Amazon drought cries out from graphs but not mentioned in a Science paper on abnormal 2023 warming
Degradation of the biosphere is a major reason of climate destabilization
A few days ago Science published a paper attempting to explain the abnormal 2023 warmth: H. F. Goessling et al. “Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedo“ Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq7280 (2024) (PDF)
One can read about this abnormal warmth that began in the year 2023 and how it pushed climate scientists to an “uncharted territory” here.
Now the researchers propose that the record warmth was due to an abnormally low amount of the low-level cloud. Compared to high clouds, tops of the low-level clouds are warm, so they do not impede thermal radiation that much, but reflect a lot of sunlight thus contributing to net cooling.
The graph below shows where the decline in the low-level cloud cover was most pronounced (this is Fig. 4f from Goessling et al.)
We can see a terrible decline of the cloud cover over the Amazon forest which apparently reflects the unprecedented drought that the Forest has been recently experiencing. But there is no mention of the Amazon, “forests”, “ecosystem” or biosphere in the paper.
Even “fires” are not mentioned, though the recent catastrophic Canadian fires must have disrupted the continental water cycle too. And we can notice a pronounced decline in the low-level cloud cover over Canada as well.
Degradation of the biosphere is a major reason of climate destabilization. If we as a planetary community urgently develop an understanding of this complexity, and based on this understanding, protect the biosphere, we will likely fulfill our evolutionary mission as a thinking species.
Dear Anastassia,
I am eternally grateful for your work.
I have a question about this paragraph:
“Now the researchers propose that the record warmth was due to an abnormally low amount of the low-level cloud. Compared to high clouds, tops of the low-level clouds are warm, so they do not impede thermal radiation that much, but reflect a lot of sunlight thus contributing to net cooling.”
I’m confused about the moving parts here. Could you please explain? What happened with cloud cover and what would you expect to result from that?
“If we as a planetary community urgently develop an understanding of this complexity, and based on this understanding, protect the biosphere, we will likely fulfil our evolutionary mission as a thinking species.”
I couldn’t agree more, and this is so powerfully stated.
Here's another piece that wonders over the heat anomaly with no mention of water, land change or ecosystem loss. https://www.sciencealert.com/even-nasa-cant-explain-the-alarming-surge-in-global-heat-were-seeing
And note the title: "Even Nasa can't explain..." The assumption is that a space agency naturally has the penultimate view of the climate, the logic apparently being that the climate is best "seen" from space. It has been that way since the beginning with James Hansen. One could argue, however, that the climate is best seen from the ground up, as something upheld by living systems.