Source: Dachalan

As the planet turns its attention to London for next summer’s Olympic games, the city is ramping up its sustainable infrastructure and the use of clean energy. Despite these important measures, a new report from the Committee on Climate Change warns that the UK is not immune to climate change. The committee found that the UK is highly vulnerable to extreme weather, heavy flooding and droughts.

One of Britain’s most pressing challenges is to ensure its water supply and flood control infrastructure is not “pushed over the edge” by climate change. Currently, only 8% of the country’s water resources are “at risk” of drying up, but that number could balloon to as much as 45% in the coming decades, largely because of climate change. A water shortage of that magnitude could affect millions of people.

As Britain’s water reserves are zapped by drought and increasing demand, floods pose a serious danger to the country’s coastal regions and urban areas. The study found more homes are being built along coasts that already experience severe erosion. As sea levels rise, the danger — and cost — to protect coastal communities will only increase.

Extreme flooding is not just limited to the coast; changes to Britain’s climate will also impact inland communities. Unfortunately, the UK is not prepared for this reality either. Every year, 16,000 homes are built on floodplains despite the risks posed by climate change. In urban centers, green space is being rapidly converted to “hard space” that is more prone to flash flooding.

Climate change does threaten the UK, but improved sustainability practices, along with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, can help prepare for the adverse effects. For example, installing water meters and encouraging the use of efficient showerheads and faucets will relax the strain on the water system. As the likelihood of flooding increases, the government could implement strict building codes in flood-prone areas and promote simple measures like flood-resistant paint.

Climate change is a global problem, but the severity of its impacts will depend in part on the vulnerability of local communities. Identifying how climate change affects our communities is the first step in preparing for the impacts.

Image by Cloudzilla

Massive ice sheets, remnants of the most recent ice age, are found only in Greenland and Antarctica. With the ice sheets so far away, should the rest of us be concerned? Absolutely. As the world warms, many scientists are nervously watching those ice sheets shrink — and trying to figure out how much global sea levels could rise as a consequence.

A recent study in Nature Geoscience suggests that ocean warming will play a significant role in ice loss, “heighten[ing] the risk of future large sea-level rise.”

The rate of ice loss in Greenland and some parts of Antarctica has increased over the last decade or two. Increasing air temperatures are partially to blame. But as Jianjun Yin and his colleagues report in the new study, the bigger culprit is increasing ocean temperatures — specifically 200-500 meters under the surface.

The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are constantly flowing toward the sea under their own weight, a bit like lopsided scoops of ice cream oozing over the sides of their sugar cones. Normally, the flow of ice is moderated when individual glaciers or ice streams within an ice sheet get jammed against the bottom of the ocean or a floating ice shelf. But now, subsurface ocean water is acting like a “warm bath,” speeding ice melt and the flow of the ice sheet. And there’s more to come. The team found that a middle-of-the-road increase in carbon pollution could warm the subsurface waters around Greenland up to 2*C by the end of the century (nearly two times faster than the global average), and warm Antarctic waters by about 0.6*C over the same period.

Don’t breathe a sigh of relief just yet over the slower rate of warming in Antarctica. When you’re talking about an ice sheet containing 30 million cubic kilometers of ice, any shrinkage is worrisome. Take for example, the 40-km long Pine Island Glacier ice shelf, an extension of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Another recent study in Nature Geoscience reports that the amount of meltwater from the ice shelf has increased about 50% since 1994, due to a combination of warming and changes in ocean currents. An underwater cavity appears to be opening up under the shelf, allowing a larger volume of warm water to eat away at the bottom of the ice.

Together, these studies are a powerful reminder that we need to reduce carbon pollution and prepare for the effects of climate change that are happening now. That’s a message that leaders from coastal regions around the world already get. In California, for example, developers are being told to factor sea level rise into their building projects. And in Australia, the government is working to better communicate the risks of sea level rise to cities and rural areas through a website called OzCoasts.

Do you live on the coast? Leave a comment about what your community is doing — or should be doing — to prepare for sea level rise.

That the weather has an impact on the U.S. economy might not come as a surprise. On hot days we splurge on an extra scoop of ice cream and use more energy to air-condition our homes. When it storms, construction projects are put on hold and flights are often delayed.

Thanks to a study recently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, we now know how changes in average weather conditions can influence our economy. “U.S. economic output varies by up to $485 billion a year of 2008 gross domestic product — about 3.4% — owing to weather variability,” the authors explain.

To arrive at this estimate, the study’s authors paired decades of historical weather observations with economic data from 11 major sectors of the U.S. economy: agriculture, communications, construction, manufacturing, mining, retail trade, services, transportation, utilities, wholesale trade and FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate).

All of these sectors — but especially agriculture, FIRE and mining — are impacted by weather variability, the findings indicate. Extreme weather means crop losses for farmers and flood damage payouts for insurance agencies.

Results also show that states, each with a unique climate and industry composition, vary in their degree of sensitivity to weather. See the map below and see how your state compares. You’ll notice the map is a true mosaic: generalizations cannot be made by region.

If routine weather variability is already impacting economic output on such a measurable scale, what effects might be in store given the realities of climate change? We already know a warming climate will increase the odds of more frequent and intense weather events, as a post last week illustrated.

What will more variable weather in your town mean for the industries closest to you? Leave us a comment and let us know.

Photo by NASA

We’ve long relied on the National Weather Service to give us predictions about the weather. But in a warming world, how do we predict what is happening to the climate? How much precipitation do we expect over the next several years in Polk County, Iowa? What will be the risk of wildfires in western Colorado?

Earlier this week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing entitled “Examining NOAA’s Climate Service Proposal.” The Climate Service is a plan that would cost no additional money, but would consolidate existing climate programs and improve the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s ability to provide information to the public.

The hearing had two witnesses: Jane Lubchenco, the Administrator of NOAA, and Robert Winokur, Deputy and Technical Director at the Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations. Both emphasized that a Climate Service would be an essential tool for everyone from the military to businesses to firefighters.

Indeed, the climate information NOAA provides is vital for numerous sectors. Seasonal rain and snow projections and Drought Monitor assessments help firefighters and local governments prepare for and respond to wildfires and water shortages. Insurance companies use climate data to calculate premiums and the amount of protection they can offer. Many other industries depend on this information to plan, invest, and save money. User demand for information is growing so fast that it has outpaced NOAA’s capacity. The creation of a Climate Service would benefit the businesses and communities during their planning processes, and allow NOAA to streamline their efforts to improve upon the science.

At the hearing, NOAA Administrator Lubchenco said the Climate Service would require no additional taxpayer money, would not “grow government,” and would not move money away from other programs. In addition, it would support the growth and development of a private climate industry, similar to how NOAA’s weather information supported the growth of the $1 billion private weather industry.

Congress recently blocked the development of this Climate Service, but this action is set to expire in September 2011. The Obama administration’s budget proposal includes a provision to create the Climate Service once more, bringing the debate back to the forefront. What happens to the Climate Service is now in the hands of Congress.

Source: NASA

Climate change will certainly transform life on land, and scientists are now discovering more about how a changing climate will transform life in the oceans. Using a computer model of historical ocean circulation and oxygen changes, scientists from the University of California, Colorado State University, and the University of Washington found dead zones — areas of extremely low oxygen — will likely expand in the Pacific Ocean because of climate change.
Dead zones, which currently take up about 5% of the ocean’s volume, are created when oxygen-consuming bacteria decompose algae and other organic matter.

Dead zones can reshape entire marine ecosystems, forcing some species out of the area and killing other species that can’t escape the low-oxygen conditions. In addition to being low in life-sustaining oxygen, dead zones are also low in nitrogen, a critical nutrient for marine plants.

Using historical ocean circulation records, the scientists found that dead zones in the Pacific have always fluctuated with natural climate variation but are now being influenced by climate change. As water temperatures climb, less oxygen is dissolved in surface waters and circulated to deeper waters. This can allow dead zones to expand throughout the lower levels of the ocean.

The somewhat good news is that the expansion of dead zones may take a while. As Curtis Deutsch, the lead author of the study, said, “Global warming will almost certainly influence the amount of oxygen in the ocean, but we expect it to be a slow effect that takes place over long periods of time.” Although we may not see the expansion of dead zones in the immediate future, this is just one example of numerous ways climate change is affecting the Earth’s oceans.

Image by Tabitha Kaylee Hawk

In late May, we gave you an example of how cities and towns are not waiting for their national governments to lead on climate change — they are taking matters into their own hands. There is momentum around the globe for cities to choose the clean energy of the future over the dirty energy of the past. Now, a new report from the U.S. Conference of Mayors reveals American mayors’ strong support for switching to clean energy technologies and preparing for the dangerous impacts of climate change.

In the report, a majority (75%) of the mayors surveyed believe their use of clean energy will increase, and more than a quarter (27%) say this increase will be “significant.” Roughly three in four (76%) mayors believe LED light bulbs and other efficient lighting technology have the most potential to cut carbon pollution and reduce energy consumption. This is not a misplaced faith in LED technology; 85% of cities have implemented energy-efficient lighting programs and are enjoying the benefits of energy savings.

New lighting technology is not the only strategy cities are employing. From the cafes of Paris to Hong Kong’s gleaming towers, cities are using efficient building technologies and clean energy sources to reduce energy use and cut carbon pollution. For example, the city of Seoul is following a master plan (PDF) that aims to cut carbon pollution by 40% while creating 1 million jobs by 2030, by using sustainable technologies to transform transportation, buildings, and urban planning. Stateside, Los Angeles wants to trim its carbon pollution by 30% by boosting solar and wind energy deployment and converting the city’s vehicles to cleaner, more efficient models.

Cities are using clean energy technologies to attract new business, keep money in their local economy and reduce pollution. The leaders of these cities realize that clean energy does more than preserve our environment — it helps drive our economies. Do you live in a clean energy city? Leave a comment and tell us what your city is doing.

Image by U.S. Army Africa

Can energy conservation and renewable energy sources help make American soldiers safer on the battlefield and improve our national security? Yes, says the U.S. Department of Defense in its first-ever “Operational Energy Strategy” (PDF). The strategy, released on Tuesday, lays the groundwork for a new way of powering military operations — from training exercises, to peacekeeping, to combat missions.

According to the report, the Department of Defense is “one of the single largest consumers of fuel in the world.” In 2010, the military consumed more than 5 billion gallons of fuel, nearly 2% of U.S. fuel use, worth $13.2 billion. Reducing fuel use saves lives as well. Over a 4-year period in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 3,000 army personnel and contractors were killed or wounded during attacks on fuel and water supply convoys.

As it gets more dangerous and expensive to obtain and transport energy, the Department of Defense is looking to:

• Reduce energy demand, through measures ranging from turning off lights when leaving a room, to delivering cargo with unmanned aerial vehicles;
• Diversify sources of energy and protect access to existing sources; and
• Fully consider energy security in all aspects of planning.

As Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in 2010: “Energy security needs to be one of the first things we think about, before we deploy another soldier, before we build another ship or plane, and before we buy or fill another rucksack.”

This strategy is primarily intended to enhance the military’s security, improve effectiveness and reduce costs. Yet in taking these steps, the military also has the opportunity to reduce its global warming pollution. But it’s too early to say how big that reduction will be. For one thing, not all the “alternative” fuels under consideration are pollution-free. According to a RAND report prepared for the Department of Defense, one possibility is liquid fuel made from coal. For another, the military doesn’t have a complete understanding of its carbon footprint. That may soon change, however. One of the goals in the operational strategy is to better track energy use across all branches of the military.

The Department of Defense will publish an implementation plan in about three months. We’ll be sure to bring you the details of this critical effort to protect lives, our national security — and our climate.

Image by Alan Cleaver

Temperatures were miserably high across much of the central and eastern U.S. in early June. The record-breaking heat is suspected in the deaths of people in four states and prompted the U.S. Department of Agriculture to issue heat stress warnings for livestock. Get used to it, say Noah Diffenbaugh and Martin Scherer, a pair of American scientists. According to their new study published in the journal Climatic Change, much of the world could permanently shift to hotter weather by the middle of the century if the amount of warming pollution in the atmosphere continues to increase.

Diffenbaugh and Scherer investigated the emergence of a “new normal” of heat — when we might expect the lowest summer temperatures of this century to regularly exceed the highest summer temperatures of the last century. The scientists found that “a new, permanent heat regime” is likely to take hold across much of the world in the next 40 years. The tropics — particularly tropical Africa — will get hit first, with parts of the southern U.S., northern Africa and southern Europe and Asia following closely behind.

Readers familiar with maps like this or this may be surprised by the findings of this study. If the poles and temperate zone are warming faster than the tropics, why wouldn’t they experience a “new normal” first? The key, Diffenbaugh told me, is the amount of variability. The tropics have a narrower baseline temperature (i.e., there is less difference between the lowest and highest temperature). This means it takes a smaller absolute shift in temperature to bump that region of the world into a different heat class.

Extreme heat is a threat to human health, agriculture and infrastructure like roads and railways. As the study authors write, “imminent, permanent emergence of unprecedented heat … is likely to result in substantial human impact[s]” — in developing tropical nations first, but eventually in more northerly developed nations as well.

Yesterday, our Chairman Al Gore published a truly important essay in Rolling Stone magazine. If you haven’t read it yet, you can find it here.

“Climate of Denial” is a well-researched, phenomenal piece, and it got noticed. Some of the response came from the media and prominent bloggers: Andrew Revkin wrote a piece, and so did John Broder — both in the Times. Joe Romm of Think Progress has a great response, too.

But the reaction that interests me most is happening in a more informal environment. On Twitter, on Facebook and in the comments on Rolling Stone people are in a heated conversation about the reality of climate change.

Thousands of people who acknowledge the reality of the climate crisis are sharing Mr. Gore’s article. But the overwhelming number of comments lean toward denial. It can feel daunting or depressing to read. Why is that?

First, one truth about the web is this: a vocal minority can easily out-scream a less boisterous majority. It doesn’t just happen on climate. And anyway, the majority of people do recognize the climate crisis.

Here is one reason why they might not be speaking up as loudly. Vice President Gore’s essay is long. It’s complete. It’s thorough. He gets the facts right. And if you know that, then you know there isn’t much else to say but “that’s the reality.”

So it’s time we start saying that. Loud. Let’s start a movement. Share Al Gore’s essay, and when you do, use the hashtag #reality. Every time you post a tweet about climate, about a denier — about this real crisis, use the hashtag #reality.

This won’t stop the climate crisis. But it’s a real start to addressing the reality and scope of the problem. Will you join us? Let us know if you’re using #reality by commenting below. We’ll also be scanning Twitter for the tag and we’ll Retweet some of the best ones.