Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts

Thursday, May 05, 2011

April tornadoes caused by climate change, population growth, and pavement

Photo: noaa.gov

April's 297 devastating tornadoes were unparalleled in the U.S. Of the four biggest tornado clusters ever recorded here, two occurred this past April. What caused so many deadly and tragic tornadoes in a single month?

Meterorologists say chance is partly to blame. One little thing can set off a tornado, or not.

We do understand a lot about factors that cause tornadoes, though. They need warm, most air interacting with cooler, faster air. A thunderstorm coupled with something to create rotation, such as wind shear, can create a tornado. Are those conditions occuring together more often these days?

Changing climate is partly a factor, say meteorologists. Jet stream forces in April were among the strongest ever recorded, contributing to wetter, stormier weather than usual in the middle of the country. (I wrote a post recently about how warming Arctic air has sent the circumpolar jet stream shooting off southward, leading to the massive snow falls the U.S. experienced this winter.)

The stormier April was also caused in part by warm air from the U.S (warmer than usual due to climate change) colliding with cooler Canadian air - conditions that can spawn tornadoes.

Population growth and pavement contribute to number of tornadoes

More people are living now in "Tornado Alley" - the nation's midsection and the South - so more tornadoes are observed and recorded.

Some of the states hit hardest by tornadoes this year were also among our fasted growing states - such as Texas and North Carolina. The South has grown 14.3% in the past decade, compared to 9.7% for the nation as a whole. According to Kirk Johnson of the NYT, much of that growth occurred in areas of flood plain, where water used to spread out and be absorbed. But now that the areas are developed and paved, water runs off quickly, heated by the pavement, and is much more likely to cause floods of warm water. The evaporation of warm water can lead to storms, and collisions of air masses of different temperatures and densities. Ingredients for tornadoes.

Climatologists have long predicted that climate change will lead to stronger storms as we head into the future. Apparently that will include not only hurricanes, droughts, blizzards, and floods, but also tornadoes.

Keywords: tornado, tornadoes, climate change, population growth, pavement, April tornadoes

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Duke Energy fuels the extreme weather that drives up our bills


This letter to the editor was written in response to "Scientists connect global warming to extreme rain" (Feb.17) and "Duke earnings up 23% in 2010" (Feb. 18)

"Thursday the Observer reported that 'telltale fingerprints' in scientific data confirm that manmade climate change is fueling extreme weather events such as massive snowstorms and rainstorms. Friday we learned that Duke Energy's 2010 earnings were up 23 percent, in large part because of extreme weather.

"Now, Duke Energy wants to raise rates to pay for new coal-fired power plants. Burning coal is a huge cause of the climate crisis. Climate change is not a "victimless crime." Extreme weather hurts people. But it's great for Duke Energy.

"Let's call on Duke Energy to stop fueling the extreme weather that's driving up our electric bills and Duke's profits. Duke should shut down some coal plants and promote drastic conservation and energy efficiency."
 Keywords: Duke Energy coal emissions climate change energy efficiency Duke Energy drives up energy bills Duke Energy drives up coal emissions Duke Energy fuels climate change Duke Energy fuels extreme weather coal fuels extreme weather coal fuels climate change

Friday, February 04, 2011

Massive snowfalls due to Arctic warming, breakdown of polar vortex

 Photo by Sally Kneidel

Why are massive snowfalls and cold air walloping the U.S. for the second year in a row?

I listened to the climate reporter for the NY Times, Justin Gillis, on NPR yesterday. He said our current weather is due to a breakdown in the "polar vortex." Gillis mentioned that the U.S. had warmer winters up through 1995 - thought to be due to global climate change. Now record-setting blizzards are dumping massive amounts of snow over large areas of the U.S. And that too is thought to be due to global climate change. Does that make sense? It does.

This morning I read the newsletter of Thomas Homer-Dixon, a climate scientist in the U.K. He explained what the polar vortex is, how the melting of Arctic ice has changed it, and how that change is responsible for our brutal winter.
Even areas of the South have had multiple snowfalls this year. Photo: Sally Kneidel

What is the "polar vortex"?

Dr. Homer-Dixon explains it this way. Usually in early winter, a basin of low-pressure air forms over the Arctic Ocean's cold sea ice. Jet streams travel west to east along this basin's southern edge, creating a huge circular flow - the polar vortex - that travels counterclockwise around the Arctic. This flow acts as a fence, separating the Arctic's cold air from warmer air farther south.

A warmer Arctic apparently causes colder continents

According to Homer-Dixon and other climate scientists, heat was released last winter (in Dec and Feb) by newly exposed water in the Arctic - water that used to be ice. That heat created bulges of high-pressure air over the Arctic which pressed against the polar vortex, destabilizing it. The jet streams that comprise the polar vortex broke into disconnected segments, some of which traveled north to south, pulling bitterly cold air into North America, Europe and eastern China.
 Photo by Sally Kneidel

That change in wind directions is called the "Warm Arctic - Cold Continents" climate pattern.

Scientists can't say for sure yet whether the same thing is responsible for this year's brutal winter. But they do know that jet-stream maps for the Northern Hemisphere in late November 2010 showed the jet streams broken into "bits, pieces, loops, and circles with many north-to-south flows over North America and Eurasia."

Writes Dr. Homer-Dixon, "People who think this winter's brutish weather proves climate change isn't real might want to think again."

Keywords: climate change polar vortex Arctic ice Thomas Homer-Dixon record snow harsh winter

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

New study: Hope for polar bears

 Polar bear. Photo credit: wikimedia commons

Two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear within 50 years due to greenhouse-gas emissions, said a 2007 report by the U.S. Geological Survey. The bears need Arctic sea ice in order to hunt the seals and other offshore prey that sustain them. But our warming climate is rapidly melting the vital sea ice.  Between 1979 and 2010, Arctic sea ice cover decreased by an average of 11.5% per decade. Due to loss of ice, many bears are starving to death already. The polar bear, Ursus maritimus, is now officially listed as "threatened."
Polar bear hunting along the edge of sea ice. Photo credit: wikimedia commons

A team of scientists stationed in Alaska may have some tentative good news, though. They just published a new assessment of polar bears' future in the Dec 16 (2010) edition of the journal Nature. Steven Amstrup, senior scientist with "Polar Bears International," and his team reported five possible scenarios for greenhouse-gas emissions and ice melting this century. The researchers concluded that Arctic sea ice may not necessarily reach a catastrophic "tipping point" that would lead to an inevitable disintegration of all the ice.  The future of the bears' ice depends on how much we can limit greenhouse-gas emissions in the years to come and how much we can stabilize the climate. One factor in the bears' favor is that thinner ice (as it diminishes) becomes more responsive to the cold water below it and can more easily regrow in winter.

Amstrup's team used climate modeling to predict "sea ice habitability" for the bears over the coming decades, an index that includes the amount of ice over the shallow waters (continental shelves) where seals and other prey hang out, the number of months per year those waters are covered with ice, and the distance between that ice and the more northerly pack ice where polar bears also hunt (there's a limit to how far polar bears can swim from one ice mass to another).
Polar bear swimming from one pack of ice to another. Photo credit: wikimedia commons

Says Amstrup, “There’s a widely held perception that nothing can be done to help polar bears and the arctic ecosystem. Our findings show this isn’t true. Our findings offer a message of hope but they also underscore the urgent need for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. ”

For more information about Amstrup's study and a 2-minute video message from the bear researcher, go to this page on "Polar Bears International." Or check it out on youtube, called "Hope for Polar Bears" by Steven Amstrup.

Keywords: polar bears Steven Amstrup Polar Bears International bear conservation climate change greenhouse gas emissions global warming Arctic sea ice

Our books on this topic:Veggie Revolution: Smart Choices for a Healthy Body and a Healthy Planet. 2005. Sally and Sadie Kneidel. Fulcrum Books.

Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. 2008. Sally and Sadie Kneidel. Fulcrum Books.


Some of my previous posts about how you can reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
Livestock produce 51% of annual worldwide gas emissions

New study: meat impacts climate more than buying local

Less meat....smaller footprint

Is local food the greenest choice?  New study says no

Earth Day: 3 things you can do

Friday, January 21, 2011

Banding hurts penguins, says new study in journal Nature

Text and photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD 
Attaching bands to birds is a longstanding method of studying bird populations. The bands allow researchers to collect data on birds' movements and longevity.

But scientists have been debating for 30 years whether bands on penguins may hurt the birds.  On aquatic or marine birds, such as penguins, bands are generally attached to the front base of a flipper rather than to a leg.

Note metal band on this African (Jackass) Penguin, on front of left flipper. Photo: Sally Kneidel, southern tip of Africa [click on photo to enlarge it]

Zookeepers noticed as early as the 1970s that flipper-bands can injure molting penguins.  It's now suspected that bands also create drag when penguins are swimming, which could interfere with prey capture.

A new study published Jan 12, 2011 in the journal Nature provides strong evidence that bands do hurt penguins' survival and reproduction. Yvon Le Maho of the University of Strasbourg in France and his colleagues banded 50 King Penguins from Possession Island in the southern Indian Ocean. These 50 birds had already been implanted with "minute" and subcutaneous electronic tags. Over the course of a 10-year study, Moho and colleagues found that the banded penguins produced 40% fewer chicks and had a 16% lower survival rate compared to 50 nonbanded penguins

Subcutaneous tags, while safer, are a relatively new technology and not yet widely used in ecological studies.  "Still today you will find that most US studies on Adélie penguins use flipper banding," says Le Maho.  But his new publication may encourage the increased use of subcutaneous tags instead.

Climate change studies at stake

There's a wider issue at stake than the birds' welfare: studies on penguins are often used to gauge the effects of climate change on ecosystems. If a study suggests that a slight warming of ocean waters reduces penguin survival, how much of the difference could actually be due to banding effects?

For the birds and for the sake of our climate data, subcutaneous tags that create no drag should replace flipper-banding in future studies with penguins.

Keywords: penguins, bird banding, flipper banding, climate change, subcutaneous tags

Monday, October 18, 2010

Review of new food film: "What's on YOUR Plate?"

This post now on Google News and on the syndicated BasilandSpice.com


Two young girls lead the way

I was asked to review the new DVD, "What's on YOUR Plate? The Film about Kids and Food Politics". The stars of the movie are two 11-year-old multiracial girls in NYC, Sadie Hope-Gund and Safiyah Riddle. The film documents the girls' quest to learn why American diets are often so unhealthy, and why our food travels an average of 1500 miles from farm to fork. Sadie and Safiyah were fantastic in their roles as curious young consumers. They were bright, confident, and completely natural in front of the camera. Great role models for other young girls, who will feel empowered by watching the two in action.
Sadie and Safiyah interviewed a variety of relevant experts: NYC school food executives, an MD specializing in cholesterol management, food author and activist Anna Lappé, a food-conscious diabetic, and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. That was just for starters.

After investigating school lunches laden with with fat and empty calories, and the corporate origins of processed foods that fill our supermarkets, Sadie and Safiyah turned their focus to healthy alternatives.

I loved the diversity of local food providers in the film

For me, the exploration of solutions was the most interesting aspect of the movie. I admired the filmmakers' selection of people to represent the local-foods movement in NYC. Three who stood out for me were Maritza Owens of Harvest Home Farmers Markets in Harlem, a Spanish-speaking family of farmers (the Angels) in Goshen, NY, and the founders of Stanton Street CSA (Kevin Walter and Sasha Schulman). A CSA is an agreement that allows consumers to prepay a local farmer for an annual share of his or her produce. All of these people were involved in getting locally-grown produce directly to consumers in NYC. At least some of the produce was organic; it wasn't clear to me whether all of it was.
Organic okra in October. Photo: Sally Kneidel

Ninety percent of farmers need second jobs to support their families

So the movie in a very visceral way illustrated how to seek out and support local farmers and local vendors who provide healthy fresh vegetables. Most such people are barely making ends meet and desperately need community support, so the movie is valuable if it accomplishes nothing more than encouraging support of local farmers. I also appreciated the variety of cultures represented in the film, and the discussions about neighborhoods and demographic groups with little access to fresh produce. The girls' interview with the Manhattan Borough President addressed that problem specifically.

An excellent resource for families and educators

I was impressed with the movie and I applaud the efforts of everyone involved. I highly recommend it for families with children and as a tool for educators, especially educators of young people. In fact, the website of the film's distributor offers a 64-page curriculum and 3 study modules that go along with the DVD, entitled School Food, Health and Access, and Local Food.

Although I liked it, I wouldn't necessarily advise an adult foodie who's already knowledgeable about farmers markets and CSAs to seek out the film. And it's not a movie I would have chosen to watch purely for my own enjoyment or for information about food. However, as a food writer with fantasies about making a documentary, I might watch it again as an example of an extremely well-executed film about food. Sadie's mother, Catherine Gund, produced the movie and her expertise as a professional filmmaker was evident. There was not a dull moment, and I can easily imagine a class of 8th graders or 11th graders riveted to the screen during the entire film.

Wish it had mentioned the ominous impacts of livestock

As long as we're examining "what's on our plates", I was a tad disappointed that the documentary didn't address the merits of organic food more forcefully, and didn't mention the fact that Americans eat much more meat per capita than any other country. Our over-consumption of animal products has implications far beyond our health. The livestock sector has a huge impact on global warming - a fact well-documented by scientists worldwide. A recent paper published by Worldwatch Institute attributes more than 50% of greenhouse gases to the livestock sector. Although the film didn't get into environmental issues much, it could easily have incorporated both these issues in relation to health - especially given that both girls are vegetarians.

Hogs for a popular sausage brand, raised on a N.C. factory farm. Photo: Sally Kneidel

Despite omissions, the film is a powerful tool

There are advantages though to covering a few topics well rather than touching on everything. No question that Sadie and Safiyah covered a few topics with pizzazz and aplomb. "What's on YOUR Plate?" invites young viewers to boldly seek answers about their own school food and demand access to healthy produce. We all deserve fresh, local, and wholesome food.

Our books about how our food choices affect our health and the environment:

Sally and Sadie Kneidel. 2005. Veggie Revolution: Smart Choices for a Healthy Body and a Healthy Planet. Fulcrum Publishing.

Sally and Sadie Kneidel. 2008. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. Fulcrum Publishing.

Some of my previous posts about the effect of diet on health and the environment:

"Livestock account for 51% of annual worldwide greenhouse gas emissions"

"New study: meat impacts climate more than buying local"

"Less meat....smaller footprint"

"Is local food the greenest choice? New study says no"

"Earth Day: 3 things you can do"

"An apple? Bran muffin? or cold cereal? Top ten sources of easy fiber"

"10 hot tips for a green and energy-efficient holiday."

"Obama to fight consolidation of farms: good news for small farms and consumers"

"Smithfield blamed for swine flu by Mexican press"

"The virus is a swine flu and has its roots in North Carolina, the land of Smithfield"

"Tyson and Smithfield drooling over untapped profits abroad"

"Working in a turkey insemination factory"

"A tasty vegan meat substitute: Tofurkey kielbasa"

Key words: DVD documentary movie film review What's on your Plate Sadie Safiyah CSA farmers markets local food NYC Maritza Owens Stanton Street CSA Catherine Gund organic livestock sector Worldwatch

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Climate change is speeding up insect breeding

Orange-sulphur butterfly, photo by Alan Kneidel

This post now appearing on the DailyMe

Those of us concerned about greenhouse gases and climate change have a new study to ponder. This study, from Dr. Florian Altermatt at UC Davis, documents once again the biological effects of global warming.

Altermatt examined insect data from Central Europe. Temperatures have been increasing there for decades, but particularly since 1980. This European warming trend is increasing the number of generations per year for some insects.

Altermatt discovered this by analyzing climate records and population data for 263 butterfly and moth species in Central Europe. He included only species that are known to have more than one generation per year, at least occasionally.

Because the warming trend in Central Europe has been more dramatic since 1980, he compared insect-breeding data before 1980 to insect-breeding data after 1980.

He found that, for 190 of the 263 species examined (=72%), the second or subsequent generation became more pronounced after 1980 compared with before 1980.  In other words, for most of the species he examined, there were more generations per year after 1980.

So what?
What difference does that make to the ecology of our planet?  There are a number of potential repercussions, few of them good.

For one thing, many crop pests are larvae of moths or butterflies, such as the cabbage white and the tomato hornworm - to name just a couple from my own garden.  A population that is having more generations per year will grow in number faster than a population with fewer generations per year, all other things being equal. So global warming could mean faster-proliferating insect pests, hence higher numbers of insect pests on crops.

In addition to that, higher numbers of a particular insect species can lead that species to deplete its food source, or outcompete and eliminate its competitors for limited resources such as food or breeding sites.

Ecosystems can be altered if just one species goes awry
Another potential result of an overblown insect population could be increases in the predators of this insect species. Predators of butterflies, moths, and their larvae include birds, lizards, mice, toads, parasitic wasps, and many more. If these predator populations increase, this could have a dampening effect on the other prey of these predators, prey that could have economic value - or could be significant species in their respective ecosystems.  As ecologists have demonstrated repeatedly, eliminating any species from an ecosystem, or even just changing the density of one species, can have profound effects on the stability of the ecosystem as a whole.  Ecosystems are highly complex systems whose parts are intricately interdependent. 

The principle that Altermatt demonstrated is far more significant than the particulars he reported.  Specifically, he showed that 72% of the moths and butterflies he looked at in Central Europe have more generations per year now that the climate is warmer.  But his data suggest something far more sinister....that any or all terrestrial invertebrates may have their breeding disrupted in some fashion by climate change.

Most animal species are invertebrates
The vast majority of animal species on this planet are invertebrates, which are much more directly susceptible to temperature changes, since their body temperature fluctuates with the air or water around them. When invertebrates are warmer, all of their physiological processes are speeded up.  This is unlike warm-blooded mammals and birds (including humans), whose body temperatures remain the same regardless of ambient temperatures (disregarding accidents such as a plunge into frigid waters).

Are negative consequences inevitable?
We don't really know. Animals that have more generations can adapt faster to changing conditions. Or maybe more insects could mean more prey for birds that are declining.  It's conceivable that there could be benefits to having insects breed faster.  Is that the most likely outcome?  I don't know.  But I don't think so.  The few stable ecosystems we have remaining are the result of millions of years of co-evolution.  It's hard to think that a few years of random interference is going to improve millions of years of fine-tuning.

What can be done?
Reduce your own carbon footprint.  Residents of the United States generate more greenhouse gases per person than residents of any other country in the world.

The easiest thing you can do, every day,  is to eat fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute).  The Worldwatch Institute, a prominent environmental think-tank, reports that the livestock sector generates 51% of greenhouse gases worldwide.

Find ways to drive less. Carpool, ride your bike, take public transportation.  If you do drive, use a fuel-efficient car.

Choose a passive-solar home, which can reduce your heating and cooling needs to almost nothing.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has reported that our diets, our transportation, and the way we heat and cool our homes are the biggest consumer contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in general.

Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and learn more about how to reduce your own carbon footprint.

We have only a short window of opportunity over the next few years to have any hope of slowing global climate change.  Once the ice sheets are all melted, the loss of all that white ice reflecting solar radiation away from the planet will accelerate the process of global warming.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:
Florian Altermatt.  12/22/2009. "Climatic warming increases voltinism in European butterflies and moths." Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. 2008. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. Fulcrum Books.

Some of my recent posts about climate change:
North Carolina's vital coastal breeding grounds vulnerable to climate change

Tree deaths have doubled due to climate change

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car 

Keywords:: climate change greenhouse gases global warming carbon footprint Florian Altermatt increase number of generations in butterflies Central Europe voltinism Proceedings of Royal Society B UC Davis

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

North Carolina's vital coastal breeding grounds vulnerable to rising seas

This post now on Google News and on wwwbasilandspice.com


 Map of coastal NC with barrier islands,  
courtesy of www.cop.noaa.gov

I've written posts about Florida and Louisana losing ground to rising seas. Both states are projected to lose at least 10% of their land mass this century.

North Carolina hasn't gotten has much press as Louisiana and Florida, but NC is among the states most vulnerable to rising seas, reports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Coastal inundation in North Carolina would affect industries and wildlife far beyond the state's borders.

The Outer Banks protect the mainland
North Carolina's mainland coast is at present protected by a continuous arc of barrier islands known as the Outer Banks. The Outer Banks take the full brunt of the hurricanes and tropical storms that often strike the Atlantic coast of the southern U.S. Over the past few decades, the Outer Banks have become increasingly developed with expensive vacation real estate as well as year-round communities.

One undeveloped area on the Outer Banks is the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, which remains a breeding ground for sea turtles and for thousands of shore birds, including endangered species such as the Piping Plover.

The people and the wildlife of the Outer Banks are extremely vulnerable to rising seas.

NC seas could rise 4.6 feet, says panel on January 16
A panel of scientists and engineers reported on January 15, 2010, that the sea level on the NC coast may rise as much as 4.6 feet this century. Even a rise of 3 feet, they report, would wipe out the Outer Banks. If or when that happens, the repercussions will be far flung.


Rising seas likely to wipe out vital breeding grounds
Between the Outer Banks and North Carolina's mainland are brackish wetlands and the calm waters of the Pamlico Sound, an area of fewer predators than the open ocean. The Pamlico Sound serves as a nursery for much of the young sea life of the entire East Coast. But if the Banks are submerged, the Sound and 2300 square miles of low-lying marshland will be flooded with saltier sea water, which will destroy the brackish ecosystem, as well as the fishes that are adapted to the less salty water of the Pamlico Sound as youngsters.

This is not just a nightmare for naturalists and ecologists. The commercial fishing industry would also be devastated by the loss of this important breeding ground.

Although scientists cannot predict with certainty how much sea levels will rise this century, estimates by climate scientists are leaning toward higher numbers. Ice sheets in Greenland are are shifting faster than expected, and indications of unstable ice are appearing in Antarctica, reports Gordon Hamilton of the University of Maine. Writes Bruce Henderson of the Charlotte Observer, "Ice sheets in Greenland alone could raise global seas some 20 feet."  This is a generally accepted approximate figure. The question is, how long will it take?  And will we be able to stop or slow the process?

What can you do?
We can work to slow the process by reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions. As residents of the United States, we have the highest per capita generation of GG in the world. We can reduce our output by
eating fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute), by driving less, carpooling, driving fuel-efficient cars, choosing passive-solar homes, and in general burning fewer fossil fuels. Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and learn more how to reduce your own carbon footprint. We all have to participate, if we are to reduce global climate change during the short window of opportunity we have over the next few years.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:
Bruce Henderson. "Sea rising along N.C., but how quickly? Accelerating upward creep could reshape the coast and endanger Outer Banks, scientists say." The Charlotte Observer. January 16, 2010.

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. 2008. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. Fulcrum Books.

Some of my recent posts about climate change:

Tree deaths have doubled due to climate change

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car


Keywords: rising sea levels climate change Outer Banks North Carolina fisheries devastated endangered birds

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Trees deaths have doubled due to climate change

This post now on www.basilandspice.com

Climate change is killing our trees.  This is an unfortunate irony, because we rely on living trees to remove and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Dead trees do the opposite - their decomposition releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for global climate change. 

This tree data comes from a study published recently in the prestigious journal Science. The authors examined records of tree deaths from 76 plots of healthy old-growth temperate forests in the western U.S. and Canada, ranging from British Columbia to Arizona.  The scientists reported that trees are falling twice as fast as they were 50 years ago.

The study included only trees that died for "noncatastrophic" reasons.  That is, they were not victims of wildfires or huge outbreaks of pine beetles, but were routine deaths.  Overall, more than 58,000 trees were monitored for the study.

Little numbers add up to a big number
The number of routine deaths were relatively small, said co-author Mark Harmon of Oregon State University in Corvallis, but "a lot of little numbers can add up to a big number."

If this trend continues, forests of the future may be composed of younger and thinner trees that store less carbon than the larger trees of today.  Such an effect, in addition to increased decomposition, would speed the rate of global warming.

Warm temps have changed water dynamics
The scientists concluded that the deaths were not due to air pollution such as ozone because many of the trees were in national forests with relatively clean air.  The more likely explanation, they wrote, is that the deaths are occurring as a result of climate change.  Warming temperatures have changed water dynamics in the West, with more precipitation falling as rain than snow, with earlier snow melts and longer droughts. Trees are getting less water.  Also, climate change is giving a boost to tree pathogens that prosper in warmer temperatures.

Scientists in tropical forests have not found the same effect.  In the tropics, the growth of new trees is keeping pace with the death of old ones.

What can be done?  
Author Simon Lewis of Leeds University concluded that "systemic long-term monitoring of forests is essential as a warning system to potentially more dramatic changes."  Yes, monitoring could be useful.

In addition to that, we can all try to reduce our own carbon production: by eating fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute), by driving less, carpooling, driving fuel-efficient cars, building passive-solar homes, and in general burning fewer fossil fuels. Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and see how to reduce your own carbon footprint. We all have to participate, if we are to reduce global climate change during the short window of opportunity we have over the next few years.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:   
Phillip J. Van Mantgem et al.  "Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the Western United States." Science 23.  January 2009.

Susan Milius. "Everyday tree deaths have doubled". Science News. Feb 14. 2009

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet: Fulcrum Publishing. 2008.

A few of my recent posts about climate change:

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car

Keywords: trees dying climate change carbon footprint greenhousee gases environmental footprint

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Famous ice caps of Kilimanjaro gone by 2022



All photos and text by Sally Kneidel, PhD, at sallykneidel.com

Ever read "Snows of Kilimanjaro" by Ernest Hemingway?  Some of those famous Kilimanjaro glaciers have been around  for at least 11,700 years, and survived a drought 4200 years ago that lasted 300 years. But pretty soon, those legendary snows and ice fields will be gone - another casualty of global climate change.

Or so says glaciologist Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his colleagues from Ohio State University. Thompson and his team used data from aerial surveys and field studies to assess changes in the glaciers of Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro. The field studies included glacial drilling to measure changes in depth. Writes Thompson, "Of the ice cover present in 1912, 85% has disappeared and 26% of that present in 2000 is now gone."  The rate of melting is accelerating, reports Thompson in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

The ice masses of Kilimanjaro are both receding up the peak, and they're thinning dramatically.  Kilimanjaro's Southern Ice Field, 21 meters thick in 2000, lost 5.1 meters between 2000 and 2007.

As the glaciers retreat and break into smaller pieces, the dark rocks become exposed and absorb more sunlight than the white ice, thus heating up faster than the ice and accelerating the melting of the surrounding ice. At the documented rates of melting, Kilimanjaro's ice fields could disappear by the year 2022, according to Thompson and his colleagues in their online article in the November 2 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Alan Kneidel by a stream of springtime glacial melt.
Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

The climatological phenomena occurring on Kilimanjaro are thought to be applicable to other tropical peaks, such as those in the Andes. Says Ted Pfeffer, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, these studies will help predict when other tropical glaciers will melt and disappear.  Many of these tropical glaciers provide water for people downhill, by way of seasonal glacial melt that is replenished by winter snowfall.


                     Above, a seasonal pool of  glacial melt in the Cordillera Blanca of the Peruvian Andes.  The melted snow has, for thousands of years, been replenished during normal winters. Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD


Above, a Quechuan family in the Andes. They have depended on seasonal glacial melt for their herding and farming needs for generations, with ancient stone aqueducts to funnel the melt to their farms. Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD


Above, another Quechuan family of farmers and herders in the valley below Mt. Huascaran, the highest tropical peak in the world. Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

What will happen when glacial melt is no longer available to communities living on and below the world's peaks? Lives will change, people will move.....who knows beyond that.

Thompson's recent publication was likely one of the studies that contributed to the Copenhagen Diagnosis. One of the conclusions of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, in its Executive Summary, is as follows:
"Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990."

So...stay tuned. Let's see what the conclusions are from the climate summit in Copenhagen. Will we all be advised to give up animal products? That would be the easiest and fastest thing to do, since Worldwatch Institute concluded that 51% of annual worldwide greenhouse-gas emissions are from livestock. I'm waiting for President Obama to tell us what we're going to do as a nation. If he doesn't include the fact that we now eat more animal products per capita than any other country, I'm going to suspect that he's not reading all the news.

This post now a Google News Link and posted on www.basilandspice.com.

Sources:
L.G. Thompson et al. "Glacier loss on Kilimanjaro continues unabated." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 11/2/2009.

Sid Perkins. "Mount Kilimanjaro could soon be bald: world renowned ice caps may disappear by the 2020s." Science News. 12/5/2009.

Copenhagen Diagnosis, Executive Summary. 2009

Sally Kneidel, PhD, "Livestock responsible for 51% of annual worldwide greenhouse-gas emissions". 

Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key factors in climate change are cows, pigs, and chickens?" Worldwatch 22(6):10-19. Nov/Dec 2009.

Key words:: melting ice caps Kilimanjaro rising sea levels climate change
                                                

Monday, December 14, 2009

Copenhagen data: ten percent of Florida underwater by end of the century

This post is now a Google News Link and is posted on Basil and Spice

This post named by Carnival of the Green #207 as "Best Green Tweet" of the week. It was posted on Twitter December 14, 2009.

I wrote a few weeks ago that ten percent of Louisiana is projected to be underwater by the year 2100. Now, it looks like Florida is in the same boat. Or perhaps I should say "in need of" the same boat.

If we apply the predictions coming from the Copenhagen climate meetings (Dec. 7-18) to the topography of Florida, then ten percent of Florida too will be inundated by the end of this century.

The new climate projections from Copenhagen are in a report called the "Copenhagen Diagnosis," composed by a group of 26 climatologists. In essence, it says that the situation is worse than we thought - glaciers and ice sheets are melting faster, oceans are rising faster. The report is a summary of hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers published in the last couple of years. The Copenhagen Diagnosis supersedes a 2007 report from the IPCC that has been the standard for reference on climate statistics since its publication a couple of years ago. Fourteen of the climatologists who compiled the Copenhagen Diagnosis were also authors of the 2007 report from the IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That IPCC report was scary enough. The IPCC chairman declared dramatically, in 2007, that action must be taken by 2012 in order to have any effect on global warming. So we should be in the midst of those corrective actions right now, which unfortunately, we are not.

Copenhagen Diagnosis more unnerving than older IPCC report

Anyway, the Copenhagen Diagnosis is even more severe than the 2-year-old IPCC report. Some specifics from the Copenhagen Diagnosis: Arctic sea ice is melting 40% faster than was projected a few years ago. The IPCC had estimated that sea levels would rise 1.9 mm per year between 1993 and 2008. We now know from satellite data that seas have risen 3.4 mm per year during that same period, which is 80% more rise than predicted. The rise is from thermal expansion (water expands as it warms) as well as melting glaciers, ice sheets, and ice caps.


According to the Copenhagen climatologists, by the end of this century global sea levels will rise at least twice as much as earlier predicted by the IPCC. If heat-trapping emissions are not reduced, the rise will be 1 to 2 meters by the year 2010. And they will keep on rising for centuries, for a total of several meters - even if global temperatures have been stabilized.

How might this affect Florida?  

What will happen in Florida when sea levels rise, say, 27 inches? Frank Ackerman, a senior economist at the Stockholm Institute, has studied that question with computer modeling. His model projects a 27-inch rise by the year 2060, just 50 years from now.


About Florida, Ackerman says, "Our map of the area vulnerable to 27 inches of sea-level rise looks like someone took a razor to the state right above Miami and sliced off everything below that, [which includes] residential real estate worth $130 billion in that, half of Florida's beaches, two nuclear reactors, three prisons, 37 nursing homes, and on and on."

What about levees, like in New Orleans and the Netherlands? Would that help?

They won't work in Florida, because the metropolitan area of South Florida is built on porous limestone.

Dr. Hal Wanless, Chairman of Geological Sciences at the University of Miami, says that rising sea levels come right up through the limestone, as was proved during Hurricane Betsy. "There's no way to put a levee around South Florida and really keep the water out."

Katy Sorenson, a County Commissioner in Miami-Dade, says "We're going to be fighting flooding year-round. And we're going to have to adapt to that." For example, building codes will have to require higher foundations, she says.

Yes, but somehow it seems that she's missing the point. Is she paying attention? When Miami is underwater, a higher foundation is not going to help.

Half the world's population live close to coasts

This issue is not restricted to Florida and Louisiana of course. Approximately 50% of the world's population live within 60 miles of a coastline. Those numbers vary a little depending upon the source; Jared Diamond says something similar in his book Collapse. And most of those people are living in developing nations with few resources and no wealth to buffer the effect of lost homes, flooded farms. This is why we'll be hearing the term "climate refuge" more and more as the years tool along.

Well. I'll be interested to hear more news from Copenhagen. The Copenhagen Diagnosis from the climatologists has certainly earned some attention. It includes general recommendations, such as this:
If global warming is to be limited to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, then global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. Annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink by 2050 to 85-90% of what emissions from industrialized nations were in the year 2000. A formidable task indeed, given the seeming inability of governments to fight the interests of big business.

I'm ready - what's the plan??

What I want to hear next is how will our country, and the world, make such cuts in greenhouse gas emissions? What's the plan, and who's in charge of executing it?

It's one thing to hear dire predictions and daunting must-do statements. They just get our attention (hopefully) so that we're listening when the specific plans for how we're going to change are announced. I hope President Obama will do his part, as the leader of the country that generates more greenhouse-gas emissions per capita than any other country in the world. I'll be waiting, with bated breath, for our leader to take the reins when he arrives in Copenhagen next week. I want him to tell us, convincingly, how we're going to navigate this tumultuous trip through the coming decades, in order to leave a planet worth living on for our descendants.

Sources:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis. Executive Summary.

Sally Kneidel, Ph.D. " One tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2100." 11/9/09

Greg Allen. "Florida faces drastic change from sea level rise." All Things Considered, National Public Radio. Dec 11, 2009.

Jared Diamond. Collapse. 2004.

Additional reading on cutting emissions:

Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key factors in climate change are cows, pigs, and chickens?" Worldwatch 22(6):10-19. Nov/Dec 2009.

Sally Kneidel, PhD. " Livestock account for 51% of annual worldwide greenhouse gas emissions." 11/2/09

Key words:: Copenhagen Diagnosis climate change sea level rise Florida flooded Florida inundated

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Budding Scientists Assess the Tiny Critters of Africa

A Great Student Opportunity
In June of 2009, Ken and I helped out with a biodiversity survey in South Africa. Most of the researchers were undergraduates from universities in the U.S. All of them had already taken a semester-long ecology course in South Africa offered by the Organization for Tropical Studies or OTS, whose home base is at Duke University. (Many of the students were also from Duke.) Dr. Laurence Kruger is the Director of OTS's South African course, and a friend of ours for the last three years or so. He lives in Kruger National Park, South Africa, and takes his ecology students all over Kruger Park and to other important ecological  sites and interesting indigenous villages in South Africa, such as Welverdiend and Hamakuya. Most of what I know about South Africa, I've learned through Laurence or his employees and connections.

 The photo above shows part of the biodiversity crew in the field. L-R is Ken Kneidel, guard Oneeka with rifle, students Allison, Sarah, Caroline, and Seth, OTS instructor Taryn in red shirt, and guard Steven Khosa with rifle over his shoulder. An OTS truck is in the background. The survey was funded by NFS, under their "Research Experience for Undergraduates " program.

Setting Up the Temporary Traps
Everyone involved in the survey was staying at Skukusa Rest Camp in Kruger National Park. The first morning at 7 a.m. we piled into a couple of trucks and drove 2-3 miles to an undisturbed area along the Sabie River. At eight different sites, we set up drift fences and drop traps to catch small animals such as frogs, toads, lizards, snakes, insects, mice, shrews, small rats, insects and other invertebrates. We also set out 16 live-traps for small mammals. The next morning, early, we went to check all the traps at all eight sites. All the little animals were measured, identified and released. By park regulations, we had to have two armed guards with us at all times, in case of encounters with angry hippos, elephants, Cape buffalo, cats, rhinos, wart hogs, baboons, or other big animals. One of the guards was our old friend from 2007, Steven Khosa, a biology student and park employee. Ken and I had hired Steven to be our personal guide in northern Kruger Park in 2007, and he was fabulous. We learned so much from him about his culture, as well as wildlife. The other guard for the biodiversity survey in 2009 was the friendly Oneeka, also a park employee, who was interested in everything we caught.

Graham, director of field operations for the South African OTS course, dug the holes for every drop trap, with this heavy power drill (above). The holes had to be big enough to accommodate big buckets sunk to ground level.

After the central bucket was sunk at each site, REU student Hannah (above) and others pounded in stakes to hold up the three plastic fences that radiated outward from the central bucket. The fences, about 1 foot tall each, are called "drift fences." At least, that's what they're called in the States. I used drift fences for my doctoral research at UNC, studying the breeding migrations of terrestrial salamanders, Ambystoma opacum and maculatum.

REU student Seth (above) made tubular traps of fiberglass windowscreen mesh to lie alongside each drift fence, to catch reptiles moving along the fence. Each end of the tubular traps had an inverted funnel of mesh, to allow entry but deter exit.
When we returned the next morning to check the traps, REU student Caroline (above) and others checked for animals in the buckets. Each of the three fences or "spokes" that radiated out from the central bucket had another bucket at the other end. When little animals encountered the fence, they crawled or hopped alongside the fence, eventually falling into one of the buckets. Caroline was studying insect diversity, so she always had a glass jar to carry insects back to the lab to ID.

A New "Old World" Lizard for Me
I don't think we caught any snakes because it was winter there in the southern hemisphere, but we did catch a few lizards like this ground agama (Agama aculeata) below. Lizards in the family Agamidae are the "old world" counterparts to the lizard family Iguanidae found in the Americas.
agamid cropped

Fantastic Frogs and Toads
We also found a variety of frogs and toads, some of which were really different from any I'd seen in the States. Seth knew what all of them were - he was our student expert on reptiles and amphibians. The burrowing toads we caught, Breviceps, were my favorite (below). They looked like grumpy old men. Most of them were covered with damp sand, from burrowing.


Other favorites were the tiny shovel-nosed frogs, below (Hemisus marmoratus). Like Breviceps, they are burrowers in the sandy soil on the floodplain of the Sabie River.




In one of the buckets, we found two beautiful frogs with luminous eyes (above). This frog's common name is the bubbling kassina, or Senegal running frog. Scientific name: Kasina senegalensis.


I think this is a flat-backed toad, Bufo maculatus, found in one of the buckets.

Tiny Biting Mammals
Allison was studying mammals, and every time we caught a mouse, rat, or shrew in one of the buckets, she picked it up, marked it with a red marker (to identify it if recaptured), and put it briefly in a plastic bag to measure its weight and length. The bag kept it from biting her (usually).

A pygmy mouse (Mus minutoides) in Allison's grasp (above).

Oneeka and Allison inspect another pygmy mouse (above).

Above, Allison weighs a mouse in a bag attached to a hand-held spring scale; Taryn shows me a red veld rat (Aethomys chrysophilus). The red on the rat's chest is from the red marker.



I believe this is a musk shrew (Crocidura mariquensis) inside one of the buckets (above).

What Was the Point?
The overall purpose of the survey, in my understanding, was to assess the effect of differences in the tree canopy on the numbers of animals on the ground below. That is, does a heterogeneous tree canopy support more biodiversity on the ground, or less? I don't know what the answer to that question turned out to be, or if there was an answer. Ken and I left for the north of the park before the project was finished. Of course, the fences and buckets were all removed when the students were through monitoring them, and the holes were filled in. But the data that the students collected will set the stage for future studies by OTS students or REU students. If the process is repeated in future years, the results will show any declines in biodiversity. It's easy to think that, within the park where direct human disturbance is minimal, animal populations should remain stable. 

But the Climate Is Changing in Africa. 
Rain patterns are changing. Rain affects tree diversity, rain affects the flow of rivers and the deposition of sand along river banks. Who knows how these factors will affect animal populations in a riparian, or riverbank, community? That's the point - who knows? Surveys like this will help us understand the effects of climate change. Some scientists predict that 75% of current species will become extinct within this century. The vast majority of scientists agree that we are facing unprecedented mass extinctions, while at the same time destroying the habitats that could foster the evolution of new species. Field exercises like this are barometers of change. They're important, too, in teaching a new generation of ecologists the techniques they'll need to guide us into an unknown and daunting future. On a lighter note, it was fun for Ken and me to see so many new tiny animals, after spending a lot of time looking for and photographing the bigger ones. These little animals are essential to a healthy and stable ecological community. Each one has its unique charms and its own place in the natural world. 

Keywords:: biodiversity climate change South Africa OTS Organization for Tropical Studies REU Research Experience for Undergraduates Skukusa Kruger Park Kruger National Park Laurence Kruger riparian communities undergraduate research Sally Kneidel Ken Kneidel

Monday, November 09, 2009

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2100


The Louisiana coast in the year 2100, according to scientists' projections of rising seas and reduced sedimentation. Note that New Orleans is far off the coast.
Photo courtesy of Science News, 7/18/09.

The residents of New Orleans have had it rough the last few years, following the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. Much of the city has been restored and rebuilt, while other damaged areas still remain as they were after the storm.  Unfortunately, due to the particular location of New Orleans, the situation may get worse instead of better in the coming decades. A recent study published in the journal Nature Geoscience predicts that ten percent of Louisiana will be submerged by the year 2100.

Scientist Harry Roberts of Louisiana State University and his colleague Michael D. Blum used computer modeling, based on scientific measurements, to estimate the effect of various factors on the gradual submersion of Louisiana.  One factor is the sinking of land as sediments from the Mississippi River are compacted under their own weight. This compaction is a normal phenomenon. Historically, new sediments have been deposited at a rate that has replaced the sinking sediments, keeping delta land levels constant. But in the fairly recent past, the amount of sediment deposited by the river has been cut in half by dams upriver. Now, with the reduced flow of new sediments, the land is sinking at a net rate of about 8 millimeters per year. Near Baton Rouge, 150 km upstream, sediments are also sinking and not being replaced. The submersion process is just a bit slower upstream.

The lack of new sediment is not the only problem causing southern Louisiana to sink. The other issue is rising sea levels due to climate change. Scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have reported that sea levels are currently rising at a rate of 3 millimeters per year, and that rate will accelerate as the climate continues to warm. Seas are expected to rise one meter between now and 2100, putting one in ten people across the globe at risk from coastal flooding.

By the year 2100, the combination of these two influences will submerge about 13,500 square kilometers in Louisiana, or 10% of the state's total area.

Even if more sediment-laden water could somehow be diverted to the sinking areas, scientists estimate that 12,600 square kilometers would still be submerged by 2100.

If the computer modeling is correct, New Orleans will be well away from Louisiana's mainland in just 90 years, and largely underwater.

New Orleans and southern Louisiana are not the only delta areas in trouble. Many of the world's largest and most densely populated and heavily farmed deltas are on their way to becoming open ocean.  The causes are the same as those in Louisiana - reduction in the flow of sediment that restores and maintains deltas, and rising sea levels. Scientists James Syvitski and colleagues writing for Nature Geoscience estimate that the amount of delta surface area vulnerable to flooding and inundation will increase at least 50% this century, and more if the capture of sediments upstream continues.

What can you do?  The main thing we as consumers can do is to cut our own greenhouse gas emissions, in order to reduce climate change and rising sea levels. See my blog post of November 2 for at least one powerful solution from the Worldwatch Institute.  For many more consumer strategies to address climate change, see our 2008 book, Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet.

Sources and additional reading:

James Syvitski et al. "Sinking deltas due to human activities." Sept 9, 2009,  Nature Geoscience 2, 681-686.

Sid Perkins. "Louisiana sinks as sea level rises: State's coast threatened by global warming, settling land." July 18, 2009, Science News.

Danny Bradbury. "Louisiana coast will be underwater by 2010."  June 30, 2009. Business Green.

Michael Blum and Harry Roberts. "Drowning of the Mississippi Delta due to insufficient sediment supply and global sea-level rise." June 28, 2009. Nature Geosceince 2, 488-491.

Associated Press. "New Orleans is sinking - and fast. Scientists say subsidence explains Katrina damage, complicates recovery." May 31, 2006.   www.msnbc.msn.com

Key words:: climate change New Orleans deltas rising sea levels Louisiana reduced sedimentation flooding of coastal areas climate refugees Katrina