Hot Spot on the Eastern Seaboard
June 29, 2012 by The Dove · Leave a Comment
New evidence has shown that a “hot spot” could cause sea levels on the eastern seaboard of the US to advance faster than the projected global average. This increase is attributed to a change in the North Atlantic current, which scientist say is warming and as a result slowing down.
The affected are stretches over 600 miles, from North Carolina all the way to northern Massachusetts. In a study conducted by the USGS, global sea levels have risen between 0.6 and one millimeter per year since 1990, but levels along this portion of the eastern seaboard have gone up 3.7 millimeters in some areas- four times the global average. You may be thinking that this is such a small rise, how could it possibly affect things? Over a few years, yes, the difference may be fairly negligible, but over several decades the change adds up. This rise happens not just at a quicker rate, but at a more rapid pace, like a car on a highway “jamming on the accelerator,” says the study’s lead author, Asbury Sallenger Jr., an oceanographer at USGS. He has observed sea levels since the 1950′s, and noticed a change beginning in 1990.
By the year 2100 global sea levels are anticipated to rise more than a meter, the added increase caused by this “hot spot” could add almost an extra foot of water on top of that. “Extreme water levels that happen during winter or tropical storms, perhaps once or twice a year, may happen more frequently as sea level rise is added to storm surge,” says Karen Doran, co-author of the USGS study. This will undoubtedly cause many large population centers below this new waterline more than a little trouble in the coming decades. The number of people living in New York City, Boston, and Philadelphia, just to name a few of the cities that will likely be affected—and their likely exit from the area before, during or after the floods—poses a real problem. Where are all of these people going to go? New York City alone has over 8 million people. That’s more than a serious traffic jam; it’s an exodus, a migration of mass proportions.
Regardless if you are for or against the argument that man has caused global warming, the simple fact is that the world as we know it is getting hotter. We cannot ignore the reality that sea levels and climate as a whole are going through a major transition-nor the fact that this is a part of normal Earth function. Our planet constantly ebbs and flows between warm and cool periods- and as a result wet and dry periods. More water is locked up in ice during the cooler periods, resulting in lower sea levels, while during warmer periods more water is in liquid form, causing sea levels to rise.
Whether we are speeding up the process, all of this is part of the Earth’s natural cycles. As a species we have even experienced it before- though this was thousands of years ago and little of our ancestor’s accounts of such phenomenon and how they dealt with them remain for us to study. But many cultures share in common a flood story of some type, where in the earth is inundated by massive floods that wipe much of the earth clean of life— or at the least dramatically change the landscape.
Are we in for another flood? Scientists think so, but not on the order of world-ending myths so common to many ancient cultures. No need to rush out to your local hardware store and start construction on an ark. That being said, many cities and countries might want to take some preventative measures.
Immediate or not, we need to start to think outside of the box as to how we will deal with climate change, and building over water is one alternative to trying to divert it. This may be one of many answers to increased sea levels that seemingly every scientist agrees are in our future, the time to argue over the existence of global warming has come and gone. The time to take action is now and the sooner we prepare, the less the effects will be felt by future generations.
By Will Inglis
http://www.nature.com/news/us-northeast-coast-is-hotspot-for-rising-sea-levels-1.10880
http://www.afp.com/en/node/251144
http://news.yahoo.com/sea-rise-faster-east-coast-rest-globe-172002416.html
Rising Waters & Wildlife Safety
January 10, 2010 by The Dove · Leave a Comment
Are there any conservation efforts focused on animal species endemic to islands likely to be submerged by rising sea levels? — H. Wyeth, Anahola, HI
Islands are indeed likely to be the areas hardest hit by our warming climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of leading climate scientists from around the world convened by the United Nations to assess the ongoing risk of global warming, predicts a global average sea level rise of between 3.5 and 34.6 inches over the next century. And the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), a coalition of 42 small island and low-lying coastal countries that have banded together to lobby United Nations policymakers, reports that warming-induced sea level rises could threaten the very existence of some island nations including the Maldives, Kiribati and parts of the Bahamas.
Those low-lying nations that do manage to hang onto some land will contend with not only continuously rising seas and stronger more frequent storms, but also declines in the productivity of their agriculture and fisheries. Salt water intrusion will limit the amount of freshwater available for crops and in some cases undermine the integrity of the soil itself. And as coral reefs die off, the abundant marine life that once congregated around them will disappear.
As for wildlife, its unclear just how much certain endemic species will be affected by rising sea levels and other environmental hazards exacerbated by global warming. Clearly the biggest threat is habitat loss: Land forms that once sustained certain animals may no longer be above water or otherwise suitable for some species. Those fortunate enough to be on big continents may be able to move away from shore to neighboring areas that can provide the resources needed for survival. But animals on islands may be hard pressed to find places better to go to where they can keep on keeping on.
The IPCC lists a few examples among thousands of endemic island dwellers facing likely extinction unless we can get a handle on greenhouse gas emissions in short order: the Tuamotu sandpiper of Tuamotu Island, the Bristle-thighed Curlew of French Polynesia, the Manus fantail of Papua New Guinea, the lorikeet and rail of New Caledonia, the moorhen and Savaii of Samoa, the Santo Mountain starling on Espiritu Santo, penguins in the Galapagos, petrels in Bermuda and seabird colonies from the Kerguelen, Crozet and outer Hawaiian islands, among others. The IPCC adds that endemic flora may fare even worse, which will in turn drive more animal extinctions.
What can be done to stem this rising tide of endemic species loss? According to the IPCC, the establishment of terrestrial, marine or coastal reserves has been found to be a “useful management option.” Results from existing model reserves on islands across the Caribbean (including Dominica, Bonaire, the Grenadines and St. Lucia) have shown promise. Groups including Conservation International, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Nature Conservancy and others, are working to create more such reserves in other biodiversity hotspots, including many non-threatened islands around the globe.
CONTACTS: IPCC, www.ipcc.ch; AOSIS, www.sidsnet.org/aosis; Conservation International, www.conservation.org; Wildlife Conservation Society, www.wcs.org; Nature Conservancy, www.nature.org.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com.
How Does Population Growth Impact Global Warming?
July 18, 2009 by The Dove · Leave a Comment
To what extent does human population growth impact global warming, and what can be done about it? – Larry LeDoux, Honolulu, HI
No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earths surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse.
According to the United Nations Population Fund, human population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during the course of the 20th century. (Think about it: It took all of time for population to reach 1.6 billion; then it shot to 6.1 billion over just 100 years.) During that time emissions of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas, grew 12-fold. And with worldwide population expected to surpass nine billion over the next 50 years, environmentalists and others are worried about the ability of the planet to withstand the added load of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere and wreaking havoc on ecosystems down below.
Developed countries consume the lions share of fossil fuels. The United States, for example, contains just five percent of world population, yet contributes a quarter of total CO2 output. But while population growth is stagnant or dropping in most developed countries (except for the U.S., due to immigration), it is rising rapidly in quickly industrializing developing nations. According to the United Nations Population Fund, fast-growing developing countries (like China and India) will contribute more than half of global CO2 emissions by 2050, leading some to wonder if all of the efforts being made to curb U.S. emissions will be erased by other countries adoption of our long held over-consumptive ways.
“Population, global warming and consumption patterns are inextricably linked in their collective global environmental impact,” reports the Global Population and Environment Program at the non-profit Sierra Club. “As developing countries contribution to global emissions grows, population size and growth rates will become significant factors in magnifying the impacts of global warming.”
According to the Worldwatch Institute, a nonprofit environmental think tank, the overriding challenges facing our global civilization are to curtail climate change and slow population growth. “Success on these two fronts would make other challenges, such as reversing the deforestation of Earth, stabilizing water tables, and protecting plant and animal diversity, much more manageable,” reports the group. “If we cannot stabilize climate and we cannot stabilize population, there is not an ecosystem on Earth that we can save.”
Many population experts believe the answer lies in improving the health of women and children in developing nations. By reducing poverty and infant mortality, increasing womens and girls access to basic human rights (health care, education, economic opportunity), educating women about birth control options and ensuring access to voluntary family planning services, women will choose to limit family size.
CONTACTS: United Nations Population Fund, www.unfpa.org; Sierra Clubs Global Population and Environment Program, www.sierraclub.org/population; Worldwatch Institute, www.worldwatch.org.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com.
7 WAYS … TO HEAL THE EARTH
July 5, 2009 by The Dove · Leave a Comment
1.
Women Unclear on Global Warming Causes: Survey
Results from the America’s first national Womens Survey on Energy & the Environment show that women want the country to move to clean energy sources-but they dont completely understand the electricity sources used today, the impact of electricity on clean air and what causes global warming.
(Editor’s note: The number one cause of global warming is the raising and production of livestock.)
The nationally representative survey of 801 women 18 years or older, commissioned by Women Impacting Public Policy (WIPP) in collaboration with the Womens Council on Energy and the Environment (WCEE), shows women want the United States to move toward clean energy sources, and more than half (57%) are even willing to pay $30 more per month for it.
“Women have a huge stake in our nations energy future and can play a vital role in moving our country toward clean sources of electricity, such as wind, solar and nuclear, that do not pollute the air we breathe or contribute to global warming,” said Barbara Kasoff, president of WIPP. “With so much resting on the energy and environment policy decisions we make today, every womans voice counts now more than ever.”
The survey also shows:
77 percent of women take primary or equal responsibility for paying their electricity bills, including 9-in-10 (91 percent) of unmarried women and 7 in 10 (70 percent) of married women.
Virtually all women (97 percent) are conserving electricity, and they are doing so through a broad range of steps such as lowering thermostats; turning off lights and appliances when not in use; purchasing energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs; keeping their homes cooler in winter; and installing energy-efficient appliances, doors, windows, or insulation.
91 percent of women, including 86 percent of married women, play a dominant or equal role in conserving electricity at home.
When it comes to the countrys energy policy, twice as many women (43 percent) cite moving to clean energy over any other issue (reliability or affordability of electricity) as their most important goal.
Women are enthusiastic about solar and wind energy, both clean energy sources: 90 percent and 89 percent, respectively think they should play a very or somewhat important role in our countrys energy future.
The report also found women are unclear about electricitys effect on the environment. Electricity-generating power plants are the biggest cause of global warming in this country, more than cars and trucks or any other source. However, only seven percent of women are aware of this. So while women believe clean energy is very important, they do not completely understand the connection between electricity and the deterioration of our environment.
Sunspots and Solar Wind Impacting Climate Change?
Dont some scientists point to sunspots and solar wind as having more impact on climate change than human industrial activity? — David Noss, California, MD
Sunspots are storms on the suns surface that are marked by intense magnetic activity and play host to solar flares and hot gassy ejections from the suns corona. Scientists believe that the number of spots on the sun cycles over time, reaching a peak-the so-called Solar Maximum-every 11 years or so. Some studies indicate that sunspot activity overall has doubled in the last century. The apparent result down here on Earth is that the sun glows brighter by about 0.1 percent now than it did 100 years ago.
Solar wind, according to NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, consists of magnetized plasma flares and in some cases is linked to sunspots. It emanates from the sun and influences galactic rays that may in turn affect atmospheric phenomena on Earth, such as cloud cover. But scientists are the first to admit that they have a lot to learn about phenomena like sunspots and solar wind, some of which is visible to humans on Earth in the form of Aurora Borealis and other far flung interplanetary light shows.
Some skeptics of human-induced climate change blame global warming on natural variations in the suns output due to sunspots and/or solar wind. They say its no coincidence that an increase in sunspot activity and a run-up of global temperatures on Earth are happening concurrently, and view regulation of carbon emissions as folly with negative ramifications for our economy and tried-and-true energy infrastructure.
“[V]ariations in solar energy output have far more effect on Earths climate than soccer moms driving SUVs,” Southwestern Law School professor Joerg Knipprath, writes in his Token Conservative blog. “A rational thinker would understand that, especially if he or she has some understanding of the limits of human influence. But the global warming boosters have this unbounded hubris that it is humans who control nature, and that human activity can terminally despoil the plane
t as well as cause its salvation.”
Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earths warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity-and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.
Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming. Nevertheless, he adds, most up-to-date climate models-including those used by the United Nations prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-incorporate the effects of the suns variable degree of brightness in their overall calculations.
Ironically, the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earths climate.
CONTACTS: NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, www.solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov; Token Conservative Blog, www.tokenconservative.com; IPCC, www.ipcc.ch.
EarthTalkTM
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com.
