Thorgalaeg
Deity
Well, there comes a time when you've seen it so much that you forget about it. Until you have to live in Madrid for a while, then you realize how much you miss it.
Climate Change Anecdotes
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Snowygerry
Deity
And erosion yes, sand beaches need to be constantly "replenished" if you want to keep them :
| Jan De Nul
We will maintain the Belgian coastline by restoring the beaches after erosion through beach replenishment. In this way, we are protecting the vulnerable coastline and preparing it against rising sea levels.
Last edited:
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Yes it has been the same here for last years. The dredge boat in front of the beach has been an usual thing. In some cases it has worked and the beach holds for now, in others as the beach at the picture, it is too big and they have apparently given up.
UN’s top court says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law
The United Nations’ top court in a landmark advisory opinion Wednesday said countries could be in violation of international law if they fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, and nations harmed by its effects could be entitled to reparations.
Advocates immediately cheered the International Court of Justice opinion on nations’ obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don’t.
“Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system ... may constitute an internationally wrongful act,” court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”
The non-binding opinion, backed unanimously by the court’s 15 judges, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law.
Notably, the court said a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right. That paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements.
There is a more technical write up here, I am not sure I am really getting it but these points seem relevant:
As to legal attribution, the Court’s approach is orthodox, though it does include in paragraph 427 some curious language in relation to fossil fuels that looks more like the articulation of a primary rule than the reiteration of a basic principle of attribution: ‘Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.’ (On which, see also the Joint Declaration of Judges Bhandari and Cleveland). That aside, on legal attribution the Court restated the basic principle that States are responsible for the conduct of their organs, including both their acts and omissions. In relation to private conduct, moreover, the Court also reasserted the basic proposition that while private conduct is not attributable to the State, a State may nevertheless be responsible for its failures to exercise due diligence in the regulation of private conduct, including omitting to limit the quantity of emissions caused by private actors under their jurisdiction (para 428).
Beyond this point, this section of the judgment is somewhat underdeveloped, and seemingly addresses matters other than legal attribution under the law of State responsibility. The Court notes the complexity around the existence of a plurality of wrongdoing States (and injured States) but emphasizes that it is ‘scientifically possible to determine each State’s total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions’ (para 429). It also finds that other courts and tribunals had ‘considered the link between GHG emissions and climate change, the link between climate change and adverse effects suffered by litigants, the link between such harm and the actions or omissions of a particular State, and the attributability of responsibility for such adverse effects.’ Perhaps inevitably, these general statements prefigure future questions.
As to the issue of multiple contributing States, the Court found that the general rules of responsibility can address the problem. Citing its Reparations Judgment in Armed Activities, the Court held: ‘in certain situations in which multiple causes attributable to two or more actors have resulted in injury . . . responsibility for part of such injury should [be] allocated among [the] actors’ (para 430). By way of aside, it may be noted that this was in contrast to the other possibility mentioned in Armed Activities, that ‘in certain situations in which multiple causes attributable to two or more actors have resulted in injury, a single actor may be required to make full reparation for the damage suffered’ (para 98). The allocation of responsibility amongst multiple actors remains under-developed in the practice of international law, although scholarship has addressed these issues in some detail. At least at the level of principle, and even if much is still to be determined, the Court’s approach is significant.
The United Nations’ top court in a landmark advisory opinion Wednesday said countries could be in violation of international law if they fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, and nations harmed by its effects could be entitled to reparations.
Advocates immediately cheered the International Court of Justice opinion on nations’ obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don’t.
“Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system ... may constitute an internationally wrongful act,” court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”
The non-binding opinion, backed unanimously by the court’s 15 judges, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law.
Notably, the court said a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right. That paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements.
There is a more technical write up here, I am not sure I am really getting it but these points seem relevant:
As to legal attribution, the Court’s approach is orthodox, though it does include in paragraph 427 some curious language in relation to fossil fuels that looks more like the articulation of a primary rule than the reiteration of a basic principle of attribution: ‘Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.’ (On which, see also the Joint Declaration of Judges Bhandari and Cleveland). That aside, on legal attribution the Court restated the basic principle that States are responsible for the conduct of their organs, including both their acts and omissions. In relation to private conduct, moreover, the Court also reasserted the basic proposition that while private conduct is not attributable to the State, a State may nevertheless be responsible for its failures to exercise due diligence in the regulation of private conduct, including omitting to limit the quantity of emissions caused by private actors under their jurisdiction (para 428).
Beyond this point, this section of the judgment is somewhat underdeveloped, and seemingly addresses matters other than legal attribution under the law of State responsibility. The Court notes the complexity around the existence of a plurality of wrongdoing States (and injured States) but emphasizes that it is ‘scientifically possible to determine each State’s total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions’ (para 429). It also finds that other courts and tribunals had ‘considered the link between GHG emissions and climate change, the link between climate change and adverse effects suffered by litigants, the link between such harm and the actions or omissions of a particular State, and the attributability of responsibility for such adverse effects.’ Perhaps inevitably, these general statements prefigure future questions.
As to the issue of multiple contributing States, the Court found that the general rules of responsibility can address the problem. Citing its Reparations Judgment in Armed Activities, the Court held: ‘in certain situations in which multiple causes attributable to two or more actors have resulted in injury . . . responsibility for part of such injury should [be] allocated among [the] actors’ (para 430). By way of aside, it may be noted that this was in contrast to the other possibility mentioned in Armed Activities, that ‘in certain situations in which multiple causes attributable to two or more actors have resulted in injury, a single actor may be required to make full reparation for the damage suffered’ (para 98). The allocation of responsibility amongst multiple actors remains under-developed in the practice of international law, although scholarship has addressed these issues in some detail. At least at the level of principle, and even if much is still to be determined, the Court’s approach is significant.
Policymakers underestimate public support for climate action, researchers find
New research by University of Oxford researchers from the Institute of New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, Saïd Business School and Smith School of Enterprise and Environment finds that policymakers, politicians and other policy officials greatly underestimate the public's willingness to contribute to climate action.
The findings come after recent clamors for a reset on climate policies from leading political figures due to a claimed lack of public support.
Building on prior research that found that 69% of the general public support climate action, the new paper, published in Communications Earth & Environment, shows that policymakers surveyed by the researchers estimated this figure at just 37%.
Co-author Dr. Stefania Innocenti, Associate Professor and leader of the Behavior and the Environment research group at Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, said, "Policymakers' decisions can be influenced by their perceptions of public opinion. It is possible that their underestimation of how much the public cares about climate change could limit their policy ambitions."
The research team asked 191 attendees of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) to estimate what percentage of the global population would say they are willing to give 1% of their salary to help fix climate change.
The attendees included politicians, individuals working at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, including at least 24 active policy negotiators.
There are some plausible explanations for our results, which include the impact of news media and lobbying and the frequency of exposure to individuals with particular ideological viewpoints. While more research is needed before we can say for sure why policymakers underestimate the public on climate change by such a high degree, our results suggest the presence of misperceptions.
Distributions of responses to perceived willingness to contribute income to fight climate change.
New research by University of Oxford researchers from the Institute of New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, Saïd Business School and Smith School of Enterprise and Environment finds that policymakers, politicians and other policy officials greatly underestimate the public's willingness to contribute to climate action.
The findings come after recent clamors for a reset on climate policies from leading political figures due to a claimed lack of public support.
Building on prior research that found that 69% of the general public support climate action, the new paper, published in Communications Earth & Environment, shows that policymakers surveyed by the researchers estimated this figure at just 37%.
Co-author Dr. Stefania Innocenti, Associate Professor and leader of the Behavior and the Environment research group at Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, said, "Policymakers' decisions can be influenced by their perceptions of public opinion. It is possible that their underestimation of how much the public cares about climate change could limit their policy ambitions."
The research team asked 191 attendees of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) to estimate what percentage of the global population would say they are willing to give 1% of their salary to help fix climate change.
The attendees included politicians, individuals working at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, including at least 24 active policy negotiators.
There are some plausible explanations for our results, which include the impact of news media and lobbying and the frequency of exposure to individuals with particular ideological viewpoints. While more research is needed before we can say for sure why policymakers underestimate the public on climate change by such a high degree, our results suggest the presence of misperceptions.
Distributions of responses to perceived willingness to contribute income to fight climate change.
Coral die-off marks Earth’s first climate ‘tipping point’, scientists say
Surging temperatures worldwide have pushed coral reef ecosystems into a state of widespread decline, marking the first time the planet has reached a climate ‘tipping point’, researchers announced today.
They also say that without rapid action to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, other systems on Earth will also soon reach planetary tipping points, thresholds for profound changes that cannot be rolled back.
“We can no longer talk about tipping points as a future risk,” says Steve Smith, a social scientist at the University of Exeter, UK, and a lead author on a report released today about how close Earth is to reaching roughly 20 planetary tipping points. “This is our new reality.”
The impact on coral reefs has been particularly severe in the past two years , pushing these ecosystems to their tipping point, the researchers say. The warming waters have caused corals across the globe to bleach, a process that occurs when the organisms expel the symbiotic algae that provide them with nutrients, oxygen and vibrant colours. The fourth global bleaching event in the past few decades began in January 2023, and researchers estimate that it has affected more than 84% of the planet’s coral ecosystems.
The initial tipping-point report talked about large-scale threats to corals in the future tense, but the latest global bleaching event has made it clear that the crisis is now, says Michael Studivan, a coral ecologist at the University of Miami in Florida.
Scientists discovered something alarming seeping out from beneath the ocean around Antarctica
Planet-heating methane is escaping from cracks in the Antarctic seabed as the region warms, with new seeps being discovered at an “astonishing rate,” scientists have found, raising fears that future global warming predictions may have been underestimated.
Huge amounts of methane lie in reservoirs that have formed over millennia beneath the seafloor around the world. This invisible, climate-polluting gas can escape into the water through fissures in the sea floor, often revealing itself with a stream of bubbles weaving their way up to the ocean surface.
They identified more than 40 methane seeps in the shallow water of the Ross Sea, according to the study published this month in Nature Communications.
Many of the seeps were found at sites that had been repeatedly studied before, suggesting they were new. This may indicate a “fundamental shift” in the methane released in the region, according to the report.
A selection of seep sites discovered in the McMurdo Sound region to date, with year of emergence indicated.
a Microbial mats (x and y) on the seafloor identified near Dunlop Island (30 m water depth), with a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) showing depressions in the seafloor, apparent seafloor pockmarks, associated with the seep site - the locations of the microbial mats are indicated in the DEM with x and y. b A seep site at Cape Evans (23 m water depth), showing the seafloor with microbial mats and gas bubbles escaping into the water column (see Supplemental Video 1). c–e Images of microbial mats correlated to seafloor seepage at Cinder Cones, Turtle Rock (image taken by Rob Robbins), and Cape Barne.
Surging temperatures worldwide have pushed coral reef ecosystems into a state of widespread decline, marking the first time the planet has reached a climate ‘tipping point’, researchers announced today.
They also say that without rapid action to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, other systems on Earth will also soon reach planetary tipping points, thresholds for profound changes that cannot be rolled back.
“We can no longer talk about tipping points as a future risk,” says Steve Smith, a social scientist at the University of Exeter, UK, and a lead author on a report released today about how close Earth is to reaching roughly 20 planetary tipping points. “This is our new reality.”
The impact on coral reefs has been particularly severe in the past two years , pushing these ecosystems to their tipping point, the researchers say. The warming waters have caused corals across the globe to bleach, a process that occurs when the organisms expel the symbiotic algae that provide them with nutrients, oxygen and vibrant colours. The fourth global bleaching event in the past few decades began in January 2023, and researchers estimate that it has affected more than 84% of the planet’s coral ecosystems.
The initial tipping-point report talked about large-scale threats to corals in the future tense, but the latest global bleaching event has made it clear that the crisis is now, says Michael Studivan, a coral ecologist at the University of Miami in Florida.
Scientists discovered something alarming seeping out from beneath the ocean around Antarctica
Planet-heating methane is escaping from cracks in the Antarctic seabed as the region warms, with new seeps being discovered at an “astonishing rate,” scientists have found, raising fears that future global warming predictions may have been underestimated.
Huge amounts of methane lie in reservoirs that have formed over millennia beneath the seafloor around the world. This invisible, climate-polluting gas can escape into the water through fissures in the sea floor, often revealing itself with a stream of bubbles weaving their way up to the ocean surface.
They identified more than 40 methane seeps in the shallow water of the Ross Sea, according to the study published this month in Nature Communications.
Many of the seeps were found at sites that had been repeatedly studied before, suggesting they were new. This may indicate a “fundamental shift” in the methane released in the region, according to the report.
A selection of seep sites discovered in the McMurdo Sound region to date, with year of emergence indicated.
a Microbial mats (x and y) on the seafloor identified near Dunlop Island (30 m water depth), with a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) showing depressions in the seafloor, apparent seafloor pockmarks, associated with the seep site - the locations of the microbial mats are indicated in the DEM with x and y. b A seep site at Cape Evans (23 m water depth), showing the seafloor with microbial mats and gas bubbles escaping into the water column (see Supplemental Video 1). c–e Images of microbial mats correlated to seafloor seepage at Cinder Cones, Turtle Rock (image taken by Rob Robbins), and Cape Barne.
Causal mechanisms of subpolar gyre variability in CMIP6 models
New study by Falkena et al. shows that most climate models don’t capture the established key mechanism that can destabilize the North Atlantic subpolar gyre. Those models that get it predict abrupt subpolar gyre changes in the coming decades.
Abstract
The subpolar gyre is at risk of crossing a tipping point under future climate change associated with the collapse of deep convection. As such, tipping can have significant climate impacts; it is important to understand the mechanisms at play and how they are represented in modern climate models. In this study, we use causal inference to investigate the representation of several proposed mechanisms for subpolar gyre variability in CMIP6 models. As expected, an increase in sea surface salinity or a decrease in sea surface temperature leads to an increase in mixed layer depth in nearly all CMIP6 models due to an intensification of deep convection. However, the effect of convection on modifying sea surface temperature due to re-stratification is less clear. In most models, the deepening of the mixed layer caused by an increase in sea surface salinity does result in a cooling of the water at intermediate depths. The feedback from the subsurface temperature through density to the strength of the subpolar gyre circulation is more ambiguous, with fewer models indicating a significant link. Those that do show a significant link do not agree on its sign. The CMIP6 models that have the expected sign for the links from density to the subpolar gyre strength and from there to sea surface salinity are also the models in which abrupt shifts in the subpolar gyre region have been found in climate change scenario runs. One model (CESM2) contains all proposed mechanisms, with both a negative and a delayed positive feedback loop being significant.
Also reported om mastadon:
What is more, at the Nordic Tipping Week I‘m currently attending we learned that climate models that agree best with observations are the ones where AMOC declines most by 2100 (as yet unpublished work).
New study by Falkena et al. shows that most climate models don’t capture the established key mechanism that can destabilize the North Atlantic subpolar gyre. Those models that get it predict abrupt subpolar gyre changes in the coming decades.
Abstract
The subpolar gyre is at risk of crossing a tipping point under future climate change associated with the collapse of deep convection. As such, tipping can have significant climate impacts; it is important to understand the mechanisms at play and how they are represented in modern climate models. In this study, we use causal inference to investigate the representation of several proposed mechanisms for subpolar gyre variability in CMIP6 models. As expected, an increase in sea surface salinity or a decrease in sea surface temperature leads to an increase in mixed layer depth in nearly all CMIP6 models due to an intensification of deep convection. However, the effect of convection on modifying sea surface temperature due to re-stratification is less clear. In most models, the deepening of the mixed layer caused by an increase in sea surface salinity does result in a cooling of the water at intermediate depths. The feedback from the subsurface temperature through density to the strength of the subpolar gyre circulation is more ambiguous, with fewer models indicating a significant link. Those that do show a significant link do not agree on its sign. The CMIP6 models that have the expected sign for the links from density to the subpolar gyre strength and from there to sea surface salinity are also the models in which abrupt shifts in the subpolar gyre region have been found in climate change scenario runs. One model (CESM2) contains all proposed mechanisms, with both a negative and a delayed positive feedback loop being significant.
Also reported om mastadon:
What is more, at the Nordic Tipping Week I‘m currently attending we learned that climate models that agree best with observations are the ones where AMOC declines most by 2100 (as yet unpublished work).
Light pollution causes global warming (possibly)
Artificial light pollution is increasing worldwide with pervasive effects on ecosystem structure and function, yet its influence on ecosystem metabolism remains largely unknown. Here we combine artificial light at night (ALAN) intensity metrics with eddy covariance observations across 86 sites in North America and Europe to show that ALAN indirectly decreases annual net ecosystem exchange by enhancing ecosystem respiration (Re). At half-hourly and daily scales, we detect consistent nonlinear interactions between ALAN and night duration, with Re increasing under higher ALAN and partially decoupling from gross primary production. At the annual scale, gross primary production shows no direct ALAN response and is instead influenced by the growing season length and urban proximity, whereas Re responds more strongly and consistently across timescales. Our findings show that ALAN disrupts the fundamental energetic constraints on ecosystem metabolism, warranting the inclusion of light pollution in global change and carbon–climate feedback assessments.
Artificial light pollution is increasing worldwide with pervasive effects on ecosystem structure and function, yet its influence on ecosystem metabolism remains largely unknown. Here we combine artificial light at night (ALAN) intensity metrics with eddy covariance observations across 86 sites in North America and Europe to show that ALAN indirectly decreases annual net ecosystem exchange by enhancing ecosystem respiration (Re). At half-hourly and daily scales, we detect consistent nonlinear interactions between ALAN and night duration, with Re increasing under higher ALAN and partially decoupling from gross primary production. At the annual scale, gross primary production shows no direct ALAN response and is instead influenced by the growing season length and urban proximity, whereas Re responds more strongly and consistently across timescales. Our findings show that ALAN disrupts the fundamental energetic constraints on ecosystem metabolism, warranting the inclusion of light pollution in global change and carbon–climate feedback assessments.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Is there an English translation?
I shall try, but take this with a pinch of salt:
During the day plants do photosynthesis taking CO2 out of the air and fixing it in their cells and other tissues, while animals and fungi and stuff "eats" tissues etc and releases CO2. At night everything "eats" and releases CO2 but at a lower level because they are less active.
In areas with high levels of artificial light at night this nighttime activity is higher, and it is non-linear and goes up more than double with a doubling of light. This changes the overall balance of CO2 fixation/release such that in areas with loads of light at night overall more CO2 is release than fixed.
