Tag: global warming

Release the Kraken

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

Making headlines today (like the one above) is a new paper by Zoë Doubleday and colleagues documenting an increase the population of cephalopods (octopuses, cuttlefish, and squid) over the past 61 years.  The authors, after assembling a data set of historical catch rates, note that this population increase, rather than being limited to a few localized areas, seems to be occurring globally.

End of analysis.

From then on its speculation.

And the authors speculate that human-caused climate change may be behind the robust cephalopod increase. After all, the authors reason, what else has had a consistent large-scale impact over the past six decades? No analysis relating temperature trends (spatially or temporally) to cephalopod trends, no examination of other patterns of climate change and cephalopod change, just speculation.  And a new global warming meme is born—“Swarms of octopus are taking over the oceans.”

There is an overwhelming tendency to relate global warming to all manner of bad things and a great hesitation to suggest a potential link when the outcome is seemingly beneficial. We refer to this as the global-warming-is-bad-for-good-and-good-for-bad phenomenon. It holds a great majority of the time.

In the case of octopuses, squids, and cuttlefish, the authors are a bit guarded as to their speculation of impact of the increase in cephalopod numbers—will they decimate their prey populations or will they themselves provide more prey to their predators? Apparently we’ll have to wait and see.

No doubt, the outcome will be a complex one as is the case behind the observed population increases. Depletion of fish stocks, a release of competitive pressure, and good old-fashioned natural environmental variability are also suggested as potential factors in the long-term population expansion. But complex situations don’t make for great scare stories. Global-warming-fueled bands of marauding octopuses and giant squid certainly do. 

Reference:

Doubleday, Z. A., et al., 2016. Global proliferation of cephalopods. Current Biology, 26, R387–R407.

Arctic Sea Ice Loss Not Leading to Colder Winters

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

Although it’s a favorite headline as people shiver during the coldest parts of the winter, global warming is almost assuredly not behind your suffering (the “warming” part of global warming should have clued you in on this).

But, some folks steadfastly prefer the point of view that all bad weather is caused by climate change.

Consider White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) head John Holdren. During the depth of the January 2014 cold outbreak (and the height of the misery) that made “polar vortex” a household name, OSTP released a video featuring Holdren telling us that “the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak, is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.” 

At the time we said “not so fast,” pointing out that there were as many (if not more) findings in the scientific literature that suggested that either a) no relationship exists between global warming and the weather patterns giving rise to mid-latitude cold outbreaks, or b) the opposite is the case (global warming should lead to fewer and milder cold air outbreaks).

The Competitive Enterprise Institute even went as far as to request a formal correction from the White House. The White House responded by saying that the video represented only Holdren’s “personal opinion” and thus no correction was necessary. CEI filed a FOIA request, and after some hemming and hawing, the White House OSTP finally, after a half-hearted search, produced some documents. Unhappy with this outcome, CEI challenged the effort and just this past Monday, a federal court, questioning whether the OSTP acted in “good faith,” granted CEI’s request for discovery.

In the meantime, the scientific literature on this issue continues to accumulate. When a study finds a link between human-caused global warming and winter misery, it makes headlines somewhere. When it doesn’t, that somewhere is usually reduced to here.

The Shallow Back Reef Environment of Ofu, American Samoa

Writing as background for their work, the six-member research team of Koweek et al. (2015) cite several concerns about the future of Earth’s corals that have been projected to result from the so-called twin evils of global warming and ocean acidification, including “coral bleaching (Glynn, 1993; Hughes et al., 2003; van Hooidonk et al., 2013), increased dissolution and bioerosion (Andersson and Gledhill, 2013; Dove et al., 2013; Reyes-Nivia et al., 2013), decreased biodiversity (Fabricius et al., 2011), and shifts toward algal-dominated reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007; Kroeker et al., 2010; 2013).” However, despite these concerns, which have captured the attention of scientists and policy makers for more than two decades now, such worries may well be overestimated and overplayed.

The reason for such growing optimism has to do with the corals themselves, which along with other marine organisms appear to have an inherent ability “of controlling their own biogeochemical environments.” Such biologically-mediated controls, if they are of sufficient magnitude, could potentially offset future changes in the marine environment brought about by rising atmospheric CO2 (projected ocean warming and pH decline). It is therefore of considerable importance for scientists to continue investigating these biological feedbacks in order to better ascertain the future of these precious marine species, for as noted by Koweek et al., “the paradigm of coral reefs as passive responders to their biogeochemical environments is rapidly changing.”

In further expanding the scientific knowledge on this important topic, the six American researchers set out to conduct a “short, high-resolution physical and biogeochemical pilot field study” on the back reefs of Ofu, American Samoa, where they measured a number of hydrodynamic and biogeochemical parameters there over a seven-day period in November, 2011. The specific study location was Pool 100 (14.185°S, 169.666°W), a shallow lagoon containing 85 coral species and various kinds of crustose coralline algae and non-calcifying algae. Koweek et al. selected Pool 100 because, as they state, shallow back reefs “commonly experience greater thermal and biogeochemical variability owing to a combination of coral community metabolism, environmental forcing, flow regime, and water depth.”

Results of their data collection and analysis revealed that temperatures within the shallow back reef environment were consistently 2-3°C warmer during the day than that observed in the offshore environment. In addition, and as expected, the ranges of the physical and biogeochemical parameters studied in Pool 100 greatly exceeded the variability observed in the open ocean. Inside Pool 100, the pH values fluctuated between a low of 7.80 and a high of 8.39 across the seven days of study, with daily ranges spanning between 0.5 and 0.6 of a unit (Figure 1). What is more, Koweek et al. report that the reef community in Pool 100 spent far more time outside of the offshore pH range than within it (pH values were between 8.0 and 8.2 during only 30 percent of the observational period, less than 8.0 for 34 percent of the time and greater than 8.2 for the remaining 36 percent of the observations). Additional measurements and calculations indicated that these fluctuations in pH were largely the product of community primary production and respiration, as well as tidal modulation and wave-driven flow.

Figure 1. Time series of pHT (top panel) and pCO2 (bottom panel) in Pool 100, Ofu, American Samoa from November 16-20, 2011. Vertical blue and orange lines show the occurrence of high and low tides, respectively. Gray vertical shading shows the period from sundown to sunrise. The different colored circles represent data that were collected from different locations in Pool 100 and the dashed horizontal black lines represent the mean value of each parameter in the offshore ocean. Adapted from Koweek et al. (2015).

Figure 1. Time series of pHT (top panel) and pCO2 (bottom panel) in Pool 100, Ofu, American Samoa from November 16-20, 2011. Vertical blue and orange lines show the occurrence of high and low tides, respectively. Gray vertical shading shows the period from sundown to sunrise. The different colored circles represent data that were collected from different locations in Pool 100 and the dashed horizontal black lines represent the mean value of each parameter in the offshore ocean. Adapted from Koweek et al. (2015).

Commenting on these and other of their findings, Koweek et al. write that “our measurements have provided insight into the physical–biogeochemical coupling on Ofu.” And that insight, they add, “suggests a significantly more nuanced view of the fate of coral reefs” than the demise of global reef systems that is traditionally forecast under the combined stresses of climate change and ocean acidification.

Indeed, if these ecosystems presently thrive under such variable (and more severe) environmental conditions than those predicted for the future—which conditions are largely derived and modulated by themselves—why wouldn’t they persist?

 

References

Andersson, A.J. and Gledhill, D. 2013. Ocean acidification and coral reefs: effects on breakdown, dissolution, and net ecosystem calcification. Annual Review of Marine Science 5: 321-348.

Dove, S.G., Kline, D.I., Pantos, O., Angly, F.E., Tyson, G.W. and Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 2013. Future reef decalcification under a business-as-usual CO2 emission scenario. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 110: 15342-15347.

Fabricius, K.E., Langdon, C., Uthicke, S., Humphrey, C., Noonan, S.H.C., De’ath, G., Okazaki, R., Muehllehner, N., Glas, M.S. and Lough, J.M. 2011. Losers and winners in coral reefs acclimatized to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations. Nature Climate Change 1: 165-169.

Glynn, P.W. 1993. Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs 12: 1-17.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P.J., Hooten, A.J., Steneck, R.S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E., Harvell, C.D., Sale, P.F., Edwards, A.J., Caldeira, K., Knowlton, N., Eakin, C.M., Iglesias-Prieto, R., Muthiga, N., Bradbury, R.H., Dubi, A. and Hatziolos, M.E. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318: 1737-1742.

Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H., Bellwood, D.R., Card, M., Connolly, S.R., Folke, C., Grosberg, R., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jackson, J.B.C., Kleypas, J.A., Lough, J.M., Marshall, P., Nystrom, M., Palumbi, S.R., Pandolfi, J.M., Rosen, B. and Roughgarden, J. 2003. Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301: 929-933.

Koweek, D.A., Dunbar, R.B., Monismith, S.G., Mucciarone, D.A., Woodson, C.B. and Samuel, L. 2015. High-resolution physical and biogeochemical variability from a shallow back reef on Ofu, American Samoa: an end-member perspective. Coral Reefs 34: 979-991.

Kroeker, K.J., Kordas, R.L., Crim, R.N. and Singh, G.G. 2010. Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms. Ecology Letters 13: 1419-1434.

Kroeker, K.J., Kordas, R.L., Crim, R.N., Hendriks, I.E., Ramajo, L., Singh, G.S., Duarte, C.M. and Gattuso, J.-P. 2013. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming. Global Change Biology 19: 1884-1896.

Reyes-Nivia, C., Diaz-Pulido, G., Kline, D.I., Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and Dove, S.G. 2013. Ocean acidification and warming scenarios increase microbioerosion of coral skeletons. Global Change Biology 19: 1919-1929.

van Hooidonk, R., Maynard, J.A. and Planes, S. 2013. Temporary refugia for coral reefs in a warming world. Nature Climate Change 3: 508-511.

You Ought to Have a Look: Our Energy Future, Science Regress, and a Greening Earth

You Ought to Have a Look is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science posted by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. (“Chip”) Knappenberger.  While this section will feature all of the areas of interest that we are emphasizing, the prominence of the climate issue is driving a tremendous amount of web traffic.  Here we post a few of the best in recent days, along with our color commentary.

We’ll jump right into this week by highlighting an appearance by Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills on The Federalist’s Radio Hour. During his time on the show, Mills explains how the foreseeable future is going to play out when it comes to global energy production and why he says that even if you were concerned about climate change, “there really isn’t anything you can do about it.” 

Mills is one of the leading thinkers and analysts on energy systems, energy markets, and energy policy, bringing often overlooked and deeply-buried information to the forefront.

During his nearly hour-long radio segment, Mills discusses topics ranging from climate change, the world’s future energy mix, the role of technological advances, and energy policy as well as giving his opinions on both Bills Gates’ and Pope Francis’ take on all of the above. It is an entertaining and informative interview.

As a taste, here’s a transcript of a small segment:

In the life we live, and the world we live in, we have to do two things, one is deal with reality [current understanding of physics] and the moral consequences of that, and we can have aspirations. If the aspiration, which Bill Gates’ is, is to use fewer hydrocarbons, we need to support basic research.

We don’t subsidize stuff. The reason we don’t subsidize stuff and make energy more expensive, is because, for me, it is morally bankrupt to increase the cost of energy for most people in most of the world. Energy should be cheaper, not more expensive. We use energy to make our lives better. We use energy to make our lives safer. We use energy to make our lives more enjoyable. Everything that we care about in the world, safety, convenience, freedom, costs energy. [emphasis added]

Mark Mills’ sentiment closely matches that which Alex Epstein explained to Congress a few weeks back and that we highlighted in our last edition. 

If you can find any time to listen to a little or a lot of Mills’ full interview, you’ll probably find that what he says to make a lot of sense. Funny, though, how much of it seems to have escaped some folks.

Next up is an article in the current issue of First Things authored by Walter Wilson titled “Scientific Regress.” If you think the title is provocative, you ought to have a look at the rest of the piece beginning with the first line “The problem with ­science is that so much of it simply isn’t.” Instead, it reflects the results of a gamed system driven by pre-conceived ideas often emanating from the science/political establishment.

A Historic Perspective on the Greenland Ice Sheet and its Contribution to Global Sea Level

One of the most feared of all model-based projections of CO2-induced global warming is that temperatures will rise enough to cause a disastrous melting/destabilization of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS), which would raise global sea level by several meters. But how likely is this scenario to occur? And is there any way to prove such melting is caused by human activities?

The answer to this two-part question involves some extremely complex and precise data collection and understanding of the processes involved with glacial growth and decay. Most assuredly, however, it also involves a scientifically accurate assessment of the past history of the GrIS, which is needed to provide a benchmark for evaluating its current and future state. To this end, a recent review paper by Vasskog et al. (2015) provides a fairly good summary of what is (and is not) presently known about the history of the GrIS over the previous glacial-interglacial cycle. And it yields some intriguing findings.

Probably the most relevant information is Vasskog et al.’s investigation of the GrIS during the last interglacial period (130-116 ka BP). During this period, global temperatures were 1.5-2.0°C warmer than the peak warmth of the present interglacial, or Holocene, in which we are now living. As a result of that warmth, significant portions of the GrIS melted away. Quantitatively, Vasskog et al. estimate that during this time (the prior interglacial) the GrIS was “probably between ~7 and 60% smaller than at present,” and that that melting contributed to a rise in global sea level of “between 0.5 and 4.2 m.” Thus, in comparing the present interglacial to the past interglacial, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently 30% higher, global temperatures are 1.5-2°C cooler, GrIS volume is from 7-67% larger, and global sea level is at least 0.5-4.2 m lower, none of which signal catastrophe for the present.

Clearly, therefore, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the current interglacial, including the present state of the GrIS. Its estimated ice volume and contribution to mean global sea level reside well within their ranges of natural variability, and from the current looks of things, they are not likely to depart from those ranges any time soon.

 

References

Reyes, A.V., Carlson, A.E., Beard, B.L., Hatfield, R.G., Stoner, J.S., Winsor, K., Welke, B. and Ullman, D.J. 2014. South Greenland ice-sheet collapse during Marine Isotope Stage 11. Nature 510: 525–528.

Vasskog, K., Langebroek, P.M., Andrews, J.T., Nilsen, J.E.Ø. and Nesje, A. 2015. The Greenland Ice Sheet during the last glacial cycle: Current ice loss and contribution to sea-level rise from a palaeoclimatic perspective. Earth-Science Reviews 150: 45-67.

You Ought to Have a Look: Paris Climate Agreement

You Ought to Have a Look is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science posted by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. (“Chip”) Knappenberger.  While this section will feature all of the areas of interest that we are emphasizing, the prominence of the climate issue is driving a tremendous amount of web traffic.  Here we post a few of the best in recent days, along with our color commentary.

With Earth Day and the grand signing ceremony for the Paris Climate Agreement just around the corner, we thought it apt to highlight some relevant stories from around the web, particularly those critical of the central climate control enterprise.

Recall that we have pointed out the Paris Climate Agreement represents little more than a business-as-usual approach that has been spun to suggest that it represents a collective, international effort in response to a climate change “concern.” Increasing opportunities for riding your bike (etc.) now have been rebranded as efforts to save the world. Right.

We’ve shown that the U.S. pledge under the Paris “Don’t Call It a Treaty” Agreement, while a bit more aggressive than many, turns out to basically be impossible. Putting our name on such pledge seems a bit disingenuous, to put it mildly.

On top of all this comes a new economic analysis from the Heritage Foundation that basically shows that the U.S. intension under the Agreement would be mucho bad news. Here are the Key Points from the report “Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero Environmental Benefits”:

 

You Say Meethane, I Say Meth-ane, Let’s Agree We Don’t Know Where It’s Coming From

Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

Atmospheric concentrations of methane (CH4)—a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide (at least over shorter time scales)—have begun rising after a hiatus from 1999-2006 that defied all expectations. No one knows for sure why—why they stood still, or why they started up again.

There is a lot of research underway looking into the causes of the observed methane behavior and at least three new studies have reported results in the scientific literature in the past couple of months.

The findings are somewhat at odds with each other.

In February, a study led by Alex Turner, from Harvard University’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, was published that examined methane emissions from the US over the past 10 years or so. The researchers compared observations taken from orbiting satellites to observations made from several sites on the earth’s surface. They reported over the past decade “an increase of more than 30% in US methane emissions.” And this increase was so large as to “suggest that increasing US anthropogenic methane emissions could account for up to 30-60% of [the] global increase.”

However, the methodologies employed by Turner et al. were insufficient for determining the source of the enhanced emissions. While the authors wrote that “[t]he US has seen a 20% increase in oil and gas production and a 9-fold increase in shale gas production from 2002 to 2014” they were quick to point out that “the spatial pattern of the methane increase seen by [satellite] does not clearly point to these sources” and added that “[m]ore work is needed to attribute the observed increase to specific sources.”

Perhaps most interestingly, Turner and colleagues note that “national inventory estimates from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate no significant trend in US anthropogenic methane emissions from 2002 to present”—a stark contrast to their findings, and a potential embarrassing problem for the EPA. But, never fear, the EPA is on it. The EPA is now actively re-examining its methane inventory and seems to be in the process of revising it upwards, perhaps even so much as to change its previous reported decline in methane emissions to an increase. Such a change would have large implications for the US’s ability to keep the pledge made at the U.S. 2015 Climate Conference in Paris.

However, the Turner et al. results have been called into question by a prominently-placed study in Science magazine just a couple of weeks later. The Science study was produced by a large team led by Hinrich Schaefer of New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.

Schaefer and colleagues analyzed the changes in the isotopic ratios of carbon in the methane contained in samples of air within ice cores, archived air samples, and more recent measurement systems. Different sources of methane contain different mixtures of methane isotopes, related to how long ago the methane was formed. Using this information, the authors developed a model for trying to back out the methane sources from the well-mixed atmospheric samples. Although such a procedure is somewhat tunable (i.e., you can get pretty much any answer you want (kind of like climate models!)), the authors are pretty confident in their final results.