Tag Archives: USA

Rising US heat spurs urban rats’ numbers

It may not be the sole cause of US urban rats’ rising numbers, but climate change’s growing heat is probably implicated.

LONDON, 12 June, 2019 − In the heat of a US summer, urban rats’ thoughts focus on one goal: it’s reproduction time, as the media make clear.

They go for the type of headlines which send shivers down the spine. “Rats love climate change”, says one. “Climate change is scary; rat explosion is scarier”, says another.

Reports from several cities in the US indicate that city rat populations are increasing, and many point to climate change as a primary cause of what is a growing rodent problem.

The actual reasons for what some of the more florid commentators refer to as a “ratpocalypse” are difficult to gauge. Little research has been carried out.

Take, for example, New York City. Estimates of the size of the city’s rat population – the human population is 8.6 million – range anywhere between 2 and 32 million.

“The brown rat, or Rattus norvegicus, common on the US east coast, can produce six litters a year with an average of 12 pups per litter”

While the figures might be vague, there’s general agreement that the city’s rat numbers are growing substantially. Calls to vermin controllers have increased. City officials say the incidence of rat sightings has gone up by nearly 40% over the last five years.

Rats can be vectors, or carriers, of disease and can transmit ticks and fleas. They can also do considerable damage to vital infrastructure, gnawing through wires and damaging pavements and drainage systems by their burrowing.

In cold weather rats tend to be inactive and stay in their burrows. With milder winters and rising average temperatures, rats’ breeding season is extended.

Rats reproduce at a prolific rate; the brown rat, or Rattus norvegicus, common on the US east coast, can produce six litters a year with an average of 12 pups per litter.

“Everywhere I go, rat populations are up”, a research scientist told the New York Times newspaper.

More city residents

Other US cities report similar rat infestations; Chicago is said to have a particularly serious rodent problem.

While increased temperatures are believed to be one cause of the growth in rat populations, other factors are involved. In the US and around the world, more and more people are choosing to live in cities.

By 2050, it’s estimated that 70% of the world’s population will be urban-based. More people in tightly-packed areas means more food being accumulated and more rubbish. Inefficient waste collection facilities in many urban areas inevitably lead to a growth in rodent numbers.

Surprisingly, there seems to have been little research into urban rats, their behaviour and the size of populations in various cities.

One problem encountered by researchers is that many urban dwellers, particularly landlords, are reluctant to admit to rat infestation problems – or to highlight the issue by allowing scientists to carry out surveys on their premises. − Climate News Network

It may not be the sole cause of US urban rats’ rising numbers, but climate change’s growing heat is probably implicated.

LONDON, 12 June, 2019 − In the heat of a US summer, urban rats’ thoughts focus on one goal: it’s reproduction time, as the media make clear.

They go for the type of headlines which send shivers down the spine. “Rats love climate change”, says one. “Climate change is scary; rat explosion is scarier”, says another.

Reports from several cities in the US indicate that city rat populations are increasing, and many point to climate change as a primary cause of what is a growing rodent problem.

The actual reasons for what some of the more florid commentators refer to as a “ratpocalypse” are difficult to gauge. Little research has been carried out.

Take, for example, New York City. Estimates of the size of the city’s rat population – the human population is 8.6 million – range anywhere between 2 and 32 million.

“The brown rat, or Rattus norvegicus, common on the US east coast, can produce six litters a year with an average of 12 pups per litter”

While the figures might be vague, there’s general agreement that the city’s rat numbers are growing substantially. Calls to vermin controllers have increased. City officials say the incidence of rat sightings has gone up by nearly 40% over the last five years.

Rats can be vectors, or carriers, of disease and can transmit ticks and fleas. They can also do considerable damage to vital infrastructure, gnawing through wires and damaging pavements and drainage systems by their burrowing.

In cold weather rats tend to be inactive and stay in their burrows. With milder winters and rising average temperatures, rats’ breeding season is extended.

Rats reproduce at a prolific rate; the brown rat, or Rattus norvegicus, common on the US east coast, can produce six litters a year with an average of 12 pups per litter.

“Everywhere I go, rat populations are up”, a research scientist told the New York Times newspaper.

More city residents

Other US cities report similar rat infestations; Chicago is said to have a particularly serious rodent problem.

While increased temperatures are believed to be one cause of the growth in rat populations, other factors are involved. In the US and around the world, more and more people are choosing to live in cities.

By 2050, it’s estimated that 70% of the world’s population will be urban-based. More people in tightly-packed areas means more food being accumulated and more rubbish. Inefficient waste collection facilities in many urban areas inevitably lead to a growth in rodent numbers.

Surprisingly, there seems to have been little research into urban rats, their behaviour and the size of populations in various cities.

One problem encountered by researchers is that many urban dwellers, particularly landlords, are reluctant to admit to rat infestation problems – or to highlight the issue by allowing scientists to carry out surveys on their premises. − Climate News Network

Wilderness – saved today, sold tomorrow

While scientists call for more protection for wild things, governments have removed protection from wilderness areas the size of Mexico.

LONDON, 5 June, 2019 – Nature is losing ground even where it is supposedly protected: the wilderness is under increasing pressure.

The world’s protected areas – places of greater safety for the millions of trees, shrubs, flowers, fungi, insects, reptiles, fish, amphibians, mammals and birds that survive from millions of years of evolution – are being downgraded, reduced or developed at an increasing rate.

New research shows that since 1892, the formally protected areas of wilderness have in effect lost 2 million square kilometres. This is an area of land and water greater than the state of Mexico, and only slightly smaller than Saudi Arabia.

Of these losses, almost four-fifths have occurred since the year 2000, and most openly in the US and the region of Amazonia. In the United States alone, 90% of such proposed downsizing and degradation events have been proposed in the past 18 years, and 99% of these have been for industrial scale development.

And a new study in the journal Science warns that decisions by President Trump to “downsize” two national monuments – known as Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante – will reduce the protected terrain by 85% and 51% respectively.

“Lost protections can accelerate forest loss and carbon emissions – putting our climate and global biodiversity at greater risk”

In Brazil, the government proposes to “roll back” more than 183,000 square kilometres (45,000 million acres) of protected forest and other habitat. This is an area about the size of the US state of North Dakota.

“We are facing two global environmental crises: biodiversity loss and climate change. To address both, governments have established protected areas with the intent of conserving nature in perpetuity. Yet our research shows that protected areas can be rolled back and are not necessarily permanent,” said Rachel Golden Kroner, a social scientist at George Mason University in the US, who led the study.

“Lost protections can accelerate forest loss and carbon emissions – putting our climate and global biodiversity at greater risk.”

The finding – backed by a worldwide team of more than 20 researchers – comes only weeks after scientists warned yet again of the losses of perhaps a million species because of environmental destruction and climate change.

They have repeatedly warned that wildlife needs greater protection and that conservation areas are being lost.

Wilderness offers solutions

And researchers have once again confirmed that wilderness areas remain the best way to protect species while slowing climate change.

Although the US and Brazil have made conspicuous reductions in wildlife protected areas, Brazil was just one of seven Amazonian countries that have “rolled back” 245 state-designated protected areas between 1961 and 2017. Australia removed 13,000 square kilometres from protection and undermined protection for another 400,000 sq km.

The United Kingdom rolled back more than 46,000 sq km in 61 places, all to permit hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Cambodia authorised industrial agriculture in 120 instances covering nearly 10,000 sq km, and Kenya downsized 14,000 square kilometres of forest and game reserve.

Not all changes to protected areas have been necessarily harmful, and not all designated areas in any case offered sustained protection. But, the researchers warn, the rates of protected area loss are accelerating, and more than 60% of such events have been associated with industrial-scale resource extraction.

The researchers argue that it should be as difficult to “roll back” protected areas as it is to establish them in the first place. – Climate News Network

While scientists call for more protection for wild things, governments have removed protection from wilderness areas the size of Mexico.

LONDON, 5 June, 2019 – Nature is losing ground even where it is supposedly protected: the wilderness is under increasing pressure.

The world’s protected areas – places of greater safety for the millions of trees, shrubs, flowers, fungi, insects, reptiles, fish, amphibians, mammals and birds that survive from millions of years of evolution – are being downgraded, reduced or developed at an increasing rate.

New research shows that since 1892, the formally protected areas of wilderness have in effect lost 2 million square kilometres. This is an area of land and water greater than the state of Mexico, and only slightly smaller than Saudi Arabia.

Of these losses, almost four-fifths have occurred since the year 2000, and most openly in the US and the region of Amazonia. In the United States alone, 90% of such proposed downsizing and degradation events have been proposed in the past 18 years, and 99% of these have been for industrial scale development.

And a new study in the journal Science warns that decisions by President Trump to “downsize” two national monuments – known as Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante – will reduce the protected terrain by 85% and 51% respectively.

“Lost protections can accelerate forest loss and carbon emissions – putting our climate and global biodiversity at greater risk”

In Brazil, the government proposes to “roll back” more than 183,000 square kilometres (45,000 million acres) of protected forest and other habitat. This is an area about the size of the US state of North Dakota.

“We are facing two global environmental crises: biodiversity loss and climate change. To address both, governments have established protected areas with the intent of conserving nature in perpetuity. Yet our research shows that protected areas can be rolled back and are not necessarily permanent,” said Rachel Golden Kroner, a social scientist at George Mason University in the US, who led the study.

“Lost protections can accelerate forest loss and carbon emissions – putting our climate and global biodiversity at greater risk.”

The finding – backed by a worldwide team of more than 20 researchers – comes only weeks after scientists warned yet again of the losses of perhaps a million species because of environmental destruction and climate change.

They have repeatedly warned that wildlife needs greater protection and that conservation areas are being lost.

Wilderness offers solutions

And researchers have once again confirmed that wilderness areas remain the best way to protect species while slowing climate change.

Although the US and Brazil have made conspicuous reductions in wildlife protected areas, Brazil was just one of seven Amazonian countries that have “rolled back” 245 state-designated protected areas between 1961 and 2017. Australia removed 13,000 square kilometres from protection and undermined protection for another 400,000 sq km.

The United Kingdom rolled back more than 46,000 sq km in 61 places, all to permit hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Cambodia authorised industrial agriculture in 120 instances covering nearly 10,000 sq km, and Kenya downsized 14,000 square kilometres of forest and game reserve.

Not all changes to protected areas have been necessarily harmful, and not all designated areas in any case offered sustained protection. But, the researchers warn, the rates of protected area loss are accelerating, and more than 60% of such events have been associated with industrial-scale resource extraction.

The researchers argue that it should be as difficult to “roll back” protected areas as it is to establish them in the first place. – Climate News Network

Political lobbying buys off climate law

When it comes to influence, big bucks are hard to beat. Climate campaigners can learn from a study of US political lobbying.

LONDON, 4 June, 2019 − Big money talks loudest. A decade ago Washington saw political lobbying spend $700 million to influence the political shape and progress of the American Clean Energy and Security Act – and significantly reduce its chances of success.

The reward for the investment was a 13% reduction in its chances of progress into law. The pay-off for the rest of humanity was, at a conservative estimate, an extra $60 billion worth of climate damages from future superstorms, droughts and heatwaves associated with global heating.

The political initiative was at the time the most prominent and promising US climate regulation legislation so far on the books. It failed.

“The popular media widely postulated at the time that oppositional political interests played a key role in the bill’s demise,” say two US scientists in the journal Nature Climate Change.

“If valid, this points to lobbying as an explanation for why so few climate change regulations are enacted. It also provides an example in which lobbying had welfare consequences by reducing the likelihood of enacting a socially beneficial policy.”

“There is increasing concern that this lack of climate action may be due to political influences”

That political persuaders, funded ultimately by the fossil fuel industries or think-tanks and associations that act for them, can affect the political process is not news. Research has at least twice linked the strident voice of climate denial with very big corporations or unexplained sources of funding.

And the lobby industry in Washington has been linked with systematic attempts to muddy or cast doubt upon the science that now comprehensively supports evidence of human-triggered and potentially catastrophic climate change.

Since then, President Trump has announced that the US will withdraw from the Paris Agreement, backed in 2015 by 195 nations, and the US Department of Energy has started to rebrand the potent greenhouse gas methane as the “freedom molecule” in a bid to give an exported fossil fuel a more wholesome reputation.

“There has been a striking disconnect between what is needed to avoid dangerous climate change and what has actually been done to date,” said Kyle Meng, of the University of Southern California at Santa Barbara, who led the study. “There is increasing concern that this lack of climate action may be due to political influences.”

But all political decisions involve compromise and there are many reasons why legislation can fail. Dr Meng and his co-author played statistical games with the available evidence to make calculations of the chances of success for the so-called 2009-2010 Waxman-Markey Bill that would have become the American Clean Energy and Security Act had it been passed.

Reduced chances

They made judgements about how successful legislation would affect the stock prices of businesses that were involved in lobbying congress and senate. They calculated that the bill had about a 55% chance of adoption, and used available data to calculate that big business which might have been affected by the bill in various ways spent $700 million on trying to influence the politicians.

And they found that lobbying by corporations that might expect to lose was more effective than lobbying by those businesses that might gain from successful legislation, and in effect reduced the bill’s chances of success to 42%.

They then used the same statistical logic to set a total for the extra “social cost” of greenhouse gases in terms of damage to human health, agriculture, insurance costs and so on: a total, they calculate, of $60bn at 2018 prices.

There are always problems with this kind of “what if?” or counter-factual research, and the authors concede the need for caution. But they argue that lessons can be learned about the way such legislation should be drawn up in the first place.

“Our findings also provide a glimmer of hope by paving a path toward politically more robust climate policies,” Dr Meng said. “Subtle design changes to market-based climate policies can alleviate political opposition and increase chances of adoption.” − Climate News Network

When it comes to influence, big bucks are hard to beat. Climate campaigners can learn from a study of US political lobbying.

LONDON, 4 June, 2019 − Big money talks loudest. A decade ago Washington saw political lobbying spend $700 million to influence the political shape and progress of the American Clean Energy and Security Act – and significantly reduce its chances of success.

The reward for the investment was a 13% reduction in its chances of progress into law. The pay-off for the rest of humanity was, at a conservative estimate, an extra $60 billion worth of climate damages from future superstorms, droughts and heatwaves associated with global heating.

The political initiative was at the time the most prominent and promising US climate regulation legislation so far on the books. It failed.

“The popular media widely postulated at the time that oppositional political interests played a key role in the bill’s demise,” say two US scientists in the journal Nature Climate Change.

“If valid, this points to lobbying as an explanation for why so few climate change regulations are enacted. It also provides an example in which lobbying had welfare consequences by reducing the likelihood of enacting a socially beneficial policy.”

“There is increasing concern that this lack of climate action may be due to political influences”

That political persuaders, funded ultimately by the fossil fuel industries or think-tanks and associations that act for them, can affect the political process is not news. Research has at least twice linked the strident voice of climate denial with very big corporations or unexplained sources of funding.

And the lobby industry in Washington has been linked with systematic attempts to muddy or cast doubt upon the science that now comprehensively supports evidence of human-triggered and potentially catastrophic climate change.

Since then, President Trump has announced that the US will withdraw from the Paris Agreement, backed in 2015 by 195 nations, and the US Department of Energy has started to rebrand the potent greenhouse gas methane as the “freedom molecule” in a bid to give an exported fossil fuel a more wholesome reputation.

“There has been a striking disconnect between what is needed to avoid dangerous climate change and what has actually been done to date,” said Kyle Meng, of the University of Southern California at Santa Barbara, who led the study. “There is increasing concern that this lack of climate action may be due to political influences.”

But all political decisions involve compromise and there are many reasons why legislation can fail. Dr Meng and his co-author played statistical games with the available evidence to make calculations of the chances of success for the so-called 2009-2010 Waxman-Markey Bill that would have become the American Clean Energy and Security Act had it been passed.

Reduced chances

They made judgements about how successful legislation would affect the stock prices of businesses that were involved in lobbying congress and senate. They calculated that the bill had about a 55% chance of adoption, and used available data to calculate that big business which might have been affected by the bill in various ways spent $700 million on trying to influence the politicians.

And they found that lobbying by corporations that might expect to lose was more effective than lobbying by those businesses that might gain from successful legislation, and in effect reduced the bill’s chances of success to 42%.

They then used the same statistical logic to set a total for the extra “social cost” of greenhouse gases in terms of damage to human health, agriculture, insurance costs and so on: a total, they calculate, of $60bn at 2018 prices.

There are always problems with this kind of “what if?” or counter-factual research, and the authors concede the need for caution. But they argue that lessons can be learned about the way such legislation should be drawn up in the first place.

“Our findings also provide a glimmer of hope by paving a path toward politically more robust climate policies,” Dr Meng said. “Subtle design changes to market-based climate policies can alleviate political opposition and increase chances of adoption.” − Climate News Network

No more climate change: it’s now a crisis

What’s in a name? A lot, The Guardian says: it’s ditching mentions of climate change and switching to sterner language.

LONDON, 24 May, 2019 − Talk about climate change, and there’s a good chance that people will know what you’re referring to, even if they don’t share your concerns about it.

But for one UK-based newspaper, The Guardian, “climate change” is now frowned upon, though it’s not formally banned. The paper’s house style guide recommends that its journalists should instead use such terms as “climate crisis” and “global heating”.

The Guardian has updated the style guide to introduce terms that it thinks more accurately describe the environmental crises confronting the world. So out goes “climate change”, to be replaced by the preferred terms, “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown”. “Global heating” replaces “global warming”.

“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” says the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.”

“The climate crisis is no longer a future problem – we need to tackle it now, and every day matters”

The United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, spoke of a “climate crisis” last September, adding: “We face a direct existential threat.” The climate scientist Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a former adviser to Angela Merkel, the EU and the pope, also uses the term.

In December Professor Richard Betts, who leads the UK Met Office’s climate research, said “global heating” was a more accurate term than “global warming” to describe what is now happening. British Members of Parliament recently endorsed the opposition Labour Party’s declaration of a climate emergency.

The scale of the climate and wildlife crises has been starkly spelt out by two chilling reports from the world’s scientists. In October 2018 they said carbon emissions must halve by 2030 to avoid even greater risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. In May 2019 they said human society is at risk from the accelerating annihilation of wildlife and destruction of the ecosystems that support all life on Earth.

Frequent errors

Other terms have also been updated by the Guardian. It now refers to “wildlife” rather than “biodiversity”, “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks”, and “climate science denier” rather than “climate sceptic”.

The BBC has put a formal end to a practice widely used for 30 years: it accepted last September that it gets coverage of climate change “wrong too often”, telling its staff: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”

Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has inspired school strikes for the climate around the globe, said recently: “It’s 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”

The update to the Guardian’s style guide follows the recent addition of the global carbon dioxide level to its daily weather pages. “Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen so dramatically – including a measure of that in our daily weather report is symbolic of what human activity is doing to our climate,” said Katharine Viner at the time.

Daily reminders

“People need reminding that the climate crisis is no longer a future problem – we need to tackle it now, and every day matters.”

The Guardian provides thorough coverage of the global environment, objective reporting and informed and pointed comment. The Climate News Network has since its start been part of the Guardian Environment Network.  The newspaper is one of the best-respected and most widely used international sources of information on the crises of the climate and the natural world.

Many of its competitors will be keen to see what difference in people’s perceptions of the crises follow from the name changes, and whether clearer and more deliberately assertive language prompts bolder action.

“Scientists, the media, and policymakers must, of course, distinguish when we’re talking about the fact of what’s happening (‘climate change’) from the opinion about how bad it is (‘climate crisis’),” Peter Gleick, a climate scientist who co-founded the Pacific Institute, told the US-based Earther website in an email.

Facts – and opinions

“Perhaps that’s a minor quibble, but when I speak in public, I try hard to present the ‘facts’ about climate change and then make clear those facts inform my opinion about how bad the problem is, and will be (we face a ‘climate crisis’).”

Several decades ago people didn’t talk much about climate change: they knew what was happening as global warming. When that was junked, to recognise that some parts of the globe were actually cooling as others warmed, it was certainly a move to something more scientifically accurate.

Climate deniers, though, said that there was no evidence of warming, and that by using the phrase “climate change” scientists were admitting that they had got the science wrong.

Remember the no-nonsense approach of the nursery rhyme character Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean − neither more nor less.” Words can be slippery, and dangerous. − Climate News Network

What’s in a name? A lot, The Guardian says: it’s ditching mentions of climate change and switching to sterner language.

LONDON, 24 May, 2019 − Talk about climate change, and there’s a good chance that people will know what you’re referring to, even if they don’t share your concerns about it.

But for one UK-based newspaper, The Guardian, “climate change” is now frowned upon, though it’s not formally banned. The paper’s house style guide recommends that its journalists should instead use such terms as “climate crisis” and “global heating”.

The Guardian has updated the style guide to introduce terms that it thinks more accurately describe the environmental crises confronting the world. So out goes “climate change”, to be replaced by the preferred terms, “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown”. “Global heating” replaces “global warming”.

“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” says the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.”

“The climate crisis is no longer a future problem – we need to tackle it now, and every day matters”

The United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, spoke of a “climate crisis” last September, adding: “We face a direct existential threat.” The climate scientist Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a former adviser to Angela Merkel, the EU and the pope, also uses the term.

In December Professor Richard Betts, who leads the UK Met Office’s climate research, said “global heating” was a more accurate term than “global warming” to describe what is now happening. British Members of Parliament recently endorsed the opposition Labour Party’s declaration of a climate emergency.

The scale of the climate and wildlife crises has been starkly spelt out by two chilling reports from the world’s scientists. In October 2018 they said carbon emissions must halve by 2030 to avoid even greater risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. In May 2019 they said human society is at risk from the accelerating annihilation of wildlife and destruction of the ecosystems that support all life on Earth.

Frequent errors

Other terms have also been updated by the Guardian. It now refers to “wildlife” rather than “biodiversity”, “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks”, and “climate science denier” rather than “climate sceptic”.

The BBC has put a formal end to a practice widely used for 30 years: it accepted last September that it gets coverage of climate change “wrong too often”, telling its staff: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”

Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has inspired school strikes for the climate around the globe, said recently: “It’s 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”

The update to the Guardian’s style guide follows the recent addition of the global carbon dioxide level to its daily weather pages. “Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen so dramatically – including a measure of that in our daily weather report is symbolic of what human activity is doing to our climate,” said Katharine Viner at the time.

Daily reminders

“People need reminding that the climate crisis is no longer a future problem – we need to tackle it now, and every day matters.”

The Guardian provides thorough coverage of the global environment, objective reporting and informed and pointed comment. The Climate News Network has since its start been part of the Guardian Environment Network.  The newspaper is one of the best-respected and most widely used international sources of information on the crises of the climate and the natural world.

Many of its competitors will be keen to see what difference in people’s perceptions of the crises follow from the name changes, and whether clearer and more deliberately assertive language prompts bolder action.

“Scientists, the media, and policymakers must, of course, distinguish when we’re talking about the fact of what’s happening (‘climate change’) from the opinion about how bad it is (‘climate crisis’),” Peter Gleick, a climate scientist who co-founded the Pacific Institute, told the US-based Earther website in an email.

Facts – and opinions

“Perhaps that’s a minor quibble, but when I speak in public, I try hard to present the ‘facts’ about climate change and then make clear those facts inform my opinion about how bad the problem is, and will be (we face a ‘climate crisis’).”

Several decades ago people didn’t talk much about climate change: they knew what was happening as global warming. When that was junked, to recognise that some parts of the globe were actually cooling as others warmed, it was certainly a move to something more scientifically accurate.

Climate deniers, though, said that there was no evidence of warming, and that by using the phrase “climate change” scientists were admitting that they had got the science wrong.

Remember the no-nonsense approach of the nursery rhyme character Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean − neither more nor less.” Words can be slippery, and dangerous. − Climate News Network

Wilder world can slow climate change

If you want to tackle climate change and restore once-familiar animals at the same time, a wilder world can help − naturally.

LONDON, 21 May, 2019 − Imagine a wilder world where many of the species humanity has almost wiped out are instead protected, cared for and encouraged to thrive.

No − it’s not Jurassic Park brought to life; it’s still largely an idea waiting to happen. But if it does ever become reality rewilding, as it’s known, could do a lot for us.

Rewilding simply means re-introducing wild creatures which used to live in countries like the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe and North America. One example is the Eurasian beaver, hunted in the UK to near-extinction several centuries ago but now making a tentative return to Britain.

They began their UK recovery modestly: two families were imported from Norway in 2001, with more animals following later to increase genetic diversity.

Through their skillful lodge-building and engineering of woods and waterways, beavers show how they benefit humans and other creatures. They create a range of habitats for birds, insects, fish, small mammals and plants; one re-introduction project records that the 10 clumps of frogspawn laid in 2011 in its ponds had increased to 370 clumps by 2018, thanks to the improvements made by the arriving beavers. They slow water flow, prevent flooding, and store water for local use.

Three wins in one

The Rapid Transition Alliance (RTA) argues that beavers’ lifestyles can prove a fast, cheap way to slow climate breakdown, to build resilience to its inescapable impacts and to restore natural diversity.

Another good candidate for rewilding, almost a century after they were wiped out in northern Europe and the US, is the wolf, one of 21 key species identified by the Rewilding Britain group for reintroduction. Among the species the British journalist George Monbiot lists in his book Feral as suitable for rewilding in the UK are not only beavers and wolves but bison, lynx, wild boar, European sturgeon and grey whales.

The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone Park in the US in 1995 shows how rewilding can work on a large scale to increase biodiversity. By the end of the 1920s almost all of the US wolves had been killed off, mainly by ranchers protecting their livestock. They clung on in small populations in the northern wildernesses along the border with Canada.

But within a few years the Yellowstone wolf packs had made favourable impacts on the whole ecosystem through their control of the elk population. They reduced overall numbers of elk, which are herbivorous, and without predators had grown enormous. This helped the grazing areas and let more trees grow.

“Ten clumps of frogspawn laid in 2011 in its ponds had increased to 370 clumps by 2018, thanks to the improvements made by the arriving beavers”

Along river banks the tree growth slowed the flow of water and reduced flooding during heavy rainfall. It also shaded the banks, allowing fish to flourish. And the wolves are bringing in money: wolf-watching is big business and earns an estimated four times more than elk hunting.

A 2018 report by the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science, argued for rewilding because native herbivores produce less methane than modern cattle and maintain forests by dispersing seeds in their dung.

Much of the UK would naturally support trees that absorb carbon, but it has some of the lowest tree cover in Europe. Rewilding could change that. And the RTA says people would benefit from the increased encounters with wildlife that would be possible, citing a 2013 Woodland Trust estimate that if every household in England were provided with good access to quality green space, it could save an estimated £2.1 billion in healthcare costs.

Predators take livestock, admittedly, but its supporters say we can mitigate losses with planning, design and compensation. For example, Germany sees few losses from herds because the farmers keep their livestock enclosed. Using specialist dog breeds to warn off wolves has also proved highly successful.

The UK badly needs rewilding. The 2016 State of Nature report noted that between 1970 and 2013 56% of species declined.

Resident nightingales

In southern England the Knepp Wildland project shows how rewilding can work. It is devoted to free-roaming herds of cattle, horses, pigs and deer as the drivers of habitat creation. Since it began in 2001 the numbers of many endangered species returning to Knepp have increased sharply: it now boasts 2% of the UK’s entire breeding population of nightingales.

Elsewhere in Europe countries including Romania, Croatia and Bulgaria, led by Rewilding Europe, an independent group based in the Netherlands and funded by the EU, are working towards similar goals.

If rewilding can work in Europe and North America, could it help in other parts of the world too? They certainly need it: the UN reported earlier this month in its Global Assessment Report that about one million of the Earth’s animal and plant species are at risk of extinction.

There’s just one snag. Historically, humans have exploited wildlife for fairly narrowly defined purposes: fur, feathers and flesh, often. Now we just want to shove them aside so that we can exploit the entire planet. Wildlife that doesn’t pay its way seldom gets the chance to stay. The Assessment’s authors say the main cause of the extinction crisis is the change which humans are making to their use of the Earth’s land and seas.

At that rate, the Rapid Transition Alliance thinks, it doesn’t sound as though there’ll be much room left by tomorrow to re-introduce anything, unless rewilding is part of a much wider strategy, including an absolute reduction of human consumption. − Climate News Network

*  *  * * *

The Rapid Transition Alliance is coordinated by the New Weather Institute, the STEPS Centre at the Institute of  Development Studies, and the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex, UK. The Climate News Network is partnering with and supported by the Rapid Transition Alliance, and will be reporting regularly on its work. If you would like to see more stories of evidence-based hope for rapid transition, please sign up here.

Do you know a story of rapid transition? If so, we’d like to hear from you. Please send us a brief outline on info@climatenewsnetwork.net. Thank you.

If you want to tackle climate change and restore once-familiar animals at the same time, a wilder world can help − naturally.

LONDON, 21 May, 2019 − Imagine a wilder world where many of the species humanity has almost wiped out are instead protected, cared for and encouraged to thrive.

No − it’s not Jurassic Park brought to life; it’s still largely an idea waiting to happen. But if it does ever become reality rewilding, as it’s known, could do a lot for us.

Rewilding simply means re-introducing wild creatures which used to live in countries like the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe and North America. One example is the Eurasian beaver, hunted in the UK to near-extinction several centuries ago but now making a tentative return to Britain.

They began their UK recovery modestly: two families were imported from Norway in 2001, with more animals following later to increase genetic diversity.

Through their skillful lodge-building and engineering of woods and waterways, beavers show how they benefit humans and other creatures. They create a range of habitats for birds, insects, fish, small mammals and plants; one re-introduction project records that the 10 clumps of frogspawn laid in 2011 in its ponds had increased to 370 clumps by 2018, thanks to the improvements made by the arriving beavers. They slow water flow, prevent flooding, and store water for local use.

Three wins in one

The Rapid Transition Alliance (RTA) argues that beavers’ lifestyles can prove a fast, cheap way to slow climate breakdown, to build resilience to its inescapable impacts and to restore natural diversity.

Another good candidate for rewilding, almost a century after they were wiped out in northern Europe and the US, is the wolf, one of 21 key species identified by the Rewilding Britain group for reintroduction. Among the species the British journalist George Monbiot lists in his book Feral as suitable for rewilding in the UK are not only beavers and wolves but bison, lynx, wild boar, European sturgeon and grey whales.

The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone Park in the US in 1995 shows how rewilding can work on a large scale to increase biodiversity. By the end of the 1920s almost all of the US wolves had been killed off, mainly by ranchers protecting their livestock. They clung on in small populations in the northern wildernesses along the border with Canada.

But within a few years the Yellowstone wolf packs had made favourable impacts on the whole ecosystem through their control of the elk population. They reduced overall numbers of elk, which are herbivorous, and without predators had grown enormous. This helped the grazing areas and let more trees grow.

“Ten clumps of frogspawn laid in 2011 in its ponds had increased to 370 clumps by 2018, thanks to the improvements made by the arriving beavers”

Along river banks the tree growth slowed the flow of water and reduced flooding during heavy rainfall. It also shaded the banks, allowing fish to flourish. And the wolves are bringing in money: wolf-watching is big business and earns an estimated four times more than elk hunting.

A 2018 report by the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science, argued for rewilding because native herbivores produce less methane than modern cattle and maintain forests by dispersing seeds in their dung.

Much of the UK would naturally support trees that absorb carbon, but it has some of the lowest tree cover in Europe. Rewilding could change that. And the RTA says people would benefit from the increased encounters with wildlife that would be possible, citing a 2013 Woodland Trust estimate that if every household in England were provided with good access to quality green space, it could save an estimated £2.1 billion in healthcare costs.

Predators take livestock, admittedly, but its supporters say we can mitigate losses with planning, design and compensation. For example, Germany sees few losses from herds because the farmers keep their livestock enclosed. Using specialist dog breeds to warn off wolves has also proved highly successful.

The UK badly needs rewilding. The 2016 State of Nature report noted that between 1970 and 2013 56% of species declined.

Resident nightingales

In southern England the Knepp Wildland project shows how rewilding can work. It is devoted to free-roaming herds of cattle, horses, pigs and deer as the drivers of habitat creation. Since it began in 2001 the numbers of many endangered species returning to Knepp have increased sharply: it now boasts 2% of the UK’s entire breeding population of nightingales.

Elsewhere in Europe countries including Romania, Croatia and Bulgaria, led by Rewilding Europe, an independent group based in the Netherlands and funded by the EU, are working towards similar goals.

If rewilding can work in Europe and North America, could it help in other parts of the world too? They certainly need it: the UN reported earlier this month in its Global Assessment Report that about one million of the Earth’s animal and plant species are at risk of extinction.

There’s just one snag. Historically, humans have exploited wildlife for fairly narrowly defined purposes: fur, feathers and flesh, often. Now we just want to shove them aside so that we can exploit the entire planet. Wildlife that doesn’t pay its way seldom gets the chance to stay. The Assessment’s authors say the main cause of the extinction crisis is the change which humans are making to their use of the Earth’s land and seas.

At that rate, the Rapid Transition Alliance thinks, it doesn’t sound as though there’ll be much room left by tomorrow to re-introduce anything, unless rewilding is part of a much wider strategy, including an absolute reduction of human consumption. − Climate News Network

*  *  * * *

The Rapid Transition Alliance is coordinated by the New Weather Institute, the STEPS Centre at the Institute of  Development Studies, and the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex, UK. The Climate News Network is partnering with and supported by the Rapid Transition Alliance, and will be reporting regularly on its work. If you would like to see more stories of evidence-based hope for rapid transition, please sign up here.

Do you know a story of rapid transition? If so, we’d like to hear from you. Please send us a brief outline on info@climatenewsnetwork.net. Thank you.

Carbon farming can slash CO2 emissions

US entrepreneurs say a new technique − carbon farming, improving the health of the soil − can achieve big cuts in atmospheric carbon.
WASHINGTON DC, 17 May, 2019 − Soil health improvement, a technique known as carbon farming, could cut the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere by more than one-sixth, a US business group says.
It says a concerted effort by the world’s farmers to restore and protect soil health could reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by as much as 65 parts per million (ppm) from its current level of more than 415 ppm.
It made the announcement at a webinar on carbon farming which it hosted here in April. A full report of the webinar appears on the website of the The Energy Mix.
The group, the US-based Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), describes itself as “a national, nonpartisan group of business leaders, investors, and professionals from every sector of the economy who advocate … smart policies that are good for the economy and good for the environment”
World leaders … said that regenerative agriculture to naturally conserve and protect topsoil and support its fertility and resilience were “a huge carbon capture opportunity”
The total saving of 65 ppm represents the estimated amount of carbon that human activity has removed from the soil since the dawn of industrial agriculture.
But, E2 says, even if its eventual contribution to climate stabilisation falls well short of this figure, drawing attention to soil carbon sequestration could still concentrate minds on a climate solution often neglected in comparison with more complex and often riskier options for emission cuts.
E2 says a critical step in advancing climate-friendly soil health in the US is the ground-breaking Soil Health Demonstration Trial, a carbon farming pilot project that a coalition of farmers, agricultural technology entrepreneurs and environmentalists managed to persuade a deeply divided US Congress to accept in the December 2018 farm bill, the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018.
The idea for the carbon farming pilot emerged in the wake of the UN’s 2016 annual climate conference, known as COP23, held in the German city of Bonn. World leaders there said that regenerative agriculture to naturally conserve and protect topsoil and support its fertility and resilience were “a huge carbon capture opportunity”.
Microbial key
Carbon farming depends on the activity of microbes in the soil, says E2. Through photosynthesis, plants remove vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into sugars. They use as much as 30% of these sugars to “recruit and nurture” huge, diverse populations of microbes around their root systems.
The microbes help the plants take up nutrients, retain water and tolerate stress, functioning as a key part of the process by which plants produce the roots and leaves that end up as carbon in the soil. When they die, they deposit huge amounts of carbon in the soil.
Scientists have developed a new microbial soil additive that substantially increased soil carbon sequestration in trial applications to California grapes and citrus fruit in Florida.
In the citrus trial, after scientists treated one acre of land three to four times over the course of a year, soil carbon increased by 32%, to 4.3 tons. Soil greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2.33 tons, reckoned to be the rough equivalent of the CO2 produced by driving a car with an internal combustion engine for a whole year.
Depositing four tons of carbon per acre in just 10% of California’s agricultural land, it is estimated, would be the equivalent of taking 4.3 million cars off the road. − Climate News Network

 

* * * * *

The Climate News Network wishes to thank The Energy Mix, a thrice-weekly e-digest on climate, energy and post-carbon solutions, for permission to publish this slightly adapted version of its original report on carbon farming.

US entrepreneurs say a new technique − carbon farming, improving the health of the soil − can achieve big cuts in atmospheric carbon.
WASHINGTON DC, 17 May, 2019 − Soil health improvement, a technique known as carbon farming, could cut the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere by more than one-sixth, a US business group says.
It says a concerted effort by the world’s farmers to restore and protect soil health could reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by as much as 65 parts per million (ppm) from its current level of more than 415 ppm.
It made the announcement at a webinar on carbon farming which it hosted here in April. A full report of the webinar appears on the website of the The Energy Mix.
The group, the US-based Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), describes itself as “a national, nonpartisan group of business leaders, investors, and professionals from every sector of the economy who advocate … smart policies that are good for the economy and good for the environment”
World leaders … said that regenerative agriculture to naturally conserve and protect topsoil and support its fertility and resilience were “a huge carbon capture opportunity”
The total saving of 65 ppm represents the estimated amount of carbon that human activity has removed from the soil since the dawn of industrial agriculture.
But, E2 says, even if its eventual contribution to climate stabilisation falls well short of this figure, drawing attention to soil carbon sequestration could still concentrate minds on a climate solution often neglected in comparison with more complex and often riskier options for emission cuts.
E2 says a critical step in advancing climate-friendly soil health in the US is the ground-breaking Soil Health Demonstration Trial, a carbon farming pilot project that a coalition of farmers, agricultural technology entrepreneurs and environmentalists managed to persuade a deeply divided US Congress to accept in the December 2018 farm bill, the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018.
The idea for the carbon farming pilot emerged in the wake of the UN’s 2016 annual climate conference, known as COP23, held in the German city of Bonn. World leaders there said that regenerative agriculture to naturally conserve and protect topsoil and support its fertility and resilience were “a huge carbon capture opportunity”.
Microbial key
Carbon farming depends on the activity of microbes in the soil, says E2. Through photosynthesis, plants remove vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into sugars. They use as much as 30% of these sugars to “recruit and nurture” huge, diverse populations of microbes around their root systems.
The microbes help the plants take up nutrients, retain water and tolerate stress, functioning as a key part of the process by which plants produce the roots and leaves that end up as carbon in the soil. When they die, they deposit huge amounts of carbon in the soil.
Scientists have developed a new microbial soil additive that substantially increased soil carbon sequestration in trial applications to California grapes and citrus fruit in Florida.
In the citrus trial, after scientists treated one acre of land three to four times over the course of a year, soil carbon increased by 32%, to 4.3 tons. Soil greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2.33 tons, reckoned to be the rough equivalent of the CO2 produced by driving a car with an internal combustion engine for a whole year.
Depositing four tons of carbon per acre in just 10% of California’s agricultural land, it is estimated, would be the equivalent of taking 4.3 million cars off the road. − Climate News Network

 

* * * * *

The Climate News Network wishes to thank The Energy Mix, a thrice-weekly e-digest on climate, energy and post-carbon solutions, for permission to publish this slightly adapted version of its original report on carbon farming.

Human impact on climate is 100 years old

When did the human impact on climate begin? At least a century ago, with the arrival of the bi-plane, the chauffeur-driven car and the Jazz Age.

LONDON, 2 May, 2019 − Our influence on the Earth’s environment has lasted for a century: the human impact on droughts and moisture patterns began at least 100 years ago, researchers now say.

US scientists used new analytic techniques and almost a thousand years of tree-ring data to build up a picture of drought and rainfall worldwide for the last century. And they report in the journal Nature that they have identified the human fingerprint upon climate variation as far back as the first days of the motor car and the infant aircraft industry.

The pattern of change, in which regions prone to drought such as the western US became more arid, grew visible between 1900 and 1949. The researchers saw the same pattern of drying in those decades in Australia, Europe, the Mediterranean, western Russia and southeast Asia.

At the same time more rain and snow fell in western China, much of central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, Indonesia and central Canada.

Clear signal apparent

Kate Marvel of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who led the research, said: “It’s mind-boggling. There really is a clear signal of the effects of greenhouse gases on the hydroclimate.”

And Benjamin Cook of both the Nasa Institute and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, said: “We asked, does the real world look like what the models tell us to expect? The answer is yes.

“The big thing we learned is that climate change started affecting global patterns of drought in the early 20th century. We expect this pattern to keep emerging as climate change continues.”

For four decades it has been a given of climate change research that average planetary warming will intensify all the extremes of weather: in particular, drought and flood.

“All the models are projecting that you should see unprecedented drying soon, in a lot of places”

The problem has been that droughts and floods have always happened. But could scientists identify the signature of human change – the clearing of the forests, the intensification of agriculture, the growth of the cities and the ever-increasing use of fossil fuels to dump ever more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – in any one flood or drought? Until this century, researchers were unwilling to name the guilty party.

No longer. In recent years researchers have done more than just blame overall warming on human activity, and in particular the increasing hazard of extremes of heat, drought and flood.

They have linked human behaviour with drought in California and with record temperatures in 2013 in Australia.

The Nasa-led research is not quite the first to claim to have detected very early evidence of climate change. A team led by Chinese scientists reported in April in the journal Nature Sustainability that tree ring evidence from the Tibetan plateau suggested that humans may have begun altering the pattern of seasonal temperatures – that is, the differences between winter and summer – as early as the 1870s, at least in the northern hemisphere.

Puzzle solved?

But the latest study from Dr Marvel and colleagues identifies such evidence on a wider scale, and may even have resolved the puzzle of the extremes that did not happen.

The research found three distinct periods of change. The first was marked by more drought in some places, more precipitation in others in the first half of the 20th century. But by the height of the Cold War, and the space race mid-century, it became harder to see a pattern, and climate events seemed more random, and climates cooler.

The researchers now think the huge volumes of aerosols from power stations, factory chimneys and vehicle exhausts between 1950 and 1975 altered weather patterns in different ways, affecting cloud formation, rainfall and temperature, to mask the effect of greenhouse gas increases.

These were the years of choking smog, grime and soot, sulphurous droplets, acid rain, corroding historic buildings and urban respiratory disease on an epidemic scale.

Stronger patternn expected

And then developed nations started introducing clean air legislation and other pollution controls. Round about 1981, tentative evidence of the impact of human-driven greenhouse gas emissions began to show again in the climate record, although not as boldly as in the first half of the century.

If the researchers have got it right, the pattern of increasing drought, matched elsewhere by increasing precipitation, will continue to become stronger.

“If we don’t see it coming in stronger in, say, the next 10 years, we might have to wonder whether we are right,” Dr Marvel said. “But all the models are projecting that you should see unprecedented drying soon, in a lot of places.”

And the researchers warn that the consequences for humankind, especially in North America and Eurasia, could be severe. − Climate News Network

When did the human impact on climate begin? At least a century ago, with the arrival of the bi-plane, the chauffeur-driven car and the Jazz Age.

LONDON, 2 May, 2019 − Our influence on the Earth’s environment has lasted for a century: the human impact on droughts and moisture patterns began at least 100 years ago, researchers now say.

US scientists used new analytic techniques and almost a thousand years of tree-ring data to build up a picture of drought and rainfall worldwide for the last century. And they report in the journal Nature that they have identified the human fingerprint upon climate variation as far back as the first days of the motor car and the infant aircraft industry.

The pattern of change, in which regions prone to drought such as the western US became more arid, grew visible between 1900 and 1949. The researchers saw the same pattern of drying in those decades in Australia, Europe, the Mediterranean, western Russia and southeast Asia.

At the same time more rain and snow fell in western China, much of central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, Indonesia and central Canada.

Clear signal apparent

Kate Marvel of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who led the research, said: “It’s mind-boggling. There really is a clear signal of the effects of greenhouse gases on the hydroclimate.”

And Benjamin Cook of both the Nasa Institute and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, said: “We asked, does the real world look like what the models tell us to expect? The answer is yes.

“The big thing we learned is that climate change started affecting global patterns of drought in the early 20th century. We expect this pattern to keep emerging as climate change continues.”

For four decades it has been a given of climate change research that average planetary warming will intensify all the extremes of weather: in particular, drought and flood.

“All the models are projecting that you should see unprecedented drying soon, in a lot of places”

The problem has been that droughts and floods have always happened. But could scientists identify the signature of human change – the clearing of the forests, the intensification of agriculture, the growth of the cities and the ever-increasing use of fossil fuels to dump ever more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – in any one flood or drought? Until this century, researchers were unwilling to name the guilty party.

No longer. In recent years researchers have done more than just blame overall warming on human activity, and in particular the increasing hazard of extremes of heat, drought and flood.

They have linked human behaviour with drought in California and with record temperatures in 2013 in Australia.

The Nasa-led research is not quite the first to claim to have detected very early evidence of climate change. A team led by Chinese scientists reported in April in the journal Nature Sustainability that tree ring evidence from the Tibetan plateau suggested that humans may have begun altering the pattern of seasonal temperatures – that is, the differences between winter and summer – as early as the 1870s, at least in the northern hemisphere.

Puzzle solved?

But the latest study from Dr Marvel and colleagues identifies such evidence on a wider scale, and may even have resolved the puzzle of the extremes that did not happen.

The research found three distinct periods of change. The first was marked by more drought in some places, more precipitation in others in the first half of the 20th century. But by the height of the Cold War, and the space race mid-century, it became harder to see a pattern, and climate events seemed more random, and climates cooler.

The researchers now think the huge volumes of aerosols from power stations, factory chimneys and vehicle exhausts between 1950 and 1975 altered weather patterns in different ways, affecting cloud formation, rainfall and temperature, to mask the effect of greenhouse gas increases.

These were the years of choking smog, grime and soot, sulphurous droplets, acid rain, corroding historic buildings and urban respiratory disease on an epidemic scale.

Stronger patternn expected

And then developed nations started introducing clean air legislation and other pollution controls. Round about 1981, tentative evidence of the impact of human-driven greenhouse gas emissions began to show again in the climate record, although not as boldly as in the first half of the century.

If the researchers have got it right, the pattern of increasing drought, matched elsewhere by increasing precipitation, will continue to become stronger.

“If we don’t see it coming in stronger in, say, the next 10 years, we might have to wonder whether we are right,” Dr Marvel said. “But all the models are projecting that you should see unprecedented drying soon, in a lot of places.”

And the researchers warn that the consequences for humankind, especially in North America and Eurasia, could be severe. − Climate News Network

Half a degree may make heat impact far worse

Half a degree of warming doesn’t sound like much. But there is fresh evidence that it could make a huge difference to rainfall and drought.

LONDON, 4 April, 2019 − Japanese scientists have found new evidence that a global average temperature rise as small as half a degree could have a drastic effect.

They conclude that the world cannot afford to delay action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow global warming to 1.5°C by 2100 – the “ideal target” enshrined in the promise by 195 nations to limit warming to well below 2°C above the long-term average for most of human history.

The evidence is this: a shift of even 0.5°C could make a dramatic difference to the risks of devastating droughts and calamitous floods.

If governments keep to the letter of the Paris Agreement of 2015 but not the spirit, and let warming rise to the maximum of 2°, then there will be more intense rainfall across North America, Europe and Asia, and more intense droughts around the Mediterranean.

And although the average intensity of each flood or drought would increase measurably, the intensity of the most extreme event could be even more intense: 10 times greater. That is: the worst imaginable floods 80 years from now would be ten times worse than the worst today.

“Such drastic changes between flood and drought conditions pose a major challenge . . . risks could be substantially reduced by achieving a 1.5°C target”

At the heart of research like this is a new way of looking at future climate projections devised – by researchers all over the world – on a range of possible outcomes for a planet that has recognised climate change, vowed to respond, but failed to take sufficiently energetic steps.

The planet is already warmer by 1°C on average than it was a century ago. Since the Paris Agreement researchers have warned that on present form, and with the present state of commitment nationally and internationally, global average temperatures will top an increase of at least 3°C by the century’s close.

This would be catastrophic. But since then, a slew of fresh studies has defined fresh shades of potential catastrophe even at 2°C maximum, and delivered evidence that a limit of overall warming to the target of 1.5°C would save not just economic damage but even lost lands.

They have demonstrated that just half a degree more would see sea levels rise by 10cms, to threaten the existence of already vulnerable small island states and low-lying coastal floodplains, to put at risk the survival of the coral reefs, and the Arctic ice.

The latest study simply addressed a phenomenon known in the scientific language as the event-to-event hydrological intensification index. This awkward mouthful of syllables masks the crude consequence of average warming: if the overall temperature rises, then so do the extremes of temperature. That is what is meant by average: the mean of all the extremes.

Harder rain

But if average temperatures rise, so does the capacity of the air to hold moisture, which means that when it does rain, then it will rain harder. And when it doesn’t, the groundwater will evaporate more easily.

So landscapes such as the US south-west, already prone to heat and drought, can expect more heat waves, more forest fires and more intense and prolonged drought, while the northeast could see more flooding.

And the latest study in the journal Scientific Reports, by researchers at the University of Tokyo, looked at the difference of outcomes between 1.5°C and 2°C in an already rapidly-warming world, to find that when it came to rainfall – and the attendant floods, droughts, mudslides, harvest failures and water shortages – even half a degree beyond the ideal could make the very bad 10 times worse.

“The high damage potential of such drastic changes between flood and drought conditions poses a major challenge to adaptation,” the researchers conclude, “and the findings suggest that risks could be substantially reduced by achieving a 1.5°C target.” − Climate News Network

Half a degree of warming doesn’t sound like much. But there is fresh evidence that it could make a huge difference to rainfall and drought.

LONDON, 4 April, 2019 − Japanese scientists have found new evidence that a global average temperature rise as small as half a degree could have a drastic effect.

They conclude that the world cannot afford to delay action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow global warming to 1.5°C by 2100 – the “ideal target” enshrined in the promise by 195 nations to limit warming to well below 2°C above the long-term average for most of human history.

The evidence is this: a shift of even 0.5°C could make a dramatic difference to the risks of devastating droughts and calamitous floods.

If governments keep to the letter of the Paris Agreement of 2015 but not the spirit, and let warming rise to the maximum of 2°, then there will be more intense rainfall across North America, Europe and Asia, and more intense droughts around the Mediterranean.

And although the average intensity of each flood or drought would increase measurably, the intensity of the most extreme event could be even more intense: 10 times greater. That is: the worst imaginable floods 80 years from now would be ten times worse than the worst today.

“Such drastic changes between flood and drought conditions pose a major challenge . . . risks could be substantially reduced by achieving a 1.5°C target”

At the heart of research like this is a new way of looking at future climate projections devised – by researchers all over the world – on a range of possible outcomes for a planet that has recognised climate change, vowed to respond, but failed to take sufficiently energetic steps.

The planet is already warmer by 1°C on average than it was a century ago. Since the Paris Agreement researchers have warned that on present form, and with the present state of commitment nationally and internationally, global average temperatures will top an increase of at least 3°C by the century’s close.

This would be catastrophic. But since then, a slew of fresh studies has defined fresh shades of potential catastrophe even at 2°C maximum, and delivered evidence that a limit of overall warming to the target of 1.5°C would save not just economic damage but even lost lands.

They have demonstrated that just half a degree more would see sea levels rise by 10cms, to threaten the existence of already vulnerable small island states and low-lying coastal floodplains, to put at risk the survival of the coral reefs, and the Arctic ice.

The latest study simply addressed a phenomenon known in the scientific language as the event-to-event hydrological intensification index. This awkward mouthful of syllables masks the crude consequence of average warming: if the overall temperature rises, then so do the extremes of temperature. That is what is meant by average: the mean of all the extremes.

Harder rain

But if average temperatures rise, so does the capacity of the air to hold moisture, which means that when it does rain, then it will rain harder. And when it doesn’t, the groundwater will evaporate more easily.

So landscapes such as the US south-west, already prone to heat and drought, can expect more heat waves, more forest fires and more intense and prolonged drought, while the northeast could see more flooding.

And the latest study in the journal Scientific Reports, by researchers at the University of Tokyo, looked at the difference of outcomes between 1.5°C and 2°C in an already rapidly-warming world, to find that when it came to rainfall – and the attendant floods, droughts, mudslides, harvest failures and water shortages – even half a degree beyond the ideal could make the very bad 10 times worse.

“The high damage potential of such drastic changes between flood and drought conditions poses a major challenge to adaptation,” the researchers conclude, “and the findings suggest that risks could be substantially reduced by achieving a 1.5°C target.” − Climate News Network

Rapidly rising heat will cut maize harvests

Soon the corn could roast on the cob long before the maize harvests are due. That could be far sooner than anyone expects.

LONDON, 3 April, 2019 − European scientists have bad news for the world’s farmers: within a decade, maize harvests will suffer as global temperatures will have reached a level that will turn the once-in-a-decade extremes of heat and drought into the new normal.

That will mean that the worst production losses ever felt by the maize farmers will happen with increasing frequency, if global planetary temperatures reach 1.5°C above the long-term average for almost all human history.

The world is already 1°C hotter on average than it was before the Industrial Revolution and its increasing dependence on fossil fuels to power the global economies.

And if the temperature reaches 2°C, researchers warn, farmlands where maize once flourished will be hit by heat and drought events never before experienced. The big agribusiness giants will be hurt – and so will the small subsistence farmers who depend on their crop to keep their families alive.

“At the 2°C warning level . . . our projections suggest that global maize production will suffer from unprecedented losses”

Already the warming in the last few decades has begun to hit yields: the scientists reckon that maize yield within the 28 European member states is 290,000 tonnes a year lower than it would have been without global warming.

Significantly, 195 nations met in Paris in 2015 to agree to co-operate to keep average global warming down to if possible “well below” 2°C by 2100. Their target was a rise of no more than 1.5°C.

At the present rate of action – to switch to solar and wind power, to restore the world’s forests – the planet is on course to warm by 3°C by the close of the century.

But a new study by the European Union’s Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy, published in the journal Earth’s Future, is not worried about the average, but about the extremes that, over the course of a year, make up that average, and drive up the loss of one particular crop: maize.

Vulnerabilities

Maize is now the world’s biggest single crop: the US is the most important producer but the EU ranks fourth in the world, producing an average of 65 million tonnes a year for food and cattle fodder. This warm climate crop is at certain points in its growing season vulnerable to heat stress and to drought. And heat stress seems increasingly  certain.

Researchers have warned, repeatedly, that higher average planetary or regional temperatures will mean increasingly intense, frequent, prolonged and potentially dangerous extremes of heat. And those areas already vulnerable to drought are likely to see much more of it, while other regions will become more at risk of catastrophic flood.

Agricultural scientists have already confirmed that untimely spells of heat and drought have started to slash cereal yields as measured across whole regions, or per field.

Hunger warning

And although the US has increased production, this too will be vulnerable to further warming. The World Meteorological Organisation has just warned of an already warmer, hungrier world.

The European researchers report that their analysis of past and future maize production surveys a range of outcomes: in one of these, the worst could start to happen as early as 2020. They suggest greater efforts to meet the goals set in Paris but even with those, farmers and agriculture ministries will need to find ways to adapt.

Their report ends bluntly. “We found that global warming will substantially increase the risk of maize production losses in most world regions, including the United States. The climatic events affecting historical global maize production once every 10 years will become normal at the 1.5°C global warming level, which is reached in the 2020s in most of the analysed climate model simulations,” they write.

“At the 2°C warning level (approximately late 2030s) our projections suggest that global maize production will suffer from unprecedented losses.” − Climate News Network

Soon the corn could roast on the cob long before the maize harvests are due. That could be far sooner than anyone expects.

LONDON, 3 April, 2019 − European scientists have bad news for the world’s farmers: within a decade, maize harvests will suffer as global temperatures will have reached a level that will turn the once-in-a-decade extremes of heat and drought into the new normal.

That will mean that the worst production losses ever felt by the maize farmers will happen with increasing frequency, if global planetary temperatures reach 1.5°C above the long-term average for almost all human history.

The world is already 1°C hotter on average than it was before the Industrial Revolution and its increasing dependence on fossil fuels to power the global economies.

And if the temperature reaches 2°C, researchers warn, farmlands where maize once flourished will be hit by heat and drought events never before experienced. The big agribusiness giants will be hurt – and so will the small subsistence farmers who depend on their crop to keep their families alive.

“At the 2°C warning level . . . our projections suggest that global maize production will suffer from unprecedented losses”

Already the warming in the last few decades has begun to hit yields: the scientists reckon that maize yield within the 28 European member states is 290,000 tonnes a year lower than it would have been without global warming.

Significantly, 195 nations met in Paris in 2015 to agree to co-operate to keep average global warming down to if possible “well below” 2°C by 2100. Their target was a rise of no more than 1.5°C.

At the present rate of action – to switch to solar and wind power, to restore the world’s forests – the planet is on course to warm by 3°C by the close of the century.

But a new study by the European Union’s Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy, published in the journal Earth’s Future, is not worried about the average, but about the extremes that, over the course of a year, make up that average, and drive up the loss of one particular crop: maize.

Vulnerabilities

Maize is now the world’s biggest single crop: the US is the most important producer but the EU ranks fourth in the world, producing an average of 65 million tonnes a year for food and cattle fodder. This warm climate crop is at certain points in its growing season vulnerable to heat stress and to drought. And heat stress seems increasingly  certain.

Researchers have warned, repeatedly, that higher average planetary or regional temperatures will mean increasingly intense, frequent, prolonged and potentially dangerous extremes of heat. And those areas already vulnerable to drought are likely to see much more of it, while other regions will become more at risk of catastrophic flood.

Agricultural scientists have already confirmed that untimely spells of heat and drought have started to slash cereal yields as measured across whole regions, or per field.

Hunger warning

And although the US has increased production, this too will be vulnerable to further warming. The World Meteorological Organisation has just warned of an already warmer, hungrier world.

The European researchers report that their analysis of past and future maize production surveys a range of outcomes: in one of these, the worst could start to happen as early as 2020. They suggest greater efforts to meet the goals set in Paris but even with those, farmers and agriculture ministries will need to find ways to adapt.

Their report ends bluntly. “We found that global warming will substantially increase the risk of maize production losses in most world regions, including the United States. The climatic events affecting historical global maize production once every 10 years will become normal at the 1.5°C global warming level, which is reached in the 2020s in most of the analysed climate model simulations,” they write.

“At the 2°C warning level (approximately late 2030s) our projections suggest that global maize production will suffer from unprecedented losses.” − Climate News Network

Worse tropical winds will kill more trees

More greenhouse gases mean worse tropical winds and fiercer storms. That could mean more forest damage . . . and more greenhouse gas emissions . . .

LONDON, 28 March, 2019 − Worse tropical winds will spell worse danger to forests, in a cycle that feeds on itself. Hurricane Maria, which in 2017 slammed into Puerto Rico, shut down the electricity supply for the entire US island of 3.3 million people, and claimed almost 3,000 lives. And it also killed or damaged at least 20 million trees, or possibly 40 million.

If what happened in the track of Maria is a pointer to the future, then hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones will join drought, wildfire and men with chainsaws as a new threat to the world’s tropical forests, the biggest absorbers of carbon on the terrestrial surface.

Living forests absorb carbon. Dying and decaying trees release greenhouse gases. The damage by Maria has already been estimated to have released 5.75 million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere. This is about one-fortieth of all the carbon taken up by all the forests in the US.

“The expected changes in hurricane winds and rainfall may have profound consequences for the long-term resilience of tropical forests in the North Atlantic basin”

Hurricanes are linked with rising sea surface temperatures. Researchers have been warning for decades that in a warming world, extremes of heat, drought, flood and windstorm will become more destructive. So Hurricane Maria could be a taste of things to come.

“These hurricanes are going to kill more trees,” said Maria Uriarte, of the Earth Institute of Columbia University. “They’re going to break more trees. The factors that protected many trees in the past will no longer apply. Forests will become shorter and smaller because they won’t have time to regrow, and they will be less diverse.”

Maria blew into Puerto Rico in October 2017, with winds of up to 250 kms an hour. It dropped 500 mm of rain to become the island’s worst storm for 90 years.

To make their estimate of the destruction, Professor Uriarte and colleagues surveyed a 16-hectare plot of the island’s El Yunque national forest near the capital, San Juan: a plot that has been monitored after violent windstorm assault in 1989 by Hurricane Hugo and then in 1998 by Hurricane Georges.

Much fiercer impact

They report in the journal Nature Communications that Hurricane Maria killed twice as many trees outright as previous storms, and snapped more than three times as many trunks. Some species experienced breakage rates of up to 12 times that of previous hurricanes. Among them, and unexpectedly, were some of the slowest-growing, most valuable hardwoods. About half of all trees with broken trunks are expected to die within two or three years.

Some species survived well: among them the sierra palm, a tree able to bend with the wind, and if stripped sprout again from the top. Such species could be the inheritors of future hurricanes and grow quickly to take advantage of cleared forest space. So future forests could be dominated by shorter, and less diverse, foliage.

And the future is unpromising. Atlantic Ocean sea surface temperatures are rising, and climate simulations predict that by 2100 the highest sustained hurricane winds could increase by 15%. Warmer air can hold more moisture, so rainfall near storm centres could increase by 20%. Extreme winds fell trees; rain destabilises soil and makes uprooting easier.

“Maria transformed tropical forests across the island into leafless tangles of damaged and downed trees,” the researchers write. And they warn: “The expected changes in hurricane winds and rainfall may have profound consequences for the long-term resilience of tropical forests in the North Atlantic basin.” − Climate News Network

More greenhouse gases mean worse tropical winds and fiercer storms. That could mean more forest damage . . . and more greenhouse gas emissions . . .

LONDON, 28 March, 2019 − Worse tropical winds will spell worse danger to forests, in a cycle that feeds on itself. Hurricane Maria, which in 2017 slammed into Puerto Rico, shut down the electricity supply for the entire US island of 3.3 million people, and claimed almost 3,000 lives. And it also killed or damaged at least 20 million trees, or possibly 40 million.

If what happened in the track of Maria is a pointer to the future, then hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones will join drought, wildfire and men with chainsaws as a new threat to the world’s tropical forests, the biggest absorbers of carbon on the terrestrial surface.

Living forests absorb carbon. Dying and decaying trees release greenhouse gases. The damage by Maria has already been estimated to have released 5.75 million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere. This is about one-fortieth of all the carbon taken up by all the forests in the US.

“The expected changes in hurricane winds and rainfall may have profound consequences for the long-term resilience of tropical forests in the North Atlantic basin”

Hurricanes are linked with rising sea surface temperatures. Researchers have been warning for decades that in a warming world, extremes of heat, drought, flood and windstorm will become more destructive. So Hurricane Maria could be a taste of things to come.

“These hurricanes are going to kill more trees,” said Maria Uriarte, of the Earth Institute of Columbia University. “They’re going to break more trees. The factors that protected many trees in the past will no longer apply. Forests will become shorter and smaller because they won’t have time to regrow, and they will be less diverse.”

Maria blew into Puerto Rico in October 2017, with winds of up to 250 kms an hour. It dropped 500 mm of rain to become the island’s worst storm for 90 years.

To make their estimate of the destruction, Professor Uriarte and colleagues surveyed a 16-hectare plot of the island’s El Yunque national forest near the capital, San Juan: a plot that has been monitored after violent windstorm assault in 1989 by Hurricane Hugo and then in 1998 by Hurricane Georges.

Much fiercer impact

They report in the journal Nature Communications that Hurricane Maria killed twice as many trees outright as previous storms, and snapped more than three times as many trunks. Some species experienced breakage rates of up to 12 times that of previous hurricanes. Among them, and unexpectedly, were some of the slowest-growing, most valuable hardwoods. About half of all trees with broken trunks are expected to die within two or three years.

Some species survived well: among them the sierra palm, a tree able to bend with the wind, and if stripped sprout again from the top. Such species could be the inheritors of future hurricanes and grow quickly to take advantage of cleared forest space. So future forests could be dominated by shorter, and less diverse, foliage.

And the future is unpromising. Atlantic Ocean sea surface temperatures are rising, and climate simulations predict that by 2100 the highest sustained hurricane winds could increase by 15%. Warmer air can hold more moisture, so rainfall near storm centres could increase by 20%. Extreme winds fell trees; rain destabilises soil and makes uprooting easier.

“Maria transformed tropical forests across the island into leafless tangles of damaged and downed trees,” the researchers write. And they warn: “The expected changes in hurricane winds and rainfall may have profound consequences for the long-term resilience of tropical forests in the North Atlantic basin.” − Climate News Network