The first clue I had was when I read news some years ago about how the ocean temperatures were affecting the Great Barrier Reef since the pH changes as water temperature goes up. I found an article from 2012 with some numbers I frankly didn't fully understand.
Climate is changing the Great Barrier Reef
"When we looked back at satellite data collected since 1985, we found evidence that most of the regions of the GBR are changing significantly, in terms of sea surface temperature -- especially in the southern part of the reef," Dr Ban, who is the lead author of a new scientific paper on the issue, says.
"Risk of coral bleaching increases with higher water temperatures. Across the whole reef we found water temperatures increasing by an average of 0.2 of a degree over a quarter of a century -- but the increase was significantly more in some areas.
"For example, off Rockhampton the water has warmed by about half a degree over the last 25 years."
The changes were also altering the seasonal patterns of water temperature at particular places along the reef, Dr Ban says. "In some areas summer is coming earlier and lasting longer; in others, both summers and winters are warmer than in the past. This all affects the sea life."
The research has revealed temperature conditions are dynamic, with warmer waters moving in both space and time -- posing new questions for the management of Green Zones and other protected areas which tend to be fixed.
So the oceans are changing, and changing more in some areas than others. I"m perplexed why the water off Rockhampton would be warming twice as fast as the average. Really, 0.2 degrees doesn't sound like much, neither does 0.5. It could matter though if a threshhold is being passed. I've read that air temperatures have been cooled by oceans, so the air hasn't risen as much as it would have if the oceans hadn't siphoned off some of the heat energy. It's really mystifying me. I wonder if different ocean currents are picking up heat in other places at different rates? I also found an article from the Guardian from 2015 which predicted climate change would affect Australia more than most other places.
Climate change will hit Australia harder than rest of world, study shows
Australia could be on track for a temperature rise of more than 5C by the end of the century, outstripping the rate of warming experienced by the rest of the world, unless drastic action is taken to slash greenhouse gas emissions, according to the most comprehensive analysis ever produced of the country’s future climate.
The national science agency CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology have released the projections based on 40 global climate models, producing what they said was the most robust picture yet of how Australia’s climate would change.
A degree or two could do a lot. The permafrost in Canada is melting in places. I won't derail the thread by discussing that too much; but there's a whole city built on top of the permafrost. It stayed permanently frozen, so it was safe to build on. Now it's going soft in the summer, and the whole city is in danger of slowly sinking. I've no idea what they plan to do.
Carbon dioxide? Well, first of all it is a trace gas. It currently makes up 410 parts per million of the atmosphere, up from 280 in pre-industrial times. But that's only 0.04%. It might have some effect; but I doubt it explains everything. I suspect other variables may be at work. Certainly if forest areas in Africa are cut down, that's going to affect how much water is in the air, it's going to make the bare earth absorb more heat and that would warm the air too. I think it would cause an updraft too, affecting air current patterns.
There's also some intellectually dishonesty in discussions. Natural gas is touted now as "clean" energy while coal is vilified. That might make sense from the pollution of coal smoke and the like being added to the air; but let's be serious: You burn natural gas, you're producing carbon dioxide.
I think Australian politicians have misled people too by pushing coal exports so much, as if coal is going to save Australia. It won't. If you study countries that depend on extracting natural resources, you see a pattern of exploiting the resources while the government wastes money. Venezuela and Iran come to mind. Maybe most of the continent of Africa has been exploited too without developing other parts of their economy. Depending on China to continue importing coal from Australia is also misguided. Some cities in China have air so polluted with coal smoke, you can't breath. China is pushing "green" energy now. It's willing to import coal if it needs it, but the trend is away from coal. If the gas pipeline from Russia gets finished, Australia probably won't ship any coal to China. China is also breaking their pledge about coal by creating more of their own coal mines.
China coal mine approvals surge despite climate pledges
Long-term cuts in coal consumption are a key part of China’s energy, environment and climate goals, but the fivefold increase in new mine approvals in the first-half of 2019 suggests China’s targets still provide ample room for shorter-term growth.
China’s energy regulator gave the go-ahead to build 141 million tonnes of new annual coal production capacity from January to June, compared to 25 million tonnes over the whole of last year, Reuters analysis of approval documents showed.
The projects included new mines in the regions of Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Shanxi and Shaanxi that are part of a national strategy to consolidate output at dedicated coal production “bases”, as well as expansions of existing collieries, the National Energy Administration (NEA) documents showed.
I have no idea how much coal Australia burns domestically; but in one way, it could be irrelevant since they could reduce it to zero and it might do next to nothing to affect the CO2 levels since other countries could still be adding to it. Looking at coal as a complete villain or a complete savior seems naive to me. A lot of CO2 is added by things few want to talk about. Everyone talks about how great world trade it; but most of it is sent on ships that burn a nasty kind of oil that really pollutes. They're working to get it cleaner, but it's still adding the CO2. Airplanes are also contributors to CO2. Just one flight can produce as much CO2 as some people produce in a year in some countries. I don't see the current rage of traveling to far off places for vacations or the current practice of flying business executives around so much as environmentally friendly. (It reminds me of where the Bible says "many shall go to and fro.")
The situation with the fires has become political. That suggests the problems may not get solved since political parties are more interested in blaming each other than coming together to come up with reasonable solutions. The coal mining problem needs a real solution. Someone needs to encourage businesses to locate in coal mining areas because like it or not, those coal jobs won't last forever, especially as we see the cost of solar and wind power going down. Coal is going to become obsolete because it will be more expensive, sooner or later.
