Climate change is already having big impacts on the natural world and notable effects on human societies, according to the latest climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, being released on Friday. In short, climate change isn't in the future; it's in the right now.
The previous installment from the IPCC, released in early February, concluded with at least 90 percent certainty that humans are causing global warming. This latest report says with 80 percent certainty that human-driven global warming is already triggering ecosystem changes around the globe.
Not all of the news in the report is bad -- just the vast majority. A few quick and dirty highlights about what we might expect in a toastier world, gleaned from early reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the BBC:
The good bits:
- higher agricultural output in northern regions, at least for a while
- some health benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold
The bad bits:
- lower agricultural output in most regions of the world
- more infectious-disease outbreaks
- more heat waves
- more storms
- more wildfires
- more droughts
- more hunger
- disruption of species migration, contributing to ...
- risk of extinction for 20 to 30 percent of species
- more melting of mountain glaciers, alpine snows, and ice fields, contributing to ...
- risk of water shortages for one billion people
- rising sea levels, contributing to ...
- more flooding in coastal areas
- major declines in coral
- disruption of seasonal changes
- more weeds and insect pests
- more death, disease, and injury for many of the world's people -- and not the ones who've been largely responsible for the problem
Says IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri, "the poorest of the poor are most likely to be hit by the impacts of climate change."
We can hardly wait for the next IPCC installment in May ...
Anthology features Americans’ personal stories of global warming
Publication of the UK Climate Impact Projections
Comments View as Flat
Michael Boydston Posted 1:00 pm
05 Apr 2007
WaPo needs to correct their article
It says: "The new report estimates that 20 to 30 of the world's species 'are likely to be at high risk of irreversible extinction if global average temperature' rises between 2.4 and 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit." Should be "20 to 30 percent," presumably (compare the BBC story, which says one-third).
Permalink
tico89 Posted 1:10 pm
05 Apr 2007
Talk about encouraging...
Well, if that's the IPCC's verdict, then it's a bit difficult to accuse the rest of us of being 'catastrophists', seeing as that's about as catastrophic as it gets.
It's kind of scary, though, reading the Washington Post article, and then looking at some of the comments. I think some of these people who post on articles like that just take a look at the headline and then start spouting out total nonsense they have stored up for such an occasion. Just look at the first comment on there.
Btw, how many instalments will there be?
Permalink
Lisa Hymas Posted 2:23 pm
05 Apr 2007
How many installments, you ask?
A third one on mitigation will come out on May 4, and then a synthesis report wrapping everything together will come out in November.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 6:07 pm
05 Apr 2007
Radical Change
I sent the IPCC a note alerting them to the ubiquitous petroleum oil in the marine micro-layered.
I see the IPCC has realised the full impact of this news. News ?, 90 years old news, must have been forgotten. You must question just what is the state of the world you live in.
Gone are the predictions of steamy weather, gone are the pouring rains, as you can read, global drought and all the induced extreme weather events is the new world weather for the new world order.
This misunderstanding was fatally serious years ago, now it is a laugh.
Its all in the book, "Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com
If this global situation is to be undone then it can not be left to the experts to undo it, can it, for they know not what they do. Think about it. Now is your life, tomorrow was for the children.
So what is the prognosis now ? Can we get SERIOUS action together guys ?
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:28 pm
05 Apr 2007
In short, all four horses
Best summary:
According to the IPCC, we're working on unleashing all four horsemen of the apocalypse:
Famine
Disease
Pestilence
War
Nice work team!
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:41 pm
05 Apr 2007
apocalypticism
Well put, my dear Leibnizian grouch!
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:02 pm
05 Apr 2007
Nice of them to notice
Local eco effects are all too clear out here in the real world. Glad to see the corporate funded have finally looked down from their ivory towers to notice.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
gmunger Posted 12:52 am
06 Apr 2007
It starts at the top
Ah, finally something for which the whitehouse can be shown to have provided real leadership.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 1:13 am
06 Apr 2007
I, Environment
So, the third novel in the IPCC's 4-part epic sci-fi "Foundation" series has arrived.
I'm sure it will scare the bejesus off of grandma's grey head.
Otherwise, it's business as usual with most people enjoying the wonderful benefits of global warming.
Among the benefits of global warming:
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
gmunger Posted 1:41 am
06 Apr 2007
benefits?
Decline in "pestilence"?
How about the current, perhaps unprecedented (certainly in long, long time) levels of mountain pine beetle outbreak in Rocky Mountain forests? These outbreaks are having profound effects on mid- and high-elevation coniferous forests in this region. And much of the effect is blamed on warming of the climate. But the nightmare scenario, which is looking more and more likely, is that warming will enable the beetle to cross Canada from northern BC, across the boreal forest (switching from predominantly lodgepole pine to affecting jack pine) and down in to the eastern U.S. This would be unprecedented and could represent a novel and catastrophic problem for eastern pines.
Sorry Pollyanna, I don't share your optimism.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 1:45 am
06 Apr 2007
There Ain't No Pine Trees In Fiji
Look, I'm not saying there's going to be a lot of change...I'm just saying that somethings aren't bad and some don't matter.
Sure, if it gets warmer a host of things will conspire to reduce pine trees. But what you Gristies fail to mention is that other types of trees may replace those.
If you have your heart set on one type of tree, then I guess, you personally, will feel the detriment. However, I think that residents of St. Paul wouldn't mind waking up to 70 degree weather and palm trees in their backyard.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 2:26 am
06 Apr 2007
Naw, just ain't no schools in East Kent Hill, WA
Some people have actually been to Fiji and know about the controversy surrounding the Fiji Pine Company.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 2:33 am
06 Apr 2007
How about the rest of us?
Well, wonderful for the residents of St. Paul. How about for those of us who are already living at 70+ degree weather and palm trees in their backyard? Personally, I'm not too keen on it getting hotter.
Permalink
gmunger Posted 2:33 am
06 Apr 2007
Never mind
Forgive me, I thought we were talking about the same planet.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 2:36 am
06 Apr 2007
Optimists...
Yes, some parts won't do too badly out of this. I'm in Scotland. We'll have warmer summers and wetter winters. We're pretty solid economically. And still we care about those countries who will be hardest hit and can least afford it to act.
Higher temperatues means more pestilence, diseases, plagues. A change in climate does not mean the new state will be a steady state equally suitable to our means. We have been very lucky these last few thousand years that our climate has been stable and useful...
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:04 am
06 Apr 2007
On a different note
Why is overpopulation always overlooked when it comes to this issue? Fewer people means less of a demand for housing/food/energy. We should be promoting birth control and family planning as much as we promote clean energy!
Oh, and, please feel free to ignore jabailo, who just likes to blindly naysay everything...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:09 am
06 Apr 2007
Well speaking of overpopulation
Speaking of overpopulation
GreenTech primarily allows us to do more with less resources.
Reducing our individual resource demands would go a long way toward helping cope with larger populations.
Permalink
davidconnell Posted 4:47 am
06 Apr 2007
Its Time to Start Considering Adaptation
The sad fact is that climate change has already started damaging ecosystems around the world--contributing to coral bleaching, vegetation shifts, changes in the seasons, and yes, damage to human well-being.
It's time for the scientific community to start thinking seriously about how we can help ecosystems adapt to the changes that have already occurred, or will occur even if we stop emitting CO2 today. The Nature Conservancy has a nice primer on what these adaptation techniques are and how they work.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 4:50 am
06 Apr 2007
government editors?
Why, can anyone tell me, did this panel of expert scientists agree to allow goverment representatives (politicians and dictators) to edit their findings? Even CNN points out that the scientists agreed on much stronger statements than what these non-scientists with conflicting interests would allow. The report was weakened, almost didn't get approved, because certain counties wouldn't agree to what the experts wanted to say. Does this somehow make it more credible? Or just less effective?
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 4:53 am
06 Apr 2007
grey
Over population is a problem but so is a reduced birth rate. Too many developed countries are increasingly "grey". A reduced available working population, fewer young people available on the market. Not good either...
Permalink
dwilkins Posted 7:38 am
06 Apr 2007
Non-irreversible extinctions
Just curious, what other type of extinction is there besides irreversible? ;^)
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 1:57 pm
06 Apr 2007
Remain Real or but out.
>> More fresh water>>
Jabailo, stop sprouting total BS. Fresh water will get so scare that even bottled water will become extinct. Carefully think your thoughts through and compare them with the reality of the situation. Then please discuss this serious topic in a rational manner, your flippant and irresponsible attitude totally bores me.
And the rooster crows, its only morning
>> some parts won't do too badly out of this. I'm in Scotland >>>
Just wait Scotland until evening, you will change your short sighted perceptions.
>> overpopulation always overlooked >>
The oiled seawater global climate change problem is just plainly and simply a product of irresponsible and criminal negligence on the part of Big Oil.
Overpopulation is just the result of LIFE
flowering.
The Death of Clouds
omegafour.com
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 2:46 am
09 Apr 2007
Balanced
To Zarkov:
Blaming global warming entirely on "Big Oil" is pretty one-sided. You cannot ignore the fact that big oil is still reliant on consumers (industry or individuals) who use oil - and that the number of current consumers is in the billions. We are all responsible for polluting this earth - big oil and ordinary people. The buildings we live and work in take great amounts of oil to produce and run. To villainize industry is to ignore your own role in the issue.
And to others:
Reduction of "individual resource demands" only delays resource consumption. You can tell everyone to use fewer resources, but if the population continues to increase, that won't help do anything other than harm quality of life. To quote William McDonough: "If you want to go to Mexico, and you're driving toward Canada, even if you slow down you're still going to Canada."
Permalink