Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta climate. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta climate. Mostrar todas las entradas

martes, 31 de diciembre de 2013

My Wishes for the New Year: Advocating for Science Communication.

Source: Raquel Somavilla

No os dejéis engañar por el título del post: no todos mis deseos para el Año Nuevo giran en torno a la Ciencia. Faltaría más! Sin embargo, en lo que se refiere a ésta justo en el momento preciso del año en el que uno se plantea cuáles son sus buenos propósitos para el año entrante he leído un post en la página Real Climate, de la que ya os he hablado en otros ocasiones, que me ha hecho recapacitar, o quizá recordar, sobre el porqué merece la pena escribir un blog sobre ciencia y porqué continuar con él. 

Don’t be fooled by the title of the post: not all my wishes for the New Year revolve around science. Of course not! However, regarding to Science, at just the right time of the year when one asks what are the resolutions for the coming year, I read a post on Real Climate page that have made me think, or perhaps remember, about why it's worth writing a blog about science and why continue with it.

miércoles, 2 de octubre de 2013

Last IPCC Report. What we certainly know about climate change.



Cover of the last IPCC report 'Climate Change 2013: The Physical basis'. Source: IPCC

On Friday, the IPCC published its last report. Probably, you have listened or read something about it during these days. What is the IPCC? and (2) What is this report about?
The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. How? The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC, bringing their expertise in the many different disciplines necessary to produce a comprehensive assessment of climate change on a voluntary basis. For the preparation of the last report on ‘Climate Change. The Physical Science Basis’, a total of 259 Lead Authors and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries and more than 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries contributed. You can download the report here.
According to the information published on this last report, I want to resume some of things that we 'certainly know' about climate change based on what the last decades of observations tell us. Why do I remark the fact that ‘we  certainly know’? Because the report is cautiously written. It means that consensus is necessary among the scientists that contribute to the report when the degree of certainty in key findings is expressed from very low to very high and from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain. Thus, findings considered virtually certain are supported by data, theory, models, etc. and the scientific consensus. Those are some of these findings.

martes, 16 de abril de 2013

EGU General Assembly 2013. If I were a time-rich woman…how many things I would like to do!


Un adjetivo que bien puede definir mis gustos es ecléctico. No sé si es bueno o malo pero en general la variedad de músicas, comidas, estilos, lugares, gente, etc. que me gusta es bastante amplia, y eso también incluye que encuentre interesante una gran variedad de disciplinas científicas. Eso se traduce en que durante conferencias como la de la EGU Viena -de la que os he hablado en el anterior post y donde no te queda más remedio que decidir a qué sesión acudir en cada momento porque muchas se celebran al mismo tiempo- me quede sin escuchar parte de las cosas que me gustaría. En teoría podría levantarme en medio de una sesión para ir a otra a escuchar otra charla pero me resulta de mala educación levantarme y que la persona que va a hacer la próxima presentación me vea. No sé si os hacéis a la idea de como es esto de las sesiones paralelas y las charlas o presentaciones. Os pongo un ejemplo. Imaginaros que en un cine están echando en dos salas distintas 4 episodios nuevos de la última temporada de dos de vuestras series favoritas, ej. 'Juego de Tronos' y 'The Big Bang Theory'. Poneros que habéis visto los episodios 1 y 2 de 'Juego de Tronos' y 3 y 4 de 'The Big Bang Theory'. Entráis en la sala donde echan Juego de Tronos para ver los episodios 1 y 2, pero luego os quedáis sin ver los capítulos 3 y 4 de 'The Big Bang Theory' porque os da vergüenza marcharos de la sala, pongamos que porque hay actores de Juego de Tronos en ella que pueden ver como os marcháis. El problema de la EGU Viena es que a veces tienes que dividirte entre 4 'salas de cine = sesiones paralelas' diferentes al mismo tiempo donde te interesan realmente sólo 2 'episodios = presentaciones'. Resultado final: que no puedes ver/escuchar todo lo que te gustaría.

Mis notas durante la sesión OS. 1 Open Sesion on Ocean Circulation

viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012

Someday...after tomorrow? (in English :-))

Theatrical release poster.Source



I guess that for most of you the title of this post resembles that famous film titled ‘The day after tomorrow’. It’s not a coincidence that I have chosen this titled to talk you about some of the Myths and Legends related with one of the most well-known process affecting our climate. That is the concept of Thermohaline Circulation, maybe also known by some of you as the Meridional Overturning Circulation. In the failure, collapse, halt of that circulation, the argument of this film is based on. I should watch the film again, because that is basically all I remember about it. I don’t write this post to criticize the film; I want to leave that clear.

And without more delay, I start because otherwise writing the post in Spanish and English finally takes me three days (It took me more at the end. Sorry for the delay in the English version Emoji). As a consequence of antropogenic greenhouse emissions, oceanographic models predicted a decrease in the Thermohaline Circulation and Meridional Overturning Circulation circulation (Velinga and Mood, 2002; IPCC, 2007) associated to a reduction of the deep water formation, especially in the North Atlantic. The Achilles' heel of this sequence of events was the stop of the process known as ‘deep convection’, responsible for the deep water formation in the Labrador and Greenland Seas in the North Atlantic.

Although perhaps only known because of the film, I guess these ideas are not completely strange for you. However, in the last decade, some of these ideas have begun to be questioned. Why? One of the most notorious reasons is that in the Greenland Sea, one of the places that are normally associated with this process  (later I will explain why I underline this sentence), there is no deep water formation since three decades ago. Fortunately, the collapse of Thermohaline Circulation predicted by ocean models has not taken place. Whew! 

Then, however, you will probably wonder how that can be. Is there something wrong with the concept of the Thermohaline Circulation and Meridional Overturning Circulation, and that I represent schematically in the figure below? Or in other words, is there something wrong in the sequence: (1) at high latitudes due to very low air temperatures surface waters cool and become denser sinking in the water column and resulting in the formation of deep water; (2) those waters flow to lower latitudes (equatorial) through the ocean bottom; and (4) the deep waters formed at high latitudes are replaced by warmer water flowing at the surface from lower latitudes while (3) the bottom water returns to the ocean surface? Well, yes and no.

 
Figure 2. Summary of processes involved in the Thermohaline Circulation and Meridional Overturning Circulation. (1) Deep water formation at high latitudes (subpolar and polar areas, and for this reason the reference Santa Claus now that we are close to the Christmas time), (2) transport of these colder and denser  waters towards lower latitudes, (3) deep water return to the surface (a process known as upwelling in Oceanography), and (4) transport of warm water at the surface from low latitudes to polar and subpolar regions



We can interpret the previous scheme in two different ways:

Version (1):                            Key Process = deep water formation (1)

- The water flowing at depth (2) (derived from deep water formation (1)) must be in balance with the water flowing at the surface from low-latitudes (4).

Version (2):                Key Process: Deep-water return to the surface (3)

- Since the deep water must return to the surface (3), the balance of water circulating at depth (2) and at surface (4) depends on the deep water return to the surface (3) and not in deep water formation (1). 

In general, transports (how big are the arrows in our scheme) of deep water towards low-latitudes (2) or of warm surface water towards high-latitudes (4) determine the intensity of the Thermohaline Circulation or Meridional Overturning Circulation, respectively. At the end, such intensity controls how much heat is exchanged from equatorial and subtropical to subpolar zones, and vice versa, to regulate our climate.

An important difference between the two interpretations of ours scheme is that the latter depends on a process that occurs throughout the ocean, deep water return to the surface (3), while the former depends on the cooling conditions in a specific place, which result in the formation of deep water (1).


Presented in a simplified way, this is the conclusion that Walter H. Munk and Carl Wunsch got in their work 'Abyssal recipes II: Energetics of tidal and wind mixing' (1998) after a review of the previous work 'Abyssal recipes' of Walter H. Munk (1966): the intensity of the Meridional Overturning Circulation is primarily determined by the power available to return deep water back to the surface layers, and that comes from the wind and tides, and not by cooling conditions responsible for deep water formation at high latitudes. For those of you not scared by an oceanographic research article including formulas, I recommend their reading. I really enjoy them.


Thus, our Thermohaline Circulation and Meridional Overturning Circulation don’t depend on "local processes" that are subject to larger variability, but on larger-scale processes and therefore more stable.

Another ‘little big detail’ among the reasons why the halt of deep water formation in the Greenland Sea has not led to a collapse of the Thermohaline Circulation is that although there is (was) deep water formation in the Greenland Sea, the resulting deep waters are too dense to cross the different ridges that would enable it flowing towards low latitudes (see Figure 3). Returning to our previous scheme (Fig. 2), it means that we can have (1) in the Greenland Sea, but it doesn’t contribute to (2), and so either to (3) or (4), not affecting the Thermohaline Circulation and Meridional Overturning Circulation. For this reason, at the beginning, I emphasized the fact that Greenland Sea is one of the places that are usually associated to this circulation, but that is not an accurate representation of reality. It doesn’t mean that what happens in the Greenland Sea is not important; in fact, this basin plays a crucial role in our climate but not for its contribution to the Thermohaline Circulation.


Map of the North Atlantic where you find the Labrador Sea and the Greenland Sea at its northern limits. As you can see by the color bar at the bottom, the depth of the Labrador Sea is about 4000 m. communicating directly with the remaining deep North Atlantic. However, although the Greenland Sea is about 3600 m. depth, it is surrounded by ridges (orange colors in the surroundings of the Greenland Sea) rising to 1500 m. below the sea surface. This means that if we imagine that these two seas are two glasses of water, the deep water formed in the Labrador Sea can leave the glass through a tap at the bottom, and so deep waters can flow to the rest of the North Atlantic. However, the deep water formed in the Greenland Sea can only leave the basin (the glass) through a tap located just above the ridges surrounding it (there is no other possible exit), and hence the densest waters generated by deep water formation in Greenland Sea can’t flow to the rest of the North Atlantic.

Altogether explains why even when there is no deep water formation in some areas of the North Atlantic as the Greenland Sea since the mid-80s, the Thermohaline Circulation hasn’t stopped and we haven’t suffered a cataclysm.


I hope you understood something. If not, don’t hesitate to ask me please Emoji





References:

Vellinga, M., Wood, R.A., 2002. Global climatic impacts of a collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. Climatic Change 54, 251–267.

IPCC,2007. Summary for policy makers. In:Solomon,S., Qin,D., Manning,M., Chen, Z., Marquis,M., Averyt,K.B., Tignor,M., Miller,H.L.(Eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NewYork.
W. H. Munk and C. Wunsch, 1998. Abyssal recipes II: Energetics of tidal and wind mixing. Deep Sea Research Part I, Vol. 45,12,Pages 1977–2010
W. H. Munk, 1966. Abyssal recipes. Deep Sea Research Part I, Vol. 13, 4, Pages 707–730


Part of what I have told here is included in the article that I saw you the other day on Facebook but not published yet. Thus, if anyone wants to use this information I would be grateful if you get in contact with me to cite it properly.