The connection between climate change and ocean circulation

If you ask climate change scientists about the connection between climate change and ocean circulation many of them will tell you that there is a very strong connection between these two. A team of scientists from the University of Cardiff has managed to find the evidence which connects fluctuations in ocean circulation to the climate change and temperature.

The primary focus of their study was Atlantic meridional overturning circulation that carries tropical surface waters northwards, and cold deep water from the North Atlantic southwards to fill the Atlantic basin. In Atlantic basin this water gets mixed with deep waters that originate in the Antarctic region.

Ocean circulation.

Climate change scientists already know that in times when ocean circulation is strong, heat is moved efficiently from the tropics to the poles, and when the circulation is weak the poles become colder.

Scientists believe that that during particularly cold periods in the last ice age Atlantic meridional overturning circulation was very weakened, and when this circulation strengthens after a period of weak circulation, it doesn't just return to its "normal" extent but it gets stronger than before.

The lead author of this study, Dr Stephen Barker from Cardiff University, explained this very vividly by saying "when the circulation kicks back in, it comes back with a vengeance".

These changes in ocean circulation are extremely important, and according to a scientific analysis they were responsible for the increase of 9 degrees Celsius over the course of just a few decades, 14,600 years ago.

So many factors influence climate change, and ocean circulation looks to be among the most important ones.

Climate change protests in Australia

Climate change protests are becoming more frequent in Australia and many hope that this will create enough political pressure to urge the major political parties to take action on climate change.

Tens of thousands of climate change protesters in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth have protested against current climate change policy.

The politicians still fail to adequately punish big polluters, and many people believe that the time has come for politicians to step up and take responsibility because climate change needs quick action.

The public is very disappointed with false promises, constant delays, and wants to see real action in form of strict laws that would curb carbon pollution in Australia.

There were also dozens of climate change skeptics who tried to disrupt rally in some cities but they failed to do so. The only thing they managed to do was to create minor incidents which police had to break up.

These events could be very helpful because many politicians will be forced to listen what their voters want from them, and perhaps politics will become more ignorant to powerful fossil fuel lobbies that delay major political decisions connected with climate change.

Will climate change reduce or increase rainfall?

According to the latest scientific reports Earth is warming up rapidly, and this should in short-term increase the global amount of rainfall. The scientists have even calculated that the rainfall will increase globally by 2-3 per cent for every degree Celsius that the Earth's surface heats up, so by the current looks of it we are in for a heavy rainfall in years to come.

There are some scientists who do not totally agree with this theory claiming that this calculation won't work if the balance of factors causing global warming changes significantly. There are several different factors that will have significant effect on the amount of rainfall in years to come such as the level of solar radiation, the amount of greenhouse gases, etc.

One of the less known but still very important factors are dark aerosols that have the ability to absorb enough sunlight in the atmosphere to suppress the expected rainfall response to increased temperatures, and the immediate result of this could be less rainfall.

When discussing this rather interesting topic Dr Timothy Andrews, scientist at the University of Leeds, said that two effects should be counted together because they go in tandem: "a fast atmospheric response that is closely linked with the type of climate change mechanism, and a slower response to surface temperature change that happens regardless of the climate change mechanism."

According to him these slow effects do produce the predicted 2-3 per cent increase in rainfall but fast atmospheric response might change all of this, depending on factors involved (such as dark aerosols).

There will be more rainfall if the current balance of factors remains pretty much the same in years the come. If by any chance this balance changes due to increased significance of certain factor we can even expect less rainfall in years to come.

Is it possible to predict future climate change?

The majority of scientists believes that climate change is not only the real thing but that we are also yet to see the worst the climate change has to offer. Climate change is already there and we need to adapt to it as quickly as possible. This lead us to a question can today's science also predict what will our future climate look like?

My answer is no, there are too much factors that affect our climate so scientists despite all their efforts are still far away from being able to predict future climate change. Scientists have already discovered bunch of different factors that have serious impact on climate change, and there are probably many factors that are yet to be discovered, not to mention finding interlinking between these factors. In other words, climate change phenomenon is still too complex for today's science.

Yes, ice is melting, and yes, temperatures are rising on global level but how much will temperature rise in years to come is impossible to tell. Increase in global temperature isn't only connected with the amount of carbon emissions but with many other factors, and only by incorporating all these factors we could be able to give some decent prediction. The problem? We still don't know half of these factors so we can't really set the equation.

Climate change science is still pretty much tapping in the dark hoping that somewhere there's the right switch to turn the lights on. What this basically means is that we are still swimming in theory waters, meaning that there are many possible scenarios for future climate change. The only bad thing is that most of these scenarios were made for the disaster movies.

US climate change legislation - Nothing without EPA

Despite many promises and strong support from president Obama, US still failed to pass cap-and- trade legislation, as there is still not enough political will for such action, or as some others would say fossil fuels lobbies are still too powerful. The only somewhat good news came from climate negotiator Todd Stern who recently said that despite the failure of cap-and-trade legislation US won’t change its target for 2020 to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by approximately 17 percent.

If you follow what's happening with climate change legislation in United States then you already know that The House approved a bill last year to set limits on carbon emissions linked to climate change but this bill stalled in Senate. Though cap-and-trade legislation would be more than welcome passing this bill will take some time, and in the meantime Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to step in, and use existing laws to at least regulate some sources of carbon pollution.

By the current looks of it, EPA will not be afraid to use these laws, and the EPA regulation planned for next year will set the U.S.’s first nationwide limits on greenhouse-gas pollution in the effort to curb global warming. This is a clear sign that EPA will continue pushing forward towards the adequate climate change legislation.

Many political analysts believe that the adequate domestic climate change legislation is the key to success to the international climate deal. Copenhagen was yet another big failure on international stage, mainly because US failed to give positive examples to other countries. Hopefully, this situation will soon improve.

Heavy melting of Arctic ice continues

Arctic sea ice is still experiencing a heavy melting, in fact according to the latest report Arctic sea ice melted from a winter maximum of about 15 million square kilometers to a September coverage area of just five million square kilometers, which represents the third biggest melting since satellite monitoring began about 30 years ago. Not only that, this data also means that the four greatest ice melts since the satellite measurements began in the late 1970s have occurred in the past four years, a clear sign of climate change.

What this also means is that the recent claims that the Arctic sea ice is recovering and getting thicker again are far from the reality, and that heavy melting trend is still on.

It is well known fact that Arctic ice reaches its minimum in mid-September, and the 2007 was remembered as the year with the least ice cover in the recorded history, little more than four million square kilometers. Last few years continued this trend, and none of them was nowhere close the 30-year average minimum of about seven million square kilometers.

Even despite these alarming numbers world leaders still fail to agree on new climate deal, and global CO2 emissions are not decreasing, meaning that the melting trend will continue in years to come.

If current trend of ice melting continues in years to come (and there's 99% chance it will) Arctic will soon become ice free during the summer months. This is because old, thick ice is disappearing and is replaced by younger and thinner ice, which takes very little to melt during the summer months.

No ice in summer months would probably cause massive increase in ship traffic in Arctic area as once-frozen shipping lanes become unlocked. The increased ship traffic could cause tremendous damage to sensitive Arctic's ecosystems. Like climate change alone is not enough.

Greenhouse gas emissions rising in Scotland

When talking about greenhouse gases that significantly contribute to climate change most people only refer to carbon dioxide (CO2) but there are plenty of other greenhouse gases, many of which are much more powerful than CO2. World’s most potent greenhouse gas is sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), and scientists have calculated that this gas is around 24,000 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, a huge concern for a further strengthening of the climate change impact.

In the last ten years Scottish SF6 emissions have increased dramatically, and according to the latest UK government data Scotland’s production of SF6 has increased by two-thirds since 1995. In fact in 2008 alone SF6 contributed seven times more to warming effect than carbon dioxide, and this is the major reason for concern.

15,000 tonnes of SF6 that Scotland produced in 2008 equals to 360 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. SF6 can be found in many different industrial products such as semiconductors used in electricity.

SF6 is not the only powerful greenhouse gas that experienced massive increase in Scotland in the last few decades as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), have also experienced massive increases since 1995. Since the 1995 Scottish emissions of HFCs have increased by staggering 610%, and HFC's are 11,000 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

Huge rise of HFC's emissions is not only trend in Scotland but also in Wales and Northern Ireland, only England showed decrease in HFC's emissions in the last couple of years.

It looks like Britain will not only have to focus on reducing the carbon emissions but also on reducing SF6 and HFC's levels as these greenhouse gases are much more harmful compared to CO2.

Climate change is still not obvious enough?

According to the recent reports this year is one of the hottest years in recorded history. Arctic summer sea ice continues to shrink, coral reefs are being devastated by global bleaching, there are massive wildfires in Russia, flooding in China, but these obvious signs of climate change are still not enough for world leaders to do something about it.

So much was expected from Copenhagen, and in the end everything failed miserably. Developed world doesn't share the same political and economic interests as the developing world, and individual interests still outweigh the global interest of entire mankind.

Science is clearly not enough to convince world leaders (and many other climate change skeptics) about the severity of climate change. It is like people wait for worst to happen in order to be convinced how serious this issue really is.

If the scientific predictions are true, and we continue to emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere our children and grandchildren will be the ones that will suffer the most once climate change starts showing its scary face.

United States and China are the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, and other countries wait for them to make the first moves. While China is doing huge steps to embrace clean energy in years to come, the prospect of a federal cap on carbon emissions in United States is with each new day looking more and more unlikely to happen, and some leading American politicians like Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal even believe that cap-and-trade is as good as dead.

The political games between the Republicans and Democrats are the last thing that global climate efforts currently need because many countries wait for US to show them a positive move forward. Such move is unlikely to happen because US is still all about talks, and even Obama looks to be losing interest to push climate change issue all the way, regardless of what some lobbies may think about it.

We all know that talk is cheap, and nothing gets done by talking. The last thing this world needs is even more false promises.

Clean energy key to climate change success

Climate change talks have failed miserably in Copenhagen, and since there's obviously not enough political will to agree legally binding international climate deal something else must be done instead. A global push for more clean energy looks to be one of the best solutions.

International bodies such as UN should be doing much more to support clean energy by monitoring the situation regarding investments in new renewable energy projects, by establishing some guidelines under which the commitment of each country to go for clean energy would be judged, all in order to ensure global "clean energy revolution".

Many countries are pushing for more renewable energy but world is still lacking global renewable energy goals, there are still no global monitoring mechanisms, and there is no international body that would help countries achieve their clean energy targets.

There are still many differences between developed and developing world, and these differences are the major stumbling block that prevents world from agreeing new international climate deal.

Each country promotes its own political and economic interests, and with so many different interests global climate deal looks impossible. But there's also one interest that all countries will likely support, namely more clean energy to satisfy our energy needs.

So why not go global with it?

Climate change impact in Africa

Climate change is already doing significant damage to Africa in forms of flooding and drought, and things will be likely much worse in years to come. Some top African officials are reporting that climate change is already causing growing internal population migrations and displacements in Africa because more and more people try to get away from areas hit by flooding, drought, and other natural disasters.

Africa will have tough time adapting to climate change because of its poverty, and without the help of the developed world, Africa will soon become even poorer than it is today, with more natural disasters, more hunger, and more diseases.

Current world efforts to tackle climate change are not enough, and if world fails to agree new climate deal, Africa will be the first in the line, experiencing the worst that climate change has to offer.

Climate change is already a reality for most of the Africa, and the best proof to this is the fact that in the last 20 years the number of recorded natural disasters has doubled from around 200 to over 400 per year, and scientists believe that 90% of these disasters were climate change related.

The temperatures in Africa will likely rise even further in years to come. This will lead to even bigger urbanization, and food and water will become even more scarcer than they are today, and thus much more expensive.

The rising temperatures are also the perfect breeding ground for many diseases. The combination of severe food and water shortages, uncontrolled urbanization and many diseases will probably lead to social and political conflicts, even wars.

World has to do something for Africa before it is too late.

Climate change opens door for invasive species

Climate change will likely create huge damage for many native animal and plant species in years to come because changing climate conditions will open the door for many invasive species. This will not only cause huge environmental damage but also huge economic damage, and according to the scientists from the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) invasion of alien species will likely cost countries 10% of their gross domestic product (GDP).

The link between climate change and invasive species is more than evident, and their combination has been already described by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as the "deadly duo".

Something certainly needs to be done to lessen their impact, and the most obvious solution looks to be in form of a new international climate deal that would oblige countries to significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and with it stop further strengthening of the climate change impact.

Invasive species are already big environmental problem in many parts of the world, and if climate change continues to further strengthen its ever-increasing impact biodiversity as we know it today could be irreversibly lost in many parts of the world.

Estimated economic damage from invasive species worldwide totals more than $1.4 trillion annually, which accounts approximately for around 5% of the global economy. Unless world does something to prevent the spreading of invasive species this number will soon become even larger, and even more damaging to global economy.

World leaders are still not aware how dangerous this interaction between climate change and invasive species is, and what kind of damage could this interaction create to global biodiversity. Biodiversity is the key component of all life on our planet, including the lives of each and every one of us, and world must act very quick to stop the currently ongoing huge loss of biodiversity.

Will poor countries get enough money to adapt to climate change?

The only way developing world can adapt to climate change is if rich world carries the financial burden needed to help developing nations adapt to droughts, floods and rising sea levels.

Last year's Copenhagen summit was generally one big failure but nevertheless the rich countries have still pledged to raise $100bn a year in climate aid from 2020 in order to help developing world. Can this really be achieved and will poor countries really get enough money to adapt to climate change?

According to the latest UN report obtaining this money will be challenging but still feasible, because UN believes that the public sector could extract more than $100bn and the private sector five times more, up to $500bn a year.

The UN report has also specified possible sources by claiming that between $2bn and $27bn could be raised from financial transaction taxes on foreign exchange, $4bn to $9bn from shipping, $2bn to $3bn from aviation, $3bn to $8bn from removal of fossil fuel subsidies and $8bn to $38bn from auctioning carbon allowances.

Putting prices on carbon emissions is still the key to success, and it has been calculated that carbon price needs to be in the range of $20 to $25 a tonne of carbon dioxide if the world wants to reach the desired $100bn mark.

Global politics is yet to achieve the desired level of political acceptability for this plan because there are still many issues between developed and developing world that need to be sorted out prior to reaching the final agreement.

Climate talks in Cancun are fast approaching, and it will be very interesting to see how far did countries progressed since Copenhagen, and whether world is finally ready to act as one in order to tackle climate change.

Climate change issue in US - Interesting observations

US Republican party is the only major party in the developed world that denies existence of climate change. Weren't they also the ones who said that smoking doesn't cause cancer?

50% of the new Congressmen deny the existence of manmade climate change. It looks like US is still pretty much ignorant to anything that isn't strongly connected with almighty dollar.

Cap and trade scheme that should have been the US answer to tackle climate change will likely remain just a fond memory of once existed optimism that US will actually do something about climate change issue.

The US is one of the few countries in the world where politicians seem to know lot more about climate, our environment, our planet in general than scientists do.

US, a global leader in international climate talks? Now, that's a laugh.

How much of US politicians have basic science literacy? It's certainly better not to answer to this question.

Why should US spend extra money to tackle climate change? Just because of catastrophic future full of floods, droughts, hurricanes diseases and hunger? Come on, give us a right reason.

Is US really living in 21th century when it comes to climate change issue? Even George Washington would look like progressive politician compared to some Republicans.

What should be in the focus of international climate deal?

There are many people who are still convinced in the positive outcome of Cancun climate talks that are just behind the corner. Whether we'll actually see something positive or not it is difficult to tell because even top political analysts have so far been sending us mixed signals about the possible success of international climate deal.

There are four major areas which should be in the focus of new international climate deal: first of all is how to adapt to climate change, second how to curb carbon emissions in order not to make climate change worse than it already is, third transfer of clean technologies from rich to poor countries, and fourth to create international fund for long-term climate financing.

Adapting to climate change would be crucial in years to come, and this is only possible if rich countries help poor countries, after all this should be the moral duty of rich countries since they are the ones that are mostly responsible for climate change issue because of their excessive carbon dioxide emissions.

World will have to significantly curb carbon emissions in years to come. Whether this will be achieved by renewable energy or clean coal technologies doesn't really matter, the most important thing is to get it done, because if we continue with our current levels of carbon emissions climate change impact will continue to grow.

Transfer of clean technologies (renewable energy and some alternative solutions like clean coal technologies) is also something that needs to be done because developing countries are mostly using coal to boost their economies, and coal is the dirtiest fuel of them all. The developing world should focus more on renewable energy technologies, and this is where rich countries should step in and provide adequate knowledge and funds.

World also needs to create international fund for long-term climate financing, because climate change is long-term phenomenon, and world will no doubt need lot of money to adapt to changes that climate change will no doubt bring in years to come. International fund for long-term climate financing is therefore also a necessity.

Cancun climate talks will soon start, and world leaders have once again the chance to do something for our planet, and protect our future generations from the worst that climate change has to offer. Have they learned something from their past mistakes? We'll soon see.

UK not doing enough to decrease carbon emissions

UK will have to seriously increase its efforts in order to ensure low-carbon economy in years to come because based on the last report UK will need to triple its current efforts towards cutting emissions in order to transform to a low-carbon economy by 2050.

According to the latest report by wildlife charity WWF and innovation company Ecofys UK is well behind Germany, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden on the overall efforts to cut carbon emissions and transform to a low-carbon economy.

Carbon emissions can be decreased on several different ways, for instance by adding more renewable power to energy grid or improving energy efficiency. At this moment UK is well behind Denmark and Germany on renewables, behind Ireland on energy efficiency and behind France and the Czech Republic on cutting emissions associated with buildings.

Overall speaking, UK belongs to the average category when describing EU countries efforts to cut carbon emissions by between 80% and 95% by mid-century. Average is definitely not enough for UK because UK certainly wants to become one of clean energy leaders in years to come.

Though UK was the first country in the world that set the legally binding long-term targets for cutting emissions in form of Climate Change Act, this is far from being enough, and UK will have to look its current policies regarding renewable energy and efficiency in order to get on the right track.

Renewable energy sector in UK is currently experiencing positive trend in UK, which cannot be said about the issues connected with energy efficiency, transport and industry.