23/07/2017

2017 Is So Unexpectedly Warm It Is Freaking Out Climate Scientists

ThinkProgressJoe Romm

"Extremely remarkable" 2017 heads toward record for hottest year without an El Niño episode.
January–June 2017 global surface temperatures (compared to the 20th century average) in Degrees Celsius. CREDIT: NOAA
Normally, the hottest years on record occur when the underlying human-caused global warming trend gets a temporary boost from an El Niño's enhanced warming in the tropical Pacific.
So it's been a surprise to climate scientists that 2017 has been so remarkably warm — because the last El Niño ended a year ago.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported Tuesday that the first half of 2017 was the second-warmest January-June on record for Earth, topped only by 2016, which was boosted by one of the biggest El Niños on record. "As if it wasn't shocking enough to see three consecutive record-breaking years, in 2014, 2015, and 2016, for the first time on record," leading climatologist Michael Mann wrote in an email to ThinkProgress, "we're now seeing near-record temperatures even in the absence of the El Nino 'assist' that the previous record year benefited from."
How January-June temperatures globally rank compared to the 20th century average. CREDIT: NOAA
NOAA climatologist Ahira Sanchez-Lugo told Climate Central, "After the decline of the strong El Niño, I was expecting the values to drop a bit…. This year has been extremely remarkable."
Usually we see global records in years when the short-term El Niño warming adds to the long-term global warming trend (see chart below).
As NOAA noted in its March report, without an El Niño, no month before March 2017 had ever exceeded the "normal" temperature (the 1981–2010 average) by a full 1.8°F (1.0°C).
Global monthly temperature departures (from 1981–2010 average) color-coded by whether the Pacific was experiencing an El Niño (red), a La Niña (blue) or neutral conditions (gray). CREDIT: NOAA
This matters because when a month — or six-month period — sees record high global temperatures in the absence of an El Niño, that is a sign the underlying global warming trend is stronger than ever. The latest NOAA report is "a reminder that climate change has not, despite the insistence of climate contrarians 'paused' or even slowed down," Mann said.
Bottom line: Human-caused global warming continues at a dangerous pace, and only human action to slash carbon pollution can stop it.
 
Links

‘The Models Are Too Conservative’: Paleontologist Peter Ward on What Past Mass Extinctions Can Teach Us About Climate Change Today

New York

Peter Ward is one of the paleontologists responsible for overturning our understanding of most of the Earth's mass extinctions, which, long thought to be caused by asteroid impacts, turned out to have been the result of climate change produced by greenhouse gases (all but the one that killed the dinosaurs, anyway). 
A shipwreck in the Namib desert on the Skeleton Coast of Namibia. Photo: Wolfgang Steiner/Getty Images/iStockphoto
Peter Ward: I wrote an op-ed for the Post, I don't know if they'll publish it. Probably calling Trump a war criminal was a bit much. Anyway how can I help you?

Honestly, what I'd love from you, and what would be most helpful, is if you could first walk me through the analogy you made in that op-ed — exactly how our current situation could lead to the end-Permian Extinction.
My own sense in the short run — strangely enough, the most dangerous thing facing us isn't the extinction scenario, since that's centuries in the future. What scares me more is the economic effect of simple sea-level rise. CNN did a very interesting article some years ago about how much it would cost to retrofit ports around the world for a six-foot sea-level rise. It's literally trillions of dollars. Not only docks, but every airport facing the ocean—Sydney, China, San Francisco especially. Secondly there's the effect on human food. If there's a six-foot sea-level rise, it's astonishing how much food will be wiped out — most rice is in low-lying areas, for instance.

That's in the short term — what about the long term?
The long term is these greenhouse extinctions are devastating. The most recent one was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, and that was caused almost entirely by methane. So the scariest thing we're seeing today is the liberation of methane from higher latitudes, and it's happening far faster than anybody ever predicted. Did you see the news about the Larsen ice shelf? It's starting to break off. I spent four expeditions down there, just to the north of that, and the amount of retreat is huge. The reason this is important is Antarctica has always been used by the naysayers to say, At least in Antarctica we're not seeing retreating glaciers. Well, now we are — we really are.

And it seems as though the IPCC predictions have been relatively on-target on emissions and warming, that the predictions on ice loss have been far too conservative, and things are happening much faster than anybody expected.
Absolutely. One thing about IPCC is that the modelers have yet to figure out how to deal with cloud cover. It's very difficult to predict. As you're going to get more water vapor in the atmosphere, you're obviously going to get more cloud cover. That's where the models are still breaking down. It will take an enormous amount of mathematical work. And if anything the sea-level estimates have been underestimates. More than anything else, the ice sheets really control our fates — and Greenland, of course. If we melt all the ice, we get at least 140 meters and probably more — Greenland is 15 meters by itself. But one of the scariest places on Earth is right off Namibia. When I give a slideshow on global warming and past extinctions, the killer we're seeing is hydrogen sulfide. And right now there is something called the Skeleton Coast off Namibia, and the reason is that we're seeing hydrogen sulfide coming right out of the ocean. The final part of a greenhouse extinction is when that happens worldwide. But the worst place on Earth has to be Bangladesh. They are doomed.

And it's such a densely populated place.
Absolutely. As you know, as the sea level rises, it's like a diving board for storm surge. You're causing storm surge to jump ever farther inland, and that in itself means huge inundation from storm surge — it doesn't have to be the rise to destroy the crops. It's just a bad, bad situation.

Well, walk me through some of the other things you're worrying about. Food seems like one part of the doomsday picture, but what else are you concerned about?
Well, heat. I believe that there are going to be some places that become uninhabitable for humans.

How big a portion of the world's surface do you think that kind of effect will hit?
Certainly Australia. Australia will be deemed uninhabitable. Already Australia — the outback produces not much in the way of crops. But there are kangaroos. I lived in Adelaide, and I've lived through some heat before, but we had 40 degrees centigrade, and 42 and 43 for weeks on end. It really has an effect. You get depressed, you don't want to go procreate because it's too damn hot. You just can't escape it. Everywhere you go on the equator, there is some sort of drug — for the human population to try to get through the day. How do you get through living on the equator? It's so damn miserable. So I think the equator will become uninhabitable. We don't do well in heat.

In your mind, what is our likely warming ceiling — where do you think we're heading, and where do you think the range of uncertainty around that is?
I'm not a modeler, so I'm not the most prescient to do this, but we certainly could hit 5 degrees centigrade in the next century if we consider the status quo path. Coal is still amazingly cheap. Australia still exports coal. Coal continues to be a major problem. The simple fact is, you have 9 billion people, and the standard of living is increasing, so they're all going to want automobiles, they're all going to want steel and iron. And in order to produce that, you need to have sources of energy — huge sources of energy. I don't see wind turbines powering great steel mills. And as India and China become ever greater consumers of consumer goods, this is what's going to drive it, I think.

To me, it's been striking how much the green energy sources are growing and how much the prices are falling — much faster than most prognosticators were predicting a few years ago.
But it's also the case that there are all these warming feedback loops that are already in motion. And if some of them get sped up quickly then there's almost nothing we can do to counteract those effects.
You're absolutely right. I've seen something, maybe as much as 10 percent, maybe as much as 15 percent of carbon may be coming from sources we don't even know about. These methane clathrates may be having a huge significance. They are not being modeled. And we really are going to have unintended consequences and much more rapid heating than even the models say — for the simple reason that the models are highly conservative, too conservative.

We've talked about food, we've talked about flooding and sea-level rise, we've talked about direct heat effects. Are there other sorts of broad categories of things you're worried about?
Disease — one of the great killers that people are not recognizing is dengue fever. Malaria gets all the press, HIV of course. But dengue is increasing. The mosquitoes themselves are obviously speciating and becoming ever more immune to pesticides, because we've had these jumping genes.

Jumping genes?
What people are not really understanding is that genes can jump from species to species very easily. My 19th book, actually, is called Lamarck's Revenge, the story of epigenetics. My unique new take is epigenetics in the history of life. The reason we get these outpourings of new body types in the aftermath of mass extinctions is not Darwinian — it's too slow. Epigenetics occur when there is environmental change. It works for microbes all the way up. And so we can expect much more rapid changes in microbial genetics. I think the mode of evolution is going to switch from this random slow Darwinian to a much more rapid form.

And you mentioned a few minutes ago the runaway effects. Can you walk me through exactly what we should be looking out for, most worried about, on that possible track? How does a runaway greenhouse effect get started on this planet?
Let's say we have a deep ocean basin off California and it's not getting its cold-water oxygen because the surface water isn't water — warm water holds less oxygen than cold water. So any ocean that is warmer is going to be less oxygenated. And once you switch over to zero oxygen, the microbes that were down there, and the anaerobic microbes start taking over. And as these things take over, you get this black sea effect, and it begins spreading out, and more and more of these microbes start producing hydrogen sulfide. So as it starts spreading, it grows — like cancer. Cancer of the deep ocean. They start spilling over the deep basin and start moving up — that's called a chemocline. And we're seeing the first part of this in the Pacific.

Are these effects confined to the ocean?
Well, hydrogen sulfide does come out of ocean. This is why Namibia is so scary.

What else?
One of my Ph.D.s just finished his study on sea-grass die-out. We're losing sea grass globally, and it's a huge economic blow. And it's definitely caused by global warming. Why is it important? Because most seafood spends some time, as juveniles, dining on sea grass. An article on sea grass die-out itself would be huge.

Tell me about your background and how you came to study mass extinctions generally, but also when you came to think of them in terms of our present day.
I was really just a classically trained paleontologist. To me, the mass extinctions were really interesting in terms of what happens after them — we have this dead period, and the recovery fauna is totally different. And that leads to the idea of, Gee, how much longer will the recovery be if we have an extinction now? Impact was key, and king, for the 1980s and 1990s — every one of the big extinctions was attributed to impact. But it became clear that, in fact, no, these were not impact extinctions. We had to invent a new term. I don't know who came up with it first, but I was in there pretty early calling them greenhouse extinctions. And this new paradigm started coming into play. We're even starting to see that KT also has a greenhouse component — because there was warming right at the impact.

Tell me more about the Permian Extinction, because that's the most dramatic. I wonder what makes it so exceptional and in what ways we can watch out for our heading down that same path.
People always think the intensity of a mass extinction should be related to the extinction — what percentage of creatures were extinct. Increasingly, we're thinking that's a metric, but a more important metric that tells you something about the nature of the devastation is how different is the fauna that comes afterward.

I think people really don't appreciate how much, over the coming decades, nature will be at war with the way that we live.
Absolutely. Absolutely. Look at the storms that are taking place now. You talk about habitability. I've been talking about heat. At what point do hurricanes in the tropics make living there just not worth it? You're being mowed down by these huge number of tornadoes. Sooner or later people are going to get the hell out of Dodge. But this is the sort of storm ferocity that's coming.

And we're sort of used to the idea that parts of the world are more prone to things like hurricanes, as part of the cost of living in the Caribbean or whatever. But it seems like those events are going to become much more common still in those areas, but there are also events that are going to become much more common in all the areas where one might flee to from there. So there's a risk of our running out of safe spaces — nothing is going to be protected from extreme weather.
The best case to look at is in the Philippines. That last couple of typhoons they've had — the ferocity and the increase in those things that's been happening. That's the model for what's coming. It isn't anything [like that] in the Caribbean; as brutal as those hurricanes can be, they have nothing on these typhoons.

Looking at recent weather history, are there things that stand out as harbingers?
Well, with the warming you get less and less snowfall in the winter. And one of the areas that's really being hit hardest right now are the low countries of Europe. Because the Alps used to get all this snow. People think the Dutch worry most about the dikes and the floods. But no longer. The Alps are having ever lower snowfall, and you get these enormous storms, so we're getting an increasing rainfall, and that in itself is a gigantic human problem. Obviously floods — the increased flooding caused by ever more water in the atmosphere is going to be really as bad as storms. We'll get these floods all over the planet. And the problem is twofold: They kill people, but they also wash away the soil.

One thing we haven't really talked about is fresh water and the coming threat there — the water scarcity threat.
Absolutely. I really do think we're going to see … The flash points appear, to me, to be China, India, and Pakistan fighting over the water coming from the Himalayas. Water will be the great fight. Water and food will be the two things that the 21st century will fight over.

How do you see those fights playing out?
It's going to be the haves versus the have-nots, as is always the case. But the places that have the highest rates of human population growth are those where water might be most crucial. Nigeria has a huge growth rate, but it's Tunisia and Egypt and Algeria that give Africa its enormous population growth. These are countries in which waters are being reduced. This is where we have this ever-increasing jihad that is going to be driven not so much by being mad at religion but just trying to get along, and cranky angry people in huge numbers are filling up … Tunisia used to be the granary of Rome — Carthage kept Rome going! I've been to Tunisia, and boy you don't see much wheat there anymore. You see the Sahara moving ever farther north, and reducing crop yields, just as human population is increasing there.

It's all pretty bleak.
Yeah, it is. We need to slow human population growth. But our White House is doing everything it can to make sure climate change happens. It's strange I have a longing for the Bush years — I thought nothing could be worse, but now those are the good old days! The places that are going to be hit hardest by climate change are the places where his voters are — the Midwest, the Dust Bowl states. Which means the anger that elected him is going to continue.

Big-picture question: A while ago, Stephen Hawking made some headlines by saying that in order for humanity to survive we had to figure out a way to colonize at least one planet within 100 years. How reasonable do you find that kind of warning, or how insanely alarmist?
Well, he may be the smartest guy on the planet, but boy, I just think this is inane. My sense of it is, with our technology, we're just too good, we can engineer and keep some part of us alive on Earth. The only way out of it would be a wholesale nuclear exchange. But barring that, a greenhouse world won't kill us all off. If worse comes to worst, we'll have gas masks. But what I would advocate is — just like that seed vault, in Norway, that there should be hundreds of thousands of frozen eggs, human eggs, that are taken off-planet. This could just be an orbiting facility carrying seed stock itself. But colonizing Mars? Why? There's lots of areas that would be easier to put a dome over on Earth than it would be on Mars, because at least you can breathe the air. That alone! Humans will never be able to send off a colony, a breeding colony, to another star system. The only way you could do this is to send fertilized eggs. But one possibility is we are stuck here. And if you look at the Fermi paradox, it could be that lots of organisms are stuck on their planets because the galaxy has not been colonized.
I've been doing these web talks with NASA people. One of the really interesting concepts around the Fermi paradox is the Great Filter — that civilizations rise, but there's an environmental filter that causes them to die off again, and disappear fairly quickly. If you look at planet Earth, the filtering we've had has been in these mass extinctions.

Links

Heritage At Risk: How Rising Seas Threaten Ancient Coastal Ruins

Yale Environment 360*

The shores of Scotland's Orkney Islands are dotted with ruins that date to the Stone Age. But after enduring for millennia, these archaeological sites – along with many others from Easter Island to Jamestown – are facing an existential threat from climate change.
Ruins on Scotland's Rousay Island coast, which is eroding because of sea level rise and intensifying storms. ADAM MARKHAM
Perched on the breathtaking Atlantic coast of Mainland, the largest island in Scotland's Orkney archipelago, are the remains of the Stone Age settlement of Skara Brae, dating back 5,000 years. Just feet from the sea, Skara Brae is one of the best preserved Stone Age villages in the world — a complex of ancient stone house foundations, walls, and sunken corridors carved out of the dunes by the shore of the Bay of Skaill. Fulmars and kittiwakes from the vast seabird colonies on Orkney's high cliffs wheel above the coastal grassland of this rugged island, 15 miles from the northern coast of the Scottish mainland. On a sunny day, the surrounding bays and inlets take on a sparkling aquamarine hue.
Older than the Egpyptian pyramids and Stonehenge, Skara Brae is part of a UNESCO World Heritage site that also includes two iconic circles of standing stones — the Ring of Brodgar and the Stones of Stenness — and Maeshowe, an exquisitely structured chambered tomb famous for its Viking graffiti and the way its Stone Age architects aligned the entrance to catch the sun's rays at the winter solstice. These sites, situated just a few miles from Skara Brae, are part of an elaborate ceremonial landscape built by Orkney's earliest farmers.
Skara Brae and the neighboring sites have weathered thousands of years of Orkney's wild winters and ferocious storms, but they may not outlive the changing climate of our modern era. As seas rise, storms intensify, and wave heights in this part of the world increase, the threat grows to Skara Brae, where land at each end of its protective sea wall — erected in the 1920s — is being eaten away.  Today, as a result of climate change, Skara Brae is regarded by Historic Environment Scotland, the government agency responsible for its preservation, as among Scotland's most vulnerable historic sites.
Like the rest of Scotland, Orkney's climate is changing faster now than at any time since instrumental measurements began.
A global crisis for cultural heritage is unfolding along our coasts, but it's one that only a handful of archaeologists, preservationists, and climate scientists are yet paying attention to. In 2014, for example, a study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found 136 World Heritage sites vulnerable to sea level rise, including the Statue of Liberty and the Sydney Opera House. The U.S. National Park Service has identified erosion threats to archaeology at many of its properties, including Historic Jamestown in Virginia. Recent research shows that some of the magnificent moai statues of Easter Island are in danger of collapsing into the sea as a consequence of coastal erosion.
The threat is also severe in the Arctic, where protective winter sea ice is disappearing and permafrost is thawing. Storms tear away the shoreline and wash out irreplaceable remains of settlements, hunting camps, and artifacts. Archaeologists are racing to excavate the rapidly disappearing site of Walakpa near Barrow, Alaska, with its evidence spanning 4,000 years of human occupation.
Other coastal archaeology is critically endangered at Arctic sites in Canada, Siberia, and Greenland. Resources to investigate and excavate are meager.
Because of Orkney's weathered coast and the sheer density and richness of its ancient remains, many see the archipelago as the world capital of eroding archaeology. Hazel Moore, an archaeologist who has been monitoring erosion impacts in Orkney and the even more northerly Shetland Islands since the early 1990s, says, "In terms of coastal erosion and direct threat, within Orkney and Shetland there are thousands of sites at risk, and probably many we don't know about that we're not even recording."
Remains of the Stone Age settlement of Skara Brae in the Orkney Islands, threatened by sea level rise. ADAM MARKHAM
Moore leads one of Orkney's several active "rescue digs" in a fast-eroding dune system called the Links of Noltland on the island of Westray, a 90-minute ferry ride from Mainland. Remains of at least 35 stone structures dating from 3300 BC to roughly 1000 BC have been found there so far. In one of those, archaeologists discovered in 2009 the Orkney Venus, Scotland's earliest known representation of a human. Neolithic settlement sites are rare, and the state of preservation at Noltland is comparable to Skara Brae, although Noltland's area is considerably larger. Each summer, the excavation team returns not knowing what condition the site will be in after being battered by winter storms.
Like the rest of Scotland, Orkney's climate is changing faster now than at any time since instrumental measurements began. Average temperatures have risen by about 1.8 degrees F since 1961, and heavy rainfall events and severe storms have become more common. Meanwhile, sea level rise has accelerated during the last 20 years, driving an increase in severe coastal flooding events on Scottish coasts, according to Jim Hansom, a coastal geomorphologist at the University of Glasgow.
Until the 1980s Noltland's dunes were largely covered in grass, but storms have hammered them, allowing wind erosion to take hold. (Sand quarrying and rabbit damage also have taken a toll.) Intensifying winter winds have scoured away sand and soil so that in some places the dunes have collapsed nearly 20 feet. An ancient midden, or garbage pile, has been exposed to the elements for the first time in thousands of years, with shellfish and snail shells, fish bones, cereal grains, and charred fragments of animal bones discarded by Bronze Age farmers lying directly on the surface. Some of the most exposed portions of the site are no more than 100 yards from the sea and just a few feet above beach level. Moore says that speed of excavation is paramount because "nature is uncovering the site so rapidly."
The evidence for human occupation in Orkney dates back at least 9,000 years, and although we think of the islands as remote today, for several millennia they were a maritime and cultural crossroads, with close links at various times to Ireland, Scandinavia, Greenland, and mainland Europe. In the medieval period, Orkney was only two or three days' sail by longboat from Norse harbors in Scandinavia.
Orkney's earliest inhabitants had to adapt to climate changes, including post-glacial sea level rise. Seas around Orkney didn't reach their current level until about 4,000 years ago, perhaps 500 years after Skara Brae was abandoned. It is likely that encroaching sands and increasing salt-spray blown in from the sea eventually made agriculture too difficult so close to the ocean.
Archeologist Julie Gibson on Rousay Island, which contains archeological finds dating back 5,600 years. ADAM MARKHAM
By roughly 3,500 BC, must of Orkney's forests had been felled, and stone, easily quarried from the islands' laminated red sandstone deposits, became the building material of choice. Because stone was used, the islands hold an extraordinarily rich repository of archaeological information from the Neolithic period through to the Vikings and beyond. At other archaeological sites in Europe, where wood was used, the organic material has decayed and little is left of buildings, but in Orkney, preservation of ancient structures is remarkable, offering vivid insights into Neolithic life. For example, the houses of Skara Brae contain stone beds, dressers, shelves, and fish storage tanks.
"The buildings at Skara Brae indicated a pattern for how people lived," said Julie Gibson, the Orkney County archaeologist and a lecturer at the University of the Highlands and Islands. "When archaeologists were digging near Stonehenge, they were dealing with houses which had been built in wood, but to the same pattern as in Orkney. They wouldn't have been able to so rapidly understand how people lived near Stonehenge if they hadn't been able to draw on the 3-D evidence from Skara Brae."
As at Skara Brae, most of Orkney's archaeological sites are on or close to the shoreline, just a few feet above sea level. Accelerating sea level rise is already having an impact, according to Gibson. Sixty years ago, local children played inside beautifully preserved Iron Age buildings at Hodgalee on Westray. Since then, seas that have risen five to eight inches have entered and damaged these ancient remains. It's an "archaeological disaster," says Gibson, and just a matter of time until all are lost to the water and waves.
The medieval church of St. Mary's Kirk on Rousay Island, another example of Orkney coastal archeology at risk because of climate change. ADAM MARKHAM
The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report projected a range for global average sea level rise of 2.4 feet to 3.2 feet by 2100, but the latest science suggests that estimate is conservative. The U.K. government has projected a possible rise in sea level of up to 6.2 feet by 2100.
On the Orkney Islands, huge waves roll in unimpeded from the deep water of the Atlantic and batter the shore. Most studies show that storm activity in the northern North Atlantic has intensified, and almost all climate change analyses agree that storm intensity will continue to increase.
Waves, too, are becoming more damaging. "In the Northeast Atlantic, the significant wave height (the average of the highest third of all waves) has been increasing over the last 40 years at about 0.8 inches per year," says Hansom. But it's not the average waves that do the most damage, it's the biggest ones. Extreme waves up to 56 feet have been recorded off the west coast of Mainland.
Storms also appear to be clustering together more often, according to Hansom. "The damage that storms do has a lot to do with the impacts of the previous storm," he says. "If you have a beach that has been depleted by a storm and then it's hit by another within a couple of weeks, then the second storm is much more destructive." The 2017 National Coastal Change Assessment found that Scotland's coastal erosion rates have doubled since the 1970s. All this could prove disastrous for Orkney's coastal archaeology.
An international team is rushing to learn as much as it can about a newly discovered Stone Age site before it is swallowed by the sea.
Exemplifying what's at risk is an extraordinary strip of archaeology on the southwest coast of Rousay Island. Gibson has lived close by since she moved here in the late 1970s to study Viking archaeology. In just a few hundred yards you can hike the entire settled history of Orkney from 3500 BC to the 20th century, including one of the biggest chambered tombs in Scotland, several Iron Age roundhouses (brochs), remnants of a Norse hall, Viking boat ramps, and the ruins of St. Mary's Kirk, once the heart of medieval Rousay.
Just down the beach from St. Mary's, an international team is rushing to learn as much as it can about a newly discovered site at Swandro Bay — which includes a chambered tomb that may contain the burials of many Stone Age people — before it is swallowed by the sea. The project also seeks to better understand the mechanisms of erosion on coastal archaeological resources. At Skara Brae too, cutting-edge efforts are underway to record and understand the rate of erosion. A team from Historic Environment Scotland used laser scanners for a detailed 3D digital survey of Skara Brae and its shoreline.
Gibson looks at climate impacts both as a threat and an opportunity. She authored the 2008 book, "Rising Tides Revisited: The Loss of Coastal Heritage in Orkney," in which she suggested that half the known sites in Orkney are at risk from climate change. But she sees a silver lining: "This is an opportunity for people to focus enquiries on eroding archaeology rather than going to look for new sites."
She believes that some of these threatened coastal sites, if protected and preserved, can provide not only invaluable knowledge about the past, but also help drive economic development on Orkney by bringing more visitors to the outer islands.
Both Gibson and Moore hope that some of the important archaeological sites now at risk of loss on the coasts can be protected for several generations at least. This may require new sea walls, breakwaters, or dune restoration in some places. What's most needed, says Gibson, are the political will and financial resources to both excavate and stabilize Orkney's archaeological treasures.
On a sunny day, standing by the sea and looking over the remains of the ancient houses at Skara Brae, one feels an affinity with the people who lived there 5,000 years ago. But the waves rolling onto the beach are a reminder that time is ticking for this extraordinary place and for so many other sites on Orkney's coastline.

*Adam Markham is deputy director for Climate & Energy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He writes about climate impacts on biodiversity, conservation and cultural resources, and on international climate policy. He was lead author of the 2016 UNESCO/UNEP/UCS report "World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate."

Links