Wondering what climate change will mean to you? Wondering if you will survive it, and how you can be prepared?
We are too.
Join the adventure to explore impacts, strategies and life hacks to make the inevitable a bit more hospitable.
Productive comments and inputs always welcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8 I don't always agree with Dr. Hansen on the social, economic and political factors and remedies because they oversimplify the complexity of these variables in actually being able to address and adapt to the situations. But as a climate scientist I respect what he has to say. This is worth the time it takes to listen to it. The concepts are fairly well developed and for folks who don't quite grasp all the technical aspects of climate modeling - in short what he is saying is that the models predicting climate change have a longer time horizon than reality seems to have. In other words, severe impacts of climate change are happening faster and sooner than anticipated, or we are screwed.
I've been troubled by the issue of population growth in the recent IPCCC report I've been reading. So as I slog through the more than 1,100 pages, I decided to take the quick route and Google it. This is what I found on the Population and Sustainability Network webpage:
What does the IPCC report say about population dynamics and climate change?
April 11, 2014
SOURCE: PSN
The latest IPCC report identifies changes in population as factors that exacerbate climate change vulnerability. Here we present the report’s key messages about different population dynamics and access to reproductive health etc.
Credit: UN Photo/Nasim Fekrat
The report known as the second volume of the Fifth Assessment Report, released by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems”.
These are the report’s key references to population, with direct quotes from the report:
Freshwater resources
Non-climatic drivers such as population increase, economic development, urbanisation, and land-use or natural geomorphic changes also challenge the sustainability of resources by decreasing water supply or increasing demand.
Over the next few decades and for increases in global mean temperature of less than around 2oC above pre-industrial, changes in population will generally have a greater effect on changes in resource availability than will climate change. Climate change would, however, regionally exacerbate or offset the effects of population pressures.
Coastal systems and low-lying areas
The population and assets projected to be exposed to coastal risks as well as human pressures on coastal ecosystems will increase significantly in the coming decades due to population growth, economic development, and urbanisation.
All the studies indicate high and growing exposure of low-lying coastal areas. The Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ) constitutes 2% of the world’s land area but contains 10% of world’s population (600 million) and 13% of world’s urban population (360 million) based on year 2000 estimates.
About 65% of the world’s cities with populations of over 5 million are located in the LECZ.
The population living in coastal lowlands is increasing and more than 270 million people in 2010 are already exposed to flooding by the 1-in-100 year coastal flood. Population growth and land subsidence in coastal lowlands are the major causes; therefore there is very low attribution to climate change.
Food security and food production systems
Developing countries rely heavily on climate -dependent agriculture and especially in conjunction with poverty and rapid increase in population they are vulnerable to climate change. While food insecurity is concentrated mostly in developing countries situated in the tropics global food supply may also be affected by heat stress in both temperate and subtropical regions.
Human health and the role of family planning
Although population growth rates and total population size do not alone determine emissions, population size is an important factor. One study showed that CO2 emissions could be lower by 30% by 2100 if access to contraception was provided to those women expressing a need for it. Providing the unmet need for contraceptive services in areas such as the Sahel region of Africa that has both high fertility and high vulnerability to climate change can potentially significantly reduce human suffering as climate change proceeds. This is important not only in poor countries, however, but also some rich ones like the US, where there is unmet need for reproductive health services as well as high CO 2 emissions per capita.
Slowing population growth through lowering fertility, as might be achieved by increasing access to family planning, has been associated with improved maternal and child health – the co - benefit - in two main ways: increased birth spacing and reducing births by very young and old mothers.
Programs to provide access to reproductive health services for all women will not only lead to slower population growth and its associated energy demands, but also will reduce the numbers of child and maternal deaths.
Key economic sectors and services
For most economic sectors, the impacts of drivers such as changes in population, age structure, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and governance are projected to be large relative to the impacts of climate change.
Human security
Climate change over the 21st century is projected to increase displacement of people.
Displacement risk increases when populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events, in both rural and urban areas, particularly in developing countries with low income.
Read more about the fifth volume of the IPCC report.
Okay, So I've been reviewing the Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Summary for Policy Makers.
It's riveting. If you like this sort of thing. Which I actually do. But here is their summary of anticipated impacts of climate change. This is a summary of their summary. As I read through the full report, I'll have more to say, especially as it relates to adaptation solutions. The impacts - that we need to adapt to break down like this:
Decline in freshwater resources: Less freshwater available over all and increase competition among sectors (energy, agriculture, municipal water use, industry, etc.). This has wide ranging impacts we will spend more time with soon. It's a BIG one.
Terrestrial (land) and freshwater ecosystem damages: extinction, pollutions, invasive species (think kudzu if you live in the southeast US, or zebra mussels if you live near the Great Lakes). This also will lead to irreversible damage to ecosystems, which leads to decrease in carbon storage, decrease in wood production, decline in water quality, loss of additional biodiversity, and damage to ecosystems.
Sea level rise impacting coastal and low lying areas: includes flooding, storm surges, erosion, and submergence. (Not so good for Miami, New York, LA, London, the Netherlands, the Caribbean, etc. - also not great for communities that will be flooded with the people fleeing these areas.)
Marine ecosystems: decline in biodiversity, increase in extinctions, decline in fisheries, including commercial fish catches (Seriously bad news for coastal communities with big fishing dependencies, especially those which have already decimated the estuaries - which most have).
Ocean acidification: loss of coral reefs, disruption of the food web (including plankton), increase damage to polar ecosystems, and serious disruption to commercial fisheries.
Decline in food security and food production systems: we already are seeing a decline in grain yields, and it is forecast to drop very quickly in the next 25 years. This has some bad ramifications as food prices increase, and food becomes more difficult to grow.
Food access and prices will become destabilized: as grain production drops and commercial fisheries collapse, (remember grain is fed to livestock as well as humans) access to food sources will become increasingly problematic. People will be hungry.
Urban areas become increasingly stressed: by heat waves, extreme precipitation - rains, snow, ice, flooding, land slides, air pollution, drought and lack of clean waters, plus an increase strain on infrastructure, and large populations migrating into urban areas due to economic and environmental dislocation.
Rural areas also stressed: by heat, decline in soil fertility and productivity, difficulties accessing clean safe water and food resources.
Economic disruptions: while energy needs for heat may decrease over all, energy demand for cooling will increase, and basic infrastructure to support economic activities - such as transportation of people and food - are likely to be deteriorating and threatened - especially by sea level rise and loss of port services.
Human health will be jeopardized: due to increase in disease vectors such as mosquitoes (think Zika), loss of nutrients from food and less access to clean safe water, and increase in vulnerable populations who are economically marginalized by climate change impacts.
Human security will decline: meaning we will see increased large scale migrations of human populations, which will put stresses on already stressed communities as resources like food and fresh water grow increasingly scarce.
Increased violence due to in-group/out-group dynamics: with displaced people migrating and being seen as threatening resource availability.
Increased civil unrest: due to increase poverty, increased uncertainty, and economic dislocation with greater expectation of state/government responsiveness.
Negative impacts on territorial integrity and infrastructure: as more demand is placed on access to shared resources, repairs to infrastructure and basic state functions will be increasingly stressed.
And all this results in:
Decreased economic growth, increase poverty, decreased food security, increased number of "poverty traps" and "hunger hotspots".
AND there is no mention of the increasing human populations in the timeframe they are looking at!!
In other words, we are in a bad way people. It won't get better and it won't go away. We have to deal with it, and we have to do it - TOGETHER! A critical concluding remark of the summary states that: "Underestimating the complexity of adaptation as a social process can create unrealistic expectations about achieving intended adaptation outcomes." p. 29. This will only exacerbate the negative impacts and increase pending civil unrest. It's time for us to address the complexity of adaptation as a social process. And get on with it. For more details please see:
IPCC, 2014: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken,P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32.
When talking with folks about adapting to climate change, one question I frequently get is: What is the ONE thing that I can do right now to prepare myself for climate change? My response: GET FIT! This often surprises people. Which is okay.
Most people don't see the linkages between climate change and personal fitness, at least until they are climbing a latter, in a wind storm, while hauling a tarp to cover the massive hole in the roof that the neighbors tree gauged during a a storm and there are more storms coming in the next few hours. And doing this in the dark makes it even more challenging. Most people don't seem the link between climate change and needing to walk three miles to get food and water because the roads are not passable due to wash outs and flooding. And then trying to haul all that back 3 miles. And I am guessing most people really don't think about the strain being out of shape puts on their family, friends, and neighbors who will be kind enough to help with a tarp or hauling food and water. Getting fit does not have to mean going to the gym for hours on end day after day. It does not mean training for a marathon. It means being physically strong enough to haul your own body for a sustained period of time in difficult conditions. Think of it this way - you need to have a mix of strength, flexibility, balance, and endurance abilities (cardio-vascular and mental) to adjust to and adapt to rapidly changing situations around you. Our ancestors 2,000- 3,000 years ago did not have gyms or cross fit. They had everyday life. Our paleo-hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't have much in the way of carbs. In the event of extreme climate events, and rapidly adapting to shifts in environmental conditions, our ancestors would kick our rotund, soft, squishy, couch encumbered butts. Getting fit is a journey you can start right now, today. Go for a walk, lift some weights, challenge yourself. Go visit DAREBE.COM for some quick great tips to get started, that focus on getting fit and staying alive longer.
You'll be glad you did. And even if you don't have to haul a tarp up a ladder in a windstorm in the dark, at least you will still be more fit than you are right now. So get to it!
About a year ago I watched a scientist giving testimony about climate change. She was highly credentialed and well versed in her topic. This lady knew her stuff, that was not a question.
But the Senators questioning her were asking her to give definite answers. They wanted the facts. Only the facts, and they required certainty.
Her detailed responses qualified her findings but did not claim to be absolute fact.
Her frustration was clear during the questioning, and despite the dire predictions she was making, the politicians seemed to be looking for loopholes.
The result was those opposed to the ramifications of her findings were able to claim that “there is still a question” and “action would be premature”.
This troubled me, because I could see she was baffled by the Senators inability to grasp how catastrophic the situation is becoming based on her exhaustive research. She was exhausted.
It finally struck me why the scientists and the decision makers are talking across one another, instead of joining together to take urgent action.
Decision makers, Senators, politicians want clear, direct, uncomplicated responses when they ask questions. They cannot tolerate equivocation.
Scientists are trained to consider all the options, and angles, and not ever claim absolutely certainty. At it’s base in scientific reasoning absolute certainty is a sign of hubris and ego, and within the scientific community, it is harshly scoffed. To protect themselves, and to allow for scientific inquiry to thrive, scientists are rigorously trained to avoid over simplification. They can’t give absolute certainty about their findings.
It’s the curse of the scientific method when trying to make an irrefutable argument.
The types of answers the politicians need, the scientists cannot give. The type of responses scientists give, the politicians can not use.
Clearly we don’t have time for this.
We must teach the scientists and the politicians to speak a common language that can allow us all to move forward to address the very real threats of climate change.
And this is IF we seriously slow warming temperatures...
So where are all the people living along these coasts going to go? The infrastructure will be under water, no power, no heat, water and sewage systems backed up, lots of mosquitoes. Likely residents will not be staying there.
Greenland’s melting ice sheets are contributing more water to the oceans than previously realized, and that’s going to lead to even greater amounts of sea-level risearound the world, according to new research.
The paper, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, reveals something scientists wouldn't have expected just five years ago. “It’s a very rapid change,” said one of the study’s authors, William Colgan of York University in Toronto. “The ice sheet is now losing about 8,000 tons every second, year-round, day in and day out.”
Colgan said the “lion’s share” of that loss—about 5,000 tons per second—comes in the form of meltwater. The ice sheet, like a sponge, used to be able to absorb most of what melted each year because the uppermost layers are composed of tightly packed but permeable snow, as opposed to the impermeable layers of ice much farther below. That porous surface, called “firn,” normally would allow meltwater to sink downward, where it would refreeze and stay within the glacier.
That started changing about a decade ago. The meltwater started staying on the surface, forming massive “rivers” that traveled 30 miles down the ice sheet to the sea.
(Photo: Dirk van As, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland)
These rivers have always existed to a degree, but they used to only go about half as far.
“That led us to speculate that the downward motion was being blocked somehow,” Colgan said.
Testing their assumption required spending several brutal weeks on top of the ice sheet before the melting season, where temperatures plunged as low as minus 40 degrees Celsius. “We don’t have heating for a month while we’re out there, and you’re working with ice all day,” he said. “It’s a recipe for getting really cold. We’re as comfortable as we can be, but it’s still closer to the hardships of a polar expedition than to a modern office.”
After three five-week expeditions in 2012, 2013, and 2015—all spent camping in unheated two-person tents—the research team obtained core samples that explained the meltwater rivers. They found that a layer of ice existed where it shouldn’t have.
It all stems from an extreme melt that took place in 2012. When that melted snow refroze, it formed a layer of ice several meters thick in the middle of the firn. Now melting water hits that thick ice layer and can sink no farther. Since it can’t go down, it goes sideways. “The rivers go downhill from the high interior of the ice sheet toward the coast,” Colgan said.
That means the Greenland ice sheet is losing its ability to absorb much of its own meltwater, something that had been assumed under previous climate change models, according to the study.
“All the projections we made assumed the water would keep percolating vertically until it filled up all of that firn space,” Colgan said. “Now we can say that’s probably not going to happen over large areas of the ice sheet.” That, he said, means those earlier projections now underestimate Greenland’s current and future contributions to sea-level rise.
Experts said this new research adds to scientists’ knowledge of the fragility of Greenland's ice sheet. "The ice in Greenland is a big, complicated beast, but every time we have a new result lately it turns out it's melting faster than we thought," said Josh Willis, a NASA climate scientist who was not involved with the study. "We're seeing now more and more ways in which the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing faster than we thought."
The situation might worsen. That new ice layer in the firn is darker than the snow that would normally be there. “That’s important because it absorbs more solar energy and makes the ice sheet melt faster,” Colgan said.
The same phenomenon, Colgan said, is occurring in the Canadian High Arctic. What it means there will need additional study.
