24/07/2017

Hot Dry, And Deadly: Impacts Of Climate Change On Nature In NSW

 Nature Conservation Council of NSW


We have so much to lose
Climate change will have profoundly negative impacts on nature in NSW if we do not urgently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. NSW has a stunning variety of species and ecosystems, with outstanding rainforests, eucalypt forests and woodlands, grasslands, wetlands, coastal heaths, alpine habitats and arid shrub lands. These ecosystems are home to more than 900 animal species, almost 4,700 plants species, and countless insect and fungi species. Since European settlement, native ecosystems and species in NSW have declined significantly. Almost 40% of native vegetation has been cleared, and what's left is highly degraded. Only 9% is in good condition.
More than 100 species have become extinct since 1788, and over 1000, including 60% of all mammal species, are now threatened with extinction. Key threats are land clearing, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and changed fire regimes. Human-induced climate change has now been added as a potent part of the mix.

Introduction | Forests | Eucalypt Woodlands | Grasslands | Alpine  | Rivers & Wetlands | Coastal Regions | Marine | Sydney Bushland | Agricultural Lands | What's Driving Climate Change | Conclusions | Full Report
***
Forests
Most of the forests in NSW occur in the wetter, more fertile regions between the coast and the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Trees are the dominant feature of both forests and woodlands, but in forests they generally grow taller and closer together, providing canopy cover from 30% in open forests to 100% in rainforests. These ecosystems are home to an extraordinary array of birds and animals, including iconic species like the koala, powerful owl, greater glider, and spotted quoll.
Species spotlight
Koalas were so abundant last century they were the basis of a vigorous fur trade that in 1924 saw two million pelts exported from the eastern states of Australia to Europe. Today there are fewer than 36,000 koalas left in NSW, and all but a few populations are declining. Between 1990 and 2010, their numbers in NSW plunged 33%.

Regions affected
Coastal regions, Tablelands, Blue Mountains, Snowy Mountains, Western Slopes

Download Forests 
***
Eucalypt woodlands
Eucalypt woodlands are iconic Australian ecosystems found in an arc from subtropical Queensland to Tasmania, and west to southeast South Australia. While they are found in many areas of eastern NSW, including the coastal and alpine zones, they mostly occur in the wheat-and-sheep belt west of the Great Dividing Range. Trees are the dominant feature of both woodlands and forests, but in woodlands the trees are generally shorter and stand further apart, providing canopy cover ranging from 10% to 30%.
Species spotlight
The regent honeyeater is a small, spectacularly coloured bird with mottled black-and-yellow feathers and a short, curved beak. It lives in temperate woodlands and open forests. Regent honeyeaters can travel large distances on complex migratory courses governed by the flowering of the eucalypt species that they depend on for nectar. The birds were common in woodlands across eastern Australia but there are now only three breeding regions left, including Capertee Valley in the Central West and the Bundarra-Barraba region on the Northern Tablelands.

Regions affected
Northwest, Northern Tablelands, Central Tablelands, Central West, Orana Region, Riverina, South Coast

Download Woodlands
***
Grasslands
Grasslands are found in many regions, from the moist coastal and alpine areas to the hot, semiarid interior of western NSW. These ecosystems are dominated by large perennial tussock grasses, with broad-leaved herbs growing between the tussocks. Many animals forage in grasslands, then shelter in nearby woodlands or shrublands.
Species spotlight
The plains-wanderer is a small, quail-like bird that lives in sparse grasslands in the southwest of NSW. The bird stands 12-15cm tall and weighs up to 95g. Both sexes have yellow legs and bills, and fawncoloured feathers with fine black rosettes. It was once common in semi-arid grasslands on hard red-brown soils in the southwest of the state, but since the 1920s its numbers have crashed and it is now considered extinct in much of its former range.

Regions Affected
Northwest, Southwest, Monaro And Snowy Mountains

Download Grasslands
***
Alpine Regions
The NSW alpine region includes Australia's highest peak, Mount Kosciuszko, and is characterised by snow-capped mountain ranges, windswept snowgum forests, heathlands, and chilly mountain streams. The region spans 428,832 hectares of the Snowy Mountains in the southeast of the state and is a major tourist destination, attracting more than 1.3 million domestic and international tourists each year for snow sports, hiking, mountain bike riding, and camping in the warmer months. It is also the last refuge for a range of alpine plant and animal communities at altitudes above 1100m, including snow-patch and groundwater commun-ities such as the short alpine herbfields, bogs, and fens.
Species spotlight
The mountain pygmy-possum is a small marsupial that occurs only in the Australian alps. It is listed as endangered, with fewer than 2,600 individuals left in an area of about 10sq/km in Kosciuszko National Park. As moth populations decline in autumn, it supplements its diet with fruits and seeds before hibernating for up to seven months until the moths return.

Regions affected
Snowy Mountains, Mid-North Coast, Ulladulla, South Coast, Central West

Download Alpine Regions
***
Rivers & Wetlands
Only a small fraction of aquatic ecosystems in inland areas is within the banks of the main channel of the river. More than 90% occurs across floodplains that in the flat western districts may stretch for kilometres after heavy rains, once every 10 years or so. The irregular pulse of flood and drought in inland NSW drives the ecology of the almost 8000km of river and 4.5 million hectares of lakes, billabongs, lagoons, swamps and waterholes. Climate change will further affect wetlands and the rivers that supply water to them through changes to rainfall and increased temperature and evaporation.
Species spotlight
The iconic river red gum is the most widely distributed tree in Australia. In NSW it is most common along rivers and wetlands where it has formed large forests. These ecosystems provide habitat for yellowbellied gliders, squirrel gliders, magpie geese, glossy-black cockatoos and a host of other threatened species. Many of these forests have declined significantly over the past 50 years because of land clearing, logging, increased salinity, and less frequent flooding as many large dams now capture and store peak flows that would have watered these forests.

Regions affected
Northwest, Southwest, Central West, Murray Basin

Download Rivers & Wetlands
***
Coastal Regions
The 1900km coastline of NSW contains some of Australia's most stunning scenery and diverse ecosystems, from tall eucalypt forests, dunes, swamps, and saltmarshes, to tidal lakes, estuaries, beaches, and rocky reefs. With more than 80% of the state's population living on the strip between the Great Dividing Range and the Tasman Sea, more people will experience the environmental effects of climate change in these regions than elsewhere. Air temperatures are forecast to rise by more than 3°C by 2090 under a high-emissions scenario. This will result in more frequent and longer heat waves and more extreme bushfires that will change the distribution and abundance of species and coastal ecosystems.
Species spotlight
Saltmarshes are found in the upper coastal intertidal zone where there is no strong wave action. They are dominated by stands of salttolerant plants that trap and bind sediments. Crabs, snails, bats, gastropods and even swamp wallabies are part of this complex ecosystem. Saltmarshes play a critical role as nurseries for fish and other marine animals. More than 70% of all fish in Australia's southeast, as well as many other marine species, depend on salt marshes at some stage in their lifecycle.

Regions affected
North Coast, Mid-North Coast, Central Coast, Sydney, Illawarra, South Coast

Download Coastal Regions
***
Marine
NSW coastal waters support an extraordinary array of species, from whales and seahorses to kelp forests and seagrass meadows. In the Sydney region where the warm northern and cooler southern waters mix, there occurs almost 580 fish species, more than in the whole of the British Isles. Marine ecosystems are under threat from coastal development, nutrient run-off, plastics, overfishing, and invasive species. Now they face severe impacts from climate change.
Species spotlight
Seagrass meadows are among the most productive ecosystems on earth, storing more carbon per hectare than even the Amazon rainforests. Commonly mistaken for algae, seagrasses evolved from land plants to live entirely in seawater, anchoring their roots in the sandy or muddy bottoms of bays that provide shelter from strong waves that damage the plants. Seagrass meadows are a critical part of the marine ecosystem, providing food for turtles and fish, habitat for crabs, molluscs, and sponges, and acting as nurseries for many marine species.

Regions affected
Northwest, Mid-North Coast, Central Coast, Sydney Coast, Illawarra, South Coast

Download Marine
***
Sydney bushland 
Sydney is a region of exceptional natural beauty and home to a wide array of ecosystems, from coastal wetlands and open woodlands, to tall forests, upland swamps, and Banksia heathlands. In the estuaries and coastal sandplains, there are fresh and saltwater wetlands. On the sandstone plateaus, habitats range from dry sclerophyll forest to heath. After more than 200 years of agricultural and urban development, most of Sydney's bushland and its native animals have been lost, although much remains, especially on the city's fringes.
Species spotlight
Cumberland Plain Woodland existed across 125,000 hectares of clay soils of Western Sydney from Kurrajong to Picton and was home to more than 450 species of plants and 60 native mammal species, including gliders, brown antechinus, and the New Holland mouse. The woodland canopy is dominated by grey box, narrow-leafed ironbark, thin-leaved stringybark, and spotted gum, while the understorey is generally grassy with herbs and patches of shrubs. Over the past 200 years, these woodlands have been reduced to a few fragmented stands by farming, industry, and housing.

Download Sydney Bushland
***
Agricultural lands 
Agricultural production is included here because threats to farm viability undermine the ability of landholders to be good environmental stewards. The NSW farm sector not only provides food and fibre for millions of people, it manages about 80% of the state, including much wildlife habitat. NSW Department of Primary Industries warns there is a "high" risk that industries, infrastructure, and regional economies will be disrupted by climate change as many crops currently grown cease to be viable in the same location.
Species spotlight
Wheat is the main crop grown in NSW, with the 2013-14 annual harvest more than double the combined volume of barley and sugar cane, the two next biggest. The 6.6 million tonnes harvested in NSW that year made up about a quarter of the national crop, and was worth almost $2 billion. Australia's wheat farmers are possibly the most efficient in the world, with yields trebling last century until the 1990s, when they leveled out.

Regions affected
All regions

Download Agricultural Lands
***
What's driving climate change?
Burning fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and waste all contribute to climate pollution warming the planet, driving extreme weather, and pushing species over the edge to extinction.
NSW releases about four times more greenhouse pollution per person than the global average, and three times the European average. This pollution is accelerating climate change, but there is a lot a lot we can do to reduce it. Our pollution is a direct result of our heavy reliance on coal for electricity generation.
More than 80% of the state's greenhouse pollution comes from burning coal, oil, and gas, while agriculture, industrial processes, and waste make up smaller portions. In addition to our domestic emissions, our coal exports make a huge contribution to global warming. This makes NSW one of the strongest drivers of climate change in the world.

What will it take?
Globally, more than 190 countries have agreed to reduce greenhouse pollution restrict warming below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. To do our fair share in meeting this goal, NSW needs to reduce emissions to zero by 2040 at the latest, and retire our coal-fired power stations by 2030.

Download What's driving climate change
***
Conclusions and Actions 

New South Wales is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Our forests, wetlands and coastline are fragile. They are places of natural beauty, of refuge for wildlife, and our life support system.
Despite its fragility, nature is resilient and given a chance, will still have time to secure a bright future. But we must act now.
We have the technology and abundant wind and sun to transform our energy system. In just six hours, the sun gives our deserts more energy than the entire world uses in a year. Harvesting a small portion of that energy just makes sense.
Our farmers and land managers are already feeling the impacts of more extreme weather and changed rainfall. We know how to manage our land to store carbon and boost the resilience of ecosystems in the face of climate change, so, let's get on with it!
Acting on climate change will take a whole-of society response lead by our governments. We are specifically calling on the NSW Government to reform our energy system and upgrade our land management regimes to reduce our contribution to climate change.
We call upon the NSW Government to:

Transform our energy system
  • Source all our power from sun, wind, and water by 2030.
  • Phase out coal and gas-fired power.
  • Help affected workers and communities prepare for jobs with a future.
  • Make sure the transition is fair so everyone, everywhere has access to clean, renewable energy.
Restore our land
  • End native forest logging on public land.
  • Protect native forests, woodlands, and grasslands from inappropriate land clearing.
  • Rule out new coal mines and gas fields in NSW.
Let's act on climate change now

Sign the Repower petition

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

22/07/2017

'Astounding': Shifting Storms Under Climate Change To Worsen Coastal Perils

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Shifting storm directions under climate change are likely to worsen threats to coastlines already at risk from rising sea levels and more intense tempests, according to researchers at the University of NSW.
Scientists took advantage of the predicted huge east coast low in June last year to document the before and after shape along 177 kilometres of coastline from Sydney to Coffs Harbour. The scale of the survey was "unprecedented" for a cyclone outside the tropics, they said.

We should be forecasting erosion
It took just two days for the the beach at Collaroy to go from its widest in decades to devastatingly eroded.

They found the coast shifted an average of 22 metres inland, with almost 12 million cubic metres - enough to fill the MCG to the brim sevenfold - during the three-day event, according to findings published in Nature Scientific Reports.
"The amount of erosion was astounding," said Mitchell Harley, a senior research associate at UNSW's School of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Houses at Collaroy Beach took the brunt of the June 2016 storm. Photo: Peter Rae
"It was akin to the amount of sand shifted by Hurricane Sandy [a superstorm that lashed the US in 2012]".
The June 2016 storm caused widespread beach erosion. Photo: Nature
The impact of the June event, though, was less to do with the storm's intensity - it was about a one-in-five-year event - but rather its unusual direction coming largely from the east.
"When you get particularly unusual waves it really causes huge changes [to the coast]," Dr Harley, the paper's lead author, said. "The whole south-eastern Australian coastal line is in equilibrium, lined up for southerly or south-easterly storms."
While easterly storms are not unknown, climate change is projected to increase their frequency, he said. Homes, roads and even vegetation now usually sheltered by headlands or offshore reefs and islands may be less protected in years to come.
"Certainly, the indications are that storm direction will shift in the future" as the tropical regions expand poleward in both hemispheres, Dr Harley said. "So in Sydney we may see storms more akin to what you see in Brisbane."
Dr Harley made the comments on Thursday from Coogee Beach in Sydney's east, one area that was hammered in last year's event. The local surf lifesaving clubhouse, normally well protected from swells by Wedding Cake Island, copped heavy damage.
The NSW government is in the midst of overhauling its coastal planning, with some residents anxious for an acceleration of the reforms to guide new developments in the wake of last year's storm.
Those changes have sought to take into account projected sea level rise and also the prospect of more intense storms increasing the height of storm surges. Dr Harley said the likelihood of shifting storm tracks should also be considered.
"The coastal hazard lines… are all designed for coastal events of the past," he said. "We need to rethink how we approach coastal planning and maybe these hazard lines needed to be reviewed."

Links

Inaction On Climate Change Risks Leaving Future Generations $530 Trillion In Debt

The Conversation

24Novembers / shutterstock
By continuing to delay significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we risk handing young people alive today a bill of up to US$535 trillion. This would be the cost of the “negative emissions” technologies required to remove CO₂ from the air in order to avoid dangerous climate change.
These are the main findings of new research published in Earth System Dynamics, conducted by an international team led by US climate scientist James Hansen, previously the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Paris Agreement in 2015 saw the international community agree to limit warming to within 2°C. The Hansen team argue that the much safer approach is to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ from the current annual average of more than 400ppm (parts per million) back to 1980s levels of 350ppm. This is a moderately more ambitious goal than the aspiration announced in Paris to further attempt to limit warming to no more than 1.5°C. Many climate scientists and policymakers believe that either the 2°C or 1.5°C limits will only be possible with negative emissions because the international community will be unable to make the required reductions in time.

Putting carbon back in the ground
The most promising negative emissions technology is BECCS – bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration. It involves growing crops which are then burnt in power stations to generate electricity. The carbon dioxide produced is captured from the power station chimneys, compressed, and piped deep down into the Earth’s crust where it will be stored for many thousands of years. This scheme would allow us to both generate electricity and reduce the amount of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Other energy sources are at best carbon-neutral, but BECCS removes more than it emits. Elrapto, CC BY-SA
BECCS has important limits, such as the sheer amount of land, water and fertiliser required to satisfy our energy demand. Perhaps more importantly, it doesn’t exist at anything like the scale required of it. Thus far only small pilot projects have demonstrated its feasibility. Other negative emissions approaches involve fertilising the ocean to increase photosynthesis, or direct air capture which sucks CO₂ out of the air and converts it into plastics or other products.
An ethanol production plant in South Dakota, US. We’ll need many more of these – equipped with carbon capture tech – to have an impact on global emissions. Jim Parkin / shutterstock
The Hansen team estimate how much it will cost to extract excess CO₂ with BECCS. They conclude that it would be possible to move back to 350ppm mainly with reforestation and improving soils, leaving around 50 billion tonnes of CO₂ to be mopped up with negative emissions technologies (the plants grown for BECCS take in the CO₂, which is then sequestered when burned).
But that’s only if we make significant reductions in rates of emissions right now. If we delay, then future generations would need to extract over ten times more CO₂ beyond the end of this century
Scenarios for future carbon dioxide emissions and extraction.
They estimate costs between US$150-350 for each tonne of carbon removed via negative emissions technologies. If global emissions are reduced by 6% each year – a very challenging but not impossible scenario – then bringing CO₂ concentrations back to 350ppm would cost US$8-18.5 trillion, spread over 80 years at US$100-230 billion a year.
If emissions remain flat or increase at 2% a year, then total cost balloons to at least US$89 trillion and potentially as much as US$535 trillion. That’s US$1.1 to US$6.7 trillion every year for eight decades.
To give these numbers some context, the entire US federal budget is about US$4 trillion, while spending by all countries on military and defence was US$1.7 trillion.

A climate balancing act
Humans have pumped over 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere since 1750. It is not just the amount, but the rate at which this CO₂ has been added. The oceans can absorb extra CO₂ but not fast enough to remove all human inputs and so it has been progressively building up in the atmosphere. This extra CO₂ traps more heat than would otherwise escape out into space. More energy is therefore entering the climate system than leaving it.
Over decades and centuries the climate will move back into balance with the same amount of energy leaving as entering. But this will be at a higher temperature with among other things less ice, higher sea levels, more heatwaves, and more floods. The last time the Earth’s climate experienced such an energy imbalance was the Eemian interglacial period some 115,000 years ago. At that time global sea levels were six to nine metres higher than today.
The Hansen team argues that even maintaining the current energy imbalance risks locking in several metres of sea level rise. That is because slow processes such as melting ice sheets still haven’t “caught up”. The longer the climate is held out of balance, the greater their effect will be.
Climate change isn’t instant. Even if carbon emissions ceased today, ice caps would keep melting for decades. Bernhard Staehli / shutterstock
One argument against making drastic cuts to greenhouse gas emissions is that it will harm economies as our industries are still largely fossil fuelled. Responding to climate change needs to balance the desire to continue to grow economies today with avoiding disastrous climate change or prohibitively expensive remedies tomorrow.
Whatever assumptions you make about economic growth, or however much you discount future costs, it’s unimaginable that US$535 trillion could be afforded. While these costs will be spread over 80 years, this will also be a period in which the global population will increase from seven billion to perhaps 11 billion and beyond. Humanity will need to grow enough crops to feed these billions while fuelling BECCS schemes at a time when climate change will already be impacting food production. There are also no guarantees that BECCS or any other negative emission technologies will actually work. If they fail then large amounts of CO₂ could be released very rapidly with disastrous consequences.
By delaying significant carbon emission reductions we risk handing both an impossible financial and technological burden to future generations. Our children and grandchildren may be unable to understand how we negotiated such an arrangement on their behalf.

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative