Climate change impact needs to be less negative

Climate change has become one of the world's hottest topics with thousands of different news putting various processes into the climate change equation. What is actually happening to our planet, and what can we do to make climate change impact less negative?

The first thing you need to know is that Earth's climate is in the constant process of change, we could even say that it has its ups and downs. Our planet's history shows us that the periods of hot and cold climate were naturally exchanging one after another, and that they have affected the entire life on our planet.

In past, nature was the main regulator of our planet’s climate but in the last century humans are the main factor behind the ongoing changes in climate, primarily because of the excessive fossil fuel burning and the resulting increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Climate change is in the current phase primarily associated with global warming. In the last 300 years average temperature on our planet has increased by approximately 0.7 degrees Celsius. In the business as usual scenario in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures will further increase, likely by more than 3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

The climate change has many scary faces which include flooding, droughts, extreme weather events, sea level rise, and new diseases.

World leaders still fail to take climate change issue seriously. There have been plenty of talks but these talks resulted in almost nothing because greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, and climate change is rapidly reaching the point where it will become irreversible.

This may not affect our generation but our children and grandchildren are bound to pay a really high price for our mistakes. The climate change issue could well become the defining point of our entire civilization.

Australia's marine ecosystems responding to climate change

More than 80 Australian marine scientists from 34 universities and research organizations have compiled the comprehensive report from which it can be seen how Australia’s marine ecosystems are responding to climate change. Among most interesting discoveries were:

1. The increasing sea temperatures have an effect on the distribution of marine plants and animals, causing many species that are currently being found in tropical and temperate waters to move south.
2. Winds and currents over the Southern Ocean are having major impact on foraging of seabirds that breed in south-east Australia and feed close to the Antarctic each summer.
3. The good news is that some tropical fish species have a greater ability to adapt to changes brought by climate change and will likely be able to acclimatize to rising water temperatures.

The Australian science community is luckily heavily involved in research, monitoring and observing climate change impact which should lead to valuable information to management on how to help marine ecosystems adapt to climate change.

This has been a very detailed report that analyzed the changes in sea temperature, sea level, the East Australian Current, the Leeuwin Current, and El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and their effects on „coral reefs, tropical, temperate and pelagic fish, marine mammals, marine reptiles, seabirds, mangroves, tidal wetlands, seagrass, macroalgae, marine microbes, phytoplankton and zooplankton.

Why new climate change deal is nowhere to be seen?

The science is almost unanimous in describing climate change as the biggest environmental threat of our time. It’s a real pity that the world leaders do not feel the same because new climate change deal is nowhere to be seen, and seems to be hugely overshadowed by the global economic meltdown.

Sure, there have been plenty of climate change talks but very little has moved forward in terms of agreeing new international deal that would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

We have been bombarded by different  reports about big differences between developed and developing world that supposedly prevent the agreement on new climate deal.  The truth behind these talks is completely different, namely neither of the big emitters is ready to make the first step and show the rest of the world the right and only logical way to move forward.

They all fear that this will create gigantic damage to their economies, and are waiting for others to make the first move, meaning that we are stuck in this pathetic status quo situation where each major country is just making up excuses instead of doing something meaningful to decrease its carbon footprint.

The fossil fuel lobbies still hold plenty of power and renewable energy industry is still fairly young. This is the main reason why the future outlook for major reduction in emissions looks bleak to say the least. The renewable energy capacity continues to grow, that's true, but as long as fossil fuels remain dominant energy sources, world will not stand any chance in fight against climate change.

Not agreeing on new climate change deal because of the possible short-term damage to economy is one of the biggest ironies in the world today, especially given the fact that climate change is already costing global economy billions of dollars, with much worse to come in not so distant future.

The politics is determining the future of our future generations, and this is anything but good. Politics is symbolized by greed and power, and this is the legacy that is bound to create major problems for our children and grandchildren.

If we fail to win the fight against climate change what kind of world will be leaving to them? Do they really deserve to pay for our mistakes, and be severely punished because of the total negligence from our part? Where's that famous humanity we so much like to talk about?

Climate change impact on developing countries

Climate change is not only major environmental issue but also a major economic issue. The fast growing climate change impact will have devastating effect on global economy, and the most affected will be the developing nations because climate change effect will limit their long-term economic growth.

Ben Olken, a professor of economics at MIT, believes that the global temperature increase will have particularly negative impact on poor developing countries, not just because of damage done to the agriculture by frequent droughts but also because this will lead to major decrease in investment, political stability and industrial output.

Olken calculated that every 1-degree-Celsius temperature increase in a poor country, over the course of a given year, reduces its economic growth by about 1.3 percentage points.

His equation only applies to the world's developing nations because rich developed world does not appear to be affected this much by these variations in temperature.

The higher than normal temperatures hurt economy on many different levels, for instance by slowing down workforce, commerce, and in some cases even the capital investment.

Olken concluded that higher temperatures in a given year affect not only country's present economic activity but its long-term economic growth prospects.

Olken and his colleagues collected temperature and economic-output data for each country in the world, in every year from 1950 through 2003, and realized that by the numbers, growth fell following hot years.

It also has to be added that this study does not include all the possible issues that could be generated by long-term climate change, such as rising oceans, floods or increased storms, meaning that the climate change economic impact could prove to be much worse in years to come.

Chronic droughts to become normal sight in years to come

Many areas of the world have experienced severe droughts in the last two decades, with one the worst drought periods being the chronic drought that hit western North America from 2000 to 2004. The result of this drought was not only dying forests and depleted river basins but also increased climate change impact due to reduction in carbon sequestration.

Since carbon emissions continue to grow these type of chronic droughts could soon become a common sight for many areas all over the world, leading to massive environmental and economic damage. Even worse, these drought may after certain period of time be seen as the good old days because climate change is set to show us even scarier face in years to come.

The chronic droughts lead to massive destruction of vegetation, and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, further amplifying global warming effect.

The trees and plants are large carbon absorbers and their increased mortality means that their ability to sequester carbon is going to severely decline with frequent droughts and resulting wildfires.

The current drought in the American Midwest is also said to be directly connected with climate change and global warming.  If the world fails to reduce global carbon emissions, the future will look much worse.

The infamous 2000-2004 drought had massive negative impact on precipitation, soil moisture, river levels, crops, forests and grasslands, and this current drought in Midwest could follow this pattern, and was already called the worst since the Dust Bowl.

The scientists from the Oregon State University said in their latest study that „the situation will continue to worsen, and that 80 of the 95 years from 2006 to 2100 will have precipitation levels as low as, or lower than the 2000-2004 drought“.

The worst part of this story is that droughts are just one of many scary faces that climate change has.

The global temperatures continue to rise with warm July

The global temperatures continue to rise as the June 2012 was the fourth warmest June since record keeping began in 1880. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists said that the average global temperature over land and ocean surfaces was 61.03°F, 1.13°F above the 20th century average.

The clear sign of ongoing global warming is also the fact that the June 2012 also represents the 36th consecutive June and 328th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

The scientists also report that most areas of North America, Eurasia, and northern Africa have experienced significant above-average monthly temperatures with only Australia, northern and Western Europe, and the northwestern United States being somewhat cooler than average.

The only real exception to the warmer than usual June was United Kingdom where temperatures were 0.5°F below the 1971-2000 average, making this the coolest June in the last 20 years.

If we look at the oceans alone then we can see that the June global ocean surface temperature was 0.85°F above the 20th century average of 61.5°F, making it the 10th warmest June on record.

By the current looks of it July and August should follow the June pattern, giving yet another clear proof of the ongoing global warming phenomenon.

Climate change impact on animal species

Climate change is one of tremendous dangers, which might occur in the next 100 years. To date it is of scientific concern to forecast what transformations will happen to the world, including natural environment, technology, social livelihood, etc. Animals are probably the only living creatures, which have already passed the age of major natural alterations dozens of millions years ago, at least some of them did. Do you remember dinosaurs, much depicted by modern film industry? That’s right, this is animal species, which could not overcome severe climate change. Age of tropic climate has been replaced by glacial eras for several times, but what consequences might bring next climate change period for animal habitat?

1.       Temperature shift is one of the most urgent in this context. In particular, it influences on processes in a body of any being, and the nature taken as a whole. Plants can experience severe changes, which leads to meal disorder for animals. Therefore, they may have less food to eat and, in the end, reduction of species sizes or even population quantity is unavoidable. In addition, scholars from Singapore National University state that hot temperature and unstable precipitations will definitely reduce body sizes of animals. In particular, their research gives some examples of possible body mass decline: fish – on 6-22% per 1°, bugs – 1-3%, salamanders   -14%. For the last 50 years certain species have already experienced major body decrease (common frogs (Bufobufo), red deer (Cervuselaphus), and marine iguanas (Amblyrhynchuscristatus).

2.       The emergence of new species and decrease of common ones is also a point to consider. Scientists from Washington University claim that some animals have not much time to avoid climate change influence. The Earth temperature rises due to greenhouse gases, the climate in Western Hemisphere will change dramatically and mammals in the North and South America will have to move into new habitats, which are more suitable for their existence. According to scientific estimates, 9% of American species, as well as 40% of animals from other regions, will not manage to escape climate change due to low speed.

3.       On the contrary, tropical species might also clash with despite the fact that hot climate is essential for them.The key thing is that there are some animal kinds, which possess extra-sensitivity to even the slightest temperature shifts. 

4.       Among already confirmed species, which are likely to survive, there are many carnivore species, armadillos, deer, coyotes and some moose. Many of these animals can move at a fairly long distances to reach the places where they can normally survive quickly.

5.       Massive animal migration to colder planet areas is noticed even today. There are 2 thousand records about changes of animal areal borders. Equatorial species move with a speed of 1,5 km / year to Northern and Southern poles, while birds are flying 12 meters higher. So, the direct influence of climate change on animals and their habitat is a no-doubt-issue, which testifies the probability of species’ survival. 

How serious is the sea level rise threat?

There have been numerous studies pointing to the connection between climate change and sea level rise, warning the world that in not so far future from now many parts of the world will likely experience severe flooding if global temperatures continue to grow.

The latest such study comes from Michael Schaeffer of Climate Analytics and Wageningen University who claims that even if we limit global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, global sea levels will still continue to rise, reaching between 1.5 and 4 metres above present-day levels by the year 2300.

He also concluded that if world were to limit rise in global temperatures to below 1.5 degrees Celsius this would likely halve sea-level rise by 2300, compared to a 2-degree scenario.

These studies attract plenty of public attention, despite being just assumptions of future „could be“ scenarios. The scientists admit the fact that it is very difficult to quantify the level of sea level rise in years to come, especially because it is still uncertain whether global sea level found for the past could be carried into the future.

These future estimates, despite still being connected with significant level of uncertainty, all point to the fact that we must take sea level rise issue far more seriously than we are doing it today.

If we continue business as usual scenario sea level rise will spell major problems for many coastal areas all over the globe. Coastal communities are already running out of time to adapt to global rise in sea levels.

The affected areas will not only be low lying deltaic countries like Bangladesh and Netherlands, and small islands, but also major cities such as New York. Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said that one metre sea level rise would increase the frequency of severe flooding from once per century to once every three years for New York City.

How much does deforestation contribute to climate change?

The emissions coming from deforestation play significant role in climate change phenomenon though not as much as previously predicted. According to a latest NASA study the previous estimates about the contribution of emissions from deforestation in total worldwide man-made carbon emissions need to be significantly reduced to get the real picture.

The NASA used satellite data in order to determine the actual contribution of deforestation in global emissions in period from 2000-2005. Their conclusion was that deforestation accounted for approximately 10 percent of the total worldwide man-made carbon emissions in the period from 2000-2005.

This percentage is roughly one third of previously published estimates. It also has to be said that is the first study that used satellite data while previous studies mostly used tabular bookkeeping models to obtain the numbers.

Though this is a significantly smaller percentage than previously thought this doesn't change the fact that deforestation is still one of the top climate change contributors.

Deforestation is primarily connected with tropical rainforests. These ancient forests are huge carbon sinkers and absorb large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere. This means that the destruction of these forests not only creates new emissions but also reduces the total forests cover, doubling the negative impact on climate change.

We are still talking about the losses of millions of hectares of forest per year which represents a major environmental issue, not only because of the climate change issue, but also because tropical forests are areas with the richest biodiversity on our planet, meaning that many plant and animal species will lose their homes if we continue this path of destruction.

The scientists soon plan to update this study with information whether the carbon emissions from deforestation increased or decreased in the second half of the 2000s.

Increased forest cover doesn't always mean better carbon storage

The currently dominant opinion is that the more forests we plant the more carbon it will be stored. This is true in most cases but not always as the latest study by the University of Exeter shows.

Dr Iain Hartley from the University of Exeter argues that the fact that Arctic is becoming more and greener isn't beneficial for climate change because the carbon stored in Arctic tundra could be released into the atmosphere by new trees growing in the warmer region, which could exacerbate climate change impact even further.

The greening usually results in more carbon dioxide (CO2) being sink from the atmosphere, therefore helping to reduce the impact of climate change but this is not the case with Arctic tundra.

The expansion of forest into Arctic tundra could stimulate decomposition rates in soils leading to significant release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Tundras are specific because their soil contains plenty of stored organic matter, due to slow decomposition, and the new trees stimulate the decomposition of this matter leading to more release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The scientists believe that Arctic soils currently store more carbon than is present in the atmosphere and so the release of this stored carbon could have devastating impact on climate change.

The role of soil conditions is yet to be fully understood in climate change equation. By the current looks of it planting new trees in Arctic tundra doesn’t look to be beneficial for climate change, in fact, it could lead to more bad climate change news. It is up to science to determine whether this pattern is confined strictly to Arctic or not.