Global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the current change in Earth's climate. For general discussion of how the climate can change, see Climate change. For other uses, see Global warming (disambiguation).

Global mean land-ocean temperature change from 18802012, relative to the 19511980 mean. The black line is the annual mean and the red line is the 5-year running mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. Source: NASA GISS.

The map shows the 10-year average (20002009) global mean temperature anomaly relative to the 1951 1980 mean. The largest temperature increases are in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. Source:NASA Earth Observatory[1]

Fossil fuel related CO2 emissions compared to five of the IPCC's "SRES" emissions scenarios. The dips are related to global recessions. Image source: Skeptical Science.

Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 C (1.4 F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is

primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.[7][A] Climate model projections were summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 C (2 to 5.2 F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 C (4.3 to 11.5 F) for their highest.[8] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[9][10] Future warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe.[11] The effects of an increase in global temperature include a rise in sea levels and a change in the amount and pattern of precipitation, as well a probable expansion of subtropicaldeserts.[12] Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with the continuing retreat of glaciers,permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects of the warming include a more frequent occurrence of extreme-weather events including heat waves, droughts and heavy rainfall, ocean acidification and species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes. Effects significant to humans include the threat to food security from decreasing crop yields and the loss of habitat from inundation.[13][14] Proposed policy responses to global warming include mitigation by emissions reduction, adaptation to its effects, and possible futuregeoengineering. Most countries are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[15] whose ultimate objective is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) climate change.[16] Parties to the UNFCCC have adopted a range of policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions[17]:10[18][19][20]:9 and to assist in adaptation to global warming.[17]:13[20]:10[21][22] Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required,[23] and that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 C (3.6 F) relative to the preindustrial level.[23][B] Reports published in 2011 by the United Nations Environment Programme[24] and the International Energy Agency[25] suggest that efforts as of the early 21st century to reduce emissions may be inadequate to meet the UNFCCC's 2 C target.

Observed temperature changes

Main article: Instrumental temperature record

The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energyin the Earths heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods.[26]

Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions from climate proxies, each smoothed on a decadal scale, with theinstrumental temperature record overlaid in black.

The Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.740.18 C over the period 19062005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.130.03 C per decade, versus 0.070.02 C per decade). The urban heat island effect is very small, estimated to account for less than 0.002 C of warming per decade since [27] 1900. Temperatures in the lowertroposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 C (0.22 and 0.4 F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Climate proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and [28] the Little Ice Age. The warming that is evident in the instrumental temperature record is consistent with a wide range [29] of observations, as documented by many independent scientific groups. Examples include sea [30] [31] level rise (water expands as it warms), widespread melting of snow andice, increased heat [29] [29] [32] content of the oceans, increased humidity, and the earlier timing of spring events, e.g.,

the flowering ofplants. [29] virtually zero.

[33]

The probability that these changes could have occurred by chance is

Recent estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the National Climatic Data Center show that 2005 and 2010 tied for the planet's warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 19th century, exceeding 1998 by a few [34][35][36] hundredths of a degree. Estimates by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) show 2005 as the second warmest year, behind 1998 with 2003 and 2010 tied for third warmest year, however, "the error estimate for individual years ... is at least ten times larger than the differences between these [37] three years." The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) statement on the status of the global climate in 2010 explains that, "The 2010 nominal value of +0.53 C ranks just ahead of those of 2005 (+0.52 C) and 1998 (+0.51 C), although the differences between the three years are not [38] statistically significant..."

NOAA graph of Global Annual Temperature Anomalies 19502012, showing the El Nio-Southern Oscillation

Temperatures in 1998 were unusually warm because global temperatures are affected by the El Nio-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the strongest El Nio in the past century occurred during [39] that year. Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 2002 to 2009 is [40][41] consistent with such an episode. 2010 was also an El Nio year. On the low swing of the oscillation, 2011 as an La Nia year was cooler but it was still the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. Of the 13 warmest years since 1880, 11 were the years from 2001 to 2011. Over the more recent record, 2011 was the warmest La Nia year in the period from 1950 to 2011, and [42] was close to 1997 which was not at the lowest point of the cycle. Temperature changes vary over the globe. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about [43] twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 C per decade against 0.13 C per decade). Ocean temperatures increase more slowly than land temperatures because of the larger effective heat [44] capacity of the oceans and because the ocean loses more heat by evaporation. The northern hemisphere warms faster than the southern hemisphere because it has more land and because it has extensive areas of seasonal snow and sea-ice cover subject to ice-albedo feedback. Although more greenhouse gases are emitted in the Northern than Southern Hemisphere this does not contribute to the difference in warming because the major greenhouse gases persist long enough to [45] mix between hemispheres.

The thermal inertia of the oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects mean that climate can take centuries or longer to adjust to changes in forcing. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 C (0.9 F) [46] would still occur.

Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings)

Main article: Attribution of recent climate change

Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and earth's surface. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m 2).

This graph, known as the Keeling Curve, shows the increase of atmosphericcarbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations from 19582008. Monthly CO2measurements display seasonal oscillations in an upward trend; each year's maximum occurs during theNorthern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during its growing season as plants remove some atmospheric CO2.

The climate system can respond to changes in external forcings. External forcings can "push" [49] the climate in the direction of warming or cooling. Examples of external forcings include changes in atmospheric composition (e.g., increased concentrations ofgreenhouse gases), solar [50] luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun. Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and at present are in an overall cooling trend which would be expected to lead towards an ice age, but the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a [51] sudden rise in global temperatures.

[47][48]

Greenhouse gases
Main articles: Greenhouse gas, Greenhouse effect, Radiative forcing, and Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere

The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed [52] by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

Annual world greenhouse gas emissions, in 2005, by sector. Bubble diagram showing the share of global cumulative energy-related carbon dioxide emissions for major emitters between 1890-2007.[53]

Naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 [54][C] C(59 F). The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 3670% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 926%; methane (CH4), which causes 4 [55][56][57] 9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 37%. Clouds also affect the radiation balance through cloud forcings similar to greenhouse gases. Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO 2, methane, tropospheric ozone,CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% [58] and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much higher than at any time during the last [59][60][61][62] 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million [63] years ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in [64] land-use, particularly deforestation. Over the last three decades of the 20th century, gross domestic product per capita andpopulation [65] growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions. CO2emissions are [66][67]:71 continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. Emissions can be attributed to different regions, e.g., see the figure opposite. Attribution of emissions due to land[68][69]:289 use change is a controversial issue. Emissions scenarios, estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases, have been projected that depend upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural [70] developments. In most scenarios, emissions continue to rise over the century, while in a few, [71][72] emissions are reduced. Fossil fuel reserves are abundant, and will not limit carbon emissions [73] in the 21st century. Emission scenarios, combined with modelling of the carbon cycle, have been

used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases might change in the future. Using the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios, models suggest that by the year 2100, [74] the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could range between 541 and 970 ppm. This is an increase of 90250% above the concentration in the year 1750. The popular media and the public often confuse global warming with ozone depletion, i.e., the [75][76] destruction of stratospheric ozone by chlorofluorocarbons. Although there are a few areas of linkage, the relationship between the two is not strong. Reduced stratospheric ozone has had a slight cooling influence on surface temperatures, while increasedtropospheric ozone has had a [77] somewhat larger warming effect.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 650,000 years ago to near present, using ice core proxy data and direct measurements

Particulates and soot

Ship tracks over the Atlantic Ocean on the east coast of the United States. The climatic impacts from particulate forcing could have a large effect on climate through the indirect effect.

Global dimming, a gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, [78] was observed from 1961 until at least 1990. The main cause of this dimming is particulates produced by volcanoes and human made pollutants, which exerts a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. The effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion CO2 and aerosols have largely offset one another in recent decades, so that net warming has been due to [79] the increase in non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane. Radiative forcing due to particulates is temporally limited due to wet depositionwhich causes them to have an atmospheric

lifetime of one week. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime of a century or more, and as such, changes in [80] particulate concentrations will only delay climate changes due to carbon dioxide. In addition to their direct effect by scattering and absorbing solar radiation, particulates have indirect [81] effects on the radiation budget. Sulfates act as cloud condensation nuclei and thus lead to clouds that have more and smaller cloud droplets. These clouds reflect solar radiation more efficiently than [82] clouds with fewer and larger droplets, known as the Twomey effect. This effect also causes droplets to be of more uniform size, which reduces growth of raindrops and makes the cloud more [83] reflective to incoming sunlight, known as theAlbrecht effect. Indirect effects are most noticeable in marine stratiform clouds, and have very little radiative effect on convective clouds. Indirect effects of [84] particulates represent the largest uncertainty in radiative forcing. Soot may cool or warm the surface, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and cools the surface. In isolated areas with high soot production, such as rural India, as much as 50% of surface warming [85] due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown clouds. When deposited, especially on glaciers or on ice in arctic regions, the lower surface albedo can also directly heat the [86] surface. The influences of particulates, including black carbon, are most pronounced in the tropics and sub-tropics, particularly in Asia, while the effects of greenhouse gases are dominant in [87] the extratropics and southern hemisphere.

Satellite observations of Total Solar Irradiance from 19792006.

Contribution of natural factors and human activities to radiative forcing of climate change.[88] Radiative forcing values are for the year 2005, relative to the pre-industrial era (1750).[88] The contribution of solar irradiance to radiative forcing is 5% the value of the combined radiative forcing due to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. [89]

Solar activity
Main articles: Solar variation and Solar wind Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites. These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth. In the three decades since 1978, the combination of solar and volcanic activity probably had a slight [91] cooling influence on the climate. Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent climate change. Models are unable to reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity. Models are, however, able to simulate the observed 20th century changes in temperature when they include all of the most important external forcings, including human influences and natural forcings. Another line of evidence against the sun having caused recent climate change comes from looking [93] at how temperatures at different levels in the Earth's atmosphere have changed. Models and observations show that greenhouse warming results in warming of the lower atmosphere (called [94][95] the troposphere) but cooling of the upper atmosphere (called the stratosphere). Depletion of the ozone layer by chemical refrigerants has also resulted in a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. If the sun was responsible for observed warming, warming of both the troposphere [96] and stratosphere would be expected.
[92] [90]

Feedback
Main article: Climate change feedback

Sea ice, shown here in Nunavut, in northern Canada, reflects more sunshine, while open ocean absorbs more, accelerating melting.

The climate system includes a range of feedbacks which alter the response of the system to changes in external forcings. Positive feedbacks increase the response of the climate system to an initial forcing, while negative feedbacks reduce the response of the climate system to an initial [97] forcing. There are a range of feedbacks in the climate system, including water vapor, changes in icealbedo (snow and ice cover affect how much the Earth's surface absorbs or reflects incoming sunlight), clouds, and changes in the Earth's carbon cycle (e.g., the release of carbon [98] fromsoil). The main negative feedback is the energy which the Earth's surface radiates into space [99] as infrared radiation. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, if temperature doubles, radiated [100] energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). Feedbacks are an important factor in determining the sensitivity of the climate system to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Other factors being equal, a higher climate sensitivity means that more warming will occur for a given increase in greenhouse gas [101] forcing. Uncertainty over the effect of feedbacks is a major reason why different climate models project different magnitudes of warming for a given forcing scenario. More research is needed to [97] [102] understand the role of clouds and carbon cycle feedbacks in climate projections. The IPCC projections given in the lede span the "likely" range (greater than 66% probability, based [4] on expert judgement) for the selected emissions scenarios. However, the IPCC's projections do [103] not reflect the full range of uncertainty. The lower end of the "likely" range appears to be better [103] constrained than the upper end of the "likely" range.

Climate models
Main article: Global climate model

Calculations of global warming prepared in or before 2001 from a range of climate models under the SRES A2 emissions scenario, which assumes no action is taken to reduce emissions and regionally divided economic development. Projected change in annual mean surface air temperature from the late 20th century to the middle 21st century, based on a mediumemissions scenario (SRES A1B).[104] This scenario assumes that no future policies are adopted to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Image credit: NOAA GFDL.[105]

A climate model is a computerized representation of the five components of the climate [106] system: Atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, land surface, and biosphere. Such models are

based on physical principles including fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and radiative transfer. There can be components which represent air movement, temperature, clouds, and other atmospheric properties; ocean temperature, salt content, and circulation; ice cover on land and sea; the transfer of heat and moisture from soil and vegetation to the atmosphere; chemical and biological processes; and others. Although researchers attempt to include as many processes as possible, simplifications of the actual climate system are inevitable because of the constraints of available computer power and limitations in knowledge of the climate system. Results from models can also vary due to different greenhouse gas inputs and the model's climate sensitivity. For example, the uncertainty in IPCC's [103] 2007 projections is caused by (1) the use of multiple models with differing sensitivity to [107] greenhouse gas concentrations, (2) the use of differing estimates of humanities' future [103] greenhouse gas emissions, (3) any additional emissions from climate feedbacks that were not included in the models IPCC used to prepare its report, i.e., greenhouse gas releases from [108] permafrost. The models do not assume the climate will warm due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases. Instead the models predict how greenhouse gases will interact with radiative transfer and other physical processes. One of the mathematical results of these complex equations is a prediction [109] whether warming or cooling will occur. Recent research has called special attention to the need to refine models with respect to the effect [110] [111][112][113] of clouds and the carbon cycle. Models are also used to help investigate the causes of recent climate change by comparing the observed changes to those that the models project from various natural and human-derived causes. Although these models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects, they do indicate that the [50] warming since 1970 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The physical realism of models is tested by examining their ability to simulate contemporary or past [114] climates. Climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last [115] century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate. Not all effects of global warming are accurately predicted by the climate models used by the IPCC. ObservedArctic shrinkage has been [116] faster than that predicted. Precipitation increased proportional to atmospheric humidity, and [117][118] hence significantly faster than global climate models predict.

Observed and expected environmental effects

Main article: Effects of global warming

Sparse records indicate that glaciers have been retreating since the early 1800s. In the 1950s measurements began that allow the monitoring of glacial mass balance, reported to the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

"Detection" is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to a particular cause. "Attribution" of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level [119] of confidence. Detection and attribution may also be applied to observed changes in physical, [120] ecological and social systems.

Natural systems
Main article: Physical impacts of climate change

Sea level rise projections for the 21st century.

Global warming has been detected in a number of natural systems. Some of these changes are described in the section on observed temperature changes, e.g., sea level rise and widespread

decreases in snow and ice extent. Anthropogenic forcing has likely contributed to some of the observed changes, including sea level rise, changes in climate extremes (such as the number of [122] warm and cold days), declines in Arctic sea ice extent, and to glacier retreat. Projections of sea level rise over the 21st century are shown opposite. On the timescale of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in even higher sea level rise. Partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, could contribute [123] 46 metres (13 to 20 ft) or more to sea level rise. Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North [124] [125] [126] Atlantic Ocean. During the 21st century, glaciers and snow cover are projected to continue [127][128] their widespread retreat. Projections of declines in Arctic sea ice vary. Recent projections suggest that Arctic summers could be ice-free (defined as ice extent less than 1 million square km) [129] as early as 2025-2030. Future changes in precipitation are expected to follow existing trends, with reduced precipitation over subtropical land areas, and increased precipitation at subpolar latitudes and [130] some equatorial regions. Projections suggest a probable increase in the frequency and severity [131] of some extreme weatherevents, such as heat waves.

[121]

Ecological systems
Main article: Climate change and ecosystems In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events, and poleward and upward shifts in [121] plant and animal ranges, have been linked with high confidence to recent warming. Future climate change is expected to particularly affect certain ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, [124] and coral reefs. It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected by higher atmospheric [132] CO2 levels, combined with higher global temperatures. Overall, it is expected that climate [133] change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems. Dissolved CO2 increases ocean acidity. This process is known as ocean acidification and has been [134] called the "equally evil twin" of global climate change. Increased ocean acidity decreases the amount of carbonate ions, which organisms at the base of the marine food chain, such as foraminifera, use to make structures they need to survive. The current rate of ocean [135] acidification is many times faster than at least the past 300 million years, which included four mass extinctions that involved rising ocean acidity, such as the Permian mass extinction, which killed 95% of marine species. By the end of the century, acidity changes since the industrial revolution would match the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred over 5000 [136] years and killed 3550% of benthic foraminifera.

Large-scale and abrupt impacts

Climate change could result in global, large-scale changes in natural and social systems. Two examples are ocean acidification caused by increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon [138] dioxide, and the long-term melting of ice sheets, which contributes to sea level rise. Some large-scale changes could occur abruptly, i.e., over a short time period, and might also be irreversible. An example of abrupt climate change is the rapid release
[137]

of methanefrom permafrost, which would lead to amplified global warming. Scientific [140] understanding of abrupt climate change is generally poor. However, the probability of abrupt [141][139] changes appears to be very low. Factors that may increase the probability of abrupt climate change include higher magnitudes of global warming, warming that occurs more rapidly, and [141] warming that is sustained over longer time periods.

[139]

Observed and expected effects on social systems

Further information: Effects of global warming#Social systems and Regional effects of global warming#Regional impacts Vulnerability of human societies to climate change mainly lies in the effects of extreme-weather [142] events rather than gradual climate change. Impacts of climate change so far include adverse [143] effects on small islands, adverse effects on indigenous populations in high-latitude [144] [145] areas, and small but discernable effects on human health. Over the 21st century, climate change is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding, reductions in water supplies, increased malnutrition and increased health [146] impacts. Most economic studies suggest losses of world gross domestic product (GDP) for [clarification needed] [147][148] this magnitude of warming.

Food security
See also: Climate change and agriculture Under present trends, by 2030, maize production in Southern Africa could decrease by up to 30% [149] while rice, millet and maize in South Asia could decrease by up to 10%. By 2080, yields in developing countries could decrease by 10% to 25% on average while India could see a drop of [150] 30% to 40%. By 2100, while the population of three billion is expected to double, rice and maize yields in the tropics are expected to decrease by 2040% because of higher temperatures without accounting for the decrease in yields as a result of soil moisture and water supplies stressed by [13] rising temperatures. Future warming of around 3 C (by 2100, relative to 19902000) could result in increased crop yields in mid- and high-latitude areas, but in low-latitude areas, yields could decline, increasing the [143] risk of malnutrition. A similar regional pattern of net benefits and costs could occur for economic [145] (market-sector) effects. Warming above 3 C could result in crop yields falling in temperate [151] regions, leading to a reduction in global food production.

Habitat inundation
Further information: Effects of climate change on humans#Displacement/migration See also: Climate refugee In small islands and megadeltas, inundation as a result of sea level rise is expected to threaten vital [152][153] infrastructure and human settlements. This could lead to issues ofstatelessness for [154] populations in countries such as the Maldives and Tuvalu and homelessness in countries with low lying areas such as Bangladesh.

Responses to global warming

Mitigation
Main article: Climate change mitigation Reducing the amount of future climate change is called mitigation of climate change. The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or enhance the [155] capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere. Studies indicate substantial potential for future reductions in emissions by a combination of emission-reducing activities such as energy conservation, increased energy efficiency, and satisfying more of society's power [156] demands with renewable energy and/ornuclear energy sources. Climate mitigation also includes [156] acts to enhance natural sinks, such as reforestation. In order to limit warming to within the lower range described in the IPCC's "Summary Report for [157] Policymakers" it will be necessary to adopt policies that will limit greenhouse gas emissions to [158] one of several significantly different scenarios described in the full report. This will become more and more difficult with each year of increasing volumes of emissions and even more drastic measures will be required in later years to stabilize a desired atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in [159] history, breaking the prior record set in 2008.
[citation needed]

Adaptation
Main article: Adaptation to global warming Other policy responses include adaptation to climate change. Adaptation to climate change may be planned, either in reaction to or anticipation of climate change, or spontaneous, i.e., without [160] [156] government intervention. Planned adaptation is already occurring on a limited basis. The [156] barriers, limits, and costs of future adaptation are not fully understood. A concept related to adaptation is "adaptive capacity," which is the ability of a system (human, natural or managed) to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with [161] consequences. Unmitigated climate change (i.e., future climate change without efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions) would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, [162] managed and human systems to adapt.

Views on global warming

See also: Scientific opinion on climate change

Projections for future drought according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Global climate change is threatening the Earth's ability to produce food.

There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should [163] be. These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and [164] risks in poorer regions.

Global warming controversy

Main article: Global warming controversy The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in [165][166] the popular media than in the scientific literature, regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the [citation needed] consequences of global warming will be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standingdisagrees with this [167][168] [citation needed] view, though a few organisations hold non-committal positions. From 19901997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued

that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm [169] than good.

Politics
Main article: Politics of global warming

Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention refers explicitly to "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations." [170] In order to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of CO2, emissions worldwide would need to be dramatically reduced from their present level.[171]

Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate [172] Change (UNFCCC). The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent dangerous human [173] interference of the climate system. As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a [174] sustainable fashion. The Framework Convention was agreed in 1992, but since then, global [175] emissions have risen. During negotiations, the G77 (a lobbying group in the United Nations [176]:4 representing 133 developing nations) pushed for a mandate requiring developed countries to [177] "[take] the lead" in reducing their emissions. This was justified on the basis that: the developed world's emissions had contributed most to the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere; per-capita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of population) were still relatively low in developing countries; [69]:290 and the emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development needs. This [69]:290 mandate was sustained in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention, which entered [178] into legal effect in 2005. In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, most developed countries accepted legally binding commitments to [178] limit their emissions. These first-round commitments expire in 2012. US President George W. Bush rejected the treaty on the basis that "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US [176]:5 economy." At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC [179] Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord. Parties associated with the Accord (140 countries, as [180]:9 of November 2010) aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to [181] below 2 C. A preliminary assessment published in November 2010 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests a possible "emissions gap" between the voluntary pledges made in the Accord and the emissions cuts necessary to have a "likely" (greater than 66% [180]:1014 probability) chance of meeting the 2 C objective. The UNEP assessment takes the 2 C objective as being measured against the pre-industrial global mean temperature level. To having a likely chance of meeting the2 C objective, assessed studies generally indicated the need for global emissions to peak before 2020, with substantial declines in emissions thereafter. The 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) was held at Cancn in 2010. It produced an agreement, not a binding treaty, that the Parties should take urgent action to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions to meet a goal of limiting global warming to 2 C above pre-industrial temperatures. It [182] also recognized the need to consider strengthening the goal to a global average rise of 1.5 C.

Public opinion
Main article: Public opinion on climate change In 20072008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, [183] and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief. In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while [184][185] many in the US still debate whether climate change is happening." A 2010 poll by the Office of National Statistics found that 75% of UK respondents were at least "fairly convinced" that the [186] world's climate is changing, compared to 87% in a similar survey in 2006. A January 2011ICM poll in the UK found 83% of respondents viewed climate change as a current or imminent threat, while 14% said it was no threat. Opinion was unchanged from an August 2009 poll asking [187] the same question, though there had been a slight polarisation of opposing views. A survey in October 2009 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed decreasing public perception in the US that global warming was a serious problem. All political persuasions showed reduced concern with lowest concern among Republicans, only 35% of whom [188] considered there to be solid evidence of global warming. The cause of this marked difference in public opinion between the US and the global public is uncertain but the hypothesis has been advanced that clearer communication by scientists both directly and through the media would be helpful in adequately informing the American public of the scientific consensus and the basis for [189] it. The US public appears to be unaware of the extent of scientific consensus regarding the [190] issue, with 59% believing that scientists disagree "significantly" on global warming. By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the US, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; this was 10% below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in [191] concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families. That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to [192] natural causes. On the other hand, in May 2011 a joint poll by Yale and George Mason Universities found that nearly half the people in the USA (47%) attribute global warming to human activities, compared to 36% blaming it on natural causes. Only 5% of the 35% who were "disengaged", "doubtful", or "dismissive" of global warming were aware that 97% of publishing US climate scientists agree [193] global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans. Researchers at the University of Michigan have found that the public's belief as to the causes of [194] global warming depends on the wording choice used in the polls.

In the United States, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) eleventh annual survey on environmental policy issues, 75% said they believe global warming is a very serious or [195] somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California. A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been [196] proven."

Other views
Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change. National [198] science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions. However, [197][199][200] some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science, see: list of scientists opposing global warming consensus. Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative commentators, and some companies such as ExxonMobil have challenged IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the [201][202][203][204] economic cost of stricter controls. In the finance industry, Deutsche Bank has set up [205] an institutional climate change investment division (DBCCA), which has commissioned and [206] [207] published research on the issues and debate surrounding global warming. Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes in the climate and the risks they entail, [208] while promoting adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions. Some [209] fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years, or called for policies to [210] reduce global warming.
[66][197]

Etymology
The term global warming was probably first used in its modern sense on 8 August 1975 in a science paper by Wally Broecker in the journal Science called "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global [211][212][213] warming?". Broecker's choice of words was new and represented a significant recognition that the climate was warming; previously the phrasing used by scientists was "inadvertent climate modification," because while it was recognized humans could change the climate, no one was sure [214] which direction it was going. The National Academy of Sciences first used global warming in a 1979 paper called the Charney Report, which said: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these [215] changes will be negligible." The report made a distinction between referring to surface temperature changes as global warming, while referring to other changes caused by increased [214] CO2 as climate change. Global warming became more widely popular after 1988 when NASA climate scientist James [214] Hansen used the term in a testimony to Congress. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between [216] the greenhouse effect and the observed warming." His testimony was widely reported and [214] afterward global warming was commonly used by the press and in public discourse.

Environmental impact of the coal industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: the article is still full of unnecessary repetitions. It also needs editing for WP:EDITORIAL. (March 2012) This article needs additional citations for verification. (March 2012)

A coal surface mining site in Bihar, India

A mountaintop removal mining operation in the United States

The environmental impact of the coal industry includes the consideration of issues such as land use, waste management, and waterand air pollution caused by the coal mining, processing and the use of its products. In addition to atmospheric pollution, coal burning produces hundreds of millions of tons of solid waste products annually, including fly ash,[1] bottom ash, and flue-gas desulfurizationsludge, that contain mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other heavy metals.[citation needed]

There are severe health effects caused by burning coal.[2][3] According to the reports issued by the World Health Organization in 2008 and by environmental groups and 2004, coal particulates pollution are estimated to shorten approximately 1,000,000 lives annually worldwide, including nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States.[4][5] Coal mining generates significant additional independent adverse environmental health impacts, among them the polluted water flowing from mountaintop removal mining. A major EU funded research study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy, undertaken over the period of 1995 to 2005 found that the cost of producing electricity from coal would double over its present value, if external costs such as damage to the environment and to human health, from the airborne particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI and arsenic emissions produced by coal, were taken into account. It was estimated in the study that external, downstream, fossil fuel costs amount up to 1 2% of the EUs entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with coal the main fossil fuel accountable for this, and this was before the external cost of global warming from these sources was even included. [6] The study also found that the environmental and health costs of coal alone were 0.06/kWh, or 6 cents/kWh, with the energy sources of the lowest external costs associated with them being nuclear power 0.0019/kWh, and wind power at 0.0009/kWh.[7]

Contents
[hide]

1 Water management 2 Land use management

o o o o

2.1 Impact to land and surroundings 2.2 Waste management 2.3 River water pollution 2.4 Wildlife

3 Air pollution

o o o

3.1 Air emissions 3.2 Mercury emissions 3.3 Annual excess deaths

4 Greenhouse gases emissions 5 Radiation exposure 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

[edit]Water

management

Open-pit mining requires large amounts of water for coal preparation plants and dust suppression. To meet this requirement mines acquire (and remove) surface or groundwater supplies from nearby agricultural or domestic users, which reduces the productivity of these operations or halts them. These water resources (once separated from their original environment) are rarely returned after mining, creating a permanent degradation in agricultural productivity. Underground mining has a similar (but lesser) effect, due to a lower need for dust-suppression water; however, it still requires sufficient water for coal-washing.[citation needed] Groundwater supplies may be adversely affected by surface mining. These impacts include drainage of usable water from shallow aquifers; lowering of water levels in adjacent areas and changes in flow direction within aquifers; contamination of usable aquifers below mining operations due to infiltration (percolation) of poor-quality mine water; and increased infiltration of precipitation on spoil piles. Where coal (or carbonaceous shale) is present, increased infiltration may result in:

Increased runoff of poor-quality water and erosion from spoil piles Recharge of poor-quality water to shallow groundwater aquifers

Poor-quality water flow to nearby streams[citation needed]

This may contaminate both groundwater and nearby streams for long periods. Deterioration of stream quality results from acid mine drainage, toxic trace elements, high content of dissolved solids in mine drainage water, and increased sediment loads discharged to streams. When coal surfaces are exposed, pyrite comes in contact with water and air and forms sulfuric acid. As water drains from the mine, the acid moves into the waterways; as long as rain falls on the mine tailings the sulfuric-acid production continues, whether the mine is still operating or not.[8] This process is known as acid rock drainage or acid mine drainage. If the coal is strip mined, the entire exposed seam leaches sulfuric acid; this leaves the subsoil infertile on the surface and begins to pollute streams.[citation needed] Also waste piles and coal storage piles can yield sediment to streams. Leached water from these piles can be acid and contain toxic trace elements. Surface waters may be rendered unfit for agriculture, human consumption, bathing, or other household uses.[9] Lakes formed in abandoned surface-mining operations are more likely to be acid if there is coal or carbonaceous shale present in spoil piles, especially if these materials are near the surface and contain pyrites.[citation needed] Sulfuric acid is formed when minerals containing sulphide are oxidised through air contact; this causes acid rain. Leftover chemical deposits from explosives are toxic and increase the salt content of mine water, contaminating it.[citation needed] By the late 1930s, it was estimated that American coal mines produced about 2.3 million tons of sulfuric acid annually. In the Ohio River basin, 1,200 operating coal mines drained an estimated annual 1.4 million tonnes of sulfuric acid into the drainage basin during the 1960s; thousands of abandoned coal mines leached acid as well. In Pennsylvania alone, mine drainage had blighted 2,000 stream miles by 1967.[citation needed] To mitigate these problems, water is monitored at coal mines. The five principal technologies used to control water flow at mine sites are:

Diversion systems Containment ponds Groundwater pumping systems Subsurface drainage systems Subsurface barriers

In the case of acid mine drainage, contaminated water is generally pumped to a treatment facility which neutralizes its contaminants.[citation needed]

[edit]Land

use management
to land and surroundings

[edit]Impact

Strip mining severely alters the landscape, which reduces the value of the natural environment in the surrounding land.[10] The land surface is dedicated to mining activities until it can be reshaped and reclaimed. If mining is allowed, resident human populations must be resettled off the mine site; economic activities, such as agriculture or hunting and gathering food and medicinal plants are interrupted. What becomes of the land surface after mining is determined by the manner in which the mining is conducted. Usually reclamation of disturbed lands to a land use condition is not equal to the original use. Existing land uses (such as livestock grazing, crop and timber production) are temporarily eliminated from the mining area. High-value, intensive-land-use areas like urban and transportation systems are not usually affected by mining operations. If mineral values are sufficient, these improvements may be removed to an adjacent area.[citation needed] Strip mining eliminates existing vegetation, destroys the genetic soil profile, displaces or destroys wildlife and habitat, alters current land uses, and to some extent permanently changes the general topography of the area mined.[11] Adverse impacts on geological features of human interest may occur in a coal strip mine. Geomorphic and geophysical features and outstanding scenic resources may be sacrificed by indiscriminate mining. Paleontological, cultural, and other historic values may be endangered due to the disruptive activities of blasting, ripping, and excavating coal. Stripping of overburden eliminates and destroys archeological and historic features, unless they are removed beforehand.[12][13] The removal of vegetative cover and activities associated with the construction of haul roads, stockpiling of topsoil, displacement of overburden and hauling of soil and coal increase the quantity of dust around mining operations. Dust degrades air quality in the immediate area, has an adverse impact on vegetative life, and constitutes health and safety hazards for mine workers and nearby residents.[12][13] Surface mining disrupts virtually all aesthetic elements of the landscape. Alteration of landforms often imposes unfamiliar and discontinuous configurations. New linear patterns appear as material is extracted and waste piles are developed. Different colors and textures are exposed as vegetative cover is removed and overburden dumped to the side. Dust, vibration, and diesel exhaust odors are created (affecting sight, sound, and smell). Residents of local communities often find such impacts disturbing or unpleasant. In case ofmountaintop removal, tops are removed from mountains or hills to expose thick coal seams underneath. The soil and rock removed is deposited in nearby valleys, hollows and depressions, resulting in blocked (and contaminated) waterways.[12][13] Removal of soil and rock overburden covering the coal resource may cause burial and loss of topsoil, exposes parent material, and creates large infertile wastelands. Soil disturbance and associated

compaction result in conditions conducive to erosion. Soil removal from the area to be surface-mined alters or destroys many natural soil characteristics, and reduces its biodiversity and productivity for agriculture. Soil structure may be disturbed by pulverization or aggregate breakdown.[12] Mine collapses (or mine subsidences) have the potential to produce major effects above ground, which are especially devastating in developed areas. German underground coal-mining (especially in North Rhine-Westphalia) has damaged thousands of houses, and the coal-mining industries have set aside large sums in funding for future subsidence damages as part of their insurance and state-subsidy schemes.[citation needed] In a particularly spectacular case in the German Saar region (another historical coalmining area), a suspected mine collapse in 2008 created an earthquake measuring 4.0 on the Richter magnitude scale, causing some damage to houses. Previously, smaller earthquakes had become increasingly common and coal mining was temporarily suspended in the area.[14] In response to negative land effects of coal mining and the abundance of abandoned mines in the US the federal government enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, which requires reclamation plans for future coal mining sites. These plans must be approved by federal or state authorities before mining begins.[11] As of 2003, over 2 million acres (8,000 km2) of previously mined lands have been reclaimed in the United States.[citation needed]

[edit]Waste

management

Aerial photograph of Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill site taken the day after the event (December 23, 2008)

The burning of coal leads to substantial fly ash sludge-storage ponds.[citation needed] In the low-coal-content areas waste forms spoil tip. The Environmental Protection Agency classified the 44 sites as potential hazards to communities (which means the waste sites could cause death and significant property damage if an event such as a storm, a terrorist attack or a structural failure caused a spill). They estimate that about 300 dry landfills and wet storage ponds are used around the country to store ash from coal-fired power plants. The storage facilities hold the noncombustible ingredients of coal and the ash trapped by equipment designed to reduce air pollution.[15]

[edit]River

water pollution

Coal fired boilers / power plants when using coal or lignite rich in limestone produces ash containing calcium oxide(CaO). CaO readily dissolves in water to form slaked lime / Ca(OH)2 and carried by rain water to rivers / irrigation water from the ash dump areas. Lime softening process precipitates Ca and Mg ions / removes temporary hardness in the water and also converts sodium bicarbonates in river water into sodium carbonate.[16] Sodium carbonate (washing soda) further reacts with the remaining Ca and Mg in the water to remove / precipitate the total hardness. Also water soluble sodium salts present in the ash enhance the sodium content in water further. Thus river water is converted intosoft water by eliminating Ca and Mg ions and enhancing Na ions by coal fired boilers. Soft water application inirrigation (surface or ground water) converts the fertile soils into alkaline sodic soils.[17] River water alkalinity and sodicity problem is acute when many coal fired boilers and power stations are installed in a river basin. River water sodicity problem aggravates in the downstream of intensively cultivated river basins located in China, India, Egypt, Pakistan, west Asia, Australia, western USA, etc. due to accumulation of salts in the remaining water after meeting various transpiration and evaporation losses.[18]

[edit]Wildlife
Surface mining of coal causes direct and indirect damage to wildlife. The impact on wildlife stems primarily from disturbing, removing and redistributing the land surface. Some impacts are short-term, and confined to the mine site; others have far-reaching, long-term effects. The most direct effect on wildlife is destruction or displacement of species in areas of excavation and spoil piling. Pit and spoil areas are not capable of providing food and cover for most species of wildlife. Mobile wildlife species like game animals, birds, and predators leave these areas. More sedentary

animals like invertebrates, reptiles, burrowing rodents and small mammals may be destroyed. [citation
needed]

The community of microorganisms and nutrient-cycling processes are upset by movement,

storage, and redistribution of soil. Without rehabilitation, these areas must undergo a weathering period (which may take a few years to many decades) before vegetation is established and they become suitable habitat. With rehabilitation, impacts on some species are less severe. Humans cannot immediately restore natural biotic communities; they can, however, assist nature through reclamation of land and rehabilitation efforts geared to wildlife needs. Rehabilitation not geared to the needs of wildlife species (or improper management of other land uses after reclamation) can preclude reestablishment of the original fauna.[citation needed] Many wildlife species are highly dependent on vegetation growing in natural drainage areas. This vegetation provides essential food, nesting sites and cover from predators. Activity destroying this vegetation near ponds, reservoirs, marshes and wetlands reduces the quality and quantity of habitat essential for waterfowl, shorebirds and terrestrial species. The commonly used head-of-hollow fill method for disposing of excess overburden is of particular significance to wildlife habitat. Narrow, steep-sided, Vshaped hollows near ridge tops are frequently inhabited by rare or endangered animal and plant species. Extensive placement of spoil in these narrow valleys eliminates habitat for a wide variety of species, some of which may be driven to extinction.[citation needed] Broad and long-lasting impacts on wildlife are caused by habitat impairment. The habitat requirements of many animal species do not permit them to adjust to changes created by land disturbance. These changes reduce living space, and some species can tolerate very little disturbance. In instances where a particularly critical habitat is restricted (such as a lake, pond, or primary breeding area), a species could be eliminated. The range of damage possible is wide.[citation needed] Large mammals and other animals displaced from their home ranges may be forced to use adjacent areas, already stocked to their carrying capacity. This overcrowding results in degradation of remaining habitat, lowered carrying capacity, reduced reproductive success, increased inter- and intra-species competition, and potentially greater losses to wildlife populations than the number of originally displaced animals.[citation needed] Degradation of aquatic habitats is a major impact by surface mining, and may be apparent many miles from a mining site. Sediment contamination of surface water is common with surface mining. Sediment yields may increase a thousand times times their former level as a result of strip mining. [19] If streams, lakes, ponds or marshes are filled or drained, fish, aquatic invertebrates and amphibians are destroyed. Food supplies for predators are reduced by destruction of these land and water species. Animal populations displaced or destroyed can eventually be replaced from populations in surrounding ranges,

provided the habitat is eventually restored; an exception would be the extinction of a resident endangered species.[citation needed] Preferred food and cover plants can be established in these openings to benefit a variety of wildlife. Under certain conditions, creation of small lakes in the mined area may also be beneficial. These lakes and ponds may become important water sources for a variety of wildlife inhabiting adjacent areas. Many lakes formed in mine pits are of poor quality as aquatic habitat after mining due to lack of structure, aquatic vegetation, and food species. They may require habitat enhancement and management to be of significant wildlife value.[citation needed] The effects of sediment on aquatic wildlife vary with the species and the amount of contamination. High sediment levels can kill fish directly, bury spawning beds, reduce light transmission, alter temperature gradients, fill in pools, spread streamflows over wider, shallower areas, and reduce production of aquatic organisms used as food by other species. These changes destroy the habitat of valued species, and may enhance habitat for less-desirable species. Existing conditions are already marginal for some freshwater fish in the United States, and the sedimentation of their habitat may result in their extinction. The heaviest sediment pollution of a drainage normally comes within 5 to 25 years after mining. In some areas, unvegetated spoil piles continue to erode even 50 to 65 years after mining.[11] The presence of acid-forming materials exposed as a result of surface mining can affect wildlife by eliminating habitat and by causing direct destruction of some species. Lesser concentrations can suppress productivity, growth rate and reproduction of many aquatic species. Acids, dilute concentrations of heavy metals, and high alkalinity can cause severe damage to wildlife in some areas. The duration of acidic-waste pollution can be long; estimates of the time required to leach exposed acidic materials in the Eastern United States range from 800 to 3,000 years.[11]

[edit]Air [edit]Air

pollution
emissions

See also: Coal seam fire Coal and coal waste products (including fly ash, bottom ash and boiler slag) releases approximately 20 toxic-release chemicals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium,beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molyb denum, zinc, selenium and radium, which are dangerous if released into the environment.[citation
needed]

While these substances are trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of

these substances are released.[20] During combustion, the reaction between coal and the air produces oxides of carbon, including carbon dioxide (CO2 (an important greenhouse gas)), oxides of sulfur (mainly sulfur dioxide) (SO2), and various

oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Because of the hydrogenous and nitrogenous components of coal, hydrides and nitrides of carbon and sulfur are also produced during the combustion of coal in air. These include hydrogen cyanide (HCN), sulfur nitrate (SNO3) and other toxic substances. Further, acid rain may occur when sulfur dioxide produced by the combustion of coal reacts with oxygen to form sulfur trioxide (SO3); this reacts with water molecules in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid (H2SO4) returns to earth as acid rain. Flue-gas desulfurization scrubbing systems, which use lime to remove sulfur dioxide, can reduce the likelihood of acid rain.[citation needed] However, another form of acid rain is due to carbon dioxide emissions of a coal plant. When released into the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide molecules react with water molecules, to slowly produce carbonic acid (H2CO3). This, in turn, returns to the earth as a corrosive substance. This cannot be prevented as easily as sulfur-dioxide emissions.[citation needed] The wet cooling towers used in coal fired power stations, etc emit drift and fog which are also environmental concern. The drift from the cooling towers is containing Respirable suspended particulate matter. In case of cooling towers with sea water makeup, sodium salts are deposited on nearby lands which would convert the land into alkali soil by reducing the fertility of vegetative lands and also cause corrosion of nearby structures. Fires sometimes occur in coal beds underground. When coal beds are exposed, the fire risk is increased. Weathered coal can also increase ground temperatures if it is left on the surface. Almost all fires in solid coal are ignited by surface fires caused by people or lightning. Spontaneous combustion is caused when coal oxidizes and airflow is insufficient to dissipate heat; this more commonly occurs in stockpiles and waste piles, rarely in bedded coal underground. Where coal fires occur, there is attendant air pollution from emission of smoke and noxious fumes into the atmosphere. Coal seam fires may burn underground for decades, threatening destruction of forests, homes, roadways and other valuable infrastructure. The best-known coal-seam fire may be the one which led to the permanent evacuation of Centralia, Pennsylvania, United States.[21]

[edit]Mercury

emissions

Mercury emission from coal burning are concentrated as they work their way up the food chain and are converted into methylmercury, a toxic compound which harms both wildlife and people who consume freshwater fish.[22][23][24][24][25] Coal burning is a key source of methylmercury in the environment.[26] "Power plants... are responsible for half of... the mercury emissions in the United States."[27] In New York State winds bring mercury from the coal-fired power plants of the Midwest, contaminating the waters of the Catskill Mountains. The mercury is consumed by worms, which are eaten by fish, which

are eaten by birds (including bald eagles). As of 2008, mercury levels in bald eagles in the Catskills had reached new heights.[28] "People are exposed to methylmercury almost entirely by eating contaminated fish and wildlife that are at the top of aquatic food chains."[29] Ocean fish account for the majority of human exposure to methylmercury; the full range of sources of methylmercury in ocean fish is not well understood.[30] The United States Environmental Protection Agency has proposed the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulations,[31] which require all coal plants use the technology which is available to substantially reduce mercury emissions.[32] "Today, more than half of all coal-fired power plants already deploy pollution control technologies that will help them meet these achievable standards. Once final, these standards will level the playing field by ensuring the remaining plants about 40 percent of all coal fired power plants - take similar steps to decrease dangerous pollutants."[27] This technology is expected to save many thousands of lives every year, and to protect Americans from severe permanent health effects such as those suffered by children exposed to mercury in the womb.[citation needed]

[edit]Annual

excess deaths

In 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) and other organizations calculated that coal particulates pollution cause approximately one million deaths annually across the world, [5] which is approximately one third of all premature deaths related to all air pollution sources.[33] Pollutants emitted by burning coal include fine particulates (PM2.5) and ground level ozone. Every year, the burning of coal without the use of available pollution control technology causes thousands of preventable deaths in the United States. A study commissioned by the Maryland nurses association in 2006 found that emissions from just six of Maryland's coal-burning plants caused 700 deaths per year nationwide, including 100 in Maryland.[34] Since installation of pollution abatement equipment on one of these six, the Brandon Shores plant, now "produces 90 percent less nitrogen oxide, an ingredient of smog; 95 percent less sulfur, which causes acid rain; and vastly lower fractions of other pollutants."[34] According to the environmentalists report published in 2004, coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States (2,800 from lung cancer).[4] In the United States alone, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that a range of 13,000 to 34,000 preventable premature deaths will be avoided by the reductions in PM2.5 and ozone expected by the end of the several-years time needed to complete implementation of the coal plant cleanup provisions of the Final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).[35] The EPA promulgated these legally enforceable requirements to install available lifesaving pollution control equipment in 2011 under a court order mandating that it protect Americans' health, a duty mandated by Congress in the Clean Air Act.[citation
needed]

In addition to preventing avoidable premature deaths, the Final Cross-State rule is estimated to prevent 15,000 additional (non-fatal) heart attacks, 19,000 attacks of acute bronchitis; 420,000 upper and lower respiratory symptoms, 400,000 aggravated asthma attacks; and 19,000 hospital and ER trips (e.g., for asthma attacks triggered by soot from coal burning). By reducing the health detriments that arise from burning coal without using available pollution controls, implementation of the Final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is expected to reduce days when people must miss work or school by 1.8 million.[36][37] The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule requires significant reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NO) emissions that cross state lines. These pollutants react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and ground-level ozone and are transported long distances, making it difficult for other states to achieve healthy levels of pollution control.[citation needed] The benefits of the emission reductions expected from EPA's recently proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) are not included in the above estimated emission reductions from the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; once the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards [32] are implemented, death and disease from coal burning are likely to be reduced even further, both directly by reducing mercury poisoning, and by reducing sulfur dioxide emissions.[citation needed]

[edit]Greenhouse

gases emissions

The combustion of coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.[38] Electric generation using coal burning produces approximately twice the greenhouse gasses per kilowatt compared to generation using natural gas.[39] About one fourth of the carbon dioxide emitted is absorbed by the oceans, causing a steadily increasing ocean acidification.[citation needed] Coal mining produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Methane is the naturally occurring product of the decay of organic matter as coal deposits are formed with increasing depths of burial, rising temperatures, and rising pressure over geological time. A portion of the methane produced is absorbed by the coal and later released from the coal seam (and surrounding disturbed strata) during the mining process.[40] Methane accounts for 10.5 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions created through human activity.[41] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane has a global warming potential 21 times greater than that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year timeline. The process of mining can release pockets of methane. These gases may pose a threat to coal miners, as well as a source of air pollution. This is due to the relaxation of pressure and fracturing of the strata during mining activity, which gives rise to safety concerns for the coal miners if not managed properly. The buildup of pressure in the strata can lead to explosions during (or after) the mining process if prevention methods, such as "methane draining", are not taken.[40]

In 2008 James E. Hansen and Pushker Kharecha published a peer-reviewed scientific study analyzing the effect of a coal phase-out on atmospheric CO2 levels.Their baseline mitigation scenario was a phaseout of global coal emissions by 2050. Under the Business as Usual scenario, atmospheric CO2 peaks at 563 parts per million (ppm) in the year 2100. Under the four coal phase-out scenarios, atmospheric CO2 peaks at 422446 ppm between 2045 and 2060 and declines thereafter.[42]

[edit]Radiation

exposure

Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment may lead to radioactive contamination.[20][43] Coal plants emit radiation in the form of radioactive fly ash which is inhaled and ingested by neighbours, and incorporated into crops. A 1978 paper from Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimated that coal-fired power plants of that time may contribute a whole-body committed dose of 19 Sv/yr to their immediate neighbours in a 500 m radius.[44] The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation's 1988 report estimated the committed dose 1 km away to be 20 Sv/yr for older plants or 1Sv/yr for newer plants with improved fly ash capture, but was unable to confirm these numbers by test.[45] A single PWR spent fuel bundle, after 10 years cooldown, with no shielding, emits 2.3 MSv/yr, a trillion times more than coal.[46] However, if we exclude contained waste and ignore unintentional releases from nuclear plants, coal-plants carry more radioactive wastes into the environment than nuclear plants producing the same amount of energy. Plant-emitted radiation carried by coal-derived fly ash delivers 100 times more radiation to the surrounding environment than does the normal operation of a similarly productive nuclear plant.[47] This comparison does not consider the rest of the fuel cycle, i.e., coal and uranium mining and refining and waste disposal.

Effects of global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about (primarily) effects during the 21st century. For longer term effects, see Long-term effects of global warming.

Summary of climate change impacts.

The effects of global warming are the ecological and social changes caused by the rise in global temperatures. There is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, and that human activities are the primary driver.[1] Evidence of climate change includes the instrumental temperature record, risingsea levels, and decreased snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.[2] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas concentrations.[3] Projections of future climate change suggest further global warming, sea level rise, and an increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events.[4] Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have agreed to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."[5]

Contents
[hide]

1 Definitions 2 Temperature changes

o o

2.1 SRES emissions scenarios 2.2 Projected warming in context

3 Physical impacts

o o

3.1 Radiative forcing 3.2 Effects on weather

o o

3.2.1 Extreme weather

3.3 Cryosphere 3.4 Geology

3.4.1 Volcanoes 3.4.2 Earthquakes

3.5 Oceans

4 Regions

3.5.1 Acidification 3.5.2 Oxygen depletion 3.5.3 Sea level rise 3.5.4 Ocean temperature rise

o o

4.1 Observed impacts 4.2 Projected impacts

5 Social systems

5.1 Food supply

5.1.1 Projections

5.1.1.1 Food security

5.1.2 Agriculture

5.2 Health

5.2.1 Projections 5.2.2 Specific health impacts

5.2.2.1 Malnutrition 5.2.2.2 Extreme events

5.2.2.3 Infectious disease vectors

o o o

5.2.2.3.1 Dengue 5.2.2.3.2 Malaria 5.2.2.3.3 Other infectious diseases 5.2.2.3.4 Projections

5.2.2.4 Diarrhoeal diseases 5.2.2.5 Ground-level ozone 5.2.2.6 Cold-waves

5.3 Water resources 5.4 Migration and conflict 5.5 Aggregate impacts

5.5.1 Observed impacts 5.5.2 Projected impacts

6 Biological systems

o o

6.1 Observed impacts on biological systems 6.2 Projected impacts on biological systems

7 Abrupt or irreversible changes

o o o o

7.1 Biogeochemical cycles 7.2 Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets 7.3 The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation 7.4 Irreversibilities

8 See also 9 Footnotes 10 Notes

7.4.1 Commitment to radiative forcing 7.4.2 Irreversible impacts

11 References 12 Further reading 13 External links

Definitions
See also: attribution of recent climate change

In this article, "climate change" means a change in climate that persists over a sustained period of time.[6][7] The World Meteorological Organization defines this time period as 30 years.[6] Examples of climate change include increases in global surface temperature (global warming), changes in rainfall patterns, and changes in the frequency of extreme weather events. Changes in climate may be due to natural causes, e.g., changes in the sun's output, or due to human activities, e.g., changing the composition of the atmosphere.[8] Any human-induced changes in climate will occur against the "background" of natural climatic variations.[8] Also, the term "anthropogenic forcing" refers to the influence exerted on a habitat or chemical environment by humans, as opposed to a natural process.[9]

Temperature changes

Global mean surface temperature difference from the average for 1880 2009. The graph above shows the average of a set of temperature simulations for the 20th century (black line), followed by projected temperatures for the 21st century based on three greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (colored lines). [10]

This article breaks down some of the impacts of climate change according to different levels of future global warming. This way of describing impacts has, for instance, been used in the IPCC's Assessment Reports on climate change.[11] The instrumental temperature record shows global warming of around 0.6 C over the entire 20th century.[12]

SRES emissions scenarios

The future level of global warming is uncertain, but a wide range of estimates (projections) have been made.[13] The IPCC's "SRES" scenarios have been frequently used to make projections of future climate change.[14]:22-24 The SRES scenarios are "baseline" (or "reference") scenarios, which means that they do not take into account any current or future measures to limit GHG emissions (e.g., the UNFCCC's Kyoto Protocol and the Cancn agreements).[15] Emissions projections of the SRES scenarios are broadly

comparable in range to the baseline emissions scenarios that have been developed by the scientific community.[13][16] In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, changes in future global mean temperature were projected using the six SRES "marker" emissions scenarios.[17] Emissions projections for the six SRES "marker" scenarios are representative of the full set of forty SRES scenarios.[18] For the lowest emissions SRES marker scenario ("B1" - see the SRES article for details on this scenario), the best estimate for global mean temperature is an increase of 1.8 C (3.2 F)[17] by the end of the 21st century. This projection is relative to global temperatures at the end of the 20th century.[19] The "likely" range (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement)[20] for the SRES B1 marker scenario is 1.12.9 C (2 5.2 F).[17] For the highest emissions SRES marker scenario (A1FI), the best estimate for global mean temperature increase is 4.0 C(7.2 F), with a "likely" range of 2.46.4 C (4.311.5 F).[17] The range in temperature projections partly reflects (1) the choice of emissions scenario, and (2) the "climate sensitivity."[14]:22-24 For (1), different scenarios make different assumptions of future social and economic development (e.g., economic growth, population level, energy policies), which in turn affects projections of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[14]:22-24 The projected magnitude of warming by 2100 is closely related to the level of cumulative emissions over the 21st century (i.e., total emissions between 2000-2100).[21] The higher the cumulative emissions over this time period, the greater the level of warming is projected to occur.[21] (2) reflects uncertainty in the response of the climate system to past and future GHG emissions, which is measured by theclimate sensitivity).[14]:22-24 Higher estimates of climate sensitivity lead to greater projected warming, while lower estimates of climate sensitivity lead to less projected warming. [22] Over the next several millennia, projections suggest that global warming could be irreversible. [23] Even if emissions were drastically reduced, global temperatures would remain close to their highest level for at least 1,000 years (see the later section on irreversibilities).[24][25]

Projected warming in context

Global surface temperature for the past 5.3 million years as inferred from cores of oceansediments taken all around the global ocean. The last 800,000 years are expanded in the lower half of the figure (image credit: NASA).[26]

Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions from climate proxies, each smoothed on a decadal scale, with the instrumental temperature record overlaid in black.

Scientists have used various "proxy" data to assess past changes in Earth's climate (paleoclimate).[27] Sources of proxy data include historical records (such as farmers' logs), tree rings, corals, fossil pollen, ice cores, and ocean and lake sediments.[27] Analysis of these data suggest that recent warming is unusual in the past 400 years, possibly longer.[28]By the end of the 21st century, temperatures may increase to a level not experienced since the mid-Pliocene, around 3 million years ago.[29] At that time, models suggest that mean global temperatures were about 23 C warmer than preindustrial temperatures.[29] Even a 2 C rise above the pre-industrial level would be outside the range of temperatures experienced by human civilization.[30][26]

Physical impacts
Main article: Physical impacts of climate change

Seven of these indicators would be expected to increase in a warming world and observations show that they are, in fact, increasing. Three would be expected to decrease and they are, in fact, decreasing.[31]

This set of graphs show changes in climate indicators over several decades. Each of the different colored lines in each panel represents an independently analyzed set of data. The data come from many different technologies including weather stations, satellites, weather balloons, ships and buoys.[32]

A broad range of evidence shows that the climate system has warmed.[33] Evidence of global warming is shown in the graphs opposite. Some of the graphs show a positive trend, e.g., increasing temperature over land and the ocean, and sea level rise. Other graphs show a negative trend, e.g., decreased snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and declining Arctic sea ice extent. Evidence of warming is also apparent in living (biological) systems.[34] Human activities have contributed to a number of the observed changes in climate.[35] This contribution has principally been through the burning of fossil fuels, which has led to an increase in the concentration

of GHGs in the atmosphere.[36] Another human influence on the climate are sulfur dioxide emissions, which are a precursor to the formation of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere.[37] Human-induced warming could lead to large-scale, irreversible, and/or abrupt changes in physical systems.[38][39]An example of this is the melting of ice sheets, which contributes to sea level rise.[40] The probability of warming having unforeseen consequences increases with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change.[41]

Radiative forcing
The effect of human activities on the climate system can be measured by radiative forcing.[42] A positive radiative forcing will tend to warm the climate, while a negative forcing will tend to cool the climate.[43] Anthopogenic forcing (i.e., the radiative forcing due to human activities) was estimated to have been positive (i.e., an overall warming effect) in the year 2005.[43] This is relative to the estimated forcings at the start of the industrial era, taken as the year 1750. Anthropogenic forcing of the climate has likely contributed to a number of observed changes, including sea level rise, changes in climate extremes (such as warm and cold days), declines in Arctic sea ice extent, and to glacier retreat.[35]

Effects on weather
Observations show that there have been changes in weather.[44] As climate changes, the probabilities of certain types of weather events are affected.

Projected change in annual average precipitation by the end of the 21st century, based on a medium emissions scenario (SRES A1B) (Credit: NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory).[45][46]

Changes have been observed in the amount, intensity, frequency, and type of precipitation.[14]:18 Widespread increases in heavy precipitation have occurred, even in places where total rain amounts have decreased. With medium confidence (see footnote 1), IPCC (2012)[47] concluded that human influences had contributed to an increase in heavy precipitation events at the global scale. Projections of future changes in precipitation show overall increases in the global average, but with substantial shifts in where and how precipitation falls.[14]:24 Projections suggest a reduction in rainfall in the subtropics, and an increase in precipitation in subpolar latitudes and some equatorial regions.[46] In other words, regions which are dry at present will in general become even drier, while regions that are currently wet will in general become even wetter.[46] This projection does not apply to every locale, and in some cases can be modified by local conditions.[46]

Extreme weather

See also: Extreme weather and Tropical cyclone#Global warming Since the 1950s, it is very likely that the number of cold days and nights have decreased globally.[48] There have been other changes in climate extremes, e.g., floods and tropical cyclones, but these changes are more difficult to identify.[48] As previously stated, human influences appear to have contributed to some of the observed changes.[49] Future climate change will very likely be associated with more very hot days and fewer very cold days.[50] The frequency, length and intensity of heat waves will very likely increase over most land areas.[50] It's likely that the average maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones will increase, though there may also be fewer cyclones.[50] A number of regions may experience more intense droughts, including southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central North America, Central America and Mexico, Northwest Brazil, and southern Africa.[50] Increases in heavy rainfall might contribute to increases in local flooding in some catchments or regions. In coastal regions, sea level rise will very likely contribute to extremes in sea level. The impacts of extreme events on the environment and human society will vary. Some impacts will be beneficial -- e.g., fewer cold extremes will probably lead to fewer cold deaths.[51] Overall, however, impacts will probably be mostly negative.[52][53]

Cryosphere
See also: Retreat of glaciers since 1850

A map of the change in thickness of mountain glaciers since 1970.Thinning in orange and red, thickening in blue.

The cryosphere is made up of areas of the Earth which are covered by snow or ice.[54] Observed changes in the cryosphere include declines in Arctic sea ice extent,[55] the widespread retreat of alpine glaciers,[56] and reduced snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.[57] Solomon et al. (2007)[58] assessed the potential impacts of climate change on summertime Arctic sea ice extent. Assuming high growth in greenhouse gas emissions (SRES A2), some models projected that

Arctic sea ice in the summer could largely disappear by the end of the 21st century. [58] More recent projections suggest that the Arctic summers could be ice-free (defined as ice extent less than 1 million square km) as early as 2025-2030.[59] During the 21st century, glaciers[60] and snow cover are projected to continue their widespread retreat.[61] In the western mountains ofNorth America, increasing temperatures and changes in precipitation are projected to lead to reduced snowpack.[62] Snowpack is the seasonal accumulation of slow-melting snow.[63] The melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could contribute to sea level rise, especially over long time-scales (see the section on Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets).[40] Changes in the cryosphere are projected to have social impacts.[64] For example, in some regions, glacier retreat could increase the risk of reductions in seasonal water availability.[65] Barnett et al. (2005)[66] estimated that more than one-sixth of the world's population rely on glaciers and snowpack for their water supply.

Geology
Volcanoes
See also: Post-glacial rebound The retreat of glaciers and ice caps can cause increased volcanism. Reduction in ice cover reduces the confining pressure exerted on the volcano, increasing deviatoric stressesand potentially causing the volcano to erupt. This reduction of pressure can also cause decompression melting of material in the mantle, resulting in the generation of more magma.[67] Researchers in Iceland have shown that the rate of volcanic rock production there following deglaciation (10,000 to 4500 years before present) was 2030 times greater than that observed after 2900 years before present.[68] While the original study addresses the first reason for increased volcanism (reduced confining pressure), scientists have more recently shown that these lavas have unusually high trace element concentrations, indicative of increased melting in the mantle.[69] This work in Iceland has been corroborated by a study in California, in which scientists found a strong correlation between volcanism and periods of global deglaciation. [70] The effects of current sea level rise could include increased crustal stress at the base of coastal volcanoes from a rise in the volcano's water table (and the associated saltwater intrusion), while the mass from extra water could activate dormant seismic faults around volcanoes. In addition, the wide-scale displacement of water from melting in places such as West Antarctica is likely to slightly alter the Earth's rotational period and may shift its axial tilt on the scale of hundreds of metres, inducing further crustal stress changes.[71][72]

Current melting of ice is predicted to increase the size and frequency of volcanic eruptions. [73] In particular, lateral collapse events at stratovolcanoes are likely to increase,[73][74]and there are potential positive feedbacks between the removal of ice and magmatism.[73]

Earthquakes
A numerical modeling study has demonstrated that seismicity increases during unloading, such as that due to the removal of ice.[75]

Oceans
The role of the oceans in global warming is a complex one. The oceans serve as a sink for carbon dioxide, taking up much that would otherwise remain in the atmosphere, but increased levels of CO2 have led to ocean acidification. Furthermore, as the temperature of the oceans increases, they become less able to absorb excess CO2. The ocean have also acted as a sink in absorbing extra heat from the atmosphere.[76]:4 The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earths heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods.[77] Global warming is projected to have a number of effects on the oceans. Ongoing effects include rising sea levels due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and warming of the ocean surface, leading to increased temperature stratification. Other possible effects include large-scale changes in ocean circulation.

Acidification
Main article: Ocean acidification

This map shows changes in the amount of aragonite dissolved in ocean surface waters between the 1880s and the most recent decade (2003-2012).[78] Historical modeling suggests that since the 1880s, increased CO 2 has led to lower aragonitesaturation levels (less availability of minerals) in the oceans around the world. [78] The largest

decreases in aragonite saturation have occurred intropical waters.[78] However, decreases in cold areas may be of greater concern because colder waters typically have lower aragonite levels to begin with. [78]

About one-third of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity has already been taken up by the oceans.[79] As carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, carbonic acid is formed, which has the effect of acidifying the ocean, measured as a change in pH. The uptake of human carbon emissions since the year 1750 has led to an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units.[80] Projections using the SRES emissions scenarios suggest a further reduction in average global surface ocean pH of between 0.14 and 0.35 units over the 21st century. The effects of ocean acidification on the marine biosphere have yet to be documented.[80] Laboratory experiments suggest beneficial effects for a few species, with potentially highly detrimental effects for a substantial number of species.[79] With medium confidence, Fischlin et al. (2007)[81] projected that future ocean acidification and climate change would impair a wide range of planktonic and shallowbenthic marine organisms that use aragonite to make their shells or skeletons, such as corals and marine snails (pteropods), with significant impacts particularly in the Southern Ocean.

Oxygen depletion
The amount of oxygen dissolved in the oceans may decline, with adverse consequences for ocean life.[82][83]

Sea level rise

Main article: Current sea level rise

Trends in global average absolute sea level, 1870-2008.[84]

There is strong evidence that global sea level rose gradually over the 20th century.[85] With high confidence, Bindoff et al. (2007)[86] concluded that between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, the rate of sea level rise increased. Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report (IPCC AR4 SYR, 2007)[12] reported that between the years 1961 and 2003, global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year (mm/yr), with a range of 1.32.3 mm/yr. Between 1993 and 2003, the rate increased above the previous period to 3.1 mm/yr (range of 2.43.8 mm/yr). Authors of IPCC AR4 SYR (2007)[12] were uncertain whether the increase in rate from 1993 to 2003 was due to natural variations in sea level over the time period, or whether it reflected an increase in the underlying long-term trend. There are two main factors that have contributed to observed sea level rise.[85] The first is thermal expansion: as ocean water warms, it expands.[87] The second is from the contribution of land-based ice due to increased melting. The major store of water on land is found in glaciers and ice sheets. Anthropogenic forcing very likely (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement)[20] contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century.[35] There is a widespread consensus that substantial long-term sea level rise will continue for centuries to come.[88] In their Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC[89] projected sea level rise to the end of the 21st century using the SRES emissions scenarios. Across the six SRES marker scenarios, sea level was projected to rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.1 to 23.2 in), relative to sea level at the end of the 20th century.[90] Thermal expansion is the largest component in these projections, contributing 70-75% of the central estimate for all scenarios.[91] Due to a lack of scientific understanding, this sea level rise estimate does not include all of the possible contributions of ice sheets (see the section on Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets). An assessment of the scientific literature on climate change was published in 2010 by the US National Research Council (NRC, 2010).[92] NRC (2010)[92] described the projections in AR4 (i.e., those cited in the above paragraph) as "conservative," and summarized the results of more recent studies. Cited studies suggested a great deal of uncertainty in projections.[92] A range of projections suggested possible sea level rise by the end of the 21st century of between 0.56 and 2 m, relative to sea levels at the end of the 20th century.[92]

Ocean temperature rise

From 1961 to 2003, the global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10 C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. There is variability both year-to-year and over longer time scales, with global ocean heat content observations showing high rates of warming for 19912003, but some cooling from 2003 to 2007.[93] The temperature of the Antarctic Southern Oceanrose by 0.17 C (0.31 F) between the 1950s and the 1980s, nearly twice the rate for the world's oceans as a whole.[94] As well as having effects on ecosystems (e.g. by melting sea ice, affecting algae that grow on its underside), warming reduces the

ocean's ability to absorb CO2.[citation needed] It is likely (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement)[20] that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the general warming observed in the upper several hundred metres of the ocean during the latter half of the 20th century.[35]

Regions
Main article: Regional effects of global warming
Temperatures across the world in the 1880s (left) and the 1980s (right), as compared to average temperatures from 1951 to 1980.[95] Projected changes in average temperatures across the world in the 2050s under three greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions scenarios.[10]

Regional effects of global warming vary in nature. Some are the result of a generalised global change, such as rising temperature, resulting in local effects, such as melting ice. In other cases, a change may be related to a change in a particular ocean current or weather system. In such cases, the regional effect may be disproportionate and will not necessarily follow the global trend. There are three major ways in which global warming will make changes to regional climate: melting or forming ice, changing the hydrological cycle (of evaporation and precipitation) and changing currents in the oceans and air flows in the atmosphere. The coast can also be considered a region, and will suffer severe impacts from sea level rise.

Observed impacts
With very high confidence, Rosenzweig et al. (2007)[34] concluded that physical and biological systems on all continents and in most oceans had been affected by recent climate changes, particularly regional temperature increases. Impacts include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the Northern Hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans'plankton and fish from cold- to warmadapted communities.[96] The human influence on the climate can be seen in the geographical pattern of observed warming, with greater temperature increases over land and in polar regions rather than over the oceans.[97]:6 Using models, it is possible to identify the human "signal" of global warming over both land and ocean areas.[97]:6

Projected impacts
Projections of future climate changes at the regional scale do not hold as high a level of scientific confidence as projections made at the global scale.[97]:9 It is, however, expected that future warming will

follow a similar geographical pattern to that seen already, with greatest warming over land and high northern latitudes, and least over the Southern Oceanand parts of the North Atlantic Ocean.[98] Nearly all land areas will very likely warm more than the global average.[99] The Arctic, Africa, small islands and Asian megadeltas are regions that are likely to be especially affected by climate change.[100] Adverse impacts of climate change are expected to fall disproportionately upon developing countries.[99] Within other areas, even those with high incomes, some people can be particularly at risk from climate change, such as the poor, young children and the elderly.[100]

Social systems
Main articles: Effects of climate change on humans and Climate change, industry and society The impacts of climate change can be thought of in terms of sensitivity and vulnerability. "Sensitivity" is the degree to which a particular system or sector might be affected, positively or negatively, by climate change and/or climate variability. "Vulnerability" is the degree to which a particular system or sector might be adversely affected by climate change.[101] The sensitivity of human society to climate change varies. Sectors sensitive to climate change include water resources, coastal zones, human settlements, and human health. Industries sensitive to climate change include agriculture, fisheries, forestry, energy, construction, insurance, financial services, tourism, and recreation.[102][103]

Food supply
Main article: Climate change and agriculture See also: Food security, Food vs fuel, and 20072008 world food price crisis Climate change will impact agriculture and food production around the world due to: the effects of elevated CO2 in the atmosphere, higher temperatures, altered precipitation andtranspiration regimes, increased frequency of extreme events, and modified weed, pest, and pathogen pressure.[104] In general, low-latitude areas are at most risk of having decreased crop yields.[105] So far, the effects of regional climate change on agriculture have been relatively limited.[34] Changes in crop phenology provide important evidence of the response to recent regional climate change.[106] Phenology is the study of natural phenomena that recur periodically, and how these phenomena relate to climate and seasonal changes.[107] A significant advance in phenology has been observed for agriculture and forestry in large parts of the Northern Hemisphere.[34]

Projections

With low to medium confidence, Schneider et al. (2007)[11] projected that for about a 1 to 3 C increase in global mean temperature (by the years 2090-2100, relative to temperature in the years 19902000), there would be productivity decreases for some cereals in low latitudes, and productivity increases in high latitudes. With medium confidence, global production potential was projected to:[11]

increase up to around 3 C, very likely decrease above about 3 C.

Most of the studies on global agriculture assessed by Schneider et al. (2007)[105] had not incorporated a number of critical factors, including changes in extreme events, or the spread of pests and diseases. Studies had also not considered the development of specific practices or technologies to aid adaptation to climate change.[105]

Food security
Easterling et al. (2007)[108] assessed studies that made quantitative projections of climate change impacts on food security. It was noted that these projections were highly uncertain and had limitations. However, the assessed studies suggested a number of fairly robust findings. The first was that climate change would likely increase the number of people at risk of hunger compared with reference scenarios with no climate change. Climate change impacts depended strongly on projected future social and economic development. Additionally, the magnitude of climate change impacts was projected to be smaller compared to the impact of social and economic development. In 2006, the global estimate for the number of people undernourished was 820 million.[109] Under the SRES A1, B1, and B2 scenarios (see the SRES article for information on each scenario group), projections for the year 2080 showed a reduction in the number of people undernourished of about 560-700 million people, with a global total of undernourished people of 100-240 million in 2080. By contrast, the SRES A2 scenario showed only a small decrease in the risk of hunger from 2006 levels. The smaller reduction under A2 was attributed to the higher projected future population level in this scenario.

Agriculture
Droughts have been occurring more frequently because of global warming and they are expected to become more frequent and intense in Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East, most of the Americas, Australia, and Southeast Asia.[110] Their impacts are aggravated because of increased water demand, population growth, urban expansion, and environmental protection efforts in many areas. [111] Droughts result in crop failures and the loss of pasture grazing land for livestock. [112]

Health
Human beings are exposed to climate change through changing weather patterns (temperature, precipitation, sea-level rise and more frequent extreme events) and indirectly through changes in water,

air and food quality and changes in ecosystems, agriculture, industry and settlements and the economy (Confalonieri et al., 2007:393).[51] According to an assessment of the scientific literature by Confalonieri et al. (2007:393),[51] the effects of climate change to date have been small, but are projected to progressively increase in all countries and regions. A study by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2009)[113] estimated the effect of climate change on human health. Not all of the effects of climate change were included in their estimates, for example, the effects of more frequent and extreme storms were excluded. Climate change was estimated to have been responsible for 3% of diarrhoea, 3% ofmalaria, and 3.8% of dengue fever deaths worldwide in 2004. Total attributable mortality was about 0.2% of deaths in 2004; of these, 85% were child deaths.

Projections
With high confidence, authors of the IPCC AR4 Synthesis report[114]:48 projected that climate change would bring some benefits in temperate areas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and some mixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potential of malaria in Africa. Benefits were projected to be outweighed by negative health effects of rising temperatures, especially in developing countries. With very high confidence, Confalonieri et al. (2007)[51]:393 concluded that economic development was an important component of possible adaptation to climate change. Economic growth on its own, however, was not judged to be sufficient to insulate the world's population from disease and injury due to climate change. Future vulnerability to climate change will depend not only on the extent of social and economic change, but also on how the benefits and costs of change are distributed in society. [115] For example, in the 19th century, rapid urbanization in western Europe lead to a plummeting in population health.[115] Other factors important in determining the health of populations include education, the availability of health services, and public-health infrastructure.[51]:393

Specific health impacts

This section may need to be cleaned up or summarized. This section has been split to Climate change, industry and society.

Malnutrition
With high confidence, Confalonieri et al. (2007) projected that malnutrition would increase due to climate change.[51] This link is associated with climate variability and change.[116]Drought reduces variety in diets and reduces overall consumption. This can lead to micronutrient deficiencies. The World Health Organization (Campbell-Lendrum et al., 2003)[117] conducted a regional and global assessment to quantify the amount of premature morbidity and mortality due to a range of factors, including climate change. Projections were made over future climate change impacts. Limited

adjustments for adaptation were included in the estimates based on these projections. Projected relative risks attributable to climate change in 2030 varied by health outcome and region. Risks were largely negative, with most of the projected disease burden due to increases in diarrhoeal disease and malnutrition. These increases were primarily in low-income populations already experiencing a large burden of disease.

Extreme events
With high confidence, Confalonieri et al. (2007) projected that climate change would increase the number of people suffering from death, disease and injury from heatwaves, floods,storms, fires and droughts.[51] Floods and weather disasters Floods are low-probability, high-impact events that can overwhelm physical infrastructure and human communities.[118] Confalonieri et al. (2007) reported that major storm and flood disasters have occurred in the last two decades. The impacts of weather disasters is considerable and unequally distributed. [118] For example, natural disasters have been shown to result in increased domestic violence against - and post-traumatic stress disorders in women. In terms of deaths and populations affected, floods and tropical cyclones have the greatest impact in South Asia and Latin America. Vulnerability to weather disasters depends on the attributes of the person at risk, including where they live and their age, as well as other social and environmental factors. High-density populations in low-lying coastal regions experience a high health burden from weather disasters. Heatwaves Hot days, hot nights and heatwaves have become more frequent.[119] Heatwaves are associated with marked short-term increases in mortality. For example, in August 2003, a heatwave in Europe resulted in excess mortality in the range of 35,000 total deaths. Heat-related morbidity and mortality is projected to increase.[120] The health burden could be relatively small for moderate heatwaves in temperate regions, because deaths occur primarily in susceptible persons. Drought The effects of drought on health include deaths, malnutrition, infectious diseases and respiratory diseases.[116] Countries within the "Meningitis Belt" in semi-arid sub-Saharan Africa experience the highest endemicity and epidemic frequency of meningococcal meningitis in Africa, although other areas in the Rift Valley, the Great Lakes, and southern Africa are also affected.[121] The spatial distribution, intensity, and seasonality of meningococcal (epidemic) meningitis appear to be strongly linked to climate and environmental factors, particularly drought. The cause of this link is not fully understood.

Fires In some regions, changes in temperature and precipitation are projected to increase the frequency and severity of fire events.[122] Forest and bush fires cause burns, damage from smoke inhalation and other injuries.

Infectious disease vectors

With high confidence, Confalonieri et al. (2007)[51] projected that climate change would continue to change the range of some infectious disease vectors. Vector-borne diseases(VBD) are infections transmitted by the bite of infected arthropod species, such as mosquitoes, ticks, triatomine bugs, sandflies, and blackflies.[123] There is some evidence of climatechange-related shifts in the distribution of tick vectors of disease, of some (non-malarial) mosquito vectors in Europe and North America. Climate change has also been implicated in changes in the breeding and migration dates of several bird species. Several species of wild bird can act as carriers of human pathogens as well as of vectors of infectious agents.
Dengue

With low confidence, Confalonieri et al. (2007) concluded that climate change would increase the number of people at risk of dengue.[51] Dengue is the world's most important vector-borne viral disease.[124] Several studies have reported associations between dengue and climate, however, these associations are not entirely consistent.

Observed malaria mortality: Although showing such over the past century of global warming, there are also other factors impacting the past and future of malaria.
Malaria

The spatial distribution, intensity of transmission, and seasonalty of malaria is influenced by climate in Sub-saharan Africa.[125]Rainfall can be a limiting factor for mosquito populations and there is some

evidence of reductions in transmission associated with decadal decreases in rainfall. The effects of observed climate change on the geographical distribution of malaria and its transmission intensity in highland regions remains controversial. There is no clear evidence that malaria has been affected by climate change in South America or in continental regions of the Russian Federation. There is still much uncertainty about the potential impact of climate change on malaria at local and global scales.

An editor has expressed a concern that this paragraph lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (May 2010)

A paper by researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of Florida published in Nature in May 2010 concluded that claims that a warming climate has led to more widespread disease and death due to malaria are largely at odds with the evidence, and that "predictions of an intensification of malaria in a warmer world, based on extrapolated empirical relationships or biological mechanisms, must be set against a context of a century of warming that has seen marked global declines in the disease and a substantial weakening of the global correlation between malaria endemicity and climate. "[126][127]
Other infectious diseases

There is good evidence that diseases transmitted by rodents sometimes increase during heavy rainfall and flooding because of altered patterns of human-pathogen-rodent contact.[128]
Projections

With very high confidence, Confalonieri et al. (2007)[51] concluded that climate change would have mixed effects on malaria. Malaria is a complex disease to model and all of the published models assessed by Confalonieri et al. (2007) had limited parametrization of some key factors.[129] Parametrization is used in climate models because the resolution of models is insufficient to resolve some physical processes.[130] Given this limitation, models assessed by Confalonieri et al. (2007) projected that, particularly in Africa, climate change would be associated with geographical expansions of the areas suitable for Plasmodium falciparum malaria in some regions, and contractions in other regions. Projections also suggested that some regions would experience a longer season of transmission. Projections suggested expansions in vector species that carry dengue for parts of Australia and New Zealand.

Diarrhoeal diseases
With medium confidence, Confalonieri et al. (2007)[51] concluded that climate change would increase the burden of diarrhoeal diseases. Childhood mortality due to diarrhoea in low-income countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, remains high.[131] This is despite improvements in care. Several studies have

shown that transmission of enteric pathogens is higher during the rainy season. Some studies have found that higher temperature was strongly associated with increased episodes of diarrhoeal disease in adults and children in Peru. Campbell-Lendrum et al. (2003)[117] projected that climate change would increase the burden of diarrhoeal diseases in low-income regions by approximately 2 to 5% in 2020.

Ground-level ozone
With high confidence, Confalonieri et al. (2007)[51] projected that climate change would increase cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality associated with ground-level ozone. Ground-level ozone is both naturally occurring and is the primary constituent of urban smog.[132] Ozone in smog is formed through chemical reactions involving nitrogen oxides and other compounds. The reaction is a photochemical reaction, meaning that it involves electromagnetic radiation, and occurs in the presence of bright sunshine and high temperatures. Exposure to elevated concentrations of ozone is associated with increased hospital admissions for pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, allergic rhinitis and other respiratory diseases, and with premature mortality. Background levels of ground-level ozone have risen since pre-industrial times because of increasing emissions of methane, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides.[133] This trend is expected to continue into the mid-21st century.

Cold-waves
Cold-waves continue to be a problem in northern latitudes, where very low temperatures can be reached in a few hours and extend over long periods.[134] Reductions in cold-deaths due to climate change are projected to be greater than increases in heat-related deaths in the UK.[120]

Precipitation during the 20th century and up through 2008 during global warming, theNOAA estimating an observed trend over that period of 1.87% global precipitation increase per century.

Water resources
See also: Water crisis A number of climate-related trends have been observed that affect water resources. These include changes in precipitation, the crysosphere and surface waters (e.g., changes in river flows).[135] Observed and projected impacts of climate change on freshwatersystems and their management are mainly due to changes in temperature, sea level and precipitation variability.[136] Sea level rise will extend areas of salinization of groundwater and estuaries, resulting in a decrease in freshwater availability for humans and ecosystems in coastal areas. In an assessment of the scientific literature, Kundzewicz et al. (2007)[136] concluded, with high confidence, that:

the negative impacts of climate change on freshwater systems outweigh the benefits. All of the regions assessed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Europe, Latin America, North America, Polar regions (Arctic andAntarctic), and small islands) showed an overall net negative impact of climate change on water resources and freshwater ecosystems.

Semi-arid and arid areas are particularly exposed to the impacts of climate change on freshwater. With very high confidence, it was judged that many of these areas, e.g., the Mediterranean basin, Western United States, Southern Africa, and north-eastern Brazil, would suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change.

Migration and conflict

See also: Environmental migrant General circulation models project that the future climate change will bring wetter coasts, drier midcontinent areas, and further sea level rise.[137] Such changes could result in the gravest effects of climate change through sudden human migration. Millions might be displaced by shoreline erosions, river and coastal flooding, or severe drought. Migration related to climate change is likely to be predominantly from rural areas in developing countries to towns and cities.[137]:407[138]In the short term climate stress is likely to add incrementally to existing migration patterns rather than generating entirely new flows of people.[138]:110 It has been argued that environmental degradation, loss of access to resources (e.g., water resources),[139] and resulting human migration could become a source of political and even military

conflict.[140] Factors other than climate change may, however, be more important in affecting conflict. For example, Wilbanks et al. (2007)[141] suggested that major environmentally influenced conflicts in Africa were more to do with the relative abundance of resources, e.g., oil and diamonds, than with resource scarcity. Scott et al. (2001) placed only low confidence in predictions of increased conflict due to climate change.[140]

Aggregate impacts
Main article: Economic impacts of climate change Aggregating impacts adds up the total impact of climate change across sectors and/or regions. [142] Examples of aggregate measures include economic cost (e.g., changes ingross domestic product (GDP) and the social cost of carbon), changes in ecosystems (e.g., changes over land area from one type of vegetation to another),[143] human health impacts, and the number of people affected by climate change.[144] Aggregate measures such as economic cost require researchers to make value judgements over the importance of impacts occurring in different regions and at different times.

Observed impacts
Global losses reveal rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s.[145] Socio-economic factors have contributed to the observed trend of global losses, e.g., population growth, increased wealth.[146] Part of the growth is also related to regional climatic factors, e.g., changes in precipitation and flooding events. It is difficult to quantify the relative impact of socioeconomic factors and climate change on the observed trend.[146] The trend does, however, suggest increasing vulnerability of social systems to climate change.[146]

Projected impacts
The total economic impacts from climate change are highly uncertain.[147] With medium confidence, Smith et al. (2001)[148] concluded that world GDP would change by plus or minus a few percent for a small increase in global mean temperature (up to around 2 C relative to the 1990 temperature level). Most studies assessed by Smith et al. (2001)[148]projected losses in world GDP for a medium increase in global mean temperature (above 2-3 C relative to the 1990 temperature level), with increasing losses for greater temperature increases. This assessment is consistent with the findings of more recent studies, as reviewed by Hitz and Smith (2004).[149] Economic impacts are expected to vary regionally.[149][150] For a medium increase in global mean temperature (2-3 C of warming, relative to the average temperature between 19902000), market sectors in low-latitude and less-developed areas might experience net costs due to climate change.[11] On the other hand, market sectors in high-latitude and developed regions might experience net benefits for this level of warming. A global mean temperature increase above about 2-3 C (relative to

1990-2000) would very likely result in market sectors across all regions experiencing either declines in net benefits or rises in net costs.[40] Aggregate impacts have also been quantified in non-economic terms. For example, climate change over the 21st century is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding, reductions in water supplies, increased malnutrition and increased health impacts. [53]

Biological systems
Main article: Climate change and ecosystems See also: Extinction risk from global warming, Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity, Effects of climate change on terrestrial animals, and Effects of climate change on marine mammals

Observed impacts on biological systems

A vast array of physical and biological systems across the Earth are being affected by human-induced global warming.[96]

With very high confidence, Rosenzweig et al. (2007) concluded that recent warming had strongly affected natural biological systems.[34] Hundreds of studies have documented responses of ecosystems, plants, and animals to the climate changes that have already occurred.[151] For example, in the Northern Hemisphere, species are almost uniformly moving their ranges northward and up in elevation in search of cooler temperatures.[152] Humans are very likely causing changes in regional temperatures to which plants and animals are responding.[152]

Projected impacts on biological systems

By the year 2100, ecosystems will be exposed to atmospheric CO2 levels substantially higher than in the past 650,000 years, and global temperatures at least among the highest of those experienced in the past 740,000 years.[153] Significant disruptions of ecosystems are projected to increase with future climate change.[154]Examples of disruptions include disturbances such as fire, drought, pest infestation, invasion of species, storms, and coral bleaching events. The stresses caused by climate change, added to other stresses on ecological systems (e.g., land conversion, land degradation, harvesting, and pollution), threaten substantial damage to or complete loss of some unique ecosystems, and extinction of some critically endangered species.[154] Climate change has been estimated to be a major driver of biodiversity loss in cool conifer forests, savannas,mediterranean-climate systems, tropical forests, in the Arctic tundra, and in coral reefs.[155] In other ecosystems,land-use change may be a stronger driver of biodiversity loss at

least in the near-term.[155] Beyond the year 2050, climate change may be the major driver for biodiversity loss globally.[155] A literature assessment by Fischlin et al. (2007)[153] included a quantitative estimate of the number of the number of species at increased risk of extinction due to climate change. With medium confidence, it was projected that approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far (in an unbiased sample) would likely be at increasingly high risk of extinction should global mean temperatures exceed a warming of 2 to 3 C above pre-industrial temperature levels.[153] The uncertainties in this estimate, however, are large: for a rise of about 2 C the percentage may be as low as 10%, or for about 3 C, as high as 40%, and depending on biota (all living organismsof an area, the flora and fauna considered as a unit)[156] the range is between 1% and 80%.[155] As global average temperature exceeds 4 C above pre-industrial levels, model projections suggested that there could be significant extinctions (40-70% of species that were assessed) around the globe.[155] Assessing whether future changes in ecosystems will be beneficial or detrimental is largely based on how ecosystems are valued by human society.[157] For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5 to 2.5 C (relative to global temperatures over the years 1980-1999)[158] and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, projected changes in ecosystems will have predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems goods and services, e.g., water and food supply.[159]

Abrupt or irreversible changes

Physical, ecological and social systems may respond in an abrupt, non-linear or irregular way to climate change.[160] This is as opposed to a smooth or regular response. A quantitative entity behaves "irregularly" when its dynamics are discontinuous (i.e., not smooth), nondifferentiable, unbounded, wildly varying, or otherwise ill-defined.[160] Such behaviour is often termed "singular." Irregular behaviour in Earth systems may give rise to certain thresholds, which, when crossed, may lead to a large change in the system. Some singularities could potentially lead to severe impacts at regional or global scales. [161] Examples of "large-scale" singularities are discussed in the articles on abrupt climate change, climate change feedback and runaway climate change. It is possible that human-induced climate change could trigger large-scale singularities, but the probabilities of triggering such events are, for the most part, [162] poorly understood.[161] With low to medium confidence, Smith et al. (2001)[160] concluded that a rapid warming of more than 3 C above 1990 levels would exceed thresholds that would lead to large-scale discontinuities in the climate system. Since the assessment by Smith et al. (2001), improved scientific understanding provides more

guidance for two large-scale singularities: the role of carbon cycle feedbacks in future climate change (discussed below in the section on biogeochemical cycles) and the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.[149]

Biogeochemical cycles
See also: climate change feedback Climate change may have an effect on the carbon cycle in an interactive "feedback" process. A feedback exists where an initial process triggers changes in a second process that in turn influences the initial process. A positive feedback intensifies the original process, and a negative feedback reduces it.[114]:78 Models suggest that the interaction of the climate system and the carbon cycle is one where the feedback effect is positive.[163]:792 Using the A2 SRES emissions scenario, Schneider et al. (2007)[163]:789 found that this effect led to additional warming by the years 2090-2100 (relative to the 19902000) of 0.11.5 C. This estimate was made with high confidence. The climate projections made in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized earlier of 1.16.4 C account for this feedback effect. On the other hand, with medium confidence, Schneider et al. (2007)[163]:789 commented that additional releases of GHGs were possible from permafrost, peat lands, wetlands, and large stores of marine hydrates at high latitudes.

Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets

With medium confidence, authors of AR4[40] concluded that with a global average temperature increase of 14 C (relative to temperatures over the years 19902000), at least a partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheets would occur. The estimated timescale for partial deglaciation was centuries to millennia, and would contribute 4 to 6 metres (13 to 20 ft) or more to sea level rise over this period.

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation

See also: Shutdown of thermohaline circulation

This map shows the general location and direction of the warm surface (red) and cold deep water (blue) currents of thethermohaline circulation. Salinity is represented by color in units of the Practical Salinity Scale. Low values (blue) are less saline, while high values (orange) are more saline. [164]

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is an important component of the Earth's climate system, characterized by a northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic and a southward flow of colder water in the deep Atlantic.[165]:5 The AMOC is equivalently known as the thermohaline circulation (THC).[149] Potential impacts associated with MOC changes include reduced warming or (in the case of abrupt change) absolute cooling of northern high-latitude areas near Greenland and north-western Europe, an increased warming of Southern Hemispherehigh-latitudes, tropical drying, as well as changes to marine ecosystems, terrestrial vegetation, oceanic CO2 uptake, oceanic oxygen concentrations, and shifts in fisheries.[166] According to an assessment by the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP, 2008b),[165]:5 it is very likely (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement)[165]:12 that the strength of the AMOC will decrease over the course of the 21st century. Warming is still expected to occur over most of the European region downstream of the North Atlantic Current in response to increasing GHGs, as well as over North America. Although it is very unlikely (less than 10% probability, based on expert judgement)[165]:12 that the AMOC will collapse in the 21st century, the potential consequences of such a collapse could be severe.[165]:5

Irreversibilities
Commitment to radiative forcing
Emissions of GHGs are a potentially irreversible commitment to sustained radiative forcing in the future.[167] The contribution of a GHG to radiative forcing depends on the gas's ability to trap infrared (heat) radiation, the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere, and the length of time the gas resides in the atmosphere.[167] CO2 is the most important anthropogenic GHG.[168] While more than half of the CO2 emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.[169] Consequently, CO2 emitted today is potentially an irreversible commitment to sustained radiative forcing over thousands of years. This commitment may not be truly irreversible should techniques be developed to remove CO2 or other GHGs directly from the atmosphere, or to block sunlight to induce cooling.[23] Techniques of this sort are referred to as geoengineering. Little is known about the effectiveness, costs or potential side-effects of geoengineering options.[170] Some geoengineering options, such as blocking sunlight, would not prevent further ocean acidification.[170]

Irreversible impacts
Human-induced climate change may lead to irreversible impacts on physical, biological, and social systems.[171] There are a number of examples of climate change impacts that may be irreversible, at least over the timescale of many human generations.[172] These include the large-scale singularities described above - changes in carbon cycle feedbacks, the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, and changes to the AMOC.[172] In biological systems, the extinction of species would be an irreversible impact.[172] In social systems, unique cultures may be lost due to climate change.[172] For example, humans living on atoll islands face risks due to sea-level rise, sea-surface warming, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.[173]

See also
General Anthropocene Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth Indigenous Peoples Climate Change Assessment Initiative

Global warming

Ecology portal

Environment po

Environmental sociology Regional Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Effects of global warming on Australia Effects of global warming on India Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation Bush Administration assessments of impacts and adaptation (United States)

Biological pump

Climate Vulnerab

Oceanic anoxic e

PRECIS (Providin Solubility pump

Footnotes
1

The TAR[174] and AR4[20] that are referred to in this article use specific and quantitative language to

describe uncertainty. This language is intended to provide an indication of the level of confidence that IPCC authors have about a particular finding. The qualitative language used to describe uncertainty has a quantitative scale associated with it. The quantitative values for qualitative terms are intended to ensure that confidence levels are interpreted correctly. The is because qualitative statements, e.g., using the word "likely," can be interpreted differently in quantitative terms.[175]:44 Confidence levels used in the TAR:[176]

Very High = 95% or greater High = 67-95%

Medium = 33-67% Low = 5-33% Very Low = 5% or less

Confidence statements made in AR4 are listed below:[20]

Very high confidence: At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct High confidence: About 8 out of 10 chance " " " Medium confidence: About 5 out of 10 chance " " " Low confidence: About 2 out of 10 chance " " " Very low confidence: Less than a 1 out of 10 chance " " "

IPCC (2012)[177] uses the following terms: "very low", "low", "medium", "high", and "very high confidence." Unlike the TAR and AR4, the scale is qualitative rather than quantitative. The quantitative values used by IPCC authors are "subjective" probabilities,[20][174][178] also known as "personalist" or "Bayesian" probabilities,[179] and reflect the expert judgement of IPCC authors. In this formulation, probability is not only a function of an event, but also the state of information that is available to the person making the assessment.[179] In this framework, assigned probabilities may change as more or different information becomes available.[179] The IPCC also uses another scale to describe the likelihood of a particular event occurring.[20] This is different from the confidence scales described above, and it is possible to assign confidence values to statements of likelihood. For example, the judgement that an event is improbable (e.g., rolling a dice twice and getting a six both times) may be assigned a high level of scientific confidence.[20] Also, the probability that an event has an even chance of occurring (e.g., a tossed coin coming up heads) may also be assigned a high level of confidence.[20]

Global Warming Solutions

What Can We Do?

Photograph by Paul Nicklen

The evidence that humans are causing global warming is strong, but the question of what to do about it remains controversial. Economics, sociology, and politics are all important factors in planning for the future. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) today, the Earth would still warm by another degree Fahrenheit or so. But what we do from today forward makes a big difference. Depending on our choices, scientists predict that the Earth could eventually warm by as little as 2.5 degrees or as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. A commonly cited goal is to stabilize GHG concentrations around 450-550 parts per million (ppm), or about twice pre-industrial levels. This is the point at which many believe the most damaging impacts of climate change can be avoided. Current concentrations are about 380 ppm, which means there isn't much time to lose. According to the IPCC, we'd have to reduce GHG emissions by 50% to 80% of what they're on track to be in the next century to reach this level. Is this possible? Many people and governments are already working hard to cut greenhouse gases, and everyone can help.

Researchers Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow at Princeton University have suggested one approach that they call "stabilization wedges." This means reducing GHG emissions from a variety of sources with technologies available in the next few decades, rather than relying on an enormous change in a single area. They suggest 7 wedges that could each reduce emissions, and all of them together could hold emissions at approximately current levels for the next 50 years, putting us on a potential path to stabilize around 500 ppm. There are many possible wedges, including improvements to energy efficiency and vehicle fuel economy (so less energy has to be produced), and increases in wind and solar power, hydrogen produced from renewable sources, biofuels (produced from crops), natural gas, and nuclear power. There is also the potential to capture the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels and store it underground a process called "carbon sequestration." In addition to reducing the gases we emit to the atmosphere, we can also increase the amount of gases we take out of the atmosphere. Plants and trees absorb CO2 as they grow, "sequestering" carbon naturally. Increasing forestlands and making changes to the way we farm could increase the amount of carbon we're storing. Some of these technologies have drawbacks, and different communities will make different decisions about how to power their lives, but the good news is that there are a variety of options to put us on a path toward a stable climate.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-solutions/

Solutions to Global Warming

There is no single solution to global warming, which is primarily a problem of too much heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. (Learn more about the causes of global warming.) The technologies and approaches outlined below are all needed to bring down the emissions of these gases by at least 80 percent by mid-century. To see how they are best deployed in each region of the world, use the menu at left.

Boosting energy efficiency: The energy used to power, heat, and cool our homes, businesses,
and industries is the single largest contributor to global warming. Energy efficiency technologies allow us to use less energy to get the sameor higherlevel of production, service, and comfort. This approach has vast potential to save both energy and money, and can be deployed quickly.

Greening transportation: The transportation sector's emissions have increased at a faster rate
than any other energy-using sector over the past decade. A variety of solutions are at hand, including improving efficiency (miles per gallon) in all modes of transport, switching to low-carbon fuels, and reducing vehicle miles traveled through smart growth and more efficient mass transportation systems.

Revving up renewables: Renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and
bioenergy are available around the world. Multiple studies have shown that renewable energy has the technical potential to meet the vast majority of our energy needs. Renewable technologies can be deployed quickly, are increasingly cost-effective, and create jobs while reducing pollution.

Phasing out fossil fuel electricity: Dramatically reducing our use of fossil fuelsespecially
carbon-intensive coalis essential to tackle climate change. There are many ways to begin this process. Key action steps include: not building any new coal-burning power plants, initiating a phased shutdown of coal plants starting with the oldest and dirtiest, and capturing and storing carbon emissions from power plants. While it may sound like science fiction, the technology exists to store carbon emissions underground. The technology has not been deployed on a large scale or proven to

be safe and permanent, but it has been demonstrated in other contexts such as oil and natural gas recovery. Demonstration projects to test the viability and costs of this technology for power plant emissions are worth pursuing.

Managing forests and agriculture: Taken together, tropical deforestation and emissions from
agriculture represent nearly 30 percent of the world's heat-trapping emissions. We can fight global warming by reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and by making our food production practices more sustainable.

Exploring nuclear: Because nuclear power results in few global warming emissions, an increased
share of nuclear power in the energy mix could help reduce global warmingbut nuclear technology poses serious threats to our security and, as the accident at the Fukushima Diaichi plant in Japan illustrates to our health and the environment as well. The question remains: can the safety, proliferation, waste disposal, and cost barriers of nuclear power be overcome?

Developing and deploying new low-carbon and zero-carbon technologies:

Research into and development of the next generation of low-carbon technologies will be critical to deep mid-century reductions in global emissions. Current research on battery technology, new materials for solar cells, harnessing energy from novel sources like bacteria and algae, and other innovative areas could provide important breakthroughs.

Ensuring sustainable development: The countries of the worldfrom the most to the least
developedvary dramatically in their contributions to the problem of climate change and in their responsibilities and capacities to confront it. A successful global compact on climate change must include financial assistance from richer countries to poorer countries to help make the transition to low-carbon development pathways and to help adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Adapting to changes already underway: As the Climate Hot Map demonstrates, the impacts of a
warming world are already being felt by people around the globe. If climate change continues unchecked, these impacts are almost certain to get worse. From sea level rise to heat waves, from extreme weather to disease outbreaks, each unique challenge requires locally-suitable solutions to prepare for and respond to the impacts of global warming. Unfortunately, those who will be hit hardest and first by the impacts of a changing climate are likely to be the poor and vulnerable, especially those in the least developed countries. Developed countries must take a leadership role in providing financial and technical help for adaptation.

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-solutions/

GLOBAL WARMING ( Cause, Effect & Solutions)

Causes of Global Warming
Main C ontent

What Causes Global Warming? Scientists have spent decades figuring out what is causing global warming. Theyve looked at the natural cycles and events that are known to influence climate. But the amount and pattern of warming thats been measured cant be explained by these factors alone. The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans. To bring all this information together, the United Nations formed a group of scientists called the International Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The IPCC meets every few years to review the latest scientific findings

and write a report summarizing all that is known about global warming. Each report represents a consensus, or agreement, among hundreds of leading scientists. One of the first things scientists learned is that there are several greenhouse gases responsible for warming, and humans emit them in a variety of ways. Most come from the combustion of fossil fuels in cars, factories and electricity production. The gas responsible for the most warming is carbon dioxide, also called CO2. Other contributors include methane released from landfills and agriculture (especially from the digestive systems of grazing animals), nitrous oxide from fertilizers, gases used for refrigeration and industrial processes, and the loss of forests that would otherwise store CO2. Different greenhouse gases have very different heat-trapping abilities. Some of them can even trap more heat than CO2. A molecule of methane produces more than 20 times the warming of a molecule of CO2. Nitrous oxide is 300 times more powerful than CO2. Other gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (which have been banned in much of the world because they also degrade the ozone layer), have heat-trapping potential thousands of times greater than CO2. But because their concentrations are much lower than CO2, none of these gases adds as much warmth to the atmosphere as CO2 does. In order to understand the effects of all the gases together, scientists tend to talk about all greenhouse gases in terms of the equivalent amount of CO2. Since 1990, yearly emissions have gone up by about 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent worldwide, more than a 20% increase.

Effects of Global Warming

Signs Are Everywhere
Main C ontent

Photograph by Ilya Naymushin/Reuters/Corbis

The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between. Globally, the mercury is already up more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius), and even more in sensitive polar regions. And the effects of rising temperatures arent waiting for some far -flung future. Theyre happening right now. Signs are appearing all over, and some of them are surprising. The heat is not only melting glaciers and sea ice, its also shifting precipitation patterns and setting animals on the move. Some impacts from increasing temperatures are already happening.

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earths poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice. Researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adlie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years. Sea level rise became faster over the last century. Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas. Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average. Spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

Other effects could happen later this century, if warming continues.

Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. For example, plants could bloom earlier than their pollinating insects become active. Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either.

Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes. Ecosystems will changesome species will move farther north or become more successful; others wont be able to move and could become extinct. Wildlife research scientist Martyn Obbard has found that since the mid-1980s, with less ice on which to live and fish for food, polar bears have gotten considerably skinnier. Polar bear biologist Ian Stirling has found a similar pattern in Hudson Bay. He fears that if sea ice disappears, the polar bears will as well.

What Is Global Warming?

The Planet Is Heating Upand Fast
Main C ontent

Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. Its becoming clear that humans have caused most of the past centurys warming by releasing heat -trapping gases as we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse gases, their levels are higher now than in the last 650,000 years. We call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of chan ges to the Earths climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies from place to place. As the Earth spins each day, the new heat swirls with it, picking up moisture over the oceans, rising here, settling there. Its changing the rhythms of climate tha t all living things have come to rely upon. What will we do to slow this warming? How will we cope with the changes weve already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the face of the Earth as we know it coasts, forests, farms and snow-capped mountainshangs in the balance. Greenhouse effect The greenhouse effect is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earths atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse. First, sunlight shines onto the Earths surface, where it is absorbed and then radiates back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere, greenhouse gases trap some of this heat, and the rest escapes into space. The more greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped. Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. This greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earths climate livable. Without it, the Earths surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. In 1895, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse effect by making

carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming. Levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have gone up and down over the Earths history, but they have been fairly constant for the past few thousand years. Global average temperatures have stayed fairly constant over that time as well, until recently. Through the burning of fossil fuels and other GHG emissions, humans are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth. Scientists often use the term climate change instead of global warming. This is because as the Earths average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas. Arent temperature changes natural? The average global temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide (one of the major greenhouse gases) have fluctuated on a cycle of hundreds of thousands of years as the Earths p osition relative to the sun has varied. As a result, ice ages have come and gone. However, for thousands of years now, emissions of GHGs to the atmosphere have been balanced out by GHGs that are naturally absorbed. As a result, GHG concentrations and temperature have been fairly stable. This stability has allowed human civilization to develop within a consistent climate. Occasionally, other factors briefly influence global temperatures. Volcanic eruptions, for example, emit particles that temporarily cool the Earths surface. But these have no lasting effect beyond a few years. Other cycles, such as El Nio, also work on fairly short and predictable cycles. Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the industrial revolution. Changes this large have historically taken thousands of years, but are now happening over the course of decades. Why is this a concern? The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it is changing the climate faster than some living things may be able to adapt. Also, a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all life. Historically, Earths climate has regularly shifted back and forth between temperatures like those we see today and temperatures cold enough that large sheets of ice covered much of North America and Europe. The difference between average global temperatures today and during those ice ages is only about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit), and these swings happen slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years. Now, with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earths remaining ice sheets (such as Greenland and Antarctica) are starting to melt too. The extra water could potentially raise sea levels significantly. As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways. In addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. This means more intense major storms, more rain followed by longer and drier droughts (a challenge for growing crops), changes in the ranges in which plants and animals can live, and loss of water supplies that have historically come from glaciers. Scientists are already seeing some of these changes occurring more quickly than they had expected. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eleven of the twelve hottest years since thermometer readings became available occurred between 1995 and 2006.

Global Warming Solutions

What Can We Do?
Main C ontent

The evidence that humans are causing global warming is strong, but the question of what to do about it remains controversial. Economics, sociology, and politics are all important factors in planning for the future. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) today, the Earth would still warm by another degree Fahrenheit or so. But what we do from today forward makes a big difference. Depending on our choices, scientists predict that the Earth could eventually warm by as little as 2.5 degrees or as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. A commonly cited goal is to stabilize GHG concentrations around 450-550 parts per million (ppm), or about twice pre-industrial levels. This is the point at which many believe the most damaging impacts of climate change can be avoided. Current concentrations are about 380 ppm, which means there isnt much time to lose. According to the IPCC, wed have to reduce GHG emissions by 50% to 80% of what theyre on track to be in the next century to reach this level. Is this possible? Many people and governments are already working hard to cut greenhouse gases, and everyone can help. Researchers Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow at Princeton University have suggested one approach that they call stabilization wedges. This means reducing GHG emissions from a variety of sources with technologies available in the next few decades, rather than relying on an enormous change in a single area.

They suggest 7 wedges that could each reduce emissions, and all of them together could hold emissions at approximately current levels for the next 50 years, putting us on a potential path to stabilize around 500 ppm. There are many possible wedges, including improvements to energy efficiency and vehicle fuel economy (so less energy has to be produced), and increases in wind and solar power, hydrogen produced from renewable sources, biofuels (produced from crops), natural gas, and nuclear power. There is also the potential to capture the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels and store it underground a process called carbon sequestration. In addition to reducing the gases we emit to the atmosphere, we can also increase the amount of gases we take out of the atmosphere. Plants and trees absorb CO2 as they grow, sequestering carbon naturally. Increasing forestlands and making changes to the way we farm could increase the amount of carbon were storing. Some of these technologies have drawbacks, and different communities will make different decisions about how to power their lives, but the good news is that there are a variety of options to put us on a path toward a stable climate.

Sign In / Register

Subscription Center
Subscribe to Print & Tablet Subscribe to Print Give a Gift View the Latest Issue

Energy & Sustainability :: News :: November 26, 2007 :: 60 Comments :: Email :: Print

10 Solutions for Climate Change

Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
By David Biello

inShar e

The Future of Climate ChangeAs the world negotiates in Durban, climate change continues unabated--and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise December 1, 2011

EARTHWIDE EXPERIMENT: Climate change could turn catastrophic if efforts are not made to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause it.Image: NASA

The enormity of global warming can be daunting and dispiriting. What can one person, or even one nation, do on their own to slow and reverse climate change? But just as ecologist Stephen Pacala and physicist Robert Socolow, both at Princeton University, came up with 15 so-called "wedges" for nations to utilize toward this goaleach of which is challenging but feasible and, in some combination, couldreduce greenhouse gas emissions to safer levelsthere are personal lifestyle changes that you can make too that, in some combination, can

help reduce your carbon impact. Not all are right for everybody. Some you may already be doing or absolutely abhor. But implementing just a few of them could make a difference. Forego Fossil FuelsThe first challenge is eliminating the burning of coal, oil and, eventually, natural gas. This is perhaps the most daunting challenge as denizens of richer nations literally eat, wear, work, play and even sleep on the products made from such fossilized sunshine. And citizens of developing nations want and arguably deserve the same comforts, which are largely thanks to the energy stored in such fuels. Oil is the lubricant of the global economy, hidden inside such ubiquitous items as plastic and corn, and fundamental to the transportation of both consumers and goods. Coal is the substrate, supplying roughly half of the electricity used in the U.S. and nearly that much worldwidea percentage that is likely to grow, according to the International Energy Agency. There are no perfect solutions for reducing dependence on fossil fuels (for example, carbon neutral biofuels can drive up the price of food and lead to forest destruction, and while nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, it does produce radioactive waste), but every bit counts. So try to employ alternatives when possibleplant-derived plastics, biodiesel, wind powerand to invest in the change, be it by divesting from oil stocks or investing in companies practicing carbon capture and storage. Infrastructure UpgradeBuildings worldwide contribute around one third of all greenhouse gas emissions (43 percent in the U.S. alone), even though investing in thicker insulation and other cost-effective, temperature-regulating steps can save money in the long run. Electric grids are at capacity or overloaded, but power demands continue to rise. And bad roads can lower the fuel economy of even the most efficient vehicle. Investing in new infrastructure, or radically upgrading existing highways and transmission lines, would help cut greenhouse gas emissions and drive economic growth in developing countries. Of course, it takes a lot of cement, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, to construct new buildings and roads. The U.S. alone contributed 50.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in 2005 from cement production, which requires heating limestone and other ingredients to 1,450 degrees Celsius (2,642 degrees Fahrenheit). Mining copper and other elements needed for electrical wiring and transmission also causes globe-warming pollution.

But energy-efficient buildings and improved cement-making processes (such as using alternative fuels to fire up the kiln) could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world and prevent them in the developing world.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=10-solutions-for-climate-change

Solutions to Stop or Slow Global Warming

From Deborah White, former About.com Guide

See More About: global warming climate change environmental issues

Photo: David McNew/Getty Images

Ads Wartune Strategy-RPG MMOr2games.com/Most Visually Stunning & Exciting MMORPG, No Download, Free to Play! Programas UPpostgrado.up.edu.peAprende con los Mejores. Desarrollo y Consultora para Pymes. Nueva Brahma Rojabrahma.com.peBrahma se puso roja, se puso mejor! Conoce las novedades de Brahma Aqu

More US Liberal Politics Ads Global Warming Solutions Water Pollution Solutions Environmental Pollution Climate Change Ads Biomass Briquetting Plantwww.Biomass-Briquette.comBiomass Briquette Plant 4 Recycling Biomass Waste to Produce Energy! Es lunes 20% en CarnesWong.com.pe/tiendaonlineEl especial del da de Wong.com.pe Un descuento diferente cada da Solutions to slowing or stopping global warming lie in mankind's ability to slow and stop activities that inject greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. Major sources of greenhouse gases generated by mankind, and related solutions to stemming the flow greenhouse gases, are: Also read President Obama's Speech at U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Burning of Fossil Fuels: Oil and Gas, Coal, Natural Gas

The largest single contributer to the rise of man-made greenhouse gases is the burning of oil and gas to power vehicles, machinery, and produce energy and warmth.

Per the Union of Concerned Scientists, "Motor vehicles are responsible for almost a quarter of annual U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary global-warming gas. The U.S. transportation sector emits more CO2 than all but three other countries' emissions from all sources combined."

Solutions to reduce reliance on vehicles that burn fossil fuels include:

Taking mass public transportation whenever possible, rather than use of individual cars Alternative fuels, rather than fossil fuels, in vehicles Hybird vehicles, which are vehicles that combine two types of power, typically internal combustion engines , which burns fossil fuels, and electrical power

Vehicles that achieve high miles per gallon of gas consumed Solutions to reduce reliance on fossil fuels to produce energy and warmth include alternative energy sources such as: Solar power, which is usually generated by solar panels or a solar tower Wind power, which is usually generated by groups of wind turbines Biomass energy, which is derived from "lumber mill wastes, urban wood waste, forest and agricultural residues and other feed stocks" as well as waste from factories and landfills. Geothermal energy, which is derived from steam and hot water found deep beneath the Earths surface For others, see Top 7 Renewable Energy Sources by Larry West, About.com's Guide to Environmental Issues.

Deforestation London newspaper The Independent asked in May 2007, "In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?" The Independent continued on to dissect the challenge, and to propose one solution to this complex international dilemma:

"No new technology is needed, says the GCP, just the political will and a system of enforcement and incentives that makes the trees worth more to governments and individuals standing than felled. 'The focus on technological fixes for the emissions of rich nations while giving no incentive to poorer nations to stop burning the standing forest means we are putting the cart before the horse,' said Mr Mitchell."

(NOTE - The GCP is the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists, which is headed by Mr. Andrew Mitchell.)

"International demand has driven intensive agriculture, logging and ranching that has proved an inexorable force for deforestation; conservation has been no match for commerce.

"The leading rainforest scientists are now calling for the immediate inclusion of standing forests in internationally regulated carbon markets that could provide cash incentives to halt this disastrous process."

http://usliberals.about.com/od/environmentalconcerns/a/GlobalWarm5.htm

Como un todo Elementos: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ttulo de home page (pgina de inicio o principal del sitio Web) Palabra Internet [entre corchetes] y un punto Lugar de publicacin seguido de dos puntos Nombre de la editorial seguido de punto y coma Fecha de publicacin: Fecha o rango de aos de publicacin de la pgina web precedido de la letra c en minscula (si corresponde) Palabra cited y fecha de consulta [entre corchetes] segn formato ao, mes abreviado y nmero del da, finaliza con un punto Palabras Available from seguido de dos puntos y URL

Ejemplos: Complementary/Integrative Medicine [Internet]. Houston: University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center; c2007 [cited 2007 Feb 21]. Available from:http://www.mdanderson.org/departments/CIMER/. AMA: helping doctors help patients [Internet]. Chicago: American Medical Association; c1995-2007 [cited 2007 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.ama-assn.org/.

Parte del sitio web Elementos: 1. Ttulo de home page (pgina de inicio o principal del sitio Web) 2. Palabra Internet [entre corchetes] y un punto 3. Lugar de publicacin seguido de dos puntos 4. Nombre de la editorial seguido de punto y coma 5. Fecha o rango de aos de publicacin de la pgina Web precedido de la letra c en minscula (si corresponde) 6. Ttulo de la parte del sitio Web seguido de punto y coma 7. Fecha de publicacin de la parte del sitio web segn formato ao, mes abreviado en ingls y nmero del da.

8. Palabra cited y fecha de consulta [entre corchetes] segn formato ao, mes abreviado en ingls y nmero del da, finaliza con punto y coma 9. Localizacin: Nmero de pginas o pantallas de la parte del sitio web entre las palabras about y screens [entre corchetes] seguido de un punto 10. Palabras Available from seguido de dos puntos y URL de la parte del sitio web Ejemplo: AMA: helping doctors help patients [Internet]. Chicago: American Medical Association; c1995-2007. AMA launches exclusive partnership with the ReachMD Channel for medical professionals; 2007 Mar 26 [cited 2007 Mar 28]; [about 2 screens]. Available from: http://www.amaassn.org/ama/pub/category/17469.html