WildFact
›
Nature & Conservation
›
Human & Nature
Pollution, Climate Change & other anthropogenic effects on Biosphere
Pollution, Climate Change & other anthropogenic effects on Biosphere
|
Pollution, Climate Change & other anthropogenic effects on Biosphere
|
This is just a brief summary. Read full details here:
https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/sc13677.doc.htm Massive Displacement, Greater Competition for Scarce Resources Cited as Major Risks in Security Council Debate on Climate-Related Threats REPORT from UN Security Council Published on 25 Jan 2019 Quote:Climate change poses risks to international peace and security through massive displacement of people and increased competition for scarce natural resources, speakers told the Security Council today while expressing divergent views on what the 15-member organ can do about it.
Northern Hemisphere hit by freak climate anomaly!
As temperature in mid-West of North America & Central Russia to plummet upto -50°C at places, Alaska & North pole becomes abnormally warm, facing a heat wave with temperatures approaching the freezing point already; at 15°C above normal. Predicted daily mean, near-surface temperature (°C) differences from normal (relative to 1979-2000 avg.) for January 28-30, 2019. Data from NOAA’s Global Forecast System model. Climate Reanalyzer, Climate Change Institute, University of Maine.  *This image is copyright of its original author Polar Vortex, large area of low pressure & counter-clockwise flow of air that helps keep the colder air near the Poles. It's normal that during winter in the northern hemisphere, the polar vortex will weaken & expand, sending cold air southward with the jet stream that contains it. But as the poles got hit the worst, experiencing jacked up Greenhouse effect as thousands of years old ice sheets & permafrost are melting away for the first time, exposing darker ocean and land surfaces that absorb even more of the sun’s heat... And slower-flowing jet stream tends to meander like a slow-moving rivers, resulting in wide north-south undulations in its flow. This generates waves in the atmosphere that, if strong enough, disrupt the stratospheric polar vortex above. This upper vortex became so distorted that it split into 2 swirling eddies. These “daughter” vortices moved towards the warmer south, one over Canada & other Russia, bringing their (comperatively) cold polar air with them and leaving behind a dangerously warmer-than-normal Arctic!  *This image is copyright of its original author Information sources for further details: https://climatecrocks.com/2019/01/21/war...h-america/ https://theconversation.com/how-frigid-p...ing-110653 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3136 https://climatereanalyzer.org https://www.weather.gov/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jennifer_Francis PS: @Wolverine @Shadow @Pckts @Kingtheropod @GrizzlyClaws & any other forum member that may have been affected by it, stay safe & stay warm.  (07-25-2019, 12:18 PM)parvez Wrote: @Rishi there is barely any rain here at nellore, ap. Urs is flooded i think. North Bengal, yes. But here at Kolkata its been cloudy-sunny for last 15 days & not a drop, when it should've been drizzling 24×7. You're not supposed to see the sun in July! Atleast it has been cloudy from yesterday. Summer monsoon is to enter the subcontinent in a curved path...  *This image is copyright of its original author ...instead this year's have been straight from southwest to northeast. This is yesterday's.  *This image is copyright of its original author The water it's picking up from Bay of Bengal is causing devastating floods in NE, with all of Kaziranga drowned. But the plains & peninsular India beyond western ghats is bone dry. It's late too, & the delay is steadily increasing almost every year.  *This image is copyright of its original author Although we had rains all summer, as the excessively hot inlands drew in clouds that poured near the coast. While people farther inwards suffered, we did quite comfortably, so can't complain i guess. The poor Europeans are having to endure through record shattering heat waves. Apprently it's hotter in places there, than it was here in peak summer! @peter? 
CLIMATE CHANGE IN EUROPE
In central and northwestern Europe, records are shattered just about every year. Finland also is very warm at the moment. This week, in the Netherlands, temperatures rose to just over 39 degrees Celcius. Another record, it was. In large cities, it takes a long time to get rid of the heat. This means you sweat at night as well. As people over here are not used to severe heat waves, many suffer. People over 60 are vulnarable in particular. However. A few years ago heat waves resulted in thousands of extra deaths. Today, this no longer is the case. The measures taken had an effect, that is. As a result of more frequent heatwaves, international trade and, in particular, rising averages, tropical diseases entered most of southern and eastern Europe and large parts of central Europe. It is a problem that has been underestimated. As a result of more, and longer, periods with high temperatures and little or no rain, water shortages have become more common. Although tropical downpours replaced long spells of moderate rain, water shortages are here to stay. Those who depend on a regular supply of water, like farmers, warn about the consequences. Over here, climate change wasn't a result of a slow process. It suddenly started with unusual phenomena and they're still here. Extremes, in just about every season, have become more or less common. The problem is most countries in northwestern and central Europe are not prepared for what's about to follow. It is to be expected that the consequences of climate change will hit the poor and the lower middle classes first and most. As they, at least in most of Europe, are no longer represented by Labour-like political parties, new parties came out of nowhere. Those running these parties, like 80 years ago, blame foreigners and the eternal enemy in times of peril, which was much appreciated by many voters. So much so, that they were willing to accept tax cuts for the wealthy and a complete dismissal of what is now known as climate change. It didn't help. Finding an adequate answer to climate change all over the planet will be a, ehhh, challenge. My guess for now is the road to a new balance will be long, rough and rocky. It will be a costly affair and those supporting these new parties will, unfortunately, suffer most, no matter what. Nothing new there. (07-25-2019, 05:35 PM)peter Wrote: CLIMATE CHANGE IN EUROPE Sweating is better than sickness. For those who aren't used to 35°+ temperatures, much more important factor to note would be the humidity. It can be the difference between mere irritation & illness. People there all have ceiling-fans? Circulating hot, dry air or wind can both cause one to lose fluids very quickly. Who aren't used to such heat may even fall sick, especially kids. In my city is it rarely falls below 75% & I've travelled northwest with 50% humidity in summer to know the dreadful contrast. In such cases you might even want to wet the drapes on your windows if you're keeping them open. And your right about tropical diseases being Europe's big problem in foreseeable future. With the populace likely less resistant to their strains it could be free real estate for them, especially if mosquitoes manage to gain a foothold. (07-25-2019, 08:00 PM)Rishi Wrote:(07-25-2019, 05:35 PM)peter Wrote: CLIMATE CHANGE IN EUROPE The western and northern part of the Netherlands is surrounded by water. We also have a large inland lake. Furthermore, a few large rivers run through most of the country. With the North Sea and the Atlantic as close neighbours and low-lying 'polders' in the western part of the country, water is 'in the air' all the time just about everywhere. Compared to most other countries, humidity is high over here. I don't have a ceiling-fan for the reason you mentioned. The best way to keep the heat out is to close the curtains and the windows. In spite of that, the temperature is well over 30 degrees inside. In the evening, I bike to a largish city lake for a swim. I also have a kayak over there. After dark, I often sit outside with neighbours. Most of them are connected to tropical countries in some way or another. We do plenty of picnics in summer. As we speak, a new record was set in the southeastern of the country part today: 40,7 degrees Celcius. In Germany and France, it was even warmer (42 degrees). The best way to deal with heat is to stay out of the sun and take it easy. Most people decide for cool drinks, but they affect your body temperature. Same for a cold shower. Furthermore, you have to adapt, meaning you rise early and take a longish break in the early afternoon. In summer, 8-hour comas are substituted by shortish wolf sleeps. As to tropical diseases. I recently read an article about an experiment conducted on an island. Chinese researchers infected male mosquitos with a deadly disease. The males were released on an island. Within a few months, all mosquitos known to spread dangerous diseases perished. A very effective and cheap method. And a blow for professionals. 
Another thing I would like to add, is that buildings and other infrastructure turn into ovens here in Europe. As long as one doesn't do too much activity one can manage the heat.
Got to 40° here in England today. The heat is more oppressive than generally hotter places I've been to in north Africa and the UAE. It's a different kind of struggle, exacerbated by the fact we're on an island. Lycaon makes a great point too. Buildings and houses in Europe aren't built for the heat, no AC, lots of insulation, as traditionally the continent is fairly cool. Therefore heat is actually retained in houses a lot of the time, but it's still better than being exposed to the raw sun. All of this combined makes it a very uncomfortable thing to experience, and not one to be celebrated at all as I've seen even some news do today. I think to many, climate change has been an invisible threat, they are aware but dont interinternalise its impacts. At least here, the effects of climate change are playing out in front of our eyes, and it is without doubt the biggest issue facing humanity today.
I read your posts... Here Genf, only 36-38° today. I say "only" because I see it was hoter for you. Nevertheless, we are constantly clammy. When you're writing or sketching somebody, immediately the sheet of paper becomes wet. I don't like it, we are living in slow-motion. Now a violent thunderstorm is falling. The atmosphere is going to be washed. A good point !
Yes, the climate is changing everywhere. But it's only one consequence of the human action. The demographic is changing everywhere too. European people are getting older and oder, whereas African people are getting younger and younger. The wild life is disappearing I don't know more the exact figure that was recently announced: at least 60% of the wild free has been disappearing for the last 40 past years. Did you also hear this ? At least the climatic change is easyly perceptible by all of us... 
@Rishi
Not good in Lucknow this year. We got total 3-4 rainy days, Extreme humid environment. Last 2-3 days were better, but rainfall is very less compared to last year. I think developed cities, specially in north and north-west belt in India likely to see less and less rain in upcoming years. Only extreme south (Kerala) and East will continue to get good rainfall.
Nature’s Solution to Climate Change
When it comes to saving the planet, one whale is worth thousands of trees. Scientific research now indicates more clearly than ever that our carbon footprint—the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming through the so-called greenhouse effect—now threatens our ecosystems and our way of life. But efforts to mitigate climate change face two significant challenges. The first is to find effective ways to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or its impact on average global temperature. The second is to raise sufficient funds to put these technologies into practice. Many proposed solutions to global warming, such as capturing carbon directly from the air and burying it deep in the earth, are complex, untested, and expensive. What if there were a low-tech solution to this problem that not only is effective and economical, but also has a successful funding model? An example of such an opportunity comes from a surprisingly simple and essentially “no-tech” strategy to capture more carbon from the atmosphere: increase global whale populations. Marine biologists have recently discovered that whales—especially the great whales—play a significant role in capturing carbon from the atmosphere (Roman and others 2014). And international organizations have implemented programs such as Reducing Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD) that fund the preservation of carbon-capturing ecosystems. Adapting these initiatives to support international efforts to restore whale populations could lead to a breakthrough in the fight against climate change. The carbon capture potential of whales is truly startling. Whales accumulate carbon in their bodies during their long lives. When they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean; each great whale sequesters 33 tons of CO2 on average, taking that carbon out of the atmosphere for centuries. A tree, meanwhile, absorbs only up to 48 pounds of CO2 a year. Protecting whales could add significantly to carbon capture because the current population of the largest great whales is only a small fraction of what it once was. Sadly, after decades of industrialized whaling, biologists estimate that overall whale populations are now to less than one fourth what they once were. Some species, like the blue whales, have been reduced to only 3 percent of their previous abundance. Thus, the benefits from whales’ ecosystem services to us and to our survival are much less than they could be. But this is only the beginning of the story. The whale pump Wherever whales, the largest living things on earth, are found, so are populations of some of the smallest, phytoplankton. These microscopic creatures not only contribute at least 50 percent of all oxygen to our atmosphere, they do so by capturing about 37 billion metric tons of CO2, an estimated 40 percent of all CO2 produced. To put things in perspective, we calculate that this is equivalent to the amount of CO2 captured by 1.70 trillion trees—four Amazon forests’ worth—or 70 times the amount absorbed by all the trees in the US Redwood National and State Parks each year. More phytoplankton means more carbon capture. In recent years, scientists have discovered that whales have a multiplier effect of increasing phytoplankton production wherever they go. How? It turns out that whales’ waste products contain exactly the substances—notably iron and nitrogen—phytoplankton need to grow. Whales bring minerals up to the ocean surface through their vertical movement, called the “whale pump,” and through their migration across oceans, called the “whale conveyor belt.” Preliminary modeling and estimates indicate that this fertilizing activity adds significantly to phytoplankton growth in the areas whales frequent.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Despite the fact that nutrients are carried into the ocean through dust storms, river sediments, and upwelling from wind and waves, nitrogen and phosphorus remain scarce and limit the amount of phytoplankton that can bloom in warmer parts of the oceans. In colder regions, such as in the Southern Ocean, the limiting mineral tends to be iron. If more of these missing minerals became available in parts of the ocean where they are scarce, more phytoplankton could grow, potentially absorbing much more carbon than otherwise possible. Letting whales live This is where the whales come in. If whales were allowed to return to their pre-whaling number of 4 to 5 million—from slightly more than 1.3 million today—it could add significantly to the amount of phytoplankton in the oceans and to the carbon they capture each year. At a minimum, even a 1 percent increase in phytoplankton productivity thanks to whale activity would capture hundreds of millions of tons of additional CO2 a year, equivalent to the sudden appearance of 2 billion mature trees. Imagine the impact over the average lifespan of a whale, more than 60 years. Despite the drastic reduction in commercial whaling, whales still face significant life-threatening hazards, including ship strikes, entanglement in fishing nets, waterborne plastic waste, and noise pollution. While some species of whales are recovering—slowly—many are not. Enhancing protection of whales from human-made dangers would deliver benefits to ourselves, the planet, and of course, the whales themselves. This “earth-tech” approach to carbon sequestration also avoids the risk of unanticipated harm from suggested untested high-tech fixes. Nature has had millions of years to perfect her whale-based carbon sink technology. All we need to do is let the whales live. Now we turn to the economic side of the solution. Protecting whales has a cost. Mitigating the many threats to whales involves compensating those causing the threats, a group that includes countries, businesses, and individuals. Ensuring that this approach is practical involves determining whales’ monetary value. International public good Whales produce climate benefits that are dispersed all over the globe. And because people’s benefits from the existence of whales do not diminish the benefits that others receive from them, they are a textbook public good. This means that whales are affected by the classic “tragedy of the commons” that afflicts public goods: no individual who benefits from them is sufficiently motivated to pay their fair share to support them. Just think of the importance of earth’s atmosphere to our survival. Even though all nations acknowledge that everyone has an interest in preserving this common resource for the future, global coordination remains a problem.  *This image is copyright of its original author To solve this international public goods problem, we must first ask, What is the monetary value of a whale? Proper valuation is warranted if we are to galvanize businesses and other stakeholders to save the whales by showing that the benefits of protecting them far exceed the cost. We estimate the value of an average great whale by determining today’s value of the carbon sequestered by a whale over its lifetime, using scientific estimates of the amount whales contribute to carbon sequestration, the market price of carbon dioxide, and the financial technique of discounting. To this, we also add today’s value of the whale’s other economic contributions, such as fishery enhancement and ecotourism, over its lifetime. Our conservative estimates put the value of the average great whale, based on its various activities, at more than $2 million, and easily over $1 trillion for the current stock of great whales.  *This image is copyright of its original author But there is still the question of how to reduce the myriad dangers to whales, such as ship strikes and other hazards. Luckily, economists know how these types of problems can be solved. In fact, a potential model for such solutions is the United Nations (UN) REDD program. Recognizing that deforestation accounts for 17 percent of carbon emissions, REDD provides incentives for countries to preserve their forests as a means of keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. In a similar way, we can create financial mechanisms to promote the restoration of the world’s whale populations. Incentives in the form of subsidies or other compensation could help those who incur significant costs as a result of whale protection. For example, shipping companies could be compensated for the cost of altered shipping routes to reduce the risk of collisions. This solution, however, raises questions that are tricky to answer. To begin with, a financial facility for protecting whales and other natural assets must be set up and funded. Exactly how much should we be willing to spend on protecting the whales? We estimate that, if whales were allowed to return to their pre-whaling numbers—capturing 1.7 billion tons of CO2 annually—it would be worth about $13 per person a year to subsidize these whales’ CO2 sequestration efforts. If we agree to pay this cost, how should it be allocated across countries, individuals, and businesses? How much should each individual, company, and country that must bear some of the cost of protecting whales be compensated? And who will oversee the compensation, and monitor compliance with the new rules? International financial institutions, in partnership with other UN and multilateral organizations, are ideally suited to advise, monitor, and coordinate the actions of countries in protecting whales. Whales are commonly found in the waters around low-income and fragile states, countries that may be unable to deal with the needed mitigation measures. Support for these countries could come, for example, from the Global Environment Facility, which typically provides support to such countries to meet international environmental agreements. The IMF is also well placed to help governments integrate the macroeconomic benefit that whales provide in mitigating climate change, as well as the cost of measures to protect the whales, into their macro-fiscal frameworks. The World Bank has the expertise to design and implement specific programs to compensate private sector actors for their efforts to protect whales. Other UN and multilateral organizations can oversee compliance and collect data to measure the progress of these efforts. A new mindset Coordinating the economics of whale protection must rise to the top of the global community’s climate agenda. Since the role of whales is irreplaceable in mitigating and building resilience to climate change, their survival should be integrated into the objectives of the 190 countries that in 2015 signed the Paris Agreement for combating climate risk. International institutions and governments, however, must also exert their influence to bring about a new mindset—an approach that recognizes and implements a holistic approach toward our own survival, which involves living within the bounds of the natural world. Whales are not a human solution—these great creatures having inherent value of their own and the right to live—but this new mindset recognizes and values their integral place in a sustainable ocean and planet. Healthy whale populations imply healthy marine life including fish, seabirds, and an overall vibrant system that recycles nutrients between oceans and land, improving life in both places. The “earth-tech” strategy of supporting whales’ return to their previous abundance in the oceans would significantly benefit not only life in the oceans but also life on land, including our own. With the consequences of climate change here and now, there is no time to lose in identifying and implementing new methods to prevent or reverse harm to the global ecosystem. This is especially true when it comes to improving the protection of whales so that their populations can grow more quickly. Unless new steps are taken, we estimate it would take over 30 years just to double the number of current whales, and several generations to return them to their pre-whaling numbers. Society and our own survival can’t afford to wait this long. References: Lavery, T., B. Roudnew, P. Gill, J. Seymour, L. Seuront, G. Johnson, J. Mitchell, and V. Smetacek. 2010. “Iron Defecation by Sperm Whales Stimulates Carbon Export in the Southern Ocean.” Proceedings of the Royal Academy 127:3527–31. Lutz, S., and A. Martin. 2014. “Fish Carbon: Exploring Marine Vertebrate Carbon Services.” Blue Climate Solutions report, The Ocean Foundation, Washington, DC. Pershing, A., L. Christensen, N. Record, G. Sherwood, and P. Stetson. 2010. “The Impact of Whaling on the Ocean Carbon Cycle: Why Bigger Was Better.” PLoS One 5 (10): 1–9. Roman, J., J. Estes, L. Morissette, C. Smith, D. Costa, J. McCarthy, J. B. Nation, S. Nicol, A. Pershing, and V. Smetacek. 2014. “Whales as Marine Ecosystem Engineers” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12 (2): 377–85. Smith, C., J. Roman, and J. B. Nation. 2019. “A Metapopulation Model for Whale-Fall Specialists: The Largest Whales Are Essential to Prevent Species Extinctions—The Sea.” Under review. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fan...000#author
This is just a wave... A wave during a stormy day. Blocks such like this one have been accumulating on the distorted coasts for several decades, but there is nothing between them and the sea. The sea, the nature which remains powerful.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |