Arquivo da tag: Climatologia

‘Termination shock’: trust our expert warnings on geoengineering’s planetary risks (The Guardian)

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

Original article

‘No, solar geoengineering does not ‘buy time’ for decarbonisation.’ Photograph: Michala Garrison/NASA Earth Observatory/Reuters

Do we really want to play dice with our planet?

Raymond Pierrehumbert, Julia Slingo, Michael Mann and Valerie Masson-Delmotte

Fri 19 Jun 2026 11.00 BST

Aseries in the Guardian recently declared “it’s time to talk about geoengineering.” So let’s talk about it. And let us start with some simple truths about this cluster of techno-optimistic “quick fixes” which purport to somehow offset our slow progress towards zeroing out planet-warming carbon emissions.

Solar geoengineering proposals – reducing sunlight – have received the most attention, but a host of desperate schemes have been proposed in an effort to “fix” the disruption of climate caused by the growing burden of carbon dioxide human activities add to the atmosphere.

Many threaten the most sensitive aspects of polar environments, extending even to wildly expensive proposals to dam the Bering strait. If implemented, geoengineering schemes would put Earth’s physical climate in a dangerously precarious state, and introduce a major new destabilizing technology to an already turbulent political climate.

The essential thing to understand is that carbon dioxide, once emitted, is only very slowly removed from the atmosphere. A sizable share of it will still be keeping Earth dangerously hot millennia from now.

Solar geoengineering proposals involve injection of substances whose effect, by contrast, decays in a matter of years. Some might think this is an advantage of solar geoengineering. We can turn it on and off quickly when the damage it is doing to our planet becomes clear, right? Wrong.

Recent analyses demonstrate that it would take as long as two decades to create the required infrastructure. By then we would be completely reliant on maintaining it – a tall task in a dangerous world with global conflict. It would only temporarily mask the pent-up warming implicit in the ongoing buildup of carbon dioxide, and this pent-up warming would be released in a catastrophically rapid “termination shock” if circumstances force the cessation of solar geoengineering.

So solar geoengineering does not “buy time” for decarbonisation. The same can be said for other geoengineering schemes, which also require sustained maintenance over centuries to millennia. Five hundred years from now, the fabled Bering dam may crumble, but the carbon dioxide wreaking havoc on the climate system will still be there waiting.

A lot of unforeseen things can happen in a few decades let alone over centuries. Do we really want to play dice with the planet? Do we want to commit today’s and future generations to maintain these approaches without fail?

Collectively, the four of us have studied the physics of climate for the equivalent of well over 100 years; we know how complex it is and how many surprises it holds in store. Since 1990, over its six assessment reports, the IPCC has worked with tens of thousands of scientists, from physicists to economists, to ensure that due diligence is done on the science and potential impacts of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations.

It took more than a century of carbon emissions before we could detect that our climate is changing and even longer to attribute those changes, unequivocally, to anthropogenic carbon emissions. It was only in 2015 in Paris that most countries accepted that the world is warming and that we are to blame (and 2023 for UNFCCC to mention fossil fuels in a COP outcome).

Now, proponents of geoengineering are proposing to bash the climate with a whole new hammer, and one that engages some of the most poorly understood aspects of the climate system, including aerosols, clouds and regional rainfall patterns. We know that this would trigger much more uncertainty on outcomes, in particular in the case of poorly planned, unmanaged, uncoordinated injections of various substances in the high atmosphere, with no governance framework. Surely, we should insist on the same level of scientific diligence as has been devoted to understanding the regional consequences of greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate model simulations can provide an indication of what might go wrong but can provide no reassurance of what will go right. So far there has been no rigorous modelling assessment to explore different solar geoengineering scenarios and no formal intercomparison of the sensitivity of the climate to such interventions, let alone the impacts on regional weather and climate variability.

What we do know is that the few models that have been used so far do not even agree on what level of intervention might be required, nor what the response will be. After only 10 years, for the same stratospheric aerosol injection, global cooling can be anything from less than 1C to as much as 3C – a change more rapid than anything we have seen so far from carbon dioxide emissions. We are essentially flying blind.

The notion that small-scale “safe” experiments can answer any of the important questions about the magnitude and effects of a deployment is fundamentally naive.

Any meteorologist or oceanographer knows that the massive forces involved in the global climate system – such as the great heat redistributing currents of the ocean and atmosphere, or year-to-year fluctuations in cloud patterns – will swamp the effects of any experiment and provide no indication of the efficacy and the risks of deploying solar geoengineering.

If we are to seriously consider geoengineering, then we need to make sure that the scientific foundations are in place. But for the most part, this is not the kind of research we are getting in the new tsunami of funding. What we are getting instead is funding targeted at developing the engineering technology for deployment, regardless of the consequences of what that deployment may be.

The solar geoengineering techno juggernaut rolls on, with what seems to be a complete disregard for what the damage might be to the planet, and despite several important assessments from leading scientific academies (to which we belong), eg the UK Royal Society, US National Academy, French Academy of Sciences.

Each has highlighted the major uncertainties, core ethics and governance issues, urging great caution. This is particularly true of the £60m geoengineering programme funded by the UK’s Aria agency. Aria’s chief aim is technology development, and indeed many of the geoengineering projects they are funding are being done in collaboration with for-profit companies.

Even more ominous is the explicit entry of venture-capital funded for-profit startups seeking to make money from solar geoengineering deployment in the near future. The Israeli-US startup Stardust has received more than $60m in venture capital, and their business model assumes near-term deployment. And then there’s Reflect Orbital which wants to put giant mirrors in low Earth orbit; they are pitching sales of illumination rather than solar geoengineering, but the technology is identical and we doubt it will be long before they try to get in on the “cooling credits” game.

All of this is happening in the total absence of governance. There are pious calls for governance from some of the pro-geoengineering researchers, but what is the path to get there? Is it governable at all? It is the height of folly to invest in developing the technology – even if we knew what might work – that only serves to enable unrestricted, profit-motivated deployment by outfits such as Stardust.

As private companies whose technology is subject to little regulation, they and their backers have no legal obligations to submit themselves to public scrutiny nor to provide any assurances on ensuing climate impacts. Will these technologies be carried out devoid of any serious scientific understanding of the consequences and of social, legal and political concerns?

All of this is a huge diversion of resources and deflection from the task at hand. As one of us likes to say, when you’re in a climate hole, stop digging … and burning fossil fuels. It really is, at some level, that simple.

  • Raymond Pierrehumbert is Professor of Planetary Science at the University of Oxford, and was a lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report, and the US National Academy’s first assessment report on solar geoengineering. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society
  • Julia Slingo was formerly Chief Scientist of the UK Met Office, and was awarded the Rossby Medal of the American Meteorological Society among other prestigious awards. She has received nine Honorary Doctorates including from Cambridge University. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society and is Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and was a reviewer on the recent Royal Society report on solar geoengineering.
  • Michael E Mann is the Presidential Distinguished Professor in Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and Director of the Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media there; he is a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences and Foreign Member of the Royal Society
  • Valerie Masson-Delmotte is Directeur de Recherche at the Climate and Environmental Sciences Laboratory; she has been co-chair of IPCC Working Group 1 during AR6, and co-author of the French Académie des Sciences geoengineering report and a co-author of a peer-review assessment of polar geoengineering options.

 This article was amended on 20 June 2026 to correct an editing error. An earlier version incorrectly stated that global cooling can be anything from less than “10C to as much as 30C”. The correct figures were 1 and 3C respectively.

The Merchants of Doubt are coming for Extreme Event Attribution science (The Climate Brink)

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

Doubt is still their product

Original article

Andrew Dessler

Jun 16, 2026

Last week, I attended a meeting at Columbia University on attribution science and climate law, hosted by the Sabin Center. It was a fantastic event, bringing together scientists and legal experts working at the intersection of extreme event attribution and climate law.

For those unfamiliar with it, extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the contribution of climate change to an extreme event. For example, several groups analyzed the impact of climate change on Hurricane Harvey’s enormous rainfall totals over Houston, Texas and they found that climate change increased rainfall by 15 to 38%.

One thing that came up again and again was how terrified fossil-fuel interests are of extreme event attribution science. They are acutely aware that this research could land them in court. And losing those cases would leave them legally liable for billions of dollars in climate damages.

Because the legal stakes are so high, the blowback has turned ugly. I spoke with several scientists at the meeting who are facing ongoing harassment over their work.

This blowback is a coordinated campaign to make the entire field look suspect. The goal is to create the impression that attribution science is too uncertain, too political, or too conflicted to be useful in court or in public policy. The strategy is not based on actual science or evidence of misconduct, but on the generation of doubt.

The new Merchants of Doubt

We’ve seen this before. In fact, not that long ago: We only have to go back a year to the Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group (CWG) report to see an example of using doubt as the tool to push back against well-established science.

This strategy is laid out in an email from a member of the CWG, Dr. Roy Spencer, that was released during litigation over the Climate Working Group process.

shameful

The key quote is:

About all I can hope is that what we write will provide sufficient “reasonable scientific doubt” regarding the science claims in the 2009 TSD [technical support document], based upon almost 2 decades of new science, to call into question the original reasoning for the EPA Administrator’s decision that CO2 presents a threat to human health and welfare.

This statement is strong evidence that at least some members of the committee were working to support a particular policy outcome: revoking the Endangerment Finding. The email also explains how they planned to do it: by attempting to generate “reasonable doubt”.

This is going to be hard, Spencer implies. Despite falsely claiming that “2 decades of new science” weakens the case, Spencer explicitly acknowledges that the actual peer-reviewed science of climate change overwhelmingly rejects his position:

But if the science argument is decided upon by a vote, or by the number of published citations, we lose the science argument.

We can go back even further: This CWG email shares unmistakable DNA with the infamous 1969 tobacco memo that declared: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

equally shameful

The tobacco memo also acknowledges the limit of this strategy: Like the CWG, they knew the science was not on their side.

Share

The new new Merchants of Doubt

The people attacking the IPCC chapter on extreme event attribution are the newest iteration of the Merchants of Doubt. Their goal, like all Merchants before them, is to introduce doubt into the process.

Because the report is not even out yet, they cannot attack its conclusions. So they are attacking the authors instead. Here is a press release from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee:

In the letter, the Chairmen express concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving members of the Attribution Committee, stating that “publicly available information suggests a troubling pattern” in which committee members are affiliated with nonprofits that support climate accountability lawsuits, “raising the appearance of impropriety and member bias.”

Merchants of Doubt

To be clear, this is just innuendo. There is no actual evidence of bias. And given the robust process that these reports go through, including multiple lines of peer review, it seems very unlikely that significant bias can survive into the report.

When the report comes out, critics will have the opportunity to make legitimate criticisms of the report — if any exist. If none do, however, they’ll still make criticisms, but they’ll be bogus, simply designed to generate doubt. We’ll see.

A note to the press: Fix your frame

To any journalists reading this: The public debate over extreme event attribution science is not going away. The science is simply too dangerous to fossil-fuel interests for them to stop fighting it.

You very well might be assigned to write an article about this area of research in the future. When you do, do not automatically adopt the framing that climate misinformers want you to use.

They want you to frame the story around questions like: Are climate scientists trying to put their thumb on the scale to achieve a predetermined, politically motivated result? Are climate scientists improperly letting their politics invade the science of the IPCC?

That frame is a trap.

Instead, you need to view this through the historical lens of the Merchants of Doubt. How does the ecosystem of doubt operate? Who funds it? What methods do they use to misrepresent science and slime researchers? What scientific results are they trying to keep people from understanding are legitimate?

Ultimately, you need to focus your article on the generation of doubt as a way to maintain the fossil fuel industry’s social and legal license to keep burning oil, gas, and coal.

If you treat the misinformers’ frame as a legitimate, good-faith scientific critique, you are helping them produce doubt. Don’t do it. Don’t be a Merchant of Doubt.

Climate change: Voices from global south muted by climate science (BBC)

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent

October 6, 2021

climate researcher

Climate change academics from some of the regions worst hit by warming are struggling to be published, according to a new analysis.

The study looked at 100 of the most highly cited climate research papers over the past five years.

Less than 1% of the authors were based in Africa, while only 12 of the papers had a female lead researcher.

The lack of diverse voices means key perspectives are being ignored, says the study’s author.

Researchers from the Carbon Brief website examined the backgrounds of around 1,300 authors involved in the 100 most cited climate change research papers from 2016-2020.

They found that some 90% of these scientists were affiliated with academic institutions from North America, Europe or Australia.

Africa
Issues of concern to African climate researchers were in danger of being ignored

The African continent, home to around 16% of the world’s population had less than 1% of the authors according to the analysis.

There were also huge differences within regions – of the 10 authors from Africa, eight of them were from South Africa.

When it comes to lead authors, not one of the top 100 papers was led by a scientist from Africa or South America. Of the seven papers led by Asian authors, five were from China.

“If the vast majority of research around climate change is coming from a group of people with a very similar background, for example, male scientists from the global north, then the body of knowledge that we’re going to have around climate change is going to be skewed towards their interests, knowledge and scientific training,” said Ayesha Tandon from Carbon Brief, who carried out the analysis and says that “systemic bias” is at play here.

“One study noted that a lot of our understanding of climate change is biased towards cooler climates, because it’s mainly carried out by scientists who live in the global north in cold climates,” she added.

There are a number of other factors at play that limit the opportunities for researchers from the global south. These include a lack of funding for expensive computers to run the computer models, or simulations, that are the bedrock of much climate research.

Other issues include a different academic culture where teaching is prioritised over research, as well as language barriers and a lack of access to expensive libraries and databases.

Ice research
Most of the leading papers on climate change were published by institutions in the global north

Even where researchers from better-off countries seek to collaborate with colleagues in the developing world, the efforts don’t always work out well.

One researcher originally from Tanzania but now working in Mexico explained what can happen.

“The northern scientist often brings his or her own grad students from the north, and they tend to view their local partners as facilitators – logistic, cultural, language, admin – rather than science collaborators,” Dr Tuyeni Mwampamba from the Institute of Ecosystems and Sustainability Research in Mexico told Carbon Brief.

Researchers from the north are often seen as wanting to extract resources and data from developing nations without making any contribution to local research, a practice sometimes known as “helicopter science”.

For women involved in research in the global south there are added challenges in getting your name on a scientific paper

Women in science
A scientist at work in Cote D’Ivoire

“Women tend to have a much higher dropout rate than men as they progress through academia,” said Ayesha Tandon.

“But then women also have to contend with stereotypes and sexism, and even just cultural norms in their country or from the upbringing that might prevent them from spending as much time on their science or from pursuing it in the way that men do.”

The analysis suggests that the lack of voices from women and from the global south is hampering the global understanding of climate change.

Solving the problem is not going to be easy, according to the author.

“This is a systemic problem and it will progress and keep getting worse, because people in positions of power will continue to have those privileges,” said Ayesha Tandon.

“It’s a problem that will not just go away on its own unless people really work at it.”

WMO is concerned about impact of COVID-19 on observing system (WMO)

Uncategorized, , , ,
WMO concerned about impact of COVID19 on global observing system

1 April 2020 Press Release Number: 01042020

Geneva, 1 April 2020 – The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is concerned about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quantity and quality of weather observations and forecasts, as well as atmospheric and climate monitoring.

WMO’s Global Observing System serves as a backbone for all weather and climate services and products provided by the 193 WMO Member states and territories to their citizens. It provides observations on the state of the atmosphere and ocean surface from land-, marine- and space-based instruments. This data is used for the preparation of weather analyses, forecasts, advisories and warnings.

“National Meteorological and Hydrological Services continue to perform their essential 24/7 functions despite the severe challenges posed by the Coronavirus pandemic,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. “We salute their dedication to protecting lives and property but we are mindful of the increasing constraints on capacity and resources,” he said.

“The impacts of climate change and growing amount of weather-related disasters continue. The COVID-19 pandemic poses an additional challenge, and may exacerbate multi-hazard risks at a single country level. Therefore it is essential that governments pay attention to their national early warning and weather observing capacities despite the COVID-19 crisis,” said Mr Taalas.

Large parts of the observing system, for instance its satellite components and many ground-based observing networks, are either partly or fully automated. They are therefore expected to continue functioning without significant degradation for several weeks, in some cases even longer. But if the pandemic lasts more than a few weeks, then missing repair, maintenance and supply work, and missing redeployments will become of increasing concern.

Some parts of the observing system are already affected. Most notably the significant decrease in air traffic has had a clear impact. In-flight measurements of ambient temperature and wind speed and direction are a very important source of information for both weather prediction and climate monitoring.

AMDAR observation - March 2020

Meteorological data from aircraft

Commercial airliners contribute to the Aircraft Meteorological Data Relay programme (AMDAR), which uses onboard sensors, computers and communications systems to collect, process, format and transmit meteorological observations to ground stations via satellite or radio links.

In some parts of the world, in particular over Europe, the decrease in the number of measurements over the last couple of weeks has been dramatic (see chart below provided by EUMETNET).  The countries affiliated with EUMETNET, a collaboration between the 31 national weather services in Europe, are currently discussing ways to boost the short-term capabilities of other parts of their observing networks in order to partly mitigate this loss of aircraft observations.

The AMDAR observing system has traditionally produced over 700 000 high-quality observations per day of air temperature and wind speed and direction, together with the required positional and temporal information, and with an increasing number of humidity and turbulence measurements being made.

Surface-based observations

In most developed countries, surface-based weather observations are now almost fully automated.

However, in many developing countries, the transition to automated observations is still in progress, and the meteorological community still relies on observations taken manually by weather observers and transmitted into the international networks for use in global weather and climate models.

WMO has seen a significant decrease in the availability of this type of manual observations over the last two weeks. Some of this may well be attributable to the current coronavirus situation, but it is not yet clear whether other factors may play a role as well. WMO is currently investigating this.

“At the present time, the adverse impact of the loss of observations on the quality of weather forecast products is still expected to be relatively modest. However, as the decrease in availability of aircraft weather observations continues and expands, we may expect a gradual decrease in reliability of the forecasts,” said Lars Peter Riishojgaard, Director, Earth System Branch in WMO’s Infrastructure Department.

“The same is true if the decrease in surface-based weather observations continues, in particular if the COVID-19 outbreak starts to more widely impact the ability of observers to do their job in large parts of the developing world. WMO will continue to monitor the situation, and the organization is working with its Members to mitigate the impact as much as possible,” he said.

Variability of surface observations - January 2020
(Map provided by WMO; countries shown in darker colors provided fewer observations over the last week than averaged for the month of January 2020 (pre-COVID-19); countries shown in black are currently not sending any data at all).

Currently, there are 16 meteorological and 50 research satellites, over 10 000 manned and automatic surface weather stations, 1 000 upper-air stations, 7 000 ships, 100 moored and 1 000 drifting buoys, hundreds of weather radars and 3 000 specially equipped commercial aircraft measure key parameters of the atmosphere, land and ocean surface every day. 

For further information contact: Clare Nullis, media officer. Email cnullis@wmo.int, Cell +41 79 709 13 97

See original article here.

Meteorologia pode sofrer impacto com covid-19, diz WMO (Climatempo)

Uncategorized, , , , ,

02/04/2020 – por redação

Organização Meteorológica Mundial (WMO) teme que coronavírus influencie na qualidade das previsões e no monitoramento da atmosfera

A Organização Meteorológica Mundial (Word Meteorological Organization, WMO, na sigla em inglês) está preocupada com o impacto da pandemia do covid-19 na quantidade e qualidade das observações e previsões meteorológicas, bem como no monitoramento da atmosfera e do clima.

O Sistema de Observação Global da WMO serve como espinha dorsal de todos os serviços e produtos climáticos fornecidos a seus cidadãos pelos 193 estados e territórios membros da organização. Ele fornece observações sobre o estado da atmosfera e da superfície do oceano a partir de instrumentos terrestres, marinhos e espaciais. Estes dados são utilizados para a preparação de análises meteorológicas, previsão do tempo e monitoramento do clima.

“Os Serviços Meteorológicos e Hidrológicos Nacionais continuam desempenhando suas funções essenciais 24 horas por dia e sete dias por semana, apesar dos graves desafios impostos pela pandemia de coronavírus”, disse o secretário-geral da WMO, Petteri Taalas. “Saudamos sua dedicação em proteger vidas e propriedades, mas estamos atentos às crescentes restrições de capacidade e recursos”.

Taalas afirmou ainda que os impactos das mudanças climáticas e a crescente quantidade de desastres relacionados ao clima continuam. “A pandemia do Covid-19 representa um desafio que  grava os riscos de vários perigos em um único país. Portanto, é essencial que os governos prestem  atenção em seu alerta nacional e às capacidades de observação do clima, apesar da crise do Covid-19”.

Grande parte do sistema de observação, como os componentes de satélite e redes de observação terrestres, por exemplo, são parcialmente ou totalmente automatizados. Por isso, espera-se que continuem funcionando sem problemas significativos por várias semanas, em alguns casos até mais. Porém, se a pandemia durar mais de algumas semanas, a falta de reparos, manutenção e suprimentos, e as redistribuições se tornarão uma preocupação crescente.

Algumas partes do sistema de observação já estão sendo afetadas, com destaque para a diminuição significativa do tráfego aéreo. As medições de temperatura ambiente e da velocidade e direção do vento em voo são uma fonte muito importante de informações para a previsão do tempo e monitoramento do clima.

Dados meteorológicos de aeronaves 

Aviões comerciais contribuem para o programa “Airbus Meteorological Data Relay” (AMDAR), que usa sensores, computadores e sistemas de comunicação a bordo para coletar, processar, formatar e transmitir observações meteorológicas para estações terrestres via satélite ou rádio.

Em algumas partes do mundo, em particular na Europa, a diminuição do número de medições nas últimas duas semanas tem sido dramática.  Veja o gráfico fornecido pela  EUMETNET.

Total de observações do sistema AMDAR em março de 2020 (Fonte: WMO)

Os países afiliados à EUMETNET, que reúne 31 serviços meteorológicos nacionais na Europa, estão atualmente discutindo maneiras de aumentar as capacidades de curto prazo de outras partes de suas redes de observação, a fim de diminuir parcialmente a perda de observações de aeronaves.

O sistema de observação AMDAR normalmente produzia por dia mais de 700 mil observações de alta qualidade de temperatura do ar, velocidade e direção do vento. Além disso, fornecia informações posicionais e temporais necessárias, com número crescente de medições de umidade e turbulência.

Observações baseadas em superfície

Na maioria dos países desenvolvidos, as observações meteorológicas de superfície são quase totalmente automatizadas. No entanto, em muitos países em desenvolvimento, como é o caso do Brasil, a transição para observações automatizadas ainda está em andamento, e a comunidade meteorológica ainda depende de observações feitas manualmente por observadores, que as transmitem às redes internacionais para uso em modelos globais de tempo e clima.

A WMO registrou diminuição significativa na disponibilidade de observação manual nas últimas duas semanas. Parte disso pode estar relacionada à situação atual de coronavírus, mas ainda não está claro se outros fatores também podem ter contribuído. A WMO está investigando outras possíveis causas.

“Atualmente, o impacto adverso da perda de observações na qualidade dos produtos para previsão do tempo ainda é relativamente pequeno. No entanto, à medida que a diminuição na disponibilidade de observações meteorológicas das aeronaves continua e se expande, podemos esperar uma queda gradual na confiabilidade das previsões”, disse Lars Peter Riishojgaard, diretor da filial do sistema terrestre no departamento de infraestrutura da WMO.

Segundo Riishojgaard, o mesmo vale se a diminuição das observações meteorológicas na superfície continuar e, em particular, se o surto de covid-19 começar a impactar de forma mais significativa a capacidade de trabalho de observadores em países subdesenvolvidos. “A WMO continuará monitorando a situação, e a organização está trabalhando com seus membros para mitigar o impacto o máximo possível”, afirmou.

Mapa fornecido pela WMO: os países mostrados em cores mais escuras forneceram menos observações na última semana do que a média do mês de janeiro de 2020 (pré-covid-19); os países mostrados em preto atualmente não estão enviando nenhum dado.

Atualmente, existem 16 satélites meteorológicos e 50 de pesquisa no mundo, além de mais de 10 mil estações meteorológicas de superfície automáticas e tripuladas, mil estações aéreas, 7 mil navios, 100 bóias ancoradas e mil flutuantes, centenas de radares meteorológicos e 3 mil estações comerciais especialmente equipadas em aeronaves, que medem parâmetros-chave da atmosfera, da terra e da superfície do oceano todos os dias.

Tradução e adaptação de Paula Soares e Amanda Sampaio, do conteúdo publicado no site da WMO – World Meteorological Organization.

Link da matéria original no site da WMO: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-concerned-about-impact-of-covid-19-observing-system

Link da matéria no site da Climatempo: https://www.climatempo.com.br/noticia/2020/04/02/meteorologia-pode-sofrer-impacto-com-covid-19-diz-wmo-2635

Climate change caused by ocean, not just atmosphere (Science Daily)

Uncategorized, , ,

Date: October 25, 2014

Source: Rutgers University

Summary: Most of the concerns about climate change have focused on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere. A new study reveals another equally important factor in regulating Earth’s climate. Researchers say the major cooling of Earth and continental ice build-up in the Northern Hemisphere 2.7 million years ago coincided with a shift in the circulation of the ocean.

The ocean conveyor moves heat and water between the hemispheres, along the ocean bottom. It also moves carbon dioxide. Credit: NASA

Most of the concerns about climate change have focused on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere.

But in a new study published in Science, a group of Rutgers researchers have found that circulation of the ocean plays an equally important role in regulating Earth’s climate.

In their study, the researchers say the major cooling of Earth and continental ice build-up in the Northern Hemisphere 2.7 million years ago coincided with a shift in the circulation of the ocean — which pulls in heat and carbon dioxide in the Atlantic and moves them through the deep ocean from north to south until it’s released in the Pacific.

The ocean conveyor system, Rutgers scientists believe, changed at the same time as a major expansion in the volume of the glaciers in the northern hemisphere as well as a substantial fall in sea levels. It was the Antarctic ice, they argue, that cut off heat exchange at the ocean’s surface and forced it into deep water. They believe this caused global climate change at that time, not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“We argue that it was the establishment of the modern deep ocean circulation — the ocean conveyor — about 2.7 million years ago, and not a major change in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere that triggered an expansion of the ice sheets in the northern hemisphere,” says Stella Woodard, lead author and a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences. Their findings, based on ocean sediment core samples between 2.5 million to 3.3 million years old, provide scientists with a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of climate change today.

The study shows that changes in heat distribution between the ocean basins is important for understanding future climate change. However, scientists can’t predict precisely what effect the carbon dioxide currently being pulled into the ocean from the atmosphere will have on climate. Still, they argue that since more carbon dioxide has been released in the past 200 years than any recent period in geological history, interactions between carbon dioxide, temperature changes and precipitation, and ocean circulation will result in profound changes.

Scientists believe that the different pattern of deep ocean circulation was responsible for the elevated temperatures 3 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was arguably what it is now and the temperature was 4 degree Fahrenheit higher. They say the formation of the ocean conveyor cooled Earth and created the climate we live in now.

“Our study suggests that changes in the storage of heat in the deep ocean could be as important to climate change as other hypotheses — tectonic activity or a drop in the carbon dioxide level — and likely led to one of the major climate transitions of the past 30 million years,” says Yair Rosenthal, co-author and professor of marine and coastal sciences at Rutgers

The paper’s co-authors are Woodard, Rosenthal, Kenneth Miller and James Wright, both professors of earth and planetary sciences at Rutgers; Beverly Chiu, a Rutgers undergraduate majoring in earth and planetary sciences; and Kira Lawrence, associate professor of geology at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.

Journal Reference:

  1. S. C. Woodard, Y. Rosenthal, K. G. Miller, J. D. Wright, B. K. Chiu, K. T. Lawrence.Antarctic role in Northern Hemisphere glaciation. Science, 2014; DOI:10.1126/science.1255586