Options
'More disasters' for warmer world
sourdough
Posts: 579
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4791257.stm
'More disasters' for warmer world
A warmer world could make wildfires more frequent, research shows
Rising temperatures will increase the risk of forest fires, droughts and flooding over the next two centuries, UK climate scientists have warned.
Even if harmful emissions were cut now, many parts of the world would face a greater risk of natural disasters, a team from Bristol University said.
The projections are based on data from more than 50 climate models looking at the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
The study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers gathered results from 52 computer simulations to calculate the risks from climate-induced changes to the world's key ecosystems.
They then grouped the results according to the amount of global warming: less than 2C (3.6F); 2-3C (3.6F-5.4F); and more than 3C (5.4F).
For each of the temperature ranges, the team assessed the probability of changes in forest cover, the frequency of wildfires and changes to freshwater supplies over the next 200 years.
'Dangerous climate change'
Marko Scholze, from the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences, and the paper's lead author, said the findings revealed a direct link between rises in global temperature and damage to ecosystems.
"We show the steeply increasing risks, and increasingly large areas affected, associated with higher warming levels," he said.
"The United Nations says we should limit greenhouse gas emissions so we do not have dangerous climate change. So the question is 'what is dangerous climate change?'.
"In this paper we define the level we think is dangerous and see how likely it will come true," Dr Scholze told BBC News.
Richard Betts, manager of Climate Impacts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre, welcomed the findings.
"This makes an important new contribution to the debate on the effects of climate change," he said.
"We already knew that we cannot rely on just one model, as different models give different answers.
We do have to make decisions on climate change now so if we wait for the perfect model we will be too late
Dr Richard Betts, Hadley Centre
"This work helps us go beyond that vague statement, as it shows how much the models agree on particular levels of impact and how much they disagree."
He said the research was an important first step towards quantifying the risks of damaging impacts associated with particular levels of global warming.
The findings showed areas that would experience the worst forest loss would include Eurasia, eastern China, Canada and the Amazon.
Areas of western Africa, southern Europe and eastern US states were at most risk from dwindling freshwater supplies and droughts as a result of rising temperatures.
The data also showed that any temperature increase of more than 3C (5.4F) could result in land "carbon sinks" releasing their stored carbon into the atmosphere, exacerbating the problem of global warming.
Dr Scholze hoped the collated data would answer some of the concerns among more sceptical members of the scientific community who questioned the accuracy of climatic modelling.
"That is exactly why we did this study," he said. "We used as many models as we could and did not rely on any one study.
"We looked at 52 simulations and the probabilities of dangerous climate change these models showed."
Dr Betts agreed: "Of course it is risky to make these projections when models are continuously being changed, but we do have to make decisions on climate change now so if we wait for the perfect model we will be too late.
"The models give the best encapsulation of current understanding of the climate system, and are the only way of assessing physically plausible futures."
Dr Scholze said he hoped the findings would be used in debates on dangerous climate change and the measures needed to avoid it.
'More disasters' for warmer world
A warmer world could make wildfires more frequent, research shows
Rising temperatures will increase the risk of forest fires, droughts and flooding over the next two centuries, UK climate scientists have warned.
Even if harmful emissions were cut now, many parts of the world would face a greater risk of natural disasters, a team from Bristol University said.
The projections are based on data from more than 50 climate models looking at the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
The study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers gathered results from 52 computer simulations to calculate the risks from climate-induced changes to the world's key ecosystems.
They then grouped the results according to the amount of global warming: less than 2C (3.6F); 2-3C (3.6F-5.4F); and more than 3C (5.4F).
For each of the temperature ranges, the team assessed the probability of changes in forest cover, the frequency of wildfires and changes to freshwater supplies over the next 200 years.
'Dangerous climate change'
Marko Scholze, from the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences, and the paper's lead author, said the findings revealed a direct link between rises in global temperature and damage to ecosystems.
"We show the steeply increasing risks, and increasingly large areas affected, associated with higher warming levels," he said.
"The United Nations says we should limit greenhouse gas emissions so we do not have dangerous climate change. So the question is 'what is dangerous climate change?'.
"In this paper we define the level we think is dangerous and see how likely it will come true," Dr Scholze told BBC News.
Richard Betts, manager of Climate Impacts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre, welcomed the findings.
"This makes an important new contribution to the debate on the effects of climate change," he said.
"We already knew that we cannot rely on just one model, as different models give different answers.
We do have to make decisions on climate change now so if we wait for the perfect model we will be too late
Dr Richard Betts, Hadley Centre
"This work helps us go beyond that vague statement, as it shows how much the models agree on particular levels of impact and how much they disagree."
He said the research was an important first step towards quantifying the risks of damaging impacts associated with particular levels of global warming.
The findings showed areas that would experience the worst forest loss would include Eurasia, eastern China, Canada and the Amazon.
Areas of western Africa, southern Europe and eastern US states were at most risk from dwindling freshwater supplies and droughts as a result of rising temperatures.
The data also showed that any temperature increase of more than 3C (5.4F) could result in land "carbon sinks" releasing their stored carbon into the atmosphere, exacerbating the problem of global warming.
Dr Scholze hoped the collated data would answer some of the concerns among more sceptical members of the scientific community who questioned the accuracy of climatic modelling.
"That is exactly why we did this study," he said. "We used as many models as we could and did not rely on any one study.
"We looked at 52 simulations and the probabilities of dangerous climate change these models showed."
Dr Betts agreed: "Of course it is risky to make these projections when models are continuously being changed, but we do have to make decisions on climate change now so if we wait for the perfect model we will be too late.
"The models give the best encapsulation of current understanding of the climate system, and are the only way of assessing physically plausible futures."
Dr Scholze said he hoped the findings would be used in debates on dangerous climate change and the measures needed to avoid it.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
this; like everything else; will be recognised when it's too late to change it.
under normal circumstances the methane would remain frozen at the bottom of the ocean. but what happened during the permian extinction when the siberian flats were active and rose the earths temperature 5 degrees; the methane melted and the gasses entered the atmosphere. as a greenhouse gas; it raised the temperature another 5 degrees causing 95% extinction.
the proof was discovered in greenland in 1998. sorry i don't have the time to find a link.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Not really, cause the world has started to warm and the disasters have increased correspondingly, therefore there has been more disasters in the warmer world.
http://sbflixcontest.org/
after it loads, click on what is shifting baselines and watch the video,...
~Ron Burgundy
great video. I think people aren't necessarily indifferent but more unaware because of this phenomena
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
are you still contending the weather you've gotten out west this summer is normal?
Q: What is the number 1 ingredient for hurricanes?
A: Warm ocean surface temperature. (similarly Tornadoes thrive with hot air except in a dry climate)
Q: Are warm temperatures associated with light overcast rain or hard rain storms which cause flooding?
A: Rain patterns in warmer areas feature convection rain storms due to radiating surface heat rather than frontal systems ala Pacific northwest.
Q: Will warm temperatures lead to higher forest fire incidences?
A: Warm temperatures may cause drought and make forests susceptible to burning.
Okay enough with Q and A, but the pine beetle is killing huge forests because they do not have cold temperatures which keep their population in check. This also makes forests much more vulnerable to burning not to mention the ecological damage of forest destruction and economic costs as well.
Marine life is severely impacted as is biodiversity in general where extinction is way faster than in normal background rates.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
What I meant by that (I purposely put that in for accuracy) is that in many places there will be drought, but in others there will not be. Flooding may be the fun topic of the day in other areas.
with all due respect to all the non-believers - it's really at that stage now where there isn't much to say that hasn't been said before on this topic ... it's pretty much staring us in the face ...
if at anytime someone wants to discuss the actual science behind climate change - feel free to bring it up ... but just because we don't know if there is gonna be 3 floods or 20 floods this year doesn't mean its not happening ... smoking may cause cancer ... so, i guess we'll wait until they say for sure to decide ...
well, dude; what do you want to know? what we have is accumulation of factors. not just one. we have video of the inside of the glasiers and ice caps melting. you can't refute that. we know the earths core is cooling so the atmosphere is warming faster than the cooling. we know that if the temperature rises another 4 degrees it will melt the frozen methane. it's happened and is scientifically documented. we also know that it's too late to stop the ice from melting. ocean currents COULD shift or an asteroid could hit causing nuclear winter. but WE AS HUMANS can no longer stop the melting. the world heats and cools as a natural process and the earth can heal itself; but we took away the tools needed to heal. the trees and plants take in CO2 and expell O2. so we cut down the trees. we coated the leaves with pollution to hinder photosyntisis. we put sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere so the life giving rain is now acid rain which destroys the plants. we've paved over the earth instead of replacing what we destroyed. we poisoned the ground and ground water with chemicals making it worthless. there are pristine lakes in the wilderness poisoned with mercury from mining. is that enough cause and effect for you? the earth will heal but only after another ice age. the same way it did after the permian extinction. but that's a few thousand years away.
How much of climate change is man made?
How much man made climate change is acceptable?
Would some of the listed changes you gave possibly still be occurring without man's help?
All that said I believe we should be doing what we can to lessen our impact on the earth. But don't forget that some of our eco-harming adaptations have been instumental in saving billions of lives.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
AT WHAT COST? at what cost do we kill ourselves? we have people living to almost 100 to have them die from the heat on the streets? they are dying now. skin cancer is rampant NOW; not maybe or in the future. we've destroyed our protection from the sun you can't go out without sunscreen anymore. NOW! not long ago we could walk up to a stream and get a drink. you can't do that NOW. not long ago you could eat snow; you can't do that NOW. the last clean water is saved for thousands of years in the glasiers and icecaps. they're melting into the sea. NOW! we have video. the forests that clean the air are greatly diminished. NOW. not in a few years. the tops of the trees are dead from acid rain accross the rockys and canada. NOW. they're dead right now.
i'm beating a dead horse here. there is none so blind as he that will not see. instead of pointing fingers why don't you go out and enjoy what we have left of this wonderful earth. it will be here for thousands of years but it's climate won't support life. we let it go too far and we know it NOW.
peace out
Not long ago people starving to death was common in North America. Indian tribes getting nearly wiped out by a harsh winter was common. Now you freak out because people have to put on sunscreen and or wear a hat when they go outside. Let's get some perspective here. Never has human life expectancy been longer. Personally I'll take dieing of cancer because I couldn't afford an air conditioner now, to dieing at 40 of an easily treatable disease 200 years ago. I call this good progress, not perfect but good.
Humans will do what they've always done and what we are better than jsut about every other species at, we will adapt. It's a key point in evolution, adapt or die.
And if as you say "we let it go too far" then why should we spend any money trying to make it better? Or is this just more hyperbole that we've come to expect from the enviro crowd?
I will enjoy nature on my way home tonight, on the nearly hour bike road. I refuse to see it in a doom and gloom manner though.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
we did a good job. we killed ourselves and everything living. if the climate isn't a cause in our death; it will certainly be the cause in our childrens deaths. i come from a family of decorated scientists and it's too late. some things will adapt but the earth will never be as we remember it.
history has proven that's what we always do. when we can't solve a problem we throw money at it. it seems you can't see outside your own backyard so i'm done here.
SELFISHNESS AND GREED.
that's it dude. simple isn't it? the best part is you can prove it to yourself. sit down with a history book and fan through the ages. (yes; ages).
you can wring out a sponge so many times that it renders no more water.
1) Since 1958 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from ~305 ppm (parts per million) and steadily risen to ~375 ppm. Correspondingly global temperatures have risen by 0.6C (~1.0F) which does not sound like a lot but considering the last age saw an annual temperature difference of about 5.0F, a small change can mean a big difference. Our CO2 output is only increasing and if we accept that the greenhouse effect is legit, than we can only conclude that temperatures will also continue to increase. If CO2 continues to increase at the same rate as it has, we are likely to have temperatures increase to between 2.5-10.4 C. Even at best case scenario at 2.5C, this is very substantial as we have seen it doesn't take a huge increase to yield massive change. Furthermore, it will effect the most vulnerable places (arctic regions) A LOT more than equatorial areas which may not see too much change, but near the poles it is likely to see a double digit change in temperature. In conclusion, there is lots of evidence to assert that the CO2 output alone makes us responsible for atmospheric changes which control temperature. Keep in mind that globally (think India and China, we are going to see millions of new driver/cars as well as many new industries all of which produce tons of CO2 along with thefact that forests are continuing to be cut and burned down therefore removing the natural systems that remove CO2.
2) I believe human impact should be negligible at best when it comes to climatic change. The atmosphere is too fragile and too important to be messed with. Its not just a local change or loss, but a planetary problem. If climate changes, it impacts and disturbs an entire planet's worth of ecosystems which it cannot adapt to quickly enough. The planet and nature is resilient, but I think extinction rates have shown that it cannot adapt quickly enough to compete with human intervention.
3) Yes, it is possible that some changes are due to natural changes, however, we cannot deny that we are emitting billions of tons of CO2 and other green house gasses into the atmosphere while at the same time removing the earth's defences. The atmosphere is extremely thin and vulnerable to change. I think we demonstrated that by ripping a hole in the ozone layer in only a few decades. you have said that you concur that the greenhouse theory is valid, so doesn't it add up??
Lastly, even if humans can adapt, the same may not be said about other living things on this earth. To me they are just as important if not more important than humans for the longevity and sustenence of the planet's ecosystems. We are losing key ingredients that keep our planet healthy due to human intervention including climate change. I'm incredibly saddened by the loss of biodiversity in nature and even more so that so many more species will be lost in my lifetime.