PMU199 Course Blog

When picking a topic for this blog, I considered the multitude of potential topics that could be discussed in relation to Climate Change. The range of issues due to climate change is tremendous and it is difficult to focus on just one aspect. So while researching climate change I decided to focus on a topic that I personally have a great interest in, which is water. Yes, it sounds very plain but there are many issues related to water that are partially due to climate change as well as other contributing factors of course, that cause environmental degradation and social, as well as political, problems in nations around the world. Specifically for this post I’d like to generally discuss the change of the earths water and the various aspects which it effects that may be unknown to many.

Most everyone is familiar with the rising ocean levels, and the fear of coastal cities, especially in the Americas and Asia, going under as a result. It is true that this really is an issue in that we know that sea levels are rising 1.5-2.0 mm per year as seen though the 15-20 cm increase within the last century. Another issue associated with this is that as sea levels are rising due to the melting of glaciers, and the albedo effect is decreasing, the oceans are also warming up. Although the number may seem insignificant in that apparently the oceans warm up by only 0.1°C in the last century according to National Geographic, it makes a significant difference to aquatic life, especially to corals which are very sensitive to rather small temperature changes. In addition, in a study by Marine Ecologist Mary O’connor about the influence of rising temperatures, she explained,

“The zooplankton are more abundant and faster-growing, and are able to eat all the phytoplankton in warmer water. This creates a bottleneck in the food chain that could have large implications for the ocean’s food web.”

There are other effects of the warming of water however as well. Because most of the temperature change within the water occurs close to the surface, there is a change in stronger storms as more vapour is produced and thus a relatively small storm is able to pick up much of the vapour and escalate into a bigger storm, such as a hurricane, of which dramatic examples can be seen Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Irene. Many scientist point towards natural disasters now many times being caused by climate change, however this is an indefinite conclusion as there are other possible contributing factors as well.

When investigating the causes of the warming of water naturally we look at climate change, more specifically the melting of the glaciers. the first thing we usually think of when we think of glaciers melting is water levels rising and polar bears dying out. These are two, almost cliche topics covered many times by the media. The melting of glaciers has much to do with many environmental problems around the world as well though. In relation to the previous topic of the temperature of oceans rising, glaciers can say to further this effect in that, as glaciers melt the albedo effect is decreased too, meaning that as the earth is becoming warmer, the glaciers melt, due to their white, light nature, lose surface area which the earth needs to reflect sunlight back up and relieve the earth from the heat. Therefore it only further fortifies this. In addition in terms of freshwater, for example, the glaciers contain 70% of the freshwater we currently have on earth, and that is of the total 2% of freshwater that we have on earth. Although one may think this is a way we could access more of it, agricultural societies in fact are negatively effected by the rapid melting of the glaciers and their supply rivers are overflowing, flooding their farm land and also in the long term depleting the societies of a water supply. This is a big issue for agricultural societies especially in developing countries where the freshwater shortages are one of the main issues today.

In terms of more environmental damage it is interesting to notice that the glaciers can serve as an example to how nature tried to cover a human made problem in the past. The use of the pesticide DDT was for example a major chemical pollutant that was banned in the 1970, yet through emissions in the air much of the DDT got trapped within some layers of the glaciers, meaning that now that they are melting the toxins are once again put back into our environment, causing harm to organisms.

I personally believe that water shortages are one of the biggest issues in the world today and are related to Climate Change to some extent. Climate change, as we have discussed in class, has put us in a kind of Chaotic system, and we do not know what could approach us next. There is much we do not know about the outcome of antropogenic activities, yet as we can see by the examples above we are affecting the environment in a direct and indirect way ultimately contributing to climate change.

The release of DDT form the glaciers for example is a prime example of our direct influence into the environment with which we will only further damage ourselves. In terms of Climate change however it appears we are now in a cycle (as seen on the chart on the right) in which our activities and greenhouse emissions only further climate change which in return melts more glaciers, causing water levels to rise, temperatures both on land and in the water to warm up and ultimately decreases the albedo effect which leads to further climate change, which has many unpredictable and undesirable outcomes such as extensive natural disasters, changes in earths systems, and destruction of environment. Therefore being informed of what exactly is happening and the causes of the issues is what can make us think of better more sustainable solutions in the future that can lessen the human impact on the environmental that could potentially reduce the dramatic climate change.

Satellite data show the Antarctic ozone hole as it appeared last fall.

(Image courtesy of NASA)

Back in the 1980s before climate change dominated our news, Ozone depletion was the main danger to the environment. The Ozone layer that protects us from the strong UV rays has been slowly recovering since 1987(Montreal Protocol banding CFCS). However every winter the Arctic ozone layer suffers a relapse and this year (2012) could be the worse, thanks ironically to climate change. Dr. Kaley Walker (Atmospheric Physics at U of T) belongs to a team of scientist who monitors the ozone over the Artic every winter. This week Walker’s team released a report that indicated that this winter might set an all time record for ozone loss.

To monitor the conditions of the ozone of the Artic Circle, Kaylee’s team conducts measurements using a satellite (Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment)  from above. Other procedures are done during the springtime, including measurements taken by using balloon borne instruments and ground based instruments from a particular place in the Artic called Eureka (80 degrees north). Kaylee’s team is particularly interested in monitoring the Artic during times when the ozone depletion occurs, February and March, when the sun comes back.

At the moment the Artic has experienced a particularly cold winter, thus a large amount of Ozone depletion has occurred. If we compare the data of this year to the data collected during the late 70s and early 80s we are down by 40% less Ozone above the Artic this year. At the moment the season is not yet over, and the sun is reaching full exposure, as we are getting closer to the North Pole, which allows us to predict that a lot of activity will occur within the next weeks.

Why is Ozone depletion still occurring?

Chlorine (CFC) one of the largest contributing factors. Chlorofluorocarbons are the sources of Chlorine in the atmosphere, although we have banned CFCS during the Montreal Protocol and have seen some evidence that this has worked in decreasing the amount of Chlorine in the stratosphere, the area where the ozone layer is, but at this point it has not decreased to the levels it has been prior to when we started putting them there so it is going to take some time.

Process of Depletion

When the Arctic air over top of the Pole is isolated by wind patterns. The wind patterns are such that air stays over the Pole and doesn’t travel very far, this happens and we don’t get any sunlight, thus making it very cold. Within this cold and dark Artic air Polar Spherical clouds are formed. These clouds are filled with Chlorine, so when the sun comes back it evaporates the clouds and releases all of the Chlorine back into ozone. Thus, the colder it is the more clouds are formed causing more chlorine to be released and inevitably causes ozone depletion.

Understanding the greenhouse gasses and that warming is very important as well. CFCs are also a big contributor to greenhouse gasses, so by banning them we have averted a certain amount of warming  that could have occurred, however the warming from increased CO2 and other chemicals still applies. Dr. Walker continues to do research on applied models to see how the warming from  greenhouse gasses, and  the cooling from depletion in the Arctic can be manipulated to balancing out the climate structure.

So how long will it take until this problem is gone?

Dr. Walker predicts that it may take till the year 2050 until the problem goes away, this prediction is “based on her models and having a certain knowledge of how the rest of the atmosphere is going to change. “

With the depleting fossil fuel resources, oil production will inevitably reach its maximum and arrive at a state of terminal decline. The threat of ‘peak oil’; a term first proposed by M. King Hubbert, suggest that this irreversible condition will occur in the near conceivable future (as early as in the next ten years!). This is a scary thought—as a society we are so dependent on petroleum it’s hard to imagine life without it.

There is no way of avoiding peak oil, but there is a way for us to prolong the time it takes to reach it by decreasing our dependency on petroleum-based fuels.  Many countries including Canada have mandated the requirement of biodiesel production; in which a percentage of diesel oil must have a blend of renewable resource ethanol. Ethanol, unlike petroleum, is a renewable resource produced by extracting the sun’s energy through biomass (i.e. corn).

Though it seems great in theory, many are skeptical towards their use as in reality ethanol production is energy consuming and arises the debate regarding “food vs. fuel” with the rising food prices. US Department of Energy addresses these problems, and proves that ethanol has a positive energy balance– which means it generates more energy than it takes to create it.

But is it worth sacrificing agricultural land for energy?

The assumption that ethanol farms require a significant amount of land and might disrupt agricultural sector is mistaken. The US Department of Agriculture shows in their Billion-ton Study that biomass used for energy accounts for only 16% of the 1.2 billion dry tons of plant material on agricultural land. Which is predicted to be sufficient in replacing 30% of the petroleum energy use by 2030.

Technological advancements will allow us to find more effective ways for ethanol extraction through cellulosic biomass found in crops and forestry residues (ie. discarded cobs and stalks, wood residues, pulping liquors).

As shown in the figure above, cellulosic ethanol shows a significant reduction in green house gases—as much as 86% compared to gasoline.

We should not sacrifice the health of our planet for the sake of meeting increasing energy demands. We have to face the facts that our dependency on a non-renewable resource will result in catastrophic environmental, social and economic consequences once we’ve exhausted the Earth of its reserves. So here’s to smarter fuel!

The Amazon Rainforest

Rainforests have been described as “the lungs of the earth”. Rainforests cleanse the atmosphere by absorbing carbon dioxide and churning it out as oxygen. In addition to this, they act like giant sponges; soaking up moisture and then releasing it slowly back into the atmosphere as rain. Tropical forests also moderate the flow of rivers, preventing flooding and insuring adequate flow during periods of low rainfall.

Tropical forests account for only 12% of the land-area on Earth, yet it is home to approximately half of the world’s animal species and two thirds of its plant species. They offer us a bounty of foods such as; coffee, cocoa, bananas, nuts and spices. As well as numerous industrial products like rubber, gums, resins, dyes and tannin.

For many years it was believed that rainforests were seemingly unaffected by global warming. Recent studies now show that tropical forests are being affected presently by climate change. The extinction rate for the rainforest’s species is now 400 times faster than at any other time in history. The impacts that climate change could have on rainforests are much worse than what scientists had previously thought. Scientists now believe that the Amazon (which stores over half of the world’s rain water alone) could shrink by 85% due to climate change. Even in the best case scenario, a moderate rise in temperature could still see a 20-40% loss within 100 years.

The golden toad, feared extinct.

In the Montverde Cloud Forest Reserve, Costa Rica clouds are forming higher, drying out some of the habitat and causing changes in the flora and fauna. The troubling disappearance of the golden toad, the distinctive orange amphibian has not been seen since 1991 and is now feared extinct; along with 60 other amphibians and lizards. Scientists believe that the lifting level of the clouds has changed the temperature and moisture of the rainforest. In turn, this has created optimal growing conditions for diseases that are wiping out species at astonishing rates.

According to Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter in the UK; the loss of the rainforest (the drivers of the world’s weather systems) would be ecologically devastating to our own climate. We can’t predict exactly what would happen but we could assume to experience much more extreme weather. Without rainforests continually recycling mass amounts of water, feeding the rivers, lakes and irrigation systems; droughts would become more common potentially leading to widespread famine and disease.

Release of moisture into the atmosphere

The loss of tropical forests could potentially hold devastating
consequences for the Earth and those whom inhabit it. Not only would we loose natural resources like fruits, nuts and cocoa; we could witness a devastating loss of approximately half of the world’s species. We would also see the loss of the great carbon sinks, tropical forests act as. Thus, we would also loose our “weather regulator” and really be in for some tough weather patterns. For me, this raises a great deal of concern, as the majority of scholarly sources on the subject point (to some degree) in the direction of irreversibility.

Jack Mackerel’s are the fish food for our fish food. The well-being of their species is not something most of us are often inclined to think about. After all, they are just fishes are they not? Compared to climate change which has already presented itself time and time again as a serious issue – the problem of overfishing seems to be a wholly different subject, right?

No, not even close. Like dominos, the fall of one would lead to a chain reaction that would ultimately affect everything. As we all know, the food chain is a set system, the absence of even one species could theoretically cause immense damage to the species in the upper echelons. Earth has warmed up to about 2° C which means that water temperature has also risen causing different species of fish to migrate to new waters. However there are also schools of fish that are living in closed waters and unfortunately they will eventually die off from their inability to adapt to the change in temperature.

Although every animal in the world is capable of adaptation, constant stress to any species will mean a need for greater changes in order to survive. The figure below (taken from a marine-ecological case study done by UBC) effectively shows what needs to be changed relative to the duration of stress.

This figure shows that when there’s only a short duration of stress, fishes are able to adapt either through physical canges or migration patterns. However when there is long term stress, drastic changes will need to occur for the species to survive. Interestingly enough, it also shows what steps humans can take depending on the duration of stress. The short term responses include, intensification, diversification and “riding out the storm”(A very typical human response, in my opinion). While long term responses include political reform and restructuring.

The Jack Mackerels have been subjected to constant stress ever since the early 90s and they are only the first of many. Climate change is already a serious threat to their existence and overfishing of the Jack Mackerel will only propel the species faster towards extinction. If that ever happens, others will surely follow. As I mentioned before, the domino effect takes hold in the world of predator and prey. However, when there is no prey left for predator to hunt, then surely that species would slowly begin to die out as well. This vicious cycle could cause immense damage to environment and bring devastation to humanity, especially when we often considers ourselves to be at the top of the food chain.

With global warming looming over our shoulders and news of environmental changes happening all over the world, perhaps it is time to choose options from the long term solutions rather than short term. “Riding out the storm” is generally synonymous with “I’ll just wait and see” and personally, I think that attitude has long been outdated. However, should we continue down that lazy and ignorant path of environmental destruction than one day we may not have a home to return to, nor food to eat. Humanity’s survival depends solely on the health of this planet and only true dedication can bring about positive change to environmental degradation. Simply put – the right attitude is all you really need.

Anthropogenic climate change, is it real or is it just another phase of the Earth’s temperature change?

This question has been on the table for many years now. There is no doubt that this is a very debatable and significant question that requires attention from scientists, to governments to every day people. However a recently released report by UK’s Department for Environmental and Rural Affairs (Defra) may convince many people to realize the severity of earth’s current condition.

The Climate Change Risk Assessment carried the research which lasted three years. After coming to a conclusion , they have boldly stated that global warming is in fact a major threat to the future health of planet earth. Through the use of computer modelling for the future climate, the researchers were able to predict the average climate of the future. They predict that summers will be significantly hotter by 2050, leading anywhere between 580-5900 deaths and water shortages in Eastern England. Let’s not forget the rise of sea levels which is predicted to cause flood damages that will cost anywhere between £2.1bn-£12bn. Sea level in London is expected to rise anywhere between 30cm-90cm. Regular flooding, heat waves and water shortages will be just one of the few problems that will arise if we do not change our luxurious lifestyles.

The research however is able to extract positives of climate change by stating that increase in the earth’s temperature will open up new Arctic routes to Asia and the increase of wheat yields by 40-140% by 2050. However we cannot let this “positive” outcomes of global warming fool us. No amount of wheat yield increase and a convenient route to Asia is worth Earth’s health. It may be too late when we realize we cannot eat money for food and drink gas for water. Climate change is in fact caused by our selfish way of living. Instead of investing billions of dollars into military fundings in the war against middle eastern countries, which one can say is driven by fuel ( pun not intended), governments should be investing the money towards alternative energy use. We can only extract natural resources for so long before we run out, therefore we must change our attitude towards alternative energies soon before its too late.

Although the information extracted from the computer models may not be 100% accurate but it is one of the most reliable source we can use to predict the future outcomes of global warming. Since global warming is an important issue that our society faces today, any information that can be extracted from reliable researcher should be used to help predict the future. The article was quite intriguing, if you have couple minutes to spare you can read the article here.

Let’s all do our part and keep our only home alive.

SD

I am sitting on a very comfy wood chair at one of the 30 libraries on campus. I consider myself very fortunate; I am attending one of the best universities in the world. Nonetheless, I want more from UofT, more than comfy wood chairs and libraries, those things are: not to share a classroom with more than 30 people, not to walk such long distances to get from point A to point B, and not to feel that, because I am an undergraduate student, my opinion does not count. Now, you may think that I am selfish, lazy and insecure but, more than that, I think I am having problems of nonconformity.

But as I am having problems of nonconformity, the humanity is having problems of anthropocentrism, which  “is a perspective that regards humans as the most important entity on the planet” (Briony MacPhee Rowe). We desire space, comfort, and inclusion.

We, humanity, desire space. Our population has been growing exponentially and we need more space for the new humans. So, we expand our horizons and start building more communities on wild territories that used to belong to other creatures (trees and animals). When we create these communities, the population of the creatures that were either killed (like the trees) or removed, decreases. The diminution of these creatures causes an impact on the environment; in the case of the diminution of the population of trees, as many of we know, causes a decrease in the absorption of CO2 and an increase of this gas going into the biosphere, causing global warming. What we can do is to change our mind and think that there are enough people on the planet already, we can adopt orphans or poor children, instead of having our own. That way we could help the other and reduce our population, and therefore, reduce the demand of new space.

We, humanity, desire comfort. Our current methods of transportation and energy production have made our lives way more comfortable than when we had to walk miles away to get from point A to point B, and when we could not read at night because the light of the candles was not good enough. Nevertheless, these comforts bring their consequences; all of the current methods of transportation use oil as their fuel, and in the case of energy production, the extraction of fossil fuels and conversion of these into electricity causes enormous emissions of CO2. We can introduce new technologies that are more environmentally friendly, such as solar panels, electric cars, and so forth.

We, humanity, desire inclusion. Our expectations, of living in a world where the wilderness is performed as the entity of control, are obsolete. We want to be this entity of control and exclude the wilderness around us. That is why we build “civilizations” and we cannot live in armory with the creatures of the wilderness, so we reject them. The rejection of these creatures, again trees and animals, causes a decrease in the absorption of CO2, and therefore, a major impact on the ozone layer. What we can do is to include this wilderness world outside the “civilizations” and start planting trees, contaminating less, and take care of our environment.

In conclusion, our desires are confronting our reality. If we were to confront our reality we would reduce our population; we would implement green technology; and we would include the creatures that also live in our planet. By reducing our population, the demand for new space will decrease as well, and therefore there would be less deforestation; by implementing green technology such as electric cars or solar panels, we will decrease the emissions of CO2 that the old technologies caused; and if we include the other species in our world, we will see that there are very important for our subsistence, and we would stop doing actions that harm them and us. All these three points, would decrease considerably the emissions of gasses that contribute to climate change, but are we ready to leave behind our anthropocentric point of view and make this change?

To kick off the new term, how about some new data, just in from the US National Climatic Data Centre, showing annual temperature anomalies up to last year (2011):

A couple of interesting points about this chart. First, it shows clearly that the land has warmed more than the ocean. This is as predicted by the theory: the ocean takes a lot longer to warm up. Notice also that for the land, the different between the temperatures over the last decade and the typical temperatures a century ago is more than +1ºC. Oh, and notice that for the American audience they’ve included temperatures in Farenheit as well as Centigrade. If you’re interested in more, here’s the full report.

Here’s another chart:

Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange). See the full post at Skeptical Science for details.

This one is from an excellent post over at SkepticalScience.com, “A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming“, which looks at a number of recently published papers that weigh up the relative contributions of human influences and natural influences on climate change. Notice that some of these assessments calculate that the natural influence is negative – i.e. we would expect a slight cooling if it weren’t for all those greenhouse gases we’re emitting. By the way, SkepticalScience.com is an excellent place to go to look up what the science says in response to lots of different myths about climate change.

Finally, in preparation for some discussion of climate models, here’s a great introduction to climate modeling, “How do Climate Models Work?“, written by Kate over at ClimateSight. We’ll be discussing some of the things she talks about in class over the next couple of weeks.