Wildlife Impacts Continue in Australia

January 8, 2020

It’s not going to be enough, but around the world, people are stepping in to help.

16 Responses to “Wildlife Impacts Continue in Australia”

  1. redskylite Says:

    “Australia’s average mean temperature in 2019 was 1.52 °C above average, making it the warmest on record since consistent national temperature records began in 1910 and surpassing the previous record in 2013 of 1.33 °C above average.

    Meanwhile the national average rainfall total in 2019 was 277 mm, the lowest since consistent national records began in 1900. The previous record low was 314 mm set during the Federation drought in 1902.


  2. Sir Charles Says:


    => Global warming will happen faster than we think

    Policymakers have less time to respond than they thought. Governments need to invest even more urgently in schemes that protect homes from floods and fires and help people to manage heat stress (especially older individuals and those living in poverty). Nations need to make their forests and farms more resilient to droughts, and prepare coasts for inundation. Rapid warming will create a greater need for emissions policies that yield the quickest changes in climate, such as controls on soot, methane and hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) gases.

    Three lines of evidence suggest that global warming will be faster than projected in the recent IPCC special report.

    First, greenhouse-gas emissions are still rising. In 2017, industrial carbon dioxide emissions are estimated to have reached about 37 gigatonnes. This puts them on track with the highest emissions trajectory the IPCC has modelled so far. This dark news means that the next 25 years are poised to warm at a rate of 0.25–0.32 °C per decade. That is faster than the 0.2 °C per decade that we have experienced since the 2000s, and which the IPCC used in its special report.

    Second, governments are cleaning up air pollution faster than the IPCC and most climate modellers have assumed. For example, China reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from its power plants by 7–14% between 2014 and 2016. Mainstream climate models had expected them to rise. Lower pollution is better for crops and public health. But aerosols, including sulfates, nitrates and organic compounds, reflect sunlight. This shield of aerosols has kept the planet cooler, possibly by as much as 0.7 °C globally.

    Third, there are signs that the planet might be entering a natural warm phase that could last for a couple of decades. The Pacific Ocean seems to be warming up, in accord with a slow climate cycle known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. This cycle modulates temperatures over the equatorial Pacific and over North America. Similarly, the mixing of deep and surface waters in the Atlantic Ocean (the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation) looks to have weakened since 2004, on the basis of data from drifting floats that probe the deep ocean. Without this mixing, more heat will stay in the atmosphere rather than going into the deep oceans, as it has in the past.

    These three forces reinforce each other. We estimate that rising greenhouse-gas emissions, along with declines in air pollution, bring forward the estimated date of 1.5 °C of warming to around 2030, with the 2 °C boundary reached by 2045. These could happen sooner with quicker shedding of air pollutants. Adding in natural decadal fluctuations raises the odds of blasting through 1.5 °C by 2025 to at least 10%. By comparison, the IPCC assigned probabilities of 17% and 83% for crossing the 1.5 °C mark by 2030 and 2052, respectively.

    • grindupbaker Says:

      The “Without this mixing, more heat will stay in the atmosphere rather than going into the deep oceans, as it has in the past” is incorrect science, which I’ve heard a few climate scientists say but that doesn’t render it correct. It’s not relevant to the concern because the warming happens so it’s only something that would be of interest if it was any other physical science such as whether the Andromeda galaxy has some feature or other. The other numbers, not surprisingly, are matching what I’ve read and computed. It’s 0.81 w/m**2 right now with 0.035/year from CO2 and 0.005/year from CH4. I figured last year like +0.23, +0.29, +0.35, +0.41 / decade with the 2018 burn with the Arctic spring/summer sea ice being the wild card that could add bits of its 0.50 degrees contribution as and when it retreats more/earlier. I thought 0.59 degrees from IPCC AR5 for aerosols on a century time (it’s the oceans).

      • Sir Charles Says:

        I’m still quite puzzled with the cold blob in the North Atlantic. It seems to have diminished. Maybe the surface signal is just overturned by accelerating warming of the atmosphere. Anyway, the North Atlantic circulation slows down, and we will see dramatic change in the weather patterns on both sides of the Atlantic.

        • greenman3610 Says:

          there’s going to be some variability.
          The larger picture is that it keeps forming and reforming, and seems
          correlated with the slowdown in the North Atlantic current, which is
          pretty well documented.

        • grindupbaker Says:

          “I’m still quite puzzled with the cold blob in” I don’t know. I did some thought & calculations about cold blob 4 years ago but never concluded anything useful. I vaguely recall that it’s a combo of the AMOC slowing down, so less warm water from south, more ice off Greenland and more surface water out of the Arctic Ocean (though that might just be my own logic) but I never finalized anything, too much going on. I’m flattered you thought to ask me.

      • Sir Charles Says:

        More on that what you call “incorrect science”.

        Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms Video Abstract

        It’s anything but “incorrect”.

        • grindupbaker Says:

          I haven’t said in my comment which you are non-responding to that anything in Jim’s Superstorms video is incorrect science and anybody browsing past here can know that by spending 15 minutes listening to Jim’s Superstorms video so you simply lied and interested persons browsing past will clearly see that. You are almost invariably from what I’ve noticed in passing over years an idiot when you attempt to perform or understand the WG1 climate science yourself because you don’t have the brain functionality or education for it. You are better to stick with giving references to science documents and articles and not attempt to perform science because you are incapable, somewhere between a “Paul Beckwith” good-in-parts-like-the-parson’s-egg occasional liar and a “Guy McPherson” clown-charlatan. Avoid slippage to McPherson. Dustin Hoffman in Rainman counted cards, didn’t go full McPherson. Sean Penn in I Am Sam went full McPherson, not nominated for an Oscar. You never go full McPherson.

  3. Sir Charles Says:

Leave a Reply to Sir Charles Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: