Global Impact (Economic & Societal) of Declining Arctic Sea Ice

[CraigsIsland]

Try http://www.ndu.edu/press/arctic-new-cold-war.html

[Anne]

Thanks, CraigsIsland. That works.  It seems my cut and paste clipped off the "l". I must have been suffering finger trouble at the time, because of course it is "UNCLOS". /sigh

[Jim Williams]

Anne


For some reason the link does not work.


Terry

Add an 'l'

http://www.ndu.edu/press/arctic-new-cold-war.html

[fred]

Sorry if this was posted somewhere. I skipped page 2 (will go back though).

The Greenland ice sheet melt to sea level rise is roughly 220:1 based just on surface area. In other words, for the sea level to go up 1 meter, 220 meters has to melt from Greenland across the entire ice sheet.

I don't know how the melt varies with height but using the value of 2,135 metres as an average (wikipedia), if the arctic melts in the summer and there are warm winds across greenland, I could see a few meters on average per summer based on similar melts in mountain glaciers at that height.

Of course I have no data on this, just experience living on mountains and watching ice melt there. But that doesn't cover soot, water flow, etc... all the stuff that a serious guess would try to take into account.

[Shared Humanity]

STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change

This report, from the UK, indicates that without mitigation, the global economic impact of AGW/CC will be an annual 5% reduction in GDP (best case), with a worst-case outlook of an annual GDP decline of 20%.  I don't think we are prepared to face a world with economic declines that severe.  Whereas, mitigating actions to reduce dependence on  fossil fuels will only result in an annual GDP decline of 1% annually.

Full pdf report:http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global
threat, and it demands an urgent global response.

Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world –
access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions
of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world
warms.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t
act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least
5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts
is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the
worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each
year.

To provide context for this review, in 2008 and for the following 18 months the U.S. fell into a severe recession with a dramatic drop in GDP. Attached is a chart that captures this.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

At the height of the recession (the 4th quarter of 2008) the U.S. economy shrunk by 8.9%. During this recession the U.S. unemployment rate more than doubled.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Currently in the U.S., 61 million people are at or below the poverty level. This is 19.8% of the total population. This jumped by 10 million or 2.8% as a result of the recession. 75% of the U.S. poor or 46 million people suffer from food insecurity. By definition, they don't always know where there next meal is coming from.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#foodsecure

These are the brutal statistics in one of the wealthiest nations in the world. We must keep in mind that this deterioration was caused by a one time event, an 18 month long recession. In the 2nd half of 2009, the U.S. economy entered into a period of sustained growth.

If this report is accurate, the best case scenario (annual decline in GDP of 5%) will be devastating, far worse than the recession of 2008. In the worst case scenario, the effect will be................ Well, hell, I don't want to consider this, lack both the imagination to conceive it and the words to express it.

[Anne]

Plea for new definition of refugee status

Not directly related to declining Arctic sea ice as such, but to climate change generally:
 

[T]he president of the partly public-funded Refugee Council of Australia, Phil Glendenning, who was in Kiribati in March, says Australia needs to formally recognise climate change refugees because there's "a big chance" that climate change in the Pacific would force large numbers of people from their homelands.

Glendenning says Australia should prepare to cater for thousands of climate change refugees over and above the 20,000 refugees it admits from war-torn nations every year.

"These are people who are not suffering from persecution because of their beliefs, race or because they belong to a particular group. So they don't meet the Refugee Convention criteria but, nevertheless, there will be a need for people to be resettled because they have been displaced by climate change," says Glendenning. "This is a new cohort of people who are emerging, the rest of the world needs to pay attention."

Please read the whole article for context.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/16/australia-climate-change-refugee-status

[Jim Williams]

Plea for new definition of refugee status

I know saying so is unpleasant, but the numbers likely to be involved in the not so distant future by this definition would not be supportable on the Australian continent.  Maybe they could come up with a definition which included only the islands just to the north, but excluded places like Bangladesh and Florida.

[OldLeatherneck]

Plea for new definition of refugee status

Not directly related to declining Arctic sea ice as such, but to climate change generally:
 

Anne,

I do believe that this is directly related to declining Arctic sea ice.  The warming of the Arctic is already causing Greenland to shed mass at an alarming rate, which is leading to accelerated rates of sea-level rise.  When I started this topic, my original chart show a progression of relocation events.  In the near term it would be local population relocations and eventually mass migration events.

I know saying so is unpleasant, but the numbers likely to be involved in the not so distant future by this definition would not be supportable on the Australian continent.  Maybe they could come up with a definition which included only the islands just to the north, but excluded places like Bangladesh and Florida.

Jim,

I concur with you that no one country or region can easily absorb refugees in the numbers necessary to relocate the entire population of Bangladesh.  However, in the earlier stages of decline, small populations can be relocated and absorbed into local cultures.  Will it be easy....NO!

Without preparation and advance planning, the impact of mass migrations will be calamitous.

[Anne]

Plea for new definition of refugee status

I know saying so is unpleasant, but the numbers likely to be involved in the not so distant future by this definition would not be supportable on the Australian continent. 

Well, yes. "Thousands" applies to Kiribati, for whose inhabitants Australians may be expected to feel some affinity, and whose displacement is imminent, but the eventual numbers from elsewhere will be enormous and Australia alone couldn't begin to accommodate them. I think Glendenning was trying to bring the issue into international focus in the hope that other countries will start to accept responsibility. Or something. It is going to be an unbearably difficult issue where people will be struggling to balance humanitarian obligations and national self-interest.  It's hard to imagine how it will all turn out but it is not going to end well.

[ccgwebmaster]

Plea for new definition of refugee status

I know saying so is unpleasant, but the numbers likely to be involved in the not so distant future by this definition would not be supportable on the Australian continent. 

Well, yes. "Thousands" applies to Kiribati, for whose inhabitants Australians may be expected to feel some affinity, and whose displacement is imminent, but the eventual numbers from elsewhere will be enormous and Australia alone couldn't begin to accommodate them. I think Glendenning was trying to bring the issue into international focus in the hope that other countries will start to accept responsibility. Or something. It is going to be an unbearably difficult issue where people will be struggling to balance humanitarian obligations and national self-interest.  It's hard to imagine how it will all turn out but it is not going to end well.

It is though an interesting early guide as to how people will respond to the issue. To resettle just those small islands would be fairly easy, after all. Will developed nations fortify their borders? Try to help those they have placed at risk of death? Or - as I suspect - try to muddle through and generally continue to ignore the problem? (the worst answer really...)

Either way if the response is anything but to try to help - is it not valid for those who are poorer and weaker to try to help themselves by any means necessary, especially where they did less to cause their problems than those denying them help? (though I think that last qualifier has little bearing on how people act, only on the moral case)

I think it is already the case that plenty of nations are prepared to ignore international laws on such things:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/08/nato-ship-libyan-migrants
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/world/africa/06refugees.html?_r=0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7830710.stm
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/thailand-denies-shooting-boat-people/story-e6frfkui-1226596599007

I have great trouble picturing the US and most of Europe shouldering responsibility...

[OldLeatherneck]

It is though an interesting early guide as to how people will respond to the issue. To resettle just those small islands would be fairly easy, after all. Will developed nations fortify their borders? Try to help those they have placed at risk of death? Or - as I suspect - try to muddle through and generally continue to ignore the problem? (the worst answer really...)

Either way if the response is anything but to try to help - is it not valid for those who are poorer and weaker to try to help themselves by any means necessary, especially where they did less to cause their problems than those denying them help? (though I think that last qualifier has little bearing on how people act, only on the moral case)

I think it is already the case that plenty of nations are prepared to ignore international laws on such things:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/08/nato-ship-libyan-migrants
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/world/africa/06refugees.html?_r=0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7830710.stm
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/thailand-denies-shooting-boat-people/story-e6frfkui-1226596599007

I have great trouble picturing the US and most of Europe shouldering responsibility...

Much of how many nations will respond will have to do with what is already transpiring within their own borders.  I doubt that Europe has the land area sufficient to absorb 10s of millions of climate refugees.  Currently, the US could absorb more, however, there is currently a very strong anti-immigrant sentiment that will not go away any time soon.  Also, AGW/CC will cause extensive internal relocations within the US.  Imagine a worst case scenario, in 30-50 years time, of the US having to simultaneously abandon Phoenix, due to drought and water shortages, and Southern Florida, due to rising sea-levels.  I have no doubt, unless serious mitigation efforts are started very soon (<5 years), there will be 10s of millions of people being relocated within the US alone.  Without decades of planning these relocations will be painful and could well result in major incidents of violence.

[ccgwebmaster]

Much of how many nations will respond will have to do with what is already transpiring within their own borders.  I doubt that Europe has the land area sufficient to absorb 10s of millions of climate refugees.  Currently, the US could absorb more, however, there is currently a very strong anti-immigrant sentiment that will not go away any time soon.  Also, AGW/CC will cause extensive internal relocations within the US.  Imagine a worst case scenario, in 30-50 years time, of the US having to simultaneously abandon Phoenix, due to drought and water shortages, and Southern Florida, due to rising sea-levels.  I have no doubt, unless serious mitigation efforts are started very soon (<5 years), there will be 10s of millions of people being relocated within the US alone.  Without decades of planning these relocations will be painful and could well result in major incidents of violence.

I think we need to consider that it can be also be tricky to identify what a "climate change refugee" looks like. Given the climatic factors into the Arab spring, and for my purposes here Syria in particular (which happens to also have experienced direct climate impacts arguably), refugees fleeing a widespread conflict might also in effect be climate refugees.

I'm going to recycle a comment I put on a Guardian story http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/22986367:

The benefits of hindsight will arguably reveal the Arab Spring as the first iteration of civilisation collapsing due to climate change - a key factor being the 2010 drought (and fires) in Russia and the attendant impact on crop production, followed by an export ban that affected not just global prices but many of the Arab spring countries directly (many were buyers of Russian wheat).

What we see here is a factor that will contribute to the second, larger, iteration of collapse. Migration from a conflict region into surrounding areas increasing stresses upon those populations. When the next large food price shock arrives more countries will have become more vulnerable to social instability as prices rise.

Given the positive feedback effects at work in both the natural and human worlds, it is foolish to think the affected regions are somehow different from us - or not to see the potential for the same issues to spread globally, and rather rapidly.

The connection with the Arctic may seem tenuous, but arguably it was odd jet stream behaviour driving the Russian drought and Pakistan flooding that year, both of which were rather serious. An example of knock on effects at work in other words.

But who would consider it even possible a slight change in jet stream behaviour could in this manner start toppling nations?

[OldLeatherneck]

I think we need to consider that it can be also be tricky to identify what a "climate change refugee" looks like. Given the climatic factors into the Arab spring, and for my purposes here Syria in particular (which happens to also have experienced direct climate impacts arguably), refugees fleeing a widespread conflict might also in effect be climate refugees.

In cases such as the low lying island nations that need to be abandoned, it is quite simple to identify their citizens as "Climate Refugees."  However, when people start migrating away from areas in advance of rising sea-levels, it will be more difficult to classify the status.  We have to keep in mind that when these events start occurring, later this century, there will be a great deal of social upheaval occurring at the same time.  What will be the difference between "Climate Refugees" seeking relocation within the borders of their own country and "Climate Refugees" seeking relocation in another country?  The world is facing something that has never been faced in the history of humanity.

[ccgwebmaster]

In cases such as the low lying island nations that need to be abandoned, it is quite simple to identify their citizens as "Climate Refugees."  However, when people start migrating away from areas in advance of rising sea-levels, it will be more difficult to classify the status.  We have to keep in mind that when these events start occurring, later this century, there will be a great deal of social upheaval occurring at the same time.  What will be the difference between "Climate Refugees" seeking relocation within the borders of their own country and "Climate Refugees" seeking relocation in another country?  The world is facing something that has never been faced in the history of humanity.

I would argue there are some rather important differences between internally displaced peoples and international refugees. By internally displaced, I really mean "within the same tribal group" as some nations contain multiple such groups who can be forced into conflict by climatic factors (eg Darfur).

Where people are relocating within their common tribal area (size of which varies by country and culture) they are remaining within a consistent legal and cultural framework and are members of the same tribe in the area to which they are moving. I would argue this makes cooperation and help much more likely and will tend to postpone the onset of violence.

Where people are relocating into an area controlled by another tribe - particularly across international borders - all sorts of things change. They are potentially violating multiple laws, much more likely to be seen and treated as invaders (especially when resources are scarce and competition intense and increasing) and represent a convenient source of blame for problems - an external focal point for hatred.

The first scenario increases instability within a specific tribal group - the second contagiously spreads it to other tribal groups (though I grant the second case is virtually inevitable in the end). We already see a trend towards substantial internal displacement of people (that is not precisely recognised as such by many people - in the bulk movement of people from rural lifestyles into the cities. People are abandoning the land due to a combination of push factors - poverty, failed crops, increasing problems with the weather, farming inputs, etc - and pull factors - the cities are perceived to offer more opportunities. Large settlements become arguably increasingly vulnerable to adverse events than smaller ones (and especially so when the infrastructure is behind the demands being made of it).

May I respectfully question your choice of words about these events starting later in this century? I would argue they have already started, notwithstanding the ongoing debate about how rapidly we can expect them to get substantially worse.

[Anne]

Where people are relocating within their common tribal area (size of which varies by country and culture) they are remaining within a consistent legal and cultural framework and are members of the same tribe in the area to which they are moving. I would argue this makes cooperation and help much more likely and will tend to postpone the onset of violence.

Hmm. (Here was failed attempt to insert Dorothea Lange photograph of Oklahoma migrant mother.)

[OldLeatherneck]

May I respectfully question your choice of words about these events starting later in this century? I would argue they have already started, notwithstanding the ongoing debate about how rapidly we can expect them to get substantially worse.

You are correct, I did NOT intend to imply that there would be no climate related relocations until later this century.  My thought have been, subject to change, are that the "Mass Migrations" of 10s of millions of people will not be occurring until later in the century.  In his Earth Day post on "MeltFactor.Org", Dr. Jason Box stated that it is reasonable to expect sea levels to rise by 5 feet (1.5 meters) by the end of this century.  If that is the case, civilization only has 50-60 years to prepare for significant population relocation.

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/

I also am very aware that rising sea levels will not be the only climate-related reason for extensive population relocations.

[ccgwebmaster]

Where people are relocating within their common tribal area (size of which varies by country and culture) they are remaining within a consistent legal and cultural framework and are members of the same tribe in the area to which they are moving. I would argue this makes cooperation and help much more likely and will tend to postpone the onset of violence.

Hmm. (Here was failed attempt to insert Dorothea Lange photograph of Oklahoma migrant mother.)

OK, much more likely perhaps wasn't the best choice of words.

Actually, I think Jordan ought to be lauded here as an outstandingly good example. If the numbers and facts in the Guardian article are correct - they have tried to assist the Syrians to the extent that 10% of their population is now from Syria, notwithstanding that their own unemployment rate (presumably the official rate) is 20%.

I can't see many (any?) western nations bending over like that to help?

If the international community wanted to contain and delay collapse, I think it would be key (presuming that we are not going to start military interventions in conflict areas) to act to stabilise places like Jordan to try to contain the crisis before it escalates and yet more knock on effects are triggered. Unfortunately between austerity for the poor and increasing wealth for the richest, I don't think that cultural meme is ascendant in the nations that could make the most difference right now (even though it would make the most sense for everyone).

I'm not sure about the prospect of mass migrations later on. Even today, migration between nations is not a trivial matter as a general rule. As things unwind, it will only get harder. Hostility to outsiders will only increase as conditions deteriorate. I suspect migration will mostly be relatively shorter distances - so people in the UK should perhaps worry mostly about disintegration in the southern European countries - who perhaps have more to worry about from Africa.

I perceive it as a bit like a sound wave travelling through matter - the particles don't move a lot, but the signal propagates onwards. Thus what is happening today in Syria is perhaps closer to home than most people realise.

[Anne]

You're right, Jordan is exemplary, but it suffers strain. This is not going to get better. The volume of climate migrants will be unprecedented and no one can say how it will pan out. I doubt history will be kind to the selfish.

[OldLeatherneck]

NOTE:

I will be closing the poll on the 30th.  My only intention of this poll was to validate whether my original assumption, of when 1 meter sea level rise would occur in the sequence of events, was correct.  With ~82 % of respondents believing that a perennial ice free Arctic would occur first, I'm going to leave the timeline on the chart intact.  Therefore, if you feel strongly about voting, you've got 2 days.

As other major events occur, I will either annotate/revise the orignal chart in Post #1 or add an editorial note to the text of the post. 

[OldLeatherneck]

Implications for climate change
T. J. Garrett
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

There are quite a wide variety of implications for climate change, some rather depressing, and a few enjoyably counter-intuitive (if still far from cheering). In a nutshell:

•If the global economy is able to achieve gains in energy efficiency or energy productivity, it will accelerate energy consumption by accelerating healthy civilization growth into new energy reserves. Efficiency gains create a “super-exponential” acceleration of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions while growing the GDP. Expressed in terms of economic demand, this effect has been termed “backfire” or “Jevons’ Paradox”.

•Growing global wealth requires increasing global emissions of carbon dioxide because both are linked to energy consumption rates. The two go hand in hand ... unless we change civilization’s fuel mix.  If we are to simply stabilize CO2 emissions at current growth rates, this would require building the equivalent of about one new nuclear power plant per day.

•If we are no longer able to grow our rate of consumption from our energy reservoirs, then civilization wealth will enter a phase of collapse. A collapsing civilization will emit less CO2 because it is consuming less energy.

•If global warming becomes so severe that it causes civilization collapse despite our best efforts to avoid it, it will manifest itself economically through hyper-inflation.

•Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations below a level of 450 ppmv that might be considered dangerous requires civilization to begin a collapse of its wealth almost immediately.

http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics_and_Climate.html

[OldLeatherneck]

No way out? The double-bind in seeking global prosperity alongside mitigated climate change
T. J. Garrett
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Abstract. In a prior study (Garrett, 2011), I introduced a simple economic growth model designed to be consistent with general thermodynamic laws. Unlike traditional economic models, civilization is viewed only as a well-mixed global whole with no distinction made between individual nations, economic sectors, labor, or capital investments. At the model core is a hypothesis that the global economy's current rate of primary energy consumption is tied through a constant to a very general representation of its historically accumulated wealth. Observations support this hypothesis, and indicate that the constant's value is λ = 9.7 ± 0.3 milliwatts per 1990 US dollar. It is this link that allows for treatment of seemingly complex economic systems as simple physical systems. Here, this growth model is coupled to a linear formulation for the evolution of globally well-mixed atmospheric CO2 concentrations. While very simple, the coupled model provides faithful multi-decadal hindcasts of trajectories in gross world product (GWP) and CO2. Extending the model to the future, the model suggests that the well-known IPCC SRES scenarios substantially underestimate how much CO2 levels will rise for a given level of future economic prosperity. For one, global CO2 emission rates cannot be decoupled from wealth through efficiency gains. For another, like a long-term natural disaster, future greenhouse warming can be expected to act as an inflationary drag on the real growth of global wealth. For atmospheric CO2 concentrations to remain below a "dangerous" level of 450 ppmv (Hansen et al., 2007), model forecasts suggest that there will have to be some combination of an unrealistically rapid rate of energy decarbonization and nearly immediate reductions in global civilization wealth. Effectively, it appears that civilization may be in a double-bind. If civilization does not collapse quickly this century, then CO2 levels will likely end up exceeding 1000 ppmv; but, if CO2 levels rise by this much, then the risk is that civilization will gradually tend towards collapse.

Full article in pdf format is available at no cost @:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/1/2012/esd-3-1-2012.html

This article and the one I refernced in the previous post are further evidence that we can not mitigate AGW/CC and expect exponential economic growth. It will NOT happen.  However, if we do not lower CO2 emissions, the results will be far more catastrophic than mere loss of wealth during any economic downturn.

[Anne]

More about climate migrants from a Pacific islands perspective.

many don’t want to see the term “refugee” expanded to include populations displaced by climate change, fearing the risk of lessening the severity and urgency associated with the word. I-Kiribati and other populations don’t like the term “refugee” either. “[P]eople in affected Pacific nations do not consider themselves as future refugees and their leaders desire better answers to their concerns than traditional refugee solutions,” says Glendenning. “The people of Kiribati reject the idea of becoming ‘climate change refugees’ because they believe that, with the right forms of international support, they have time to find better answers.” However, strict immigration policies in both New Zealand and Australia are a major obstacle for the i-Kiribati and others with uncertain futures.

It's a thought-provoking article, which raises more questions than answers.

The article mentions a UNHCR estimate that there will be some 250 million climate-induced displaced peoples globally by 2050. It's not entirely clear how that figure is arrived at. Some will be internally displaced, some will cross borders.
UNHCR discourages the expression "climate refugee" because "refugee" has a specific UN legal status, which excludes people displaced by environmental difficulties and disasters. UNHCR prefers the term "environmentally displaced person", which of course includes those displaced by natural or industrial disaster as well as those displaced by climate change.

This ACUNS paper on Climate Refugees in the 21st century (pdf) has a discussion about the status of EDPs and uses two case studies, the Horn of Africa and Tuvalu, to illustrate the different challenges. 

With regard to internally displaced migrants, this Brookings-Bern study of the threat to small settlements of native Alaskans provides a microcosm of the problems even within states, and possible solutions. It is not clear how, if at all, such assistance could be scaled up:
Climate-Induced Displacement of Alaska Native Communities (Bronen, Robin, Alaska Institute for Justice University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Jan 2013)

Flooding and erosion threaten the habitability of a significant number of Alaska Native communities. Community relocation may be the only adaptation strategy that can protect community residents. The 2009 GAO report recognized that no government agency has the authority to relocate communities, no governmental organization exists that can address the strategic planning needs of relocation, and no funding is specifically designated for relocation (GAO 2009, 24-27). Even with their survival in imminent danger, none of the villages identified in the 2009 GAO report has yet been able to relocate, owing to governance issues that must first be overcome.

They can't get help to repair damaged infrastructure, and they can't get help to build new settlements.

The creation of an adaptive governance framework, which can dynamically respond to the needs of communities as climate change impacts habitability and the safety of residents, is critical. Congress should amend disaster relief legislation so that communities are able to use existing funding mechanisms to construct infrastructure at relocation sites that are not within the disaster
area. Congress should also enact legislation to provide a relocation governance framework so that communities have the ability to relocate when the traditional erosion and flood control devices can no longer protect residents in place. In this way, the United States can create a model adaptation strategy that facilitates an effective transition from protection in place to community relocation that can serve as a model for governments throughout the world.

wikipedia entry on environmental migration is worth reading (with the usual caveats).

(Previous discussion on climate migrants earlier in the thread, starting here

[OldLeatherneck]

The article mentions a UNHCR estimate that there will be some 250 million climate-induced displaced peoples globally by 2050. It's not entirely clear how that figure is arrived at. Some will be internally displaced, some will cross borders.
UNHCR discourages the expression "climate refugee" because "refugee" has a specific UN legal status, which excludes people displaced by environmental difficulties and disasters. UNHCR prefers the term "environmentally displaced person", which of course includes those displaced by natural or industrial disaster as well as those displaced by climate change.

Since the UNHCR estimate is probably using "stale" IPCC projections, I would surmise that the number of "environmentally displaced persons" will greatly exceed 250,000 by 2050.

Isn't it ironic that the bureaucrats are quibbling over what to call people forced out of their homelands because of AGW/CC.  I understand the need to have a legal definition, however, at some point there will be millions of people fleeing across borders due to conflicts that would not be occurring were it not for AGW/CC!!

[Anne]

Since the UNHCR estimate is probably using "stale" IPCC projections, I would surmise that the number of "environmentally displaced persons" will greatly exceed 250,000*by 2050.

Isn't it ironic that the bureaucrats are quibbling over what to call people forced out of their homelands because of AGW/CC.  I understand the need to have a legal definition, however, at some point there will be millions of people fleeing across borders due to conflicts that would not be occurring were it not for AGW/CC!!

(*You missed out three noughts there.) I agree, the figures are likely an underestimate by orders of magnitude. It's a horrific business. To put things in perspective, Syria's refugees (out of a population of nearly 21 million) already number one million. Given the appalling conditions that await fleeing Syrians in grossly overcrowded refugee camps, it's not surprising that the inhabitants of Tuvalu - if they can even bring themselves to leave - hope to be treated more benignly. Just as they hope their God will save them from inundation.

Yes, the squabbling over definition is ironic. There's an awful lot of UN navel gazing, which makes it look as if they are doing something whereas they are really just deciding who will decide what they are going to decide and how they will decide it. A lot of these studies seem to parasitise on the UN methodology - the ACUNS paper (not a UN paper, btw) is a classic example. I liked Robin Bronen's Alaska study for the way it cut through the crap, though admittedly she's talking about state and federal aid rather than international.

But so long as we have governments and laws and treaties, then it's these definitions that will release aid and co-operation. It does seem like asking someone for their insurance details when they're in the ER with a life-threatening condition. When I consider how grudgingly in the past some of our countries have accepted refugees, in tiny numbers, the prospect for any equitable outcome looks very bleak indeed.

And when we no longer have governments, laws and treaties, we will be facing our worst nightmare.

[Shared Humanity]

How we define "climate refugees" is an interesting conundrum although, in the long run, essentially irrelevant.

Are the 200,000 people who left New Orleans after hurricane Katrina climate refugees or were they simply displaced by a severe hurricane that struck head-on a vulnerable city? What of the 100,000 who have since moved there and replaced them? How should we classify them?

My feeling is climate refugees would have to be permanent displacements of populations as the result of persistent climate changes that deliver conditions unsuitable for permanent human inhabitants. What about adaptations? What if the residents of Phoenix are able to adapt to temperatures of greater than 100F which will occur for 6 months out of the year and periods of peak temperatures in excess of 140F? I certainly would not want to live in such an environment.

I actually think the first U.S. climate refugees will come from the southwest as heat and desertification render large areas of arid land uninhabitable. It is ironic that many of the cities in the southwest are the most rapidly growing metropolitan areas in the country.

[wili]

I'm not sure how permanently people have to be displaced from their homes to be considered refugees. Certainly many refugees from wars do or intend to eventually return to their homes (if there is anything left of them).

Your comments on Phoenix made me think about how they might adapt to such conditions. In an energy constrained world, I imagine it would mean living mostly underground--so do refugees from the surface of the planet into caves or under-ground dwellings count?

----

Meanwhile, we seem to be having climate whiplash here in MN--snow fall records for this time of year have just been smashed in many places--up to 15 inches of heavy snow in a few hours. Could there be an Arctic connection?

[ritter]

Your comments on Phoenix made me think about how they might adapt to such conditions. In an energy constrained world, I imagine it would mean living mostly underground--so do refugees from the surface of the planet into caves or under-ground dwellings count?

Except we don't have the resources (energy, materials or monetary) to make this transition. Sh!t the bed, we did.

But you already know that!

[ccgwebmaster]

Meanwhile, we seem to be having climate whiplash here in MN--snow fall records for this time of year have just been smashed in many places--up to 15 inches of heavy snow in a few hours. Could there be an Arctic connection?

I'm increasingly concerned that the US might experience the sort of growing season in some areas that the UK did last year - too much rain, lack of sunlight - massive loss of yield. Delays getting crops planted are starting to make the ag sites now.

Market speculation can start to drive prices higher soon, starting from a base that historically is on the cusp of triggering social instability and conflict. It strikes me there is a growing chance to see the second iteration of collapse (as I'm calling it) later this year or early next year.

I don't know if the current conditions can be linked to the jet stream (haven't really checked) but it seems to fit the trend...

[Shared Humanity]

I'm not sure how permanently people have to be displaced from their homes to be considered refugees. Certainly many refugees from wars do or intend to eventually return to their homes (if there is anything left of them).

Your comments on Phoenix made me think about how they might adapt to such conditions. In an energy constrained world, I imagine it would mean living mostly underground--so do refugees from the surface of the planet into caves or under-ground dwellings count?

----

Meanwhile, we seem to be having climate whiplash here in MN--snow fall records for this time of year have just been smashed in many places--up to 15 inches of heavy snow in a few hours. Could there be an Arctic connection?

That front hitting Minnesota was suppose to have moved through Chicago today bringing heavy rain. If you look at weather radar, the front has been stationary over southeast Minnesota for the last 2 days. Blocking pattern anyone? We had one of those a couple of weeks ago. It rained for days with a lot of flooding.

Chicago, by the way is sunny, cool and breezy.

[CraigsIsland]

I'm not sure how permanently people have to be displaced from their homes to be considered refugees. Certainly many refugees from wars do or intend to eventually return to their homes (if there is anything left of them).

Your comments on Phoenix made me think about how they might adapt to such conditions. In an energy constrained world, I imagine it would mean living mostly underground--so do refugees from the surface of the planet into caves or under-ground dwellings count?

----

Meanwhile, we seem to be having climate whiplash here in MN--snow fall records for this time of year have just been smashed in many places--up to 15 inches of heavy snow in a few hours. Could there be an Arctic connection?

That front hitting Minnesota was suppose to have moved through Chicago today bringing heavy rain. If you look at weather radar, the front has been stationary over southeast Minnesota for the last 2 days. Blocking pattern anyone? We had one of those a couple of weeks ago. It rained for days with a lot of flooding.

Chicago, by the way is sunny, cool and breezy.

Jet stream looks like this:

Huge dip that reaches new mexico. I saw one forecast that had a projected temperature change somewhere in Texas of 67 degrees F drop in 24 hours. Crazy.

Pretty warm- above average- here in California. I'm watching the satellite from MODIS for Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland to see how much effect the wind is pushing up on it for the next week or so. I don't know too much about the effect of the Jet Stream, but I'm starting to appreciate the value of trying to.

Jennifer Francis:

[Shared Humanity]

Thank you for the picture of jet stream. The jet stream aligns exactly with the stalled front along the Mississippi. I've updated the status on this front on another thread. Here is copied update.

There has been a stationary front across the Mississippi River in the U.S. for the past 3 days delivering record breaking snowfalls across Iowa and Minnesota. These kinds of stalled fronts are unusual but have been occurring more and more frequently over the past few years. Normally a front like this would have already moved across the eastern half of the U.S. and entered the Atlantic.

In the last 12 hours it has begun to move slowly to the northwest! This is not simply unusual but very weird. What does the northern hemisphere jet stream look like?

[OldLeatherneck]

It's been interesting to follow the many valuable comments on this thread.  When I made the hypothetical chart several months ago, I was hoping that it was reflective of potential events that could occur this century.  The only debatable event is whether mean global SLR could reach 3 meters by 2100. I'll have more about this in a future post, having just concluded a poll on another thread.

Right now I'm more concerned about near-term impacts.  Certainly we are seeing concrete example of climate instability.  As an example, here in the US, the flooding on the Lower Mississippi River was so severe that the Atchafalaya basin was intentionally flooded to prevent the overtopping of the levees in Baton Rouge and New Orleans.  In 2012, water levels on the Mississippi were so low that the Corps of Engineers had to blast away bedrock just to allow barge traffic to proceed.  Now in 2013 there has been significant flooding along upper portions of the Mississippi.  If this is not a concrete example of climate instability, I don't know what is.

[OldLeatherneck]

Informal Poll Results



I'm fully aware that this is not a scientific poll and as mentioned in the other thread http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,267.0.html, I should have allowed more bins above 3 meters and worded the question more clearly.  However, here is my take on what I've learned from these results:

Forum members seem to feel that sea levels will rise much more rapidly that the recent scientific Ice2Sea report http://www.ice2sea.eu/, which tends to project an SLR of less than 1 meter by 2100.  Only 4% of Forum members who participated in this poll agree with numbers that are that conservative, while another 52% anticipate a rise of 1.5-2.5 meters and an astounding 34% anticipate a rise of greater than 3 meters.

I have gained the utmost respect for the vast majority of commenters on neven's ASIB and this Forum.  I do not believe that we have that many "Whacko Alarmists" who have deliberately skewed the results of this poll.  We also know that the IPCC 2007 report claimed that the arctic sea ice would last until 2100 and we all know how that is turning out.

What concerns me is that policymakers are going to want to use the least alarming predictions even if they know they may be in error.  If that is the case, governments will never be able to adequately prepare for the eventual consequences of rising sea levels.  I'm concerned about how calamitous a modest SLR of 1.5 meters would be by the end of this century, let alone an increase exceeding 3 meters.  Billions of people worldwide will be adversely impacted and many of them driven from their homes permanently.

[OldLeatherneck]

Jellyfish surge in Mediterranean threatens environment – and tourists
A project is tracking the phenomenon as global warming and overfishing boost numbers of the venomous sea creature


Dani Cardona/Reuters

Scientists across the Mediterranean say a surge in the number of jellyfish this year threatens not just the biodiversity of one of the world's most overfished seas but also the health of tens of thousands of summer tourists..........................................

.......................Global warming, overfishing and human intervention – especially breakwaters that protect sandy beaches but provide a home for larvae – are all blamed. As predators disappear, population surges are happening with greater frequency.

While this is not the most life-threatening impact of AGW/CC it is just another example of how human activities are changing the biodiversity of the entire earth.  As the oceans warm, what else will we be destroying??

Full article @
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/03/jellyfish-surge-mediterranean-environment-tourists

[Laurent]

No, mum, no... I don't want to eat Jellyfish !!! (better eating spinach)

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/176874/icode/

[SteveMDFP]

No, mum, no... I don't want to eat Jellyfish !!! (better eating spinach)

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/176874/icode/

Given the massive economic value of the Mediterranean beaches for tourism (as well as economic value of the fisheries) it might actually make sense for the nations bordering on the Med to use taxpayer dollars to fund a fleet of jellyfish-catching boats.  I suspect they could be processed into feed for livestock, maybe fertilizer.  The gelatinous core might possibly be a useful soil additive to help soil hold water.  Or maybe they should just shred the buggers and dump them back in the ocean.

[Shared Humanity]

No, mum, no... I don't want to eat Jellyfish !!! (better eating spinach)

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/176874/icode/

Given the massive economic value of the Mediterranean beaches for tourism (as well as economic value of the fisheries) it might actually make sense for the nations bordering on the Med to use taxpayer dollars to fund a fleet of jellyfish-catching boats.  I suspect they could be processed into feed for livestock, maybe fertilizer.  The gelatinous core might possibly be a useful soil additive to help soil hold water.  Or maybe they should just shred the buggers and dump them back in the ocean.

Or perhaps, as difficult as this sounds, they could halt commercial fishing for several years to allow the population of predators to rebound.

[OldLeatherneck]

Get used to killer heat waves, CDC warns
By Maggie Fox, Senior Writer, NBC News

                                                                                                 Eric Thayer / Reuters file
People crowd at the beach at Coney Island in Brooklyn, New York, on June 30, 2012, as heat waves and thunderstorms hit the eastern United States

Think last summer was bad? You better get used to it, federal health officials warned Thursday. Climate change means hotter summers and more intense storms that could knock power out for days -- and kill people.

New data on heat-related deaths suggest that public health officials have been underestimating them, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. It’s an especially important message as summers get longer and hotter due to climate change, and as storms that can cause widespread blackouts become more common and more intense.

[/size]

Full Article@
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18803031-get-used-to-killer-heat-waves-cdc-warns?lite

[Shared Humanity]

In 1995, Chicago experienced one of it's worst heat waves.

"The temperatures soared to record highs in July with the hottest weather occurring from July 12 to July 16. The high of 106 °F (41 °C) on July 13 was the second warmest July temperature (warmest being 110 °F (43 °C) set on July 23, 1934) since records began at Chicago Midway International Airport in 1928. Nighttime low temperatures were unusually high; in the upper 70s and lower 80s °F (about 26 °C)—as well. Record humidity levels also accompanied the hot weather. The heat index reached 119 °F (48 °C) at O'Hare airport, and 125 °F (52 °C) at Midway Airport."

In 5 days, nearly 1000 people died from the heat. My wife worked nights at one of the three level one trauma centers in Chicago. The bodies started trickling in on the 2nd night. By the fourth, it was a flood. Many of the people had internal core temperatures in excess of 108F. The only treatment was to pack them on ice. When core temperatures get that high, organs start shutting down and the body starts throwing blood clots. Most died.

By the time health officials realized what was happening, it was too late to do anything. Many of the dead were discovered towards the end of the heat wave in their apartments.

[Laurent]

We had the same in France (mainly elderly) :
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm

[Bruce Steele]

Shared Humanity, FYI there aren't many fish that eat jellies. Turtles and Mola-Mola ( sunfish ) do eat them but those aren't commercial fisheries. Banning commercial fishing is popular here in California where you live even though there isn't a single species of fish that is correctly being overfished here.But californians would prefer to turn our waters into a big park and import all of it's seafood , that is more than the 86% currently imported. For a calories in calories out comparison commercial  fishing ( purse seine )can produce protein for six gallons per ton. That is less energy used than another form of human produced ( commercial ) protein, and that includes farming. Burning fossil fuels is what we need to control and calories in calories out might be a better way to allocate our resources than ascetics, or religion.   

[ccgwebmaster]

Shared Humanity, FYI there aren't many fish that eat jellies. Turtles and Mola-Mola ( sunfish ) do eat them but those aren't commercial fisheries. Banning commercial fishing is popular here in California where you live even though there isn't a single species of fish that is correctly being overfished here.But californians would prefer to turn our waters into a big park and import all of it's seafood , that is more than the 86% currently imported. For a calories in calories out comparison commercial  fishing ( purse seine )can produce protein for six gallons per ton. That is less energy used than another form of human produced ( commercial ) protein, and that includes farming. Burning fossil fuels is what we need to control and calories in calories out might be a better way to allocate our resources than ascetics, or religion.

I have to suspect on a global scale if the seas were allowed to recover to their original productivity, if one might not see even better returns on energy expended (setting aside for a moment the question of alternative power sources for boats). A lot of the world is seriously overfished as I understand it (and unfortunately once a fishery collapses, they don't necessarily restore themselves as the food web can permanently change there?).

Of course in the long term ocean acidification poses a major threat here? (we can't fish anything if there is no fish)

[TerryM]

Bruce
Drifting way off topic. Is there anything that does get rid of jellyfish once they've become established?


Terry

[Bruce Steele]

Ccg and Terry, I do not know how to reduce  a bloom of jellies but I think eutrophication and land based pollutants contribute to plankton blooms and the jellies probably follow the food. There are phytoplankton and pico-phytoplankton and the higher trophic levels change depending on which is more prevalent . Locally pico-phytoplankton and large blooms of salps( a kind of jelly) come together with young mola-mola. Sardines and anchovy prefer the larger phytoplankton. Acidification will likely change the makeup of these lowest trophic classes and jellies are resistant to Ph changes. If the changes in nutrients or pH favor pico-phytoplankton then we will see more jellies as things progress.In the southern California bight sewage outfalls contribute about equal amounts of nutrients as natural upwelling .  Yes there is overfishing but wise fish management is possible and there are success stories as well. I suppose the" ban commercial fishing "was tongue in cheek so I should stick to making our fishing community more resilient and a healthy fish population means you don't have to travel so far to catch fish.  Acidification scares me so my battle is much larger than thirty years of fish politics and that was never a joyride . I used to fight for one small piece of heaven , the ocean has a way of making you feel small , but now it's a battle with an extinction event . I am scared and very sad and I need to go pull weeds for awhile and get a grip.       

[Laurent]

Not many things eat them anyway. Swordfish and tuna do and the ocean sunfish eats only jellyfish. Leatherback turtles eat them, migrating thousands of miles from their tropical nesting beaches to UK waters each summer to feed on them - which is why the Marine Conservation Society is appealing to the public to take part in a jellyfish survey to assist with the survival of the endangered leatherback (the turtles often die after mistaking plastic bags for their main food source).

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/invasion-of-the-jellyfish-the-secret-life-of-stingers-411502.html

[OldLeatherneck]

Little did I know when I started this thread that I would someday need to print some bumper stickers that said "Save the Jelly".

Back to a more serious thought on this topic.  There are many living things, both flora and fauna, that are threatened by human encroachment as well as AGW/CC.  While efforts to prevent the ultimate extinction of each of these are laudable, it is not feasible, economically or practically to save each and every one, no matter the emotional pain it brings to those who have devoted their lives in pursuit of saving one creature or living tree.

As we look from a global perspective,  we need to establish "Eco Triage Centers" much like at the scene of accidents or major disasters.  Some life forms are beyond saving, as sad as it may sound, and we can not waste further efforts and resources when there are other critically endangered species that can be saved that are equally important to the earth's ecosystem.

I do  not envy the person who has to pull the plug on any one species, be it plant or animal, however, we do it every day at accident and disaster sites. 

While not a pleasant thought, it's one we must consider.

[ccgwebmaster]

As we look from a global perspective,  we need to establish "Eco Triage Centers" much like at the scene of accidents or major disasters.  Some life forms are beyond saving, as sad as it may sound, and we can not waste further efforts and resources when there are other critically endangered species that can be saved that are equally important to the earth's ecosystem.

Call me a cynic - but as soon as one even has to start making a "special effort" to protect a species, it's probably finished. The answer starts further upstream - to not push species to the brink of extinction (and beyond) in the first place. I think with most species we won't have much choice except to let nature (or what passes for it in an abruptly changing world) take it's course - if a species is of key value to large portions of the food web (or us) that is of course a bigger direct problem for humans - but realistically - just how much power do we really think we have to preserve other species in the face of all this? Especially given the pressure that there will be to consider our own species?

I know it sounds rather cold and callous - but aside from the logistical issues - there is also the question of just how smart are we humans anyway. Do we really think we can pick winner and loser species and come up with a stable productive ecosystem at the end of it? I don't think our previous interferences with the balance of species precisely fill me with confidence in those prospects. The planet is more complex than we are capable of understanding at this time - and letting it find it's own balance (presuming we can't head off abrupt change which is looking rapidly less possible now) may find the best equilibrium the fastest? Then we too must try to fit into that in an acceptable sustainable manner - we are no different in the end from any other species, we haven't escaped the need for this particular planet to remain habitable for us.

Most of the effort of today appears to go into cute and cuddly iconic species, rather than important species (like, er, bees?).

[Laurent]

The rate of changes that are happening and will happened soon is beyond the scope on many species (including us may be) ! That doesn't mean we should do nothing!
It is not necessarily to help these species but to move them from one place to an other more suitable and prey that they can adapt. We have our responsibility not only because of climate change but because we are blocking most of the ways where the species could pass.

[ritter]

The rate of changes that are happening and will happened soon is beyond the scope on many species (including us may be) ! That doesn't mean we should do nothing!
It is not necessarily to help these species but to move them from one place to an other more suitable and prey that they can adapt. We have our responsibility not only because of climate change but because we are blocking most of the ways where the species could pass.

When things get bad, one of the first things to go will be environmental regulations, including protections for certain species. Humans will do whatever they can to save their own bacon.

[OldLeatherneck]

Vast Mackenzie River basin under threat: international report



The sun sets on the Mackenzie River in Nahanni Butte, N.W.T. An environmental think-tank says the area drained by the river is one of the world's largest remaining intact ecosystem.

Photograph by: Ed Struzik, Postmedia News Files , The Canadian Press

Canada's vast Mackenzie River basin is a vital global resource that is under threat from development, climate change, inadequate science and piecemeal management, concludes a report from a U.S.-based environmental think-tank.

......"There really is an urgency," said Henry Vaux, the report's lead author. "The big concern is that the evolution of climate change and its impacts on the basin will make it less resilient to the sorts of pressures that will be put on by expanding economic development."

The basin, one of the Earth's largest remaining intact ecosystems, covers the nearly 20 per cent of Canada drained by the Mackenzie River. It includes Alberta's oilsands and British Columbia's hydro projects as well as the hunting and trapping grounds of thousands of Dene and Inuvialuit all the way up to the Beaufort Sea.

............oilsands development has destroyed, at least temporarily, thousands of hectares of wetlands and created small but growing levels of toxins in rivers. Wildlife species such as woodland caribou are threatened with local extinction as their habitat is fragmented.

.............Industrial water use from the Athabasca River during low flow periods remains controversial. Lake-sized tailings ponds pose leakage risks. Massive dams in British Columbia have disrupted river flows, drying out large river deltas.

..............Meanwhile, the region continues to experience some of the fastest rates of climate change on Earth, threatening water flows and melting the permafrost that underlies much of the landscape.

The whole world has a stake in what happens next, said Vaux.

Read Full Article in Calgary Herald
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Vast+Mackenzie+River+basin+under+threat+international+report/8502570/story.html#ixzz2VqYl6pTc

I had no idea that the Mackenzie is also being threatened by the Alberta Tar Sands and land-use issues as well as the melting permafrost due to the warming arctic.