You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Is the ocean warming up because too little dust is blowing over from the Sahara?

Lately, the North Atlantic Ocean has been more than just hot. It has been anomalously, weirdly hot. On Sunday, the ocean’s average surface temperature was 74 degrees Fahrenheit, or 23 degrees Celsius — a number normally seen a month from now, in late July. The Atlantic was warmer last month than in any previous May since 1850, according to the Met Office, the United Kingdom’s national weather service. Even more impressively, it beat the previous record by more than any previous record, for any month, has been broken. June seems virtually guaranteed to set another all-time high.
This outrageous warmth is primarily caused by climate change. And in climate science, it is generally not good news when a year’s temperature line is so immediately visible above the pack:

The heat wave is particularly intense in the North Atlantic’s eastern half, which runs from Mauritania to Portugal, France, and the British Isles. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the marine heat wave around the United Kingdom qualifies as a Level 5, or “beyond extreme,” event.
Such warm water would normally give rise to enormous hurricanes. And the western Atlantic has been off to a productive start, creating Tropical Storms Brett and Cindy earlier this month. But since the western Atlantic, which borders North America and the Caribbean, has been chillier, those storms have been unable to survive the journey across the ocean and have been torn apart by wind shear.
Under other circumstances, a marine heat wave of this magnitude would be dangerous for underwater animals and plants — but perhaps a curiosity for land-dwelling humans. Of course, any anomaly of this magnitude — more than two standard deviations above the trend — is extremely concerning and might raise fears that the planet has entered some kind of new normal. The Atlantic’s outrageous warmth has also attracted wider attention because it raises one of the most controversial questions in climate science: Did we accidentally stop geoengineering the oceans?
Three years ago, the United Nations agency that regulates shipping mandated that cargo ships switch from the high-sulfur form of fuel that they were previously using to a cleaner, lower-sulfur type of fuel. When burned, sulfur creates a pollutant called sulfur dioxide, which causes haze, acid rain, and health problems. The mandate worked: Ships have moved away from high-sulfur fuels, which has significantly cut aerosol emissions.
Which seems like an environmental-policy success story. Except that Leon Simons, a researcher at the Dutch chapter of the Club of Rome, argues that it was a grave mistake. Aerosol pollution reflects the sun’s rays back into space: It’s not wrong to see it as a form of solar-radiation management, or geoengineering. Aerosol emissions cool the planet by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, or about 1 degree Fahrenheit, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Aerosol pollution doesn’t just refer to sulfur dioxide, but to any small particle of a solid or liquid that is larger than a molecule but small enough to float in the air.)
When ships began burning low-sulfur fuel, they reduced some of this net cooling effect — even as they kept pouring carbon dioxide and other climate pollution into the atmosphere. Simons asserts that this inadvertent end to geoengineering is partially to blame for the ongoing heat wave afflicting the world’s oceans.
Other researchers are far less certain. Brian McNoldy, a senior research scientist at the University of Miami, told me that the low-sulfur timeline doesn’t add up. Cargo ships had to stop using high-sulfur fuels by January 1, 2020, and sulfur dioxide and aerosols only persist in the atmosphere for a few days or weeks. Those cooling aerosols rained out two and a half years ago. So why did the Atlantic Ocean start cooking in February of this year?
“I don’t totally buy the low-sulfur fuels. It doesn’t explain the past two or three months becoming abruptly record-breaking,” he said. “It might be a driver, but it’s not the reason.”
He explains the North Atlantic heat wave by looking to two other far more weather-related factors. First, he said, the Sahara Desert is generating less dust than it normally does. Every spring and summer, winds moving across northern Africa toss up enormous amounts of sand and dust from the Sahara — so much that it creates a recognizably beige haze over the North Atlantic. Like any other aerosol, that Saharan dust reflects sunlight and cools the Earth’s surface.
In a normal year, so much of that dust would have been kicked up by now that it would have blown all the way to South Florida, according to Michael Lowry, a meteorologist at ABC 10, a Miami news station. But this year, winds haven’t picked up as much dust, and the first major Saharan dust haze only appeared in the past week or so. The satellite DSCOVR picked up the first images of that dust storm on Saturday:

With less dust to reflect the sun’s rays, more have reached the ocean — and warmed its surface.
Second, the weather over the North Atlantic has been unusually stagnant. The wind plays a big role in warming up or cooling down the ocean surface: When winds push the oceans around a lot, surface water tends to mix with deeper water and the air, producing a cooling effect; when winds slacken, the sea sits stagnant and heats up.
The winds have been still lately. There’s a “large-scale blocking pattern” in the jet stream that is preventing storms from moving across the North Atlantic, and generally discouraging winds from pushing around the sea surface, McNoldy said.
The cause of all this stagnation is an atypically weak “Azores High,” a quasi-permanent high pressure system that sits over the North Atlantic throughout the year. It hasn’t drawn in Saharan dust or generated winds to push ocean water around, turning the western Atlantic into the planetary equivalent of a kiddie pool on a hot day. “It’s allowing the ocean to really cook,” McNoldy said.
The warmth is now so pronounced that even a change in weather won’t drive it out for some time. Even if the circumstances causing the warming were to fade now, McNoldy told me, the ocean is “not gonna get back to normal any time soon.”
That could eventually cause problems for folks in the Americas. Right now, the western Atlantic is generating storms like it’s the late summer, while the cooler eastern Atlantic is tearing them apart. Were the eastern Atlantic to get just a little warmer, it might let those storms survive or even strengthen them — leading to an unusually strong hurricane season.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation. What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.