Spectres of the Anthropocene.

Counting carbon costs

Four key decades

The Torreya Guardians are trying to save the Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia Arn.) from extinction (Barlow & Martin 2004). Fewer than 1000 individuals of this coniferous tree remain within its native distribution, a 35-km stretch of the Apalachicola River, and these trees are not reproducing (Schwartz et al. 2000). Even if the Florida torreya was not declining toward extinction, the species would be at risk from climate change. Warming is projected to either significantly reduce or eliminate suitable habitat for most narrowly endemic taxa (Thomas et al. 2004; Hannah et al. 2005; Peterson et al. 2006), forcing species to colonize new terrain to survive. The focus of the Torreya Guardians is an “assisted migration” program that would introduce seedlings to forests across the Southern Appalachians and Cumberland Plateau (http://www.TorreyaGuardians.org). Their intent is to avert extinction by deliberately expanding the range of this endangered plant over 500 km northward. Because planting endangered plants in new environments is relatively simple as long as seeds are legally acquired and planted with landowner permission, the Torreya Guardians believe their efforts are justified. Introducing this species to regions where it has not existed for 65 million years is “[e]asy, legal, and cheap” (Barlow & Martin 2004). If circumventing climate-driven extinction is a conservation priority, then assisted migration must be considered a management option. Compelling evidence suggests that climate change will be a significant driver of extinction (McCarthy et al. 2001; McLaughlin et al. 2002; Root et al. 2003; Thomas et al. 2004). Researchers typically conclude that mitigating climate change and providing reserve networks that foster connectivity and movement should be a priority (e.g., Hannah et al. 2002). Ecol-

Between Scylla and Charybdis: energy, carbon dioxide, and indoor environmental quality

Professor Lord Hunt, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to open this important scientific meeting on the impacts of climate change on urban areas. As you know, the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion supports the view that human activities are changing the Earth's climate. There really

Addressing Climate Change Without Legislation - Volume 1: DOI

The results of the reconstruction of Wolf numbers from the 11th century until the middle of the 19th century A.D. based on radiocarbon data are presented. This time span includes the Oort, Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minima of solar activity, as well as the Medieval Solar Maximum (the 12th century and the first half of the 13th century A.D.) and the Late Medieval Maximum (the second half of the 14th century). It is known that the climate changed appreciably over the studied period: there were changes in the global temperature and in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere; more precisely, there was the Little Ice Age. This work differs from previous reconstructions of other authors in taking into account the influence of climate changes on the radiocarbon content in examined samples at that time span. During the reconstruction, changes in carbon dioxide content and changes in the regimen of carbon dioxide exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere are considered. It is especially important to consider changes in these parameters for the Little Ice Age, which was accompanied by significant changes in global temperature and the carbon dioxide content in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Almost 700 people died from heat-related stress during the catastrophic 1995 heat wave in Chicago, Illinois.1 The three-day weather event saw 24-hour mean average temperatures of 87.2°F; the heat reached triple digits on two days, and there was little relief at night.2 Many people succumbed to heart attack and dehydration, while others collapsed during severe episodes of existing respiratory conditions.3 The death toll in the summer of 1995 gave Chicagoans a clear picture of how a surge in hot weather can affect human health. A decade later, Mayor Richard Daley launched an extensive program that brought together city agencies, academics, and scientists to develop a Climate Change Action Plan to help reduce the city’s contribution to climate change.4 Much of the plan focuses on sustainable mitigation actions such as planting trees and training workers to install renewable energy technologies. Within that plan, however, is a climate change adaptation strategy with a goal of preparing the city and its residents for future unusual weather events associated with climate change.5 Chicago is one of several large cities with climate action plans in place—others include New York City, San Francisco, Sydney, and Mexico City.6 Like Chicago’s, these plans promote mitigation and sustainability. Much of the adaptation portion of these initiatives is aimed at the built environment—buildings, highways, and facilities. But officials in these cities are beginning to talk about the public health cobenefits from their action plans, and public health advocates are speaking up and pushing for programs designed to prepare for or prevent climate-sensitive disease and illness.

Address of the President, Lord Rees of Ludlow Kt FRS, given at the Anniversary Meeting on 30 November 2006

Research Article| June 01, 2002 Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? C. R. de Freitas C. R. de Freitas School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, PB 92019, Auckland, New Zealand Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information C. R. de Freitas School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, PB 92019, Auckland, New Zealand Publisher: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Revision Received: 28 Mar 2002 Accepted: 23 Jun 2002 First Online: 02 Mar 2017 Online ISSN: 2368-0261 Print ISSN: 0007-4802 © The Society of Canadian Petroleum Geologists Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology (2002) 50 (2): 297–327. https://doi.org/10.2113/50.2.297 Article history Revision Received: 28 Mar 2002 Accepted: 23 Jun 2002 First Online: 02 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation C. R. de Freitas; Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 2002;; 50 (2): 297–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/50.2.297 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology Search Advanced Search Abstract Statements made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been used to put pressure on governments to formulate policies in response to the perceived threat of the climate change resulting from a build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol proposed by the United Nations calls for industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by five percent from 1990 levels by the year 2012. The enormity of the perceived economic consequences of this has led to intense arguments between governments over the appropriateness of reduction targets. But the real reason behind the failure to agree on a global climate treaty is disagreement on tradeoffs between the economic and environmental risks involved.Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites support this. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, long before industrialization, but historical records show no acceleration in sea level rise in the twentieth century. Increases in carbon dioxide appear to pose no immediate danger to the planet. The gas is not a pollutant.An understanding of global warming hinges on the answers to certain key questions. Is global climate warming? If so, what part of that warming is due to human activities? How good is the evidence? What are the risks? The task of answering these questions is hindered by widespread confusion regarding key facets of global warming science. The confusion has given rise to several fallacies or misconceptions. These myths and misconceptions, and how they relate to the above questions, are explained. Although the future state of global climate is uncertain, there is no reason to believe that catastrophic change is underway. The atmosphere may warm due to human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be much more than 1 degree Celsius in the next 100 years. Even the climate models promoted by the IPCC do not suggest that catastrophic change is occurring. They suggest that increases in greenhouse gases are likely to give rise to a warmer and wetter climate in most places; in particular, warmer nights and warmer winters. Generally, higher latitudes would warm more than lower latitudes. This means milder winters and, coupled with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, it means a more robust biosphere with greater availability of forest, crops and vegetative ground cover. This is hardly a major threat. A more likely threat is policies that endanger economic progress. The negative effect of such policies would be far greater than any change caused by global warming. Rather than try to reduce innocuous carbon dioxide emissions, we would do better to focus on air pollution, especially those aspects that are known to damage human health. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.

In the Warming Arctic Seas

Coming Together for Climate and Health: Proceedings of the Second Annual Clinical Climate Change Meeting, January 24, 2020.

The world has focused on carbon mitigation as the only solution for climate change. This discussion paper considers how marine biodiversity regulates the climate, and the factors that control marine biodiversity. The main Greenhouse Gas (GHG) is water vapor, which accounts for 75% of all GHGs; the second most important is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and particulates such as black carbon (BC) soot. The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is regulated by air temperature; warmer conditions lead to higher evaporation, which in turn increases the concentration of water vapor, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. This means that as the oceans and atmosphere warm, a self-reinforcing feedback loop accelerates the evaporation process to cause further warming. It is not considered possible to directly regulate atmospheric water vapor. This explains why climate change mitigation strategies have focussed primarily on reducing carbon dioxide emissions as the means to reduce water vapor. This report concludes that the current climate change mitigation strategy will not work on its own because it depends on decreasing the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and on the assumption that water vapor is only regulated by temperature. 71% of planet Earth is covered by an ocean that has a surface microlayer (SML) between 1 µm and 1000µm deep, composed of lipids and surfactants produced by marine phytoplankton. This SML layer is known to promote the formation of aerosols and clouds; it also reduces the escape of water molecules and slows the transfer of thermal energy to the atmosphere. The concentration of water vapor is increasing in our atmosphere, and 100% of this increase is evaporation from the ocean surface; water vapour from land systems is decreasing. This means that the oceans are almost entirely responsible for climate change. The SML layer attracts toxic forever, lipophilic chemicals, microplastics and hydrophobic black carbon soot from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Concentrations of toxic chemicals are 500 times higher in this SML layer than in the underlying water. Toxic forever chemicals combined with submicron and microplastic particles and black carbon particulates are known to be toxic to plankton. Marine primary productivity or phytoplankton photosynthesis may have declined by as much as 50% since the 1950s. Reduced phytoplankton plant growth equates to a degraded SML membrane, reduced carbon assimilation, and higher concentrations of dissolved carbon dioxide in ocean surface water, which accelerates the decline in ocean pH. The key phytoplankton species responsible for the production of the SML layer are the first to suffer from pH decline, a process called “ocean acidification”. Ocean acidification will lead to a regime shift away from the key carbonate-based species and diatoms below pH 7.95 which will be reached by 2045. The SML layer will decrease, allowing evaporation and atmospheric water vapor concentrations to increase. A reduced SML layer will lead to fewer aerosols, cloud formation and precipitation, as well as increased humidity and temperature. When clouds form under these conditions, the higher humidity will cause torrential downpours and flooding. The result could be catastrophic climate change, even if we achieve net zero by 2050. In parallel, ocean acidification and the collapse of the marine ecosystem could also lead to the loss of most seals, birds, whales, fish, and food supply for 3 billion people.

Radley Horton,1,a Daniel Bader,1,a Yochanan Kushnir,2 Christopher Little,3 Reginald Blake,4 and Cynthia Rosenzweig5 1Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York, NY. 2Ocean and Climate Physics Department, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY. 3Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Lexington, MA. 4Physics Department, New York City College of Technology, CUNY, Brooklyn, NY. 5Climate Impacts Group, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY

I want to begin by discussing three uncertainties: the first uncertainty is about what science says and means, and how conclusive we can all be about it. This is, of course, especially the case in relation to climate change, and the frustrating thing, I suspect, for most people engaged directly in