ieBlog

Is the weather running AMOC in Ireland

Part 2

In the March 1, 2024 issue of the ieBLOG section of www.irishenvironment.com we wrote about the nature and, and to  a limited extent, the impacts of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).  In this issue (November 2024) we explore that issue further through the talk by Stefan Rahmstorf of the Earth system analysis department at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany on the the workings and risks from the AMOC.  We also republish an Open Letter by Climate Scientists to the Nordic Council of Ministers, calling for the closer attention of the Council and others to the serious risks of major ocean circulation change in the Atlantic. In his talk Professor Rahmstorf mentions in passing that Ireland and Scotland will experience changes to their weather and environment.

In a recent interview, Rahmstorf explores some of the likely outcomes in Ireland and Scotland, and Europe in general, if the AMOC continues to weaken or even collapses, sooner rather than later.  Below are excerpts of that discussion:

 

BT [Ben Turner]: So what would climates around the North Atlantic look like if AMOC were to collapse? What regions would be the worst affected?

SR [Stefan Rahmstorf]: There would be many impacts. The most immediate one that people probably already know about is the cooling around the northern Atlantic, which is already there in the form of the cold blob. It’s also in the air temperature around that region, it’s the only part of the world that has not warmed, but has been getting colder, in the last 100 years.

So we already have the symptom there, but when the AMOC really gets much weaker still and collapses, then the cold blob would expand and cover land areas as well — like Ireland, Scotland, Scandinavia, Iceland, they would likely get several degrees colder and also drier.

That would then enhance the temperature contrast across Europe, because Southern Europe would still be warm and Northern Europe would be cool. These temperature differences drive extreme weather events, bringing a lot more variability and storms. The sea level would also rise by up to half a meter [1.6 feet] in the northern Atlantic in addition to the global average rise that is happening anyway.

There would also be an effect on ocean carbon dioxide uptake. Currently, the ocean takes up 25% of our CO2 emissions just by gas exchange at the sea surface. The ocean can do that because a lot of that CO2 is then transported to the deep ocean by the AMOC. If the overturning circulation stops, that CO2 will stay near the surface and quickly equilibrate with the atmosphere. That would make it [C02 concentrations] rise faster in the atmosphere.

The AMOC also transports oxygen into the deep ocean. This is also bad news [if this process stops], because if you get an oxygen-depleted ocean it would disrupt the entire web of life in the northern Atlantic, and that would disrupt fisheries.

A map of the ocean currents in the Atlantic. (Image credit: Peter Hermes Furian via Shutterstock)

  

BT: That paints a very strange picture of our future climate — things being colder around the northern Atlantic, warmer to the south, and there being a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere. What impacts will that combination have globally?

SR: We’d see the whole Northern Hemisphere cool compared to what it would be with just global warming [acting alone]. Although it wouldn’t exactly cool [outright], climate change would counteract that effect in most places, except around the North Atlantic.

In the Southern Hemisphere, greenhouse warming would get worse. There would be a shift in the tropical rainfall belts. We know from paleoclimate records that these Heinrich events, for example, have caused major drought problems in parts around the tropics and in other areas. You would also get flooding from tropical rainfalls shifting to places where people and infrastructure are not used to it.

In terms of more detail, there are surprisingly few studies on that so far. We mostly know from paleoclimate data how drastic and worldwide these changes are, even reaching as far as New Zealand, which is as removed from the North Atlantic as you can possibly get.

 

From Ben Turner, ‘We don’t really consider it low probability anymore’: Collapse of key Atlantic current could have catastrophic impacts, says oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf,” Live Science bit.ly/40peSxI

See also, Guidance for Met Éireann forecasters on impact for Ireland from possible collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).   https://bit.ly/40n62k0

The Growth of Agricultural Litigation

 

 

 

What do Lake Vico in Italy, the pesticides authorisation process in France, and the river Ems in Germany all have in common? They are all linked to industrial agriculture, the impact of which has been the subject of recent court cases across the European Union. Laura Hildt explores the role of litigation in shaping a brighter EU food and farming system. 

In courts across the EU, governments are increasingly found in breach of their obligations to ensure clean and healthy water, proper risk assessments of pesticides, stable habitats and adequate greenhouse gas emission reductions. While these cases highlight local issues, they are part of a broader picture of litigation which showcases the systemic problems with the EU’s approach to agriculture.

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – Europe’s dedicated farming budget – is not working for farmers or the environment. Countless reports, studies and recent protests have demonstrated that beyond doubt. In fact, by looking at what is happening in the courts, we see that the CAP – by funding business as usual – funds a system that is leading EU governments to breach the law.

The CAP on paper 

On paper – or rather, in law – the CAP has multiple objectives, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, halting biodiversity loss and effectively managing natural resources such as water, soil and air. It is, after all, a third of the EU’s budget.

When national governments implement the CAP, they must show how their plans to spend CAP money at national level achieve those objectives, including long-standing environmental obligations. Makes sense to not give out vast amounts of public money in a way that pollutes drinking water and makes governments fail their legal obligations to ensure that same water is safe and clean. Right? And yet, that is what is happening with the CAP.

The reality 

Governments are spending public money on a system that leads them to breach the law – which results in them spending even more of the public’s money to clean up the mess. More and more courts across Europe are finding governments in breach of the Nitrates Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive and even their climate obligations. All fuelled by the continued funding of intensive agricultural practices such as the excessive spreading of manure on our soils, heavy pesticides use and industrial-scale animal rearing.

Taking action 

Who wins in this? Well, no one really. Except, those with vested interests, like Big Agri and the 20% of industrial ‘farms’ which receive 80% of the CAP budget. They make short-term profits by clinging on to the status quo, at the expense of the public – who pays the price to clean up the mess afterwards. Farmers themselves are amongst the first to be hit by the impacts of the climate, biodiversity and pollution crises – which is why they too are turning to the courts. Hugues is a Belgian farmer who is suing TotalEnergies for its contribution to the climate crisis and the impact it is having on his farm and his livelihood. Extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts and extreme rainfall have harmed his crops, his ability to feed his animals, and his income and workload. This has pushed Hugues to take action by turning to the courts to seek an order that TotalEnergies, one of the most-polluting companies in the world, repairs the damage inflicted and to phases out fossil fuels to prevent further damage. And this is far from the only example.

Over at Lake Vico in Italy, the surrounding area around the lake is covered with intensive hazelnut plantations that are subjected to large amounts of pesticides and fertilisers, which ultimately run-off the land into the lake. The result: the local inhabitant’s water supply has become undrinkable due to eutrophication (excessive plant growth due to nutrient run off, in this case red algal blooms which release toxins) and overall degradation of a protected habitat. Following action from ClientEarth and Lipu (BirdLife Italy), Italy’s court ordered the region to take appropriate measures to fix the situation.

A similar case exists for the Ems river, located in a region at the centre of meat production in Germany. To protect drinking water sources, EU law establishes a 50 mg/l limit of nitrates in groundwater. In the Ems region this figure is dramatically exceeded, and many even call for the limit to be lowered  to protect human health. German NGO, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) took to court, which ruled in their favour and ordered the regions of Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia to take effective measures to reach the limit value of 50 mg/l in all Ems ground water bodies as quickly as possible, and to reverse the harm done.

An essential tool 

It should not require going to court to get safe drinking water, healthy ecosystems and agricultural climate targets that align with international, EU and national legal obligations and the science. Yet, it seems like these cases are necessary, particularly while there is a broken CAP that continues to lock our agricultural system into paying to pollute rather than making the polluters pay.

That is why we are gathering cases related to agriculture, like that of Hugues, Lake Vico and the river Ems, to demonstrate the systemic failures that sit behind these local problems, as illustrated in each court case. With more and more courts finding governments to be in breach of their long-standing obligations, the pressure is rising to move away from this woefully failing CAP and toward a brighter future of EU food and farming.

Originally published at Laura Hildt “Legal ground: the growth of agriculture litigation,” in META European Environmental Bureau (25

What’s the deal with terms like “greenhouse effect,” “global warming,” “climate change,” and “the climate emergency”?

The way we talk about the problem has shifted dramatically over time.

by ERIK BLEICH,  ELI RICHARDSON and  NOAH RIZIKA

JUNE 5, 2024

Cartoon by Tom Toro

Almost two decades ago, Al Gore’s 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” raised awareness of the problems associated with what was then commonly called “global warming.” Although most people had moved away from referring to the heating of our planet as the “greenhouse effect,” we were still a few years from adopting the term “climate change,” a more accurate though less evocative label, as the leading descriptor of our profound environmental challenges.

The words we use to characterize our climate concerns can influence how we view the issue, and as a consequence, the actions we take. As data scientists, we recently studied the evolution in terminology by examining 79,134 articles that mentioned key climate terms in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and USA Today between 1980 and 2023. This review allows us to not only understand the terms most commonly used in the media but also to see whether their usage tracks the terminology favored by scientific experts and the general public.

We were struck by the long-term evolution in the relative prominence of “greenhouse effect,” “global warming,” and “climate change.” But what really stood out was the sudden emergence in late 2018 of more dramatic language like “climate crisis,” “climate emergency,” and even “climate apocalypse.” Looking beyond the media, we found that this surge of alarmist language parallels the framing of environmental issues by experts but has not yet become commonplace among the broader public — at least not as measured by internet search data.

How terms changed over time

Although the first mention of “global warming” was in a 1975 scientific study, throughout the 1980s, “greenhouse effect” was still more commonly used by the four newspapers we analyzed. It wasn’t until 1989 that “global warming” became the term of choice in these mainstream outlets, as illustrated in the graphic below.

By 2009, “climate change” had surpassed “global warming” in the four newspapers. This terminological transition was championed as early as 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences as a more accurate way to describe the phenomenon. It may also have reflected the increasingly politicized nature of climate issues, driven in part by the oil and gas industry’s intensive campaigning. A 2011 study demonstrated that using the term “climate change” rather than “global warming” at the time resulted in a 16% increase in Republicans endorsing the phenomenon as real.

Interestingly, it wasn’t until the summer of 2015 that Google searches for “climate change” outpaced those for “global warming,” as shown in the graphic below. This suggests that the media do not have an immediate, overwhelming effect on the terms used by the public. Indeed, it can take years for a new term to seep into public consciousness and be reflected in everyday language.

The sudden rise of “climate crisis”

The media is much quicker to adopt new terminology. In late 2018, “climate crisis” and related terms, including “climate emergency,” “climate catastrophe,” “climate apocalypse,” “climate breakdown,” and “planetary emergency,” suddenly appeared in the media. These emotive terms are qualitatively different from the phrases used since the 1980s. Why did they break through at that time?

Global activism likely contributed to this sharp rise. In August 2018, Greta Thunberg launched her Fridays for Future campaign. In the U.S., organizations such as the Sunrise Movement grabbed headlines through high-profile protests that drew sustained attention. They helped to frame the issue as an emergency requiring immediate action. As Thunberg said in her December 2018 COP24 speech, “We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis.”

She was not alone in this view. In February 2019, climate journalist David Wallace-Wells penned an opinion piece for the New York Times entitled, “Time to Panic,” in which he argued that “climate change is a crisis precisely because it is a looming catastrophe that demands an aggressive global response, now.” Other journalists also embraced this perspective, especially in the U.K., where the Guardian changed its house style guide in May 2019 to favor terms like “climate crisis.”

This rapid evolution in newspaper language closely tracks expert discourse. In addition to global environmental movements, late 2018 saw the publication of a special U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that, for the first time, quantified the time we have left to act to avoid catastrophic damage. Scopus, a prominent database containing a diverse array of scientific studies, shows a year-on-year doubling between 2018 and 2019 in scholarship that used “climate crisis” and “climate emergency,” and then a quadrupling of such terms between 2019 and 2020.

The convergence of a push from activists and a shift in expert views turned awareness of what seemed to be distant consequences into a time-sensitive crisis. But that doesn’t mean that the public has adopted these terms as their own. Google searches for “climate change” still outpace those for “global warming” by a significant degree. As the graphic below shows, even when comparing the relatively less common “global warming” to “climate crisis,” there are strikingly few people searching for the more urgent term.

 

If the lag in general usage of “climate change” compared to “global warming” is any indication, we may simply have to wait a few more years for “climate crisis” and its analogues to become common search terms. Use of these more dire words will likely affect public perception of the issue and the resulting sentiment on climate policy. The question is how.

Climate communications scholars are divided on the impact. Some studies point to the use of terms like “crisis” and “emergency” leading to distrust of news sources. Other studies, however, find no impact of the terms on a person’s willingness to engage in climate action. Alternatively, framing climate concerns as an existential threat has also been shown to generate strong emotions that motivate people to act on behalf of the environment.

This is critical because by any tangible metric, the planet is indeed experiencing a climate crisis. Carbon dioxide levels are unprecedented in the modern era, dozens of species are going extinct every day, and damages from increasingly common weather disasters are rising. The 10 hottest years on record all occurred in the last decade.

In ancient Greek, a “crisis” meant a turning point — one that might spur people to action. By embracing the “climate crisis” in this spirit, we just might provide an impetus that leads us to a better future.

Erik Bleich is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science at Middlebury College, where he directs the Media Portrayals of Minorities Project lab that uses data science techniques to analyze contemporary issues. Eli Richardson is a 2024 Middlebury College graduate who specializes in climate topics. Noah Rizika is a 2024 Middlebury College graduate with experience in conservation research and carbon footprint analysis. Both recent graduates are members of the Media Portrayals of Minorities Project lab.

Tom Toro is a cartoonist and writer who has published over 200 cartoons in The New Yorker since 2010.

 

Originally published in Yale Climate Connections (5 June 2024) at  https://bit.ly/4e5apnH

 

 

Noise Pollution Is Much Worse For You Than You Think

Irish Doctors for the Environment call on local councillors

 

To reduce emissions, improve population health, and restore the natural world

 

 

 

 

 

Dear councillors,

Congratulations to all new and returning county and city councillors across Ireland.

We write to you all as concerned healthcare workers and students. The effects of the combined climate and nature crisis are already having negative effects on people in Ireland. Extreme weather, poor diets, inactivity, air and sound pollution, and lack of access to nature are all negatively affecting population health.

Ireland has already experienced a number of major flood events around the country over the last decade, and climate change is anticipated to further increase the risk of floods. We have only started to see the effects of heatwaves. Almost 2000 people die prematurely due to poor air quality in Ireland every year. Our unsustainable, unhealthy diets are causing enormous harm to people of all ages. A large proportion of the Irish population do not get enough exercise, and given Ireland’s lack of thriving nature, access to nature remains poor.

These are all issues you as councillors can address.

Your five-year term will take us within months of 2030, the year in which we will have to have reduced our emissions by 50%. The next five years will define our lifetimes. Climate action is not some future issue. It is on your shoulders now.

We call on you to act. We call on you to take action to reduce emissions, improve population health, and restore our shared natural world. Now that you have been elected to local government, you each have the power to deliver on the following actions:

  1. Transport: Facilitate a rapid modal shift away from fossil-fuel powered individual modes of transport to active and public transport. Wider footpaths, protected, wide mobility and cycle lanes and expanded bus, LUAS and train networks are urgently needed to make this possible.
  2. Green and Blue Spaces: Improve urban access to nature through tree planting, linear parklets, and new or improved parks. Support rural forest regeneration and nature restoration. Improve Ireland’s water quality and improve the access and quality of our blue spaces.
  3. Sustainable Development: Promote and support initiatives such as 15-minute cities, energy efficient buildings, retrofitting, and sustainable building practices. Incentivise local businesses to adopt sustainable and green policies. Build sustainable and climate resilient communities.
  4. Food System: Create a more sustainable, environmentally friendly food system. Move towards a healthier, more plant-based diet. Reduce food waste. Support farmers to transition to more sustainable practices.
  5. Air Quality: Prioritise safe, clean air. Introduce ultra-low emissions zones and clean air zones. Expand the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network. Improve access to active and public transport.

These are turbulent political times. But we urge you not to reject science, not to ignore peoples’ health. The actions outlined above can contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, support biodiversity, improve air quality, reduce fuel poverty, and improve population health.

There are 949 of you. You might come from different backgrounds and have different political views, but you all have one thing in common: you live on this planet.

Le meas,

Irish Doctors for the Environment Registered charity number: 20205893.

 

Originally published at ide.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IDE-Letter-to-Councillors.pdf