Tag Archives: Evaporation

Caspian Sea loss puts Asian water supplies at risk

The Caspian Sea’s decline means a climate-led water crisis for at least five Asian nations as inland seas dry up.

LONDON, 7 January, 2021 − The Caspian Sea − the world’s largest lake − is about to go down in the world. And with it could go the fortunes of some of the people of at least five nations. New research suggests that the Caspian Sea, already getting lower at the rate of several centimetres a year, is to go into even faster decline: later this century, it could be nine metres lower than it is now. Or even 18 metres lower.

In the paradoxical world of climate change, sea levels will rise to threaten coastal settlements, but many of the great inland lakes could be doomed to dwindle.

Dutch and German scientists report in the journal Communications Earth & Environment that because more water will evaporate each summer, and less ice will form each winter, the area of the Caspian − it covers 371,000 square kilometres, an area greater than Japan, or Germany − is doomed to shrink at an accelerating rate.

Lakeside communities, ports and industries in Azerbaijan, Russia, Iran, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, all of which border the Caspian, could be left high and dry.

Change required

“If the North Sea were to drop two or three metres, access to ports like Rotterdam, Hamburg and London would be impeded. Fishing boats and container giants alike would struggle, and all the countries of the North Sea would have a huge problem,” said Frank Wesselingh, of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, one of the authors. “Here we are talking about a decrease of no less than nine metres, in the best case scenario.”

His co-author Matthias Prange of the University of Bremen in Germany warned that what happens to the Caspian could and will happen to the great land-locked lakes on other continents. “This has to change. We need more studies and a better understanding of the consequences of global warming in this region.”

This is not the first such warning: although much of the world’s concern has been with the dramatic loss of water from the Aral Sea, researchers have worried about the impact of evaporation on the Caspian too. It may be salty, but it is one of the world’s great inland reservoirs of water for industry, agriculture and human settlement.

It is also host to a vast range of species, including the Caspian seal, an endangered creature that depends on winter ice to protect and rear its pups. Its shallow waters provide food for migrating birds, and serve as spawning grounds for its fish, including the sturgeon endemic to the region.

“If the North Sea were to drop two or three metres, access to ports like Rotterdam, Hamburg and London would be impeded, and all the countries of the North Sea would have a huge problem”

The Caspian Sea’s chief source of water is the Volga River: it has no connection with the ocean. So its water levels depend entirely on rainfall, evaporation and inflow. And in a world of global heating, evaporation is on the increase.

The level of rainfall, on the other hand, is likely to decline: in a world of climate change, those already semi-arid regions can expect to become more parched.

The authors expect these challenges will confront not only the dwellers by the Caspian Sea but also those hundreds of millions who live by, and depend upon, other lakes in Asia, and in Africa and North America. The consequences for these people could be just as devastating as global sea level rise will be for others. They call for higher levels of awareness, and an international task force to help address the problem.

“Immediate and co-ordinated action is needed to make up for valuable time lost,” they write. “The shrinking Caspian Sea might serve as a poster child that will help galvanise such actions.” − Climate News Network

The Caspian Sea’s decline means a climate-led water crisis for at least five Asian nations as inland seas dry up.

LONDON, 7 January, 2021 − The Caspian Sea − the world’s largest lake − is about to go down in the world. And with it could go the fortunes of some of the people of at least five nations. New research suggests that the Caspian Sea, already getting lower at the rate of several centimetres a year, is to go into even faster decline: later this century, it could be nine metres lower than it is now. Or even 18 metres lower.

In the paradoxical world of climate change, sea levels will rise to threaten coastal settlements, but many of the great inland lakes could be doomed to dwindle.

Dutch and German scientists report in the journal Communications Earth & Environment that because more water will evaporate each summer, and less ice will form each winter, the area of the Caspian − it covers 371,000 square kilometres, an area greater than Japan, or Germany − is doomed to shrink at an accelerating rate.

Lakeside communities, ports and industries in Azerbaijan, Russia, Iran, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, all of which border the Caspian, could be left high and dry.

Change required

“If the North Sea were to drop two or three metres, access to ports like Rotterdam, Hamburg and London would be impeded. Fishing boats and container giants alike would struggle, and all the countries of the North Sea would have a huge problem,” said Frank Wesselingh, of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, one of the authors. “Here we are talking about a decrease of no less than nine metres, in the best case scenario.”

His co-author Matthias Prange of the University of Bremen in Germany warned that what happens to the Caspian could and will happen to the great land-locked lakes on other continents. “This has to change. We need more studies and a better understanding of the consequences of global warming in this region.”

This is not the first such warning: although much of the world’s concern has been with the dramatic loss of water from the Aral Sea, researchers have worried about the impact of evaporation on the Caspian too. It may be salty, but it is one of the world’s great inland reservoirs of water for industry, agriculture and human settlement.

It is also host to a vast range of species, including the Caspian seal, an endangered creature that depends on winter ice to protect and rear its pups. Its shallow waters provide food for migrating birds, and serve as spawning grounds for its fish, including the sturgeon endemic to the region.

“If the North Sea were to drop two or three metres, access to ports like Rotterdam, Hamburg and London would be impeded, and all the countries of the North Sea would have a huge problem”

The Caspian Sea’s chief source of water is the Volga River: it has no connection with the ocean. So its water levels depend entirely on rainfall, evaporation and inflow. And in a world of global heating, evaporation is on the increase.

The level of rainfall, on the other hand, is likely to decline: in a world of climate change, those already semi-arid regions can expect to become more parched.

The authors expect these challenges will confront not only the dwellers by the Caspian Sea but also those hundreds of millions who live by, and depend upon, other lakes in Asia, and in Africa and North America. The consequences for these people could be just as devastating as global sea level rise will be for others. They call for higher levels of awareness, and an international task force to help address the problem.

“Immediate and co-ordinated action is needed to make up for valuable time lost,” they write. “The shrinking Caspian Sea might serve as a poster child that will help galvanise such actions.” − Climate News Network

Reducing sunlight 'will not cool Earth'

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The beguiling idea that we can moderate global warming by engineering the atmosphere has been given a rebuff by two scientists who found the attempt could disrupt rainfall patterns.

LONDON, 7 December – Two German scientists have just confirmed that you can’t balance the Earth’s rising temperatures by simply toning down the sunlight. It may do something disconcerting to the patterns of global rainfall.

Earlier this year a US-led group of scientists ran sophisticated climate models of a geo-engineered world and proposed the same thing. Now Axel Kleidon and Maik Renner of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, have used a different theoretical approach to confirm the conclusion, and explain why it would be a bad idea.

The argument for geo-engineering goes like this: the world is getting inexorably warmer, governments show no sign of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so why not control the planetary thermostat by finding a way to filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth?

Such things can be done by pumping soot or aerosols into the stratosphere to dim the skies a fraction, or even floating mirrors in Earth orbit to reflect some of the sunlight back into space.

Either way, the result is the same: you have global temperature control, tuned perhaps to the average at the beginning of the last century, and you can then go on burning as much petrol or coal as you like.

But now the two biogeochemists at Jena report in the journal Earth System Dynamics that they used a simple energy balance model to show that the world doesn’t work like that. Water simply doesn’t respond to atmospheric heat and solar radiation in the same way.

No simple fix

If you make the atmosphere warmer, but keep the sunlight the same, evaporation increases by 2% per degree of warming. If you keep the atmosphere the same, but increase the levels of sunlight, evaporation increases by 3% per degree of warming.

Kleidon uses the simple analogy of a saucepan on a kitchen stove. “The temperature in the pot is increased by putting on a lid, or by turning up the heat – but these two cases differ by how much energy flows through the pot,” he says.

A stronger greenhouse effect would act as a kind of tighter-fitting atmospheric lid. In the kitchen a lid keeps the water from escaping from the saucepan and at the same time reduces the energy cost. But planetary energetics are not really comparable to kitchen economics.

That is because evaporation itself, and the traffic of water vapour around the planet, plays a powerful role in the making of climate. To change the pattern and degree of evaporation would inevitably disturb weather systems and disrupt agriculture, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences.

The authors say: “An immediate consequence of this notion is that climate geo-engineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming.” – Climate News Network

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The beguiling idea that we can moderate global warming by engineering the atmosphere has been given a rebuff by two scientists who found the attempt could disrupt rainfall patterns.

LONDON, 7 December – Two German scientists have just confirmed that you can’t balance the Earth’s rising temperatures by simply toning down the sunlight. It may do something disconcerting to the patterns of global rainfall.

Earlier this year a US-led group of scientists ran sophisticated climate models of a geo-engineered world and proposed the same thing. Now Axel Kleidon and Maik Renner of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, have used a different theoretical approach to confirm the conclusion, and explain why it would be a bad idea.

The argument for geo-engineering goes like this: the world is getting inexorably warmer, governments show no sign of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so why not control the planetary thermostat by finding a way to filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth?

Such things can be done by pumping soot or aerosols into the stratosphere to dim the skies a fraction, or even floating mirrors in Earth orbit to reflect some of the sunlight back into space.

Either way, the result is the same: you have global temperature control, tuned perhaps to the average at the beginning of the last century, and you can then go on burning as much petrol or coal as you like.

But now the two biogeochemists at Jena report in the journal Earth System Dynamics that they used a simple energy balance model to show that the world doesn’t work like that. Water simply doesn’t respond to atmospheric heat and solar radiation in the same way.

No simple fix

If you make the atmosphere warmer, but keep the sunlight the same, evaporation increases by 2% per degree of warming. If you keep the atmosphere the same, but increase the levels of sunlight, evaporation increases by 3% per degree of warming.

Kleidon uses the simple analogy of a saucepan on a kitchen stove. “The temperature in the pot is increased by putting on a lid, or by turning up the heat – but these two cases differ by how much energy flows through the pot,” he says.

A stronger greenhouse effect would act as a kind of tighter-fitting atmospheric lid. In the kitchen a lid keeps the water from escaping from the saucepan and at the same time reduces the energy cost. But planetary energetics are not really comparable to kitchen economics.

That is because evaporation itself, and the traffic of water vapour around the planet, plays a powerful role in the making of climate. To change the pattern and degree of evaporation would inevitably disturb weather systems and disrupt agriculture, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences.

The authors say: “An immediate consequence of this notion is that climate geo-engineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming.” – Climate News Network

Reducing sunlight ‘will not cool Earth’

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The beguiling idea that we can moderate global warming by engineering the atmosphere has been given a rebuff by two scientists who found the attempt could disrupt rainfall patterns. LONDON, 7 December – Two German scientists have just confirmed that you can’t balance the Earth’s rising temperatures by simply toning down the sunlight. It may do something disconcerting to the patterns of global rainfall. Earlier this year a US-led group of scientists ran sophisticated climate models of a geo-engineered world and proposed the same thing. Now Axel Kleidon and Maik Renner of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, have used a different theoretical approach to confirm the conclusion, and explain why it would be a bad idea. The argument for geo-engineering goes like this: the world is getting inexorably warmer, governments show no sign of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so why not control the planetary thermostat by finding a way to filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth? Such things can be done by pumping soot or aerosols into the stratosphere to dim the skies a fraction, or even floating mirrors in Earth orbit to reflect some of the sunlight back into space. Either way, the result is the same: you have global temperature control, tuned perhaps to the average at the beginning of the last century, and you can then go on burning as much petrol or coal as you like. But now the two biogeochemists at Jena report in the journal Earth System Dynamics that they used a simple energy balance model to show that the world doesn’t work like that. Water simply doesn’t respond to atmospheric heat and solar radiation in the same way.

No simple fix

If you make the atmosphere warmer, but keep the sunlight the same, evaporation increases by 2% per degree of warming. If you keep the atmosphere the same, but increase the levels of sunlight, evaporation increases by 3% per degree of warming. Kleidon uses the simple analogy of a saucepan on a kitchen stove. “The temperature in the pot is increased by putting on a lid, or by turning up the heat – but these two cases differ by how much energy flows through the pot,” he says. A stronger greenhouse effect would act as a kind of tighter-fitting atmospheric lid. In the kitchen a lid keeps the water from escaping from the saucepan and at the same time reduces the energy cost. But planetary energetics are not really comparable to kitchen economics. That is because evaporation itself, and the traffic of water vapour around the planet, plays a powerful role in the making of climate. To change the pattern and degree of evaporation would inevitably disturb weather systems and disrupt agriculture, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences. The authors say: “An immediate consequence of this notion is that climate geo-engineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming.” – Climate News Network

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The beguiling idea that we can moderate global warming by engineering the atmosphere has been given a rebuff by two scientists who found the attempt could disrupt rainfall patterns. LONDON, 7 December – Two German scientists have just confirmed that you can’t balance the Earth’s rising temperatures by simply toning down the sunlight. It may do something disconcerting to the patterns of global rainfall. Earlier this year a US-led group of scientists ran sophisticated climate models of a geo-engineered world and proposed the same thing. Now Axel Kleidon and Maik Renner of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, have used a different theoretical approach to confirm the conclusion, and explain why it would be a bad idea. The argument for geo-engineering goes like this: the world is getting inexorably warmer, governments show no sign of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so why not control the planetary thermostat by finding a way to filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth? Such things can be done by pumping soot or aerosols into the stratosphere to dim the skies a fraction, or even floating mirrors in Earth orbit to reflect some of the sunlight back into space. Either way, the result is the same: you have global temperature control, tuned perhaps to the average at the beginning of the last century, and you can then go on burning as much petrol or coal as you like. But now the two biogeochemists at Jena report in the journal Earth System Dynamics that they used a simple energy balance model to show that the world doesn’t work like that. Water simply doesn’t respond to atmospheric heat and solar radiation in the same way.

No simple fix

If you make the atmosphere warmer, but keep the sunlight the same, evaporation increases by 2% per degree of warming. If you keep the atmosphere the same, but increase the levels of sunlight, evaporation increases by 3% per degree of warming. Kleidon uses the simple analogy of a saucepan on a kitchen stove. “The temperature in the pot is increased by putting on a lid, or by turning up the heat – but these two cases differ by how much energy flows through the pot,” he says. A stronger greenhouse effect would act as a kind of tighter-fitting atmospheric lid. In the kitchen a lid keeps the water from escaping from the saucepan and at the same time reduces the energy cost. But planetary energetics are not really comparable to kitchen economics. That is because evaporation itself, and the traffic of water vapour around the planet, plays a powerful role in the making of climate. To change the pattern and degree of evaporation would inevitably disturb weather systems and disrupt agriculture, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences. The authors say: “An immediate consequence of this notion is that climate geo-engineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming.” – Climate News Network