Climate and environment: It has never been as hot as this year
It has never been as hot as this year
How many times have we said and heard this sentence! Yet, if we reflect on it, common sense, before the statistical tables, should make us rule out that the current year is, "in living memory", the hottest one.
If man had the exceptional gift of appreciating temperature variations of a few tenths of a degree (e.g. 0.4 ° C) and, even more exceptionally, were able to memorize such variations, it would be absurd that, given the alleged progressive increase in temperature, in the last 50 years we would have had an increase of 20 ° C! It is like saying that, if on average the temperature in August 1950 had been 27-30 ° C, we would currently have 47 - 50 ° C!!!!!!
The conviction on the part of the man in the street that we are increasingly moving towards a progressive increase in temperature finds resonance in the mass media, which, for inexplicable reasons, instead of documenting the trend of climatic factors relating to the last decades, prefer to create the basis of a kind of "ecological terrorism"based on clichés like:"greenhouse effect", "holes in the ozone ","Niño effect", etc, making confusion between environmental pollution and seasonal variations, sometimes blaming theanticyclone of the Azores,without explaining to readers and listeners the true meaning of the phenomena and if and what interactions could exist between them.
It should be noted that Meteorology is a complex science whose variables are very numerous, which usually interact with each other, so much so that, as unnecessarily the insiders, especially on television, are struggling to explain, it is not possible to make predictions that go beyond three days, as up to now no mathematical model has been found that can provide reliable predictions. As an indication, with due reservations, forecasts can only be made on the basis of statistical models.
Nevertheless, since the beginning of the year, the press has continued to predict that the summer of 1999 would be the hottest of the last 100 years! After the summer and found that there were no high temperatures, everyone is quick to write that the meteorologists were wrong (sic!). To the evil ones it comes to insinuate that the "terrorist campaign"is nothing but a"promotional campaign"for the sale of air conditioners, fans or, badly, fans.
The month of July clearly denied these forecasts, as the thermal values were generally lower than the average, especially during the last decade, that is when statistically there should have been a higher temperature than the average for the month.
The month of August 1999 did not show exceptional values compared to the average temperature of the month of August of the last century, even a more temperate trend having occurred.
Temperature trend during the month of August 1999 compared with the average of the months of August of the last century
On the basis of historical data and geological and geographical documentation, the temperature trend over the last five millennia has been reconstructed, i.e. since 3,000 BC. until today:
Temperature trends over the last 5,000 years
The striking thing about this reconstruction is the fact that the hottest period has occurred since 3000 BC. to 1200 BC with a peak in 2500 BC. estimated at around 4 ° C compared to the current average temperature.
A second period at a high temperature compared to the current average temperature occurred from 750 to 1250.
In contrast, three were the coldest periods, in particular the one that goes from 1250 to 1850, with a peak rated 3 ° C lower than the current average temperature, with catastrophic events throughout Europe, so much so that it is calledLittle Glaciation.
In the next issues of ELICRISO these periods will be examined in detail, to highlight that large variations in temperature have also occurred over the span of a few tens of years, disproving the cliché that large variations in temperatures are only linked to geological events that have affected millions of years.
The complex dynamics of climatology, with all its uncertainties and approximations, will be the subject of discussion in the next appointments on this site, with the express purpose of highlighting the highest number of observations that allow non-experts to acquire a critical sense in reading and listening to news on climate events.
Dr. Pio Petrocchi
2015 will be the hottest year on record
That 2015 will be the hottest year in human memory is now practically certain. Last month it set a record breaking record: not only as the warmest October since 1880, but also for having the largest temperature difference of any other month. Greenhouse gas emissions weigh and the El Nino phenomenon also affects.
Data from scientific agencies indicate that the temperature in October 2015 was more than one degree Celsius above the average of the 1951-1980 period taken as a long-term reference by scientists. So far the record anomaly had been recorded in January 2007, with a difference of 0.97 degrees centigrade.
"The odds of 2015 being a record year for heat are now 99.9%," Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote on Twitter. This year, among other things, will probably end with a global temperature that exceeds pre-industrial levels by one degree. A record that for experts is a sign of the global increase in temperatures due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, but not only.
The hottest year 2015 ever recorded is "almost disturbing, a notable leap for the models of climate change", according to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, climatologist of the CBE Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who spoke today at a conference in Rieti. The "Nino event" contributes to this outcome, the phenomenon that consists in the warming of the waters of the central-eastern Pacific and which, according to the data available so far this year, is among the three strongest. ever. Schellnhuber also notes that "if the trend is not changed, there will be an increase in temperature by the end of the century of over 5 degrees Celsius, reaching a perceived 60 degrees in the Middle East".
EU, global agreement includes 50% CO2 cut for 2050 almost zero emissions 2100
The European Union will go to the UN climate conference in Paris to cash in on a global agreement that includes peak emissions for 2020 "at the latest", a 50% cut by 2050 compared to 1990 and almost zero emissions by. 2100. This is the battle plan developed by the environment ministers of the 28 today in Brussels. The EU in Paris will also fight for "a dynamic review mechanism" every five years. "For the first time, the EU is translating the objective of remaining within the threshold of two degrees of global warming to investors and businesses," said Luxembourg's environment minister, Carole Dieschbourg, for the current EU presidency. "The EU will not sign any agreement" underlined the European commissioner for the climate, Miguel Arias Canete, who recalled how at the present time "we already know that the current contributions (to reduce emissions, ed) will not be sufficient: for this reason we will take stock of the situation at an ad hoc conference in Rabat, Morocco, in October ". For now "we have commitments from 62 countries, which cover almost 70% of global emissions," said Canete. The EU in Paris will therefore fight for "a dynamic revision mechanism" every five years, in which each country will report on what has been achieved, it will not be able to decrease its commitments, but if necessary submit new ones. "Without this mechanism the system will not be credible" added the European climate commissioner. As for funding for mitigation and adaptation activities, "Europe is ready to do its part and we will be able to give a first indication in November" concluded Canete.
Environmentalists, EU position still too weak
The position of the European Union in view of the UN climate conference in Paris is "still far" from what is necessary to reach an effective global agreement. This is the comment of Jiri Jerabek of Greenpeace, after the meeting of the environment ministers of the 28 today in Brussels. A point of view that is also shared by other organizations, such as Climate Action Network Europe (Can) and WWF. According to Jerabek "Europe can do more to accelerate the energy transition towards a system based on renewables and commit to eliminating fossil fuels at home". The next step in Paris should be to present "a united front for the phasing out of fossil fuels by 2050". Also for Wendel Trio, director of Can, "the negotiating position includes 'dark areas' that undermine EU leadership in the negotiations". What is missing according to Trio are "the details" on how to increase the fight against climate change and further measures for 2020. "Europe cannot afford to plan a weak result in Paris" adds Geneviève Pons Deladrière, director of the EU office of the WWF. "The increase of Europe's own climate targets and adequate levels of funding will be crucial points to be clarified in the coming months" adds Pons, who recalled how "Paris will be judged on the basis of actions, not words".
Wwf, 2015 is also hottest year to act
"The data from Noaa herald that 2015 will be the hottest year, we also hope to act". The WWF comments, with an eye to the UN climate conference scheduled in Paris at the end of the year, the data released by the US Agency for the atmosphere and the oceans (Noaa), according to which there is a 97% probability that the current year is the hottest ever recorded from 1880 to today. "2015 represents a 'watershed' in climate history not only because of the planet's record fever figures, but also because of the opportunity we have to agree on a new climate agreement next December," states the WWF. "This long sequence of temperature records must be a warning to leaders around the world to have the courage to 'change climate change'. If we do not drastically cut greenhouse gases - warns the environmental association - we will have to deal with an unpredictable, unrecognizable and devastating climate for natural systems and all of humanity ".
Greenpeace, a quick stop at coal to 100% renewable
'' A rapid abandonment of the use of coal and the development of a European energy system that, by 2050, focuses on 100% renewable energy for all, with the fundamental contribution of energy efficiency ''. This is the request of Greenpeace launched by the demonstration at the meeting of EU environment ministers in Brussels, in which the position to be held at the UN climate conference scheduled in Paris in December was discussed. '' The European Union - adds the association - aims to cut emissions by 2030 by at least 40% compared to 1990 levels ''. '' The EU position is still far from what is needed to be able to obtain an effective global agreement - says Luca Iacoboni, head of the Climate and Energy campaign of Greenpeace Italy - Europe can and must do more to speed up the transition energy towards a system that is completely based on renewables, while at the same time committing to definitively abandon the use of fossil fuels. In Paris there will be a need for a united front that supports the global exit from the fossil age by 2050 ''.
More heating, more impacts
Current and future impacts of climate change include heat waves, changes in rainfall and patterns of drought and rising seas. Their severity depends on how much heating takes place.
Human activities are the main determinant of future temperatures, so a world with aggressive emissions control looks very different from a world where emissions continue to rise.
Even if we knew exactly how emissions will change in the future, the exact amount of warming that would result remains uncertain.
Receive the latest by email
Drastic measures are still needed to curb climate change. Shutterstock
Our new equilibrium climate sensitivity analysis substantially reduces this uncertainty by combining modern understanding of atmospheric physics with modern, historical and prehistoric data using robust statistical methods.
The results indicate that the substantial warming is much firmer than we thought.
Of Valerio Calzolaio
The global climate negotiation it is perhaps about to start again in the physical presence of all the protagonists. This is not a sufficient guarantee of a positive result, neither this year nor in perspective. However, it is a necessary premise to really try to do more and sooner to reduce climate-altering emissions and to better adapt to planetary anthropogenic climate change. The outbreak of the pandemic forced to postpone the opportunities for collegial meetings planned for 2020, even if the negotiations managed by United Nations has never stopped (even with virtual events) it is likely that at the end of 2021 it will be possible to hold conferences in the presence of delegations and delegates. Meanwhile, the United States, the country that has always emitted the most greenhouse gases per capita, have started the procedures to re-enter that same negotiation (which in fact had been missing for several years) the previous president (in office since January 2017) had long ago started the complex rules for the official withdrawal of the USA from the Paris agreements of December 2015 (which entered into force on 4 November 2016), announcing the withdrawal already in June 2017, a withdrawal which then became progressively operational to definitively enter into force on 4 November 2020 (the day in which Trump lost the elections for the second term) the current President Biden has made returning to the negotiating table a visible reasoned political, internal and international priority.
THE greenhouse gases in the very long term they impact on the climate of human and non-human living, in the short and long term, among other things, on the breath and health of more than half the city of humans. The reduction of petro-carbon emissions (especially those from transport and heating) not only serves to contain global warming and the consequent financial and social costs, but also to reduce air pollution. A global negotiation so that the human species, through its institutional representatives, understands and reacts to the evident global anthropogenic climate changes. It may perhaps be useful to go back for a moment, with the scientific background in mind and with the texts in hand, to the famous final document approved by all a little more than five years ago in Paris on the occasion of the twenty-first Conference of the parties to the UN Convention (Cop21 of the Unfccc), whose implementation will be verified in 2021. Adjectives of historical clamor were wasted in the comments of the time. All the capitals and nations that host an important UN conference want to have left an indelible mark on the path of humanity, every head of government and every minister want to be able to say that they have influenced an epochal turning point during their mandate, every militant and every established interest does not want to waste its time. The categories of the glass half-full-empty, of revolution and failure, of optimism-pessimism return cyclically in the climate negotiation and do not help to understand and act.
It has been scientifically and diplomatically established for over 30 years that the average temperature of the planet is rising due to human behavior and that warming has already harmful and potentially damaging effects. The UN is a wealthy precarious body of formally united nations, since the end of the Cold War it has begun to move on the environment and development, in 1988 it legitimized a world group of scientists who in 1990 approved a first Report on Climate Change and in 1992 it organized a conference in Rio to approve a consequent convention (together with other acts and guidelines). Since then, the entry into force has followed, as many as 25 meetings of all "parties" of the UN and four other IPCC reports (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change). The work carried out by the scholars undergoes various subsequent scientific reviews (both by government experts and by independent experts) before being discussed and approved by the Plenary Assembly. The volumes of the V ° report came out between September 2013 and November 2014, those of the VI ° Ipcc Report they were all scheduled for 2021 There will instead be a short postponement, again due to pandemics, research and analysis by scientists from all over the world will continue to be monitored, collected and verified, referring both to the global ecosystem and to every part of the planet. various groups of works and the final synthesis will be postponed towards 2022.
The first authoritative comparative studies underlying the negotiation date back to many decades ago and have been continuously updated for over half a century.We know with ever greater precision that the temperature of 2050 must not increase by more than 1.5 degrees compared to pre-industrial levels, if we want to avoid an unmanageable upheaval in the global ecosystem and in many individual areas, enormous costs and forced migrations. In December 1997 in Kyoto a strategy of timed and binding commitments was adopted, there (as a first step and for a very early period up to 2012) only for the countries that had caused the most emissions and warming. The protocol entered into force only 8 years later and that strategy was gradually abandoned, another one has been drafted in the last decade. No longer have been negotiated quantified and timed, global and differentiated, legally binding obligations to reduce emissions to guarantee the planet a minimum increase in temperature (and less pollution). It was decided that each country must and can do as and as much as it wants, will reduce and adapt voluntarily, all countries of the world however, this is the new strategy, national plans for mitigation and adaptation on the basis of indices and criteria agreed, publicly and jointly evaluated.
Thanks to'Paris Agreement the new strategy had a minimum legally binding path and some “political” fixed points. The two crucial and minimal points of the negotiation were money and controls: how much and how do rich countries put funds to help poor ones who and with what consistent homogeneous instruments any reduction should be measured. On the financial level, some consensus was found, both on the annual figure after 2020 (mind you), and on the payment methods before and after 2020. On the administrative level, excessive flexibility was left: the national plans of voluntary commitments that are have now been presented by many of the 197 parties, even if they are respected, will cause an increase in temperature between 2.7 and 3%. Over the next decade in every country we will have to get it done sooner and better. And then there are the grandes questions oubliées as the special had called them Le Monde for Cop21: oceans, biodiversity, migration, food security. These issues do not even figure in the climate negotiation, although they are closely related to the impacts and effects of climate change underway. Nor has so far been well agreed on the resilience of ecosystems, biodiversity of common goods, the fight against injustices and inequalities, the global guarantee of freedom of access to resources, cooperation (including decentralized) for sustainable development. In the next decade we will have to get serious global negotiations open, the Paris documents do not give certainty about sustainable energy and agriculture, mobility and migration.
It seems foreseeable from now that a Glasgow in December 2021 Cop26 will take note, necessarily and sadly, of the conclusion of the force of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and will also try to take stock of the precarious inadequate implementation from the next Paris Agreement of the COP21 of 2015, after six years, seeking a broad consensus on the many suspended and on some of the gaps. The combination of the "legal" and "political" parts made the American legislative process unnecessary. However, the active American presence is indispensable for a serious multilateral framework of guidelines and comparisons, especially since various metropolises and some individual American states have certainly been protagonists of volitional policies for the reduction of emissions. The turning point represented by the new American presidency will be appreciated in the negotiating venues, even with respect to the whole of the abandoned UN structures. John Kerry, special climate envoy of the new Biden administration, announced the call for the April 22, 2021 of a world summit, on the occasion of world earth day. We will have to continue to pay (interested) attention.
The fact remains that in these thirty years the negotiations have not produced significant and decisive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. However, it will not be easy to impart unanimous innovation and concrete results. Cop25 took place in Madrid from 2 to 13 December 2019, it had not gone very well in almost unanimous opinion (a bit of everything there had been a postponement, in particular on the carbon market and on the obligation to set objectives). Cop26 will be held in 10 months, a end of 2021, from 1 to 12 December. The agreement at COP21 provided for a review every five years, the first at COP26. It will then take place after six years (2015-2021) due to the postponement related to the health emergency. The idea of those who voted for it was that, once the data on global warming in progress were confirmed, the data of the too slow reduction of emissions in progress had been evaluated, the various countries would have taken on even more stringent targets than those of 2015. We'll see. Currently, the objectives submitted by the individual states are far from exceeding the 2 degrees of temperature increase, even more than the necessary 1.5, and prefigure a scenario that could take us beyond 3.2 well before the end of the century. Indeed, some have presented long-term strategies that aim at climate neutrality by 2050 or 2060, for example by eliminating the use of fossil fuels and compensating for what cannot be reduced with the absorptions from the management of plant ecosystems, but the objectives short-term projects concretely presented do not align with these trajectories on the contrary, they show a discrepancy with respect to the policies envisaged in the objective of containing temperatures. Precisely for this reason, countries should triple their levels of ambition to be in line with the unanimous appeals of the scientific world and the Paris goals. We'll see.
The heads of state and government ofEuropean Union have recently agreed to increase the continent's greenhouse gas emission reduction target to at least 55% by 2030 compared to the 1990 baseline scenario. target European Commission will impose changes to the climate policy framework that will be presented by the European Commission a June 2021 and it may suggest new stimuli to make our national policies more ambitious. It is a feasible goal and would allow us to get on the right path to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. The issue of how to finance these government commitments will be central, as well as that relating to the implementation of Article 6 of the UNFCCC Convention and the article 12 of the Paris Agreement on the modalities for promoting training and education activities on climate change. Cop26 also has among its objectives the completion of the so-called "book of rules" of the Paris Agreement, or rather the times and methods of the implementation decrees concerning the transparency requirements and the mechanisms that will support the emission reduction measures of the individual countries.
Distance meetings, not only public comparisons, preliminary documents will occupy throughout 2021 and our country will play an objectively leading role in the negotiations. The United Kingdom will take over the presidency from Cop26 in partnership with Italy, now engaged in organizing the preparatory sessions for the Glasgow appointment, such as the pre-COP26, which will be held in Milan from 30 September to 2 October next. Two days before the pre-COP26 we will host it Youth4Climate: Driving Ambition, a virtual and interactive meeting for about 400 young people from all over the world who will come together to deal directly with politics and make concrete proposals. Obviously, the terms of the Italian position have been established at the European level, we can only bring forward first of all the requests defined together with the other states of the Union. The fact remains that tone, style and stimuli are never always the same, wherever the event takes place. And national policy on the matter will be put under a magnifying glass by experts and public opinion from all over the world. For now, we do not have all the right cards in climate and environmental matters. we will also review this in the autumn, whatever national parliament and pro tempore government are then in office.
The health of the environment
A mid-August passes, the other passes, I always return to the theme of the environment and climate. Whoever lasts wins it, says the proverb. Let's hope that's true.
What is the weather like? What will the weather be like? This is what is explained and predicted by meteorologists every day. What is the climate, and what happens to the climate, is instead a completely different question which, in the long term, concerns the conditions of drought, heat, pollution and liveability of our planet. Yet many people confuse the two. Last year - they say - it rained little and it was very hot but this year it rained a lot and we had a good time. Therefore - they conclude - those of the climatologists are lies. And if even a good journalist like Pietro Calabrese thinks that way, I have to explain it all over again.
The most obvious indicator of global warming is that glaciers are melting, with unexpected speed, everywhere: in Asia, Africa, Europe, in the Andes, at the Poles. We then have precise measurements of the increasing amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Therefore the dispute is no longer about the warming of the earth's climate - the fact is unquestionable - but about its causes.
Whoever doubts that the first, primary cause "is us", remembers that the cycles of warming and cooling of the Earth have always occurred, and therefore that they can only depend on astronomical causes. Yes, but two new variables have entered the cycle we are experiencing: industrial society, which is highly polluting, and a gigantic "leap" in population. And the entry into play of these two new factors invalidates the analogies with the past. So much so that the vast majority of scholars believe that the ongoing warming does not belong to the natural variability of the climate.
Of course, science is never unanimous. There are still those who deny, for example, that the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS. Furthermore, and above all, the problem of the climate and the environment is really a macro-problem, so big and complex that it does not allow us to establish who is competent and who is not, who really has a say in the matter and who is not. But there is no doubt that science as a whole points the finger on man's wrongdoing and overdoing, on "anthropogenic" causes. This place, where are we?
The good news is that we have gotten rid of the "toxic Texan", the nefarious former President Bush, and that his successor Obama has already passed a tough anti-pollution law by Congress that provides for an 83% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. And America is a country that, when it mobilizes, does indeed mobilize. The European Union is also convinced, and proposes the formula of 20-20-20 (minus 20% of carbon dioxide emissions, plus 20% of energy efficiency, plus 20% from renewable energy sources). But Berlusconi is like Bush, Berlusconi is not there. He even fights the small (and very insufficient) reductions imposed by the Kyoto Protocol and in December he brutally declared in Brussels: "I find it absurd to talk about emissions when a crisis is underway". Yes, but no. Because an ecological catastrophe would be a thousand times more serious than the current crisis.
August 15, 2009 © REPRODUCTION RESERVED
The Mediterranean warms up, and it does so more than the other seas
"The data - explains Enea - show that the layer between the surface and 2,000 meters deep has absorbed 20 zettajoules (trillions of billions) of heat compared to the previous year, equivalent to that produced by 630 billion hair dryers in operation day and night for a whole year ". This absorption by the seas is the most obvious indicator of the fact that the planet is warming. On the other hand, 2020 and 2016 are the two hottest years ever recorded considering, however, that 2016 was the year of El Nino, the periodic climatic phenomenon that causes strong warming of ocean waters. Beyond that, however, 90 percent of global warming is absorbed by the seas and from the oceans, so much so that instead of global warming we could speak of "warming of the waters".
I mari europei si stanno scaldando più velocemente del previsto, l’Europa chiama i paesi all’azione
Sulla base delle sue ricerche, il biologo Paolo Albano ritiene il Mediterraneo non sia da meno, anzi: il “”Mare Nostrum” è il bacino che evidenzia il tasso di riscaldamento maggiore negli ultimi anni, confermando quanto già riscontrato nei rapporti del servizio europeo Copernicus. Proseguendo un processo iniziato una trentina di anni fa, ma con un incremento più elevato rispetto alle altre aree oceaniche.
Temperatures che stanno raggiungendo anche i -40 gradi. È questa l’emergenza che in questi giorni sta vivendo l’America del Nord, dal Dakota all’Ohio, dove milioni di americani sono paralizzati nella morsa di un vortice polare, le cui gelide temperature hanno causato la cancellazione di circa mille voli e la chiusura di scuole e aziende pubbliche e private. Un’emergenza che ovviamente non poteva passare inosservata agli occhi dei negazionisti del cambiamento climatico, che, prevedibilmente, non hanno tardato a commentare questa ondata di gelo eccezionale. Tanto per fare un esempio, infatti, il presidente degli Stati Uniti Donald Trump non ha potuto fare a meno di dire la sua. In un tweet, infatti, ha ironicamente commentato: “Cosa diavolo sta succedendo con il riscaldamento globale? Per favore torna presto, abbiamo bisogno di te!”.
Ma anche in questa occasione, la scienza racconta una storia del tutto diversa: finora, infatti, nessuna stazione meteorologica ha registrato un record di freddo nel 2019. Un dato che, stando a quanto riporta sul New Scientistil climatologo Maximiliano Herrera, non ha precedenti in questa fase dell’anno.
(Foto: Climate Reanalyzer )
Al contrario, 33 stazioni nell’emisfero meridionale hanno registrato massimi storici: tra queste c’è Noona nel Nuovo Galles del sud australiano, dove lo scorso 17 gennaio la temperatura notturna è rimasta sopra i 35,9 ° C, segnando così la notte più calda della storia dell’Australia. Le prime 29 stazioni, che hanno riportato temperature tra i 38 e i 49 gradi, sono tutte in Australia, in zone come l’isola di Natale e l’Isola La Riunione (dipartimento francese) che hanno, appunto, sperimentato le temperature più calde di tutti i tempi. Le altre stazioni, che hanno registrato temperature non tanto più basse (tra i 41 e il 31 gradi) sono in Cile e Namibia.
I record di temperature fredde finora registrati? Nessuno.
Secondo i modelli matematici, per definire che un clima sia stabile il numero di record di temperature calde e fredde dovrebbe essere uguale. Ma stando alle ultime analisi, nel 2018 ben 430 stazioni in tutto il mondo hanno registrato temperature massime e solamente 40 hanno riportato i minimi storici. Un confronto che è il chiaro ed ennesimo segno del fatto che il nostro pianeta stia diventando più caldo.
Per quanto riguarda l’Italy, come vi avevamo raccontato all’inizio di quest’anno, il 2018 è stato l’anno più caldo degli ultimi due secoli. Infatti, secondo i dati dell’Istituto di Scienze dell’atmosfera e del clima (Isac) del Cnr di Bologna, diffusi in una nota del climatologo Michele Brunetti: “Il 2018 è stato l’anno più caldo dal 1800 ad oggi per l’Italia. Con una anomalia di 1,58°C sopra la media del periodo di riferimento dal 1971 al 2000, ha superato il precedente record del 2015 (1,44°C sopra la media)”. Una ulteriore conferma, quindi, delle conseguenze del riscaldamento globale e della tendenza all’aumento delle temperature medie del pianeta.