negatively impact the industry.

 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

you see the short sighted behavior of the administration on other issues too, like the vaping crisis, where the measures were half-hearted and they stated that they didn't want to negatively impact the industry.

 

Leadership deficits don't confine themselves to single issues. They constrain decision making overall and impact multiple issues. Political self-preservation overrides the national welfare/national interest when conflicts arise between the two.

[Typhoon Tip]

On 1/1/2020 at 6:35 PM, donsutherland1 said:

IMO, today's political leaders lack the courage, foresight, and capacity to take on big problems. They are terrified of challenges, pessimistic about the human capacity to innovate, and tied to the status quo.

Past generations took on big problems over shot time frames when the existing technology did not yet exist. That's the story of the Manhattan and Apollo Projects. Had today's political leaders been in positions of authority during either project, both would never have been attempted. The world would likely be a vastly different place for such failure to lead.

I find difficulty speaking of this/these subject matters without being pulled into causality.  

So don't take this as refutation over anything you've said...  

I don't believe the "threats" the past generations that dealt with can really be conflated with the same specter of threat that is associated to GW. 

I really agree with Dr. Sonjay Gupta's op Ed earlier in the summer, that described in a pullout bold statement - nicely quantifies matters: "Humanity is just not wired to understand the specter of Global Warming" - 

Back whence, they dealt with the corporeally observable Nazi threat, and the corporeal observation of Pearl Harbors smoldering aftermath and death...  The sense of urgency was footed in an actual animal adaptation that is common to all species - reaction to physical stimulus.  Seeing is believing...smelling is evocative of ancient memories for a reason.  And hot spits drop the handles. 

GW has no such advocate.  And Kelp forests ...unfortunately are not it for the Factory owner in Chicago on the other side of the world. 

[donsutherland1]

7 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I find difficulty speaking of this/these subject matters without being pulled into causality.  

So don't take this as refutation over anything you've said...  

I don't believe the "threats" the past generations that dealt with can really be conflated with the same specter of threat that is associated to GW. 

I really agree with Dr. Sonjay Gupta's op Ed earlier in the summer, that described in a pullout bold statement - nicely quantifies matters: "Humanity is just not wired to understand the specter of Global Warming" - 

Back whence, they dealt with the corporeally observable Nazi threat, and the corporeal observation of Pearl Harbors smoldering aftermath and death...  The sense of urgency was footed in an actual animal adaptation that is common to all species - reaction to physical stimulus.  Seeing is believing...smelling is evocative of ancient memories for a reason.  And hot spits drop the handles. 

GW has no such advocate.  And Kelp forests ...unfortunately are not it for the Factory owner in Chicago on the other side of the world. 

Time will tell whether Gupta's hypothesis has merit. The younger generations are far more engaged and, quite frankly more knowledgeable about climate change, than many of their parents' and grandparents' generation. They understand the implications of a status quo approach.  Polling outcomes and engagement on the issue provide evidence toward that end. They have become the leading advocates for addressing climate change.

It's premature to speculate much about their impact once they gain policy making influence, but my hypothesis is that they will move more aggressively than today's leaders. Moreover, they will make some decisive choices that impinge on the policy preferences of those who back the status quo. 

[Vice-Regent]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Time will tell whether Gupta's hypothesis has merit. The younger generations are far more engaged and, quite frankly more knowledgeable about climate change, than many of their parents' and grandparents' generation. They understand the implications of a status quo approach.  Polling outcomes and engagement on the issue provide evidence toward that end. They have become the leading advocates for addressing climate change.

It's premature to speculate much about their impact once they gain policy making influence, but my hypothesis is that they will move more aggressively than today's leaders. Moreover, they will make some decisive choices that impinge on the policy preferences of those who back the status quo. 

Let's start with separating anthropogenic global warming and civilization. In other words saving civilization as it exists now is not a requirement for any plan that addresses anthropogenic global warming.

Extinction rebellion is not an environmental movement or a movement to address global warming. it's a battle over the future standard of living of it's constituents.

[donsutherland1]

10 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Let's start with separating anthropogenic global warming and civilization. In other words saving civilization as it exists now is not a requirement for any plan that addresses anthropogenic global warming.

Extinction rebellion is not an environmental movement or a movement to address global warming. it's a battle over the future standard of living of it's constituents.

I don't disagree that some societal-level changes will be needed/will occur if society makes a credible move toward a carbon neutral status. However, that should not mean that living standards must automatically deteriorate in a material fashion. If that becomes the cost, society will almost certainly choose adaptation. Ultimately, though, fossil fuels are not renewable, so a post-fossil fuel era will arrive. Hopefully, the changes will be made in a timely fashion to mitigate the worst of the anthropogenic warming, but so far with a few small exceptions e.g., New Zealand, the world remains largely on autopilot, even in countries that have devoted bold rhetoric to the issue of climate change. Policy changes matter far more than words.

[LibertyBell]

23 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Leadership deficits don't confine themselves to single issues. They constrain decision making overall and impact multiple issues. Political self-preservation overrides the national welfare/national interest when conflicts arise between the two.

Don, how do you think they feel when they see all these forest fires rapidly accelerating, mass migrations of people and the rising costs and frequency of billion dollar disasters?  I have heard that the current administration's people already had info that the mass migration from Central America was caused by a climate change induced multiyear drought....and yet they sat on the info.

 

[LibertyBell]

20 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I find difficulty speaking of this/these subject matters without being pulled into causality.  

So don't take this as refutation over anything you've said...  

I don't believe the "threats" the past generations that dealt with can really be conflated with the same specter of threat that is associated to GW. 

I really agree with Dr. Sonjay Gupta's op Ed earlier in the summer, that described in a pullout bold statement - nicely quantifies matters: "Humanity is just not wired to understand the specter of Global Warming" - 

Back whence, they dealt with the corporeally observable Nazi threat, and the corporeal observation of Pearl Harbors smoldering aftermath and death...  The sense of urgency was footed in an actual animal adaptation that is common to all species - reaction to physical stimulus.  Seeing is believing...smelling is evocative of ancient memories for a reason.  And hot spits drop the handles. 

GW has no such advocate.  And Kelp forests ...unfortunately are not it for the Factory owner in Chicago on the other side of the world. 

well seeing is believing for me John, I have seen a much different climate in the past few decades than what we had in the 70s and 80s, so much so that the new climate has affected my health adversely.  It's pretty obvious to most of us that we live in a much different environment today.

[LibertyBell]

18 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I don't disagree that some societal-level changes will be needed/will occur if society makes a credible move toward a carbon neutral status. However, that should not mean that living standards must automatically deteriorate in a material fashion. If that becomes the cost, society will almost certainly choose adaptation. Ultimately, though, fossil fuels are not renewable, so a post-fossil fuel era will arrive. Hopefully, the changes will be made in a timely fashion to mitigate the worst of the anthropogenic warming, but so far with a few small exceptions e.g., New Zealand, the world remains largely on autopilot, even in countries that have devoted bold rhetoric to the issue of climate change. Policy changes matter far more than words.

the costs of wind and solar are now lower than fossil fuels, there should also be a market movement more in favor of renewable energy.

I say ban industry lobbying and dark money politics so these industries are not allowed to participate in our political system on any level.

Not just the fossil fuel industry, but big pharma, big ag, all of them.  They should not be allowed to participate in any way in our political system nor should they be allowed to be on regulatory agencies like EPA, USDA, FDA, etc.

Get a constitutional amendment through if necessary (both sides of the aisle want dark money out of politics) to get around the Supreme Court's dumb decision on Citizens United and apply term limits to the supreme court if necessary.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

18 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I don't disagree that some societal-level changes will be needed/will occur if society makes a credible move toward a carbon neutral status. However, that should not mean that living standards must automatically deteriorate in a material fashion. If that becomes the cost, society will almost certainly choose adaptation. Ultimately, though, fossil fuels are not renewable, so a post-fossil fuel era will arrive. Hopefully, the changes will be made in a timely fashion to mitigate the worst of the anthropogenic warming, but so far with a few small exceptions e.g., New Zealand, the world remains largely on autopilot, even in countries that have devoted bold rhetoric to the issue of climate change. Policy changes matter far more than words.

Denmark has the largest solar and wind farm in the world to my knowledge.  They are forward-thinking.

 

[donsutherland1]

10 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Don, how do you think they feel when they see all these forest fires rapidly accelerating, mass migrations of people and the rising costs and frequency of billion dollar disasters?  I have heard that the current administration's people already had info that the mass migration from Central America was caused by a climate change induced multiyear drought....and yet they sat on the info.

 

There are several suboptimal reactions that have occurred (based largely on policy changes, Social Media activity of those within or aligned with the current Administration):

1. A small number increasingly accept the evidence for climate change, but they have little clout.

2. Some choose to impose the artificial constraint of "helplessness." From there standpoint, there's nothing that can be done. Thus, they find comfort in maintaining a business as usual course.

3. Others continue to reject scientific understanding of climate change. Part of this group rejects the scientific basis outright. Others take a more sophisticated approach in their denialism by consistently downplaying its impacts, amplifying uncertainties far beyond the narrow areas in which they exist, and pointing to forcings to be discovered/determined later that are natural. Some disguise their denialism with caveats, essentially stating/writing: "Anthropogenic climate change is real but..." What follows the conjunction is a defense of the status quo, doing nothing, discrediting climate scientists, etc. 

[donsutherland1]

13 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

the costs of wind and solar are now lower than fossil fuels, there should also be a market movement more in favor of renewable energy.

I say ban industry lobbying and dark money politics so these industries are not allowed to participate in our political system on any level.

Not just the fossil fuel industry, but big pharma, big ag, all of them.  They should not be allowed to participate in any way in our political system nor should they be allowed to be on regulatory agencies like EPA, USDA, FDA, etc.

Get a constitutional amendment through if necessary (both sides of the aisle want dark money out of politics) to get around the Supreme Court's dumb decision on Citizens United and apply term limits to the supreme court if necessary.

 

 

I've always favored political reforms aimed at full disclosure that eliminates "dark money." All donors and amounts should be transparent so that the electorate can make an informed judgment. Hopefully, that issue will be addressed in the not-too-distant future.

Lobbying is a trickier issue. At present, it is protected under the First Amendment. Individuals can come together in various ways to engage in the political process. Enforcement issues could also arise, as what would stop a Senator, for example, from meeting with CEOs of various companies doing business in his/her State.  

Barring participation of those who have potential conflicts of interest from serving on regulatory agencies would be an easier and almost certainly constitutional fix. The regulatory process allows input from all parties, so all parties have a fair chance to make their case.

 

[Vice-Regent]

22 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

the costs of wind and solar are now lower than fossil fuels, there should also be a market movement more in favor of renewable energy.

I say ban industry lobbying and dark money politics so these industries are not allowed to participate in our political system on any level.

Not just the fossil fuel industry, but big pharma, big ag, all of them.  They should not be allowed to participate in any way in our political system nor should they be allowed to be on regulatory agencies like EPA, USDA, FDA, etc.

Get a constitutional amendment through if necessary (both sides of the aisle want dark money out of politics) to get around the Supreme Court's dumb decision on Citizens United and apply term limits to the supreme court if necessary.

 

 

That is infact their singular unifying principle. We will agree to disagree on this alone.

[LibertyBell]

3 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

That is infact their singular unifying principle. We will agree to disagree on this alone.

well to be fair by both sides, I am referring to regular people.  The politicians are another matter.... they seem to be okay with bribery.

 

[LibertyBell]

17 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I've always favored political reforms aimed at full disclosure that eliminates "dark money." All donors and amounts should be transparent so that the electorate can make an informed judgment. Hopefully, that issue will be addressed in the not-too-distant future.

Lobbying is a trickier issue. At present, it is protected under the First Amendment. Individuals can come together in various ways to engage in the political process. Enforcement issues could also arise, as what would stop a Senator, for example, from meeting with CEOs of various companies doing business in his/her State.  

Barring participation of those who have potential conflicts of interest from serving on regulatory agencies would be an easier and almost certainly constitutional fix. The regulatory process allows input from all parties, so all parties have a fair chance to make their case.

 

Yes and hopefully we can eliminate Super Pacs.

Can we cap lobbying at a certain amount of time and money?  That should level the playing field.

About regulatory agency fixes, I am looking at people like Pruitt not being able to run the EPA or the Exxon guy (I forget his name at the moment) who was working for the current administration.  There have also been issues with people from Big Pharma working for or even running the FDA.  There was also the Monsanto lawyer (Michael Taylor?) who was running the USDA.  And of course Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

Antitrust legislation also needs to be more strongly enforced, it's bad that we are seeing a smaller number of larger and more powerful companies gobbling up the competition and using their power and influence to circumvent environmental laws- and also slowing down innovation.

Based on the NY Times articles I've read, the chemical industry strongly lobbied the current administration to not ban chlorpyrifos, a brain damaging pesticide.  The Obama EPA had ruled to ban it during the previous administration.  The federal courts had to step in and rule in favor of banning.

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

Freedom of Information Act requests have revealed a cozy connection between regulatory agencies and the companies they are supposed to be regulating.

Some cases in point:

DuPont and PFOA with the EPA

Monsanto and the USDA

Dow and the EPA with regards to chlorpyrifos

Opioid manufacturers and the FDA

Fossil Fuel industry and the EPA

Ultimately the federal court system had to step in in most of these cases and resolve the issues in favor of the plaintiffs and against the regulatory agencies (or they are in the process of doing so.)