The changing face of Australia

Weather-wise, Australia has been seeing something of a wet period recently. Normal to above-normal rains have been observed across much of the country over the past several months, with November being particularly wet. There's ongoing flooding in NW Queensland, and the normally dry Lake Eyre may partially fill this year. The NT's Red Centre has turned green. Further, the Bureau of Meteorology's annual climate summary indicates that 2008 was 'only' the 14^th warmest year on record. Does this spell the end of climate change in Australia? Is K-Rudd doing the right thing by setting such a pathetic target for reduction of CO2 emissions in this country?

This is most likely courtesy of the return of quasi-La Nina conditions in the Pacific, after a brief return to neutral Pacific conditions. A strong La Nina affected the weather during late-2007 and early-2008. Historically, La Nina often mean wet periods in Oz, and overall cooler global temperatures as well. This latter point applies to Australia as well.

Globally, the cooler weather has caused most of the contrarians to downplay the reality of climate change. Hopes and wishes are all well and good, but the power of positive thinking won't change this reality; Anthropogenic climate change is not gone, either in Australia or the rest of the world. What we are experiencing is just weather and interannual climate variability -- by definition short-term. The La Nina likely won't make it much past the end of austral summer, and El Nino will be around again soon enough, when we'll likely see new record high mean temperatures, both in Australia and around the globe. This is not the end of anthropogenic climate change.

Regardless of whether one accepts the reality of the above facts or not, the Great CO2 Enhancement Experiment (~40% and rising) we are running on the planet is dangerous -- full of unintended consequences and unforeseen peril. Warming of the mean global climate is serious, but only one of many of our worries. CO2 presents other dangers as well. Below are a few early results from experiment noted of late in Australia and its territories.

• Recent analysis of the long term patterns of coral growth on the Great Barrier Reef are telling. A 400 year record of banding like tree rings on the giant Porites coral reveals a massive decline in the growth history. Since 1990, a decline in the growth rate has been observed. Previously, the record would undulate, now the decline is consistent. Should current trends continue, the growth rate will be zero by 2050. Ocean acidification as much has rising temperatures are believed to be the culprit.

• In Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory, a 40 year study has revealed an increases in woody vegetation on the savanna and in the floodplains of the park. Intially, the increase was hypothesized to be a result of feral buffalo (an invasive species). However, this relationship has proven to be weak as after 1985, the buffalo were nearly eliminated from the park while the vegetation structure continued to change. Instead, the researcher speculate that he change may be related to an increased level of atmospheric CO2, increasing rainfall and changing fire regimes during the study period.

• Heard Island, a sub-Antarctic island some 4000 km southwest of Western Australia is showing a rapidly changing landscape. A portion of the land has split from the mainland, effectively forming a new island. This is a result of changing sea level, possibly from rising temperatures (a 1^oC increase over past 50 years, and it's not an urban heat island!) or from other factors like strong ocean swells and winds. Further, a glacier on the island has likely retreated further and anecdotally, the lagoons at the glaciers terminus have increased in size. Analysis and monitoring are underway.

None of the Earth's 'spheres' remains untouched by Our Way of Life. Climate change and other environmental degradation affects the whole population of the Earth and every nation on its face. Australia's self image as the Lucky Country will not spare it any damage, as the above examples attest. Even without a temperature change, the Experiment has detrimental results -- ocean acidification or enhanced plant growth are but two. The effects run deep and climate change is just the obvious manifestation. And there are may well be surprises we haven;t even considered yet to come.

So yes, it is short-sided for Australia to set such a pathetic emissions reduction target. It's time to stop listening to the neoliberal economists; they are clueless and morally bankrupt. Let's lead instead of being led like sheep following the shepherds of greed. Unchecked, the whole experiment – CO2 enhancement, rampant consumerism, overpopulation -- will catch up to everyone in the end. If we act soon, we have a chance to break the bonds and begin a new way of living. If and when the inevitable crash comes, the considerations which are driving this decision now will be meaningless. The businesses will be gone and the economy will be toast. The world is not ours to exploit to the point of exhaustion. We have a moral obligation --to our fellow denizens of biosphere (human or otherwise), both now and into the future -- to leave the world in the state we inherited it. They are our legacy and our immortality, the standards by which we will be judged.

**
Image: Bureau of Meteorology

Why are honeybees declining?

Bees continue to die in droves in both the US and the UK. Both wild bees and domesticated honey bees are affected. Similar episodes of Colony Collapse Disorder (or Mary Celeste Syndrome in the UK...) were also noted last year, although the numbers appear to be larger this year. I haven't read any reports from other parts of the world.

While the cause remain somewhat unknown, ongoing research is shining some light onto the source of this ailment.

In fall 2007, a team led by Diana Cox-Foster, professor of entomology, reported a strong correlation between CCD and the presence of Israeli acute paralysis virus, making the pathogen a prime suspect in the disease. Since that time, researchers have introduced IAPV to healthy honey bee colonies in a controlled greenhouse environment in an effort to induce a collapse.

Cox-Foster noted that within a month, infected colonies had declined to small clusters of bees, many of which had lost their queens. "These data indicate that IAPV is a highly pathogenic virus," she said. "But they do not yet support a finding of IAPV as the sole cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. We still suspect that additional stresses are needed to trigger CCD."

I would not be surprised if further research implicates human meddling as being an ultimate source of these stresses. We have profoundly altered the environment on a very rapid time scale; just some of notable changes are: enhanced CO2, land use, and pesticides along with other persistent chemical pollution.

A post on TreeHugger notes this about enhanced CO2 and how it affects bees:

Curiously, 80 years ago bee scientists noted that CO2 was the controlling factor in bee colonies. Later scientists observed that bees exposed to high CO2 become incapable of performing their normally incredible navigation skills and become lost bees. It can be no wonder that with our recently imposed 44% higher CO2, - often 2-4 times higher locally - bees have no means to know that their time tested last gasp means to protect the colony will not suffice.

This is certainly an interesting hypothesis, although there are a few quibbles (e.g. The CO2 increase is exaggerated; CO2 has not gone up 44% in less than 80 years...). It seems improbable, though, unless there is some hard biological threshold that has been crossed in the last few years. Make no mistake, year-to-year increases in CO2 are alarming, but I wouldn't imagine that they are so rapid as to cause this sort of sudden onset. (I could easily be wrong about that, though...)

Habitat loss is undoubtedly important in some cases. This seems to be important in the loss of the wild bees (repeat link). But most of the honey bees are domesticated, so they don't really have a 'habitat' per se; they go wherever the managers put them.

Pesticides (linked earlier) seem a likely contributor, though.

[S]cientists analyzing pollen, wax, adult bees and brood (larvae) have found the presence of dozens of chemicals, including pesticides used by agricultural producers to protect crops and by beekeepers to control hive pests such as parasitic mites.

...Some of these compounds could react with each other to cause toxic effects or could combine with viruses or poor nutrition to weaken immunity and cause colony collapse. We also need to do more research to understand these chemicals' sub-lethal effects on bees."

"With the sheer number of compounds we're finding in hives, it's hard to believe that pesticides aren't contributing to the general decline in bee health,

Whatever the cause, the sustained loss of bees -- both wild and domesticated -- at this rate will certainly be Cataclysm-level event, particularly if is (or becomes) global in extent. Bees provide direct services to humanity, playing a vital role in agriculture (among other things). It would be hard to argue that humanity didn't cause it ('It's all the Sun's fault,' won't really cut it in this instance!), and it would hit 'doubt manufacturers' right where it hurt. It's a race against time, one of many we must win to avoid living on planet doom.

***

image: Shaun Curry /AFP. Extracted from The Guardian. I also know it's not a honeybee, but hey...it's a nice piccy anyway

TEOTWAWKI

An excellent post over at The Island of Doubt:

It's hard to say just when humanity stopped trying to prevent climate change. Some say only a few prescient individuals ever really took the threat seriously until the dramatic events of 2012. But by then, of course, it was too late to do anything about it. Still, if we have to pinpoint a specific time that the public conversation began to switch from how to avoid catastrophic global warming to learning to live with the consequences, 2008 would be as good a candidate as any.

A similar line of thought has been occurring to me recently. The doubters and deniers have 'won' the battle, at least on the 'socio-political' side of things -- we aren't going to act in any meaningful way to reduce our ever-increasing GHG emissions. This announcement by Russia make that quite clear; GHG reductions are in the 'too-hard' basket. Even the homeless (in the global North) have large carbon footprints. This may change, but only after The Cataclysm. Until then, it's full speed ahead!

The deniers and doubters wrong on the science, though. Theirs is a Pyrrhic Victory, with all of humanity paying the cost, all so that we can continue Our Way of Life.

Future trajectories

The tally on last year's emissions are in. The verdict: Guilty as charged! Concentrations of CO2 continue to rise at an increasing rate. Last year, the average value rose by 2.4 ppm in 2007; previous concentrations were rising at 2 ppm/year. There is little sign that this is likely to stop anytime soon, given the nearly-meaningless emissions reduction measures announced by the US. The CO2-enhancement experiment will be carried out to the end.

Perhaps more concerning, methane (CH4) levels also rose for the first time since 1998. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas, although it has a much lower concentration in the atmosphere. The recent rise does not necessarily imply an immanent trend, but there is some concern. One expected consequence of increasing temperatures is a melting of the Arctic permafrost and/or the methane clathrates under the sea.

This spike in CH4 could be a sign of this beginning to occur. Paleoclimate studies of historical GHG concentrations using ice cores are suggestive, to wit

The study shows, that tropical wetlands emitted substantially less CH₄ during glacials; most likely caused by changes in monsoonal precipitation patterns. Together with a reduced atmospheric lifetime, this explains major parts of the glacial CH₄ reduction. In addition, boreal methane sources located in wetlands in higher northern latitudes were essentially switched off during the glacial due to the expansion of the northern ice sheets and the very cold temperatures in high northern latitude. However, these high latitude wetlands were quickly reactivated when rapid climate warming events occurred. Also forest fires emit a considerable amount of CH₄, which, however, remained surprisingly constant over time. The isotopic measurements show no signs of CH₄ emissions by a destabilization of marine gas hydrate reservoirs when climate was warming.

Measurements of the sea floor north of Russia are indicating that the clathrates here are destabilizing.

The permafrost has grown porous, says Shakhova, and already the shelf sea has become "a source of methane passing into the atmosphere." The Russian scientists have estimated what might happen when this Siberian permafrost-seal thaws completely and all the stored gas escapes. They believe the methane content of the planet's atmosphere would increase twelvefold.

If this becomes permanent reality, expect the impacts of climate change to rapidly accelerate. Combined with ever-increasing CO2, this would provide a staggering blow to our society. Such a rapid climate change would render the option of mitigation moot, leaving only the less-appealing tactic of adaptation available.

As noted in this excellent op-ed piece, the relatively small warming we have experienced to date has “...already taken the planet into a condition where human experience no longer provides a reliable indication of the future”. Given the difficulty of society to cope with the global crises we are currently experiencing (only in part due to climate...), it's hard to see how this situation will improve in a more extreme future.

Sadly for our children, it seems unlikely that appropriate measures will taken to mitigate the approaching calamity. It's quite possible that it is too late in any case. This ever-upward carbon trajectory likely means that humanity's future trajectory is downward.

***
Images: NOAA, via The Great Beyond

Life in a parallel universe

Climate change is an ongoing reality, but many of our leaders would appear to be living in some alternate reality of their own devising. This is certainly true here in Australia -- the current government imagines that we are leaders on climate change and the deputy prime minister doubts the reality of climate change.

But this failure to grasp reality isn't limited to Australia, it is a worldwide phenomenon -- a natural trait of our species. The government of the US is still censoring climate reports, apparently just hoping the problem will magically go away if it is not discussed. Many of the major polluting nations of the world (e.g. India, China, USA) refuse to abide by any mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reductions (as do many who aren't major polluters). Instead, China is building high emission coal-fired power plants as quickly as they can, in large part in response to service the demand from developed nations for cheap consumer goods. Many rich nations are simply exporting their carbon demand to poorer nations like China, and then rationalizing their inaction because China and India are not included in Kyoto.

These actions are a sign of a deep disconnect with reality. It is time for the nations of the world to grow up. Reducing GHG emissions is the only way to limit the extremely high costs of climate change in the future. As a whole, the EU is managing to meet its Kyoto obligations (but not every individual country within the EU...) while maintaining its economy and an exceptional standard of living. It can be done. The nations of the world must act decisively and cooperatively to overcome the grave threats of climate change. Fatalism is not an option.

Make no mistake, the rate of CO2 emissions is accelerating. The effects of this are also becoming more apparent and widespread. It is time for out leaders to stop the denial and make a full acknowledgment of the reality we have created. The knowledge is out there. We may not know the exact path global warming will take, but it is unlikely to be pleasant. The future of our civilization is potentially at stake. Sensible cooperative action is our only choice.

Environmental threats to food

Some very serious environmental issues are gaining wider exposure in the media as of late. All three of these issues have been noted previously on planet doom?. And all three threaten the security of our food supply, now or in the future.

A particularly pressing issue is the here and now threat to our food supply. An article from ScienceAlert indicates that world food security is at its lowest levels since recordkeeping began about 50 years ago. The accompanying graphic illustrates the sharp downward trend over the past 6-7 years.

What is driving this? Climate change, especially its effects on amplifying drought. Numerous droughts and unprecedented floods have been reported this year, affecting crop production and degrading the land. Locations around the world -- the United States, India, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia -- are feeling the pinch. Plant diseases are flourishing in the newly changed climate. Soils are becoming over-used and subject to desertification.

Nitrogen pollution is emerging as a potential threat to diversity. This inert gas, vital to life, is being deposited from the atmosphere to the earth at an increasing rate. This extra nitrogen comes from human sources, namely automobiles and intensive farm practices. This deposition reduces species diversity in grasslands, with unknown consequences. The threat may be reducing. Or it may be too late and we have already passed a tipping point. We just don't know. Does this only affect grasslands, or is this factor playing a role in the loss of diversity (in addition to other human meddling) being observed in forests?

To feed the growing population and makeup for the shortfall in grain we are observing, more intensive agriculture is required. But this causes further nitrogen pollution, further degrading the land and reducing food production...An unpleasant feedback loop. The ScienceAlert article noted above suggests that more scientific/agricultural research input is required, but unfortunately government policy (at least in Oz) is making this unfeasible. The government is making token gestures, but they are apparently underestimating the magnitude of the problem.

Unfortunately, we may not be able to rely on the ocean to makeup the shortfall. Ocean acidification, a byproduct of our CO2 enhancement experiment, is threatening corals and subsequently other marine life. This acidification is proceeding much faster than expected, on the scale of decades rather than the centuries previously imagined.

From the article

Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify)...[but]“It isn’t just the coral reefs which are affected – a large part of the plankton in the Southern Ocean, the coccolithophorids, are also affected. These drive ocean productivity and are the base of the food web which supports krill, whales, tuna and our fisheries.

So, if the threat from overfishing and marine pollution weren't enough, we now (potentially) have another way to do ourselves in. Overfishing itself is partially responsible for reef destruction, and other fishing methods, designed with 'economic efficiency' in mind, also wreak havoc on biodiversity. Recent observations of the increase in jellyfish numbers suggest that we may have already pushed the ocean ecosystem too far even without acidification...That will just be the coup d'gras.

These new findings indicate that our CO2 enhancement experiment -- and the associated climate change – are truly a threat to humankind. The time has come to get serious about action to rectify this intolerable situation. The future depends on it. Let's hope we act before it is too late (if it is not already).

Greening the Earth with CO2: A good thing?

Despite what skeptical websites like this would have you believe, our uncontrolled experiment in CO2 enhancement (35% and rising!) is unlikely to end favorably on our already overstressed planet. Even without considering a radiative forcing of ~1.5 W m^-2 and its heating,the enhancement of CO2 is likely to have many negative impacts on our environment.

Plants are likely to be subject to so-called CO2 fertilization, wherein the additional gas added by humans allows plants to grow more quickly. It's a physiological fact that vegetation needs CO2 to enact photosynthesis. But different plants react differently. Some show a strong response while others react more slowly. Recent observations and research are beginning to discern some of the details of how this fertilization works.

• Poison ivy seems to be particularly responsive to enhanced CO2. It and other vines are have shown an increase (by a factor of 10!) in South Carolina. In general, weeds seem to respond especially robustly to this effect.

• Mixed aspen-and-birch stands bathed in extra carbon dioxide grow about 45 percent faster than their untreated neighbors. To sustain that speedy growth, the experimental trees had to find a way to extract more of the essential nutrient nitrogen from the soil.

The birch trees seem better at nitrogen foraging than aspens... In mixed stands of aspen and birch subjected to elevated carbon dioxide levels, birch trees increased recent nitrogen acquisition by 68 percent, compared to a 19 percent increase among the aspens.

• As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to climb shrubs and other woody plants will likely dominate grasslands, altering pastoral lifestyles around the world...

...some of the ecosystems that are potentially most responsive to CO2 are grasslands and savannahs in the South[ern Hemisphere]... these are also some of the biggest ecosystems globally.

The effects of elevated CO2 may already be in play, as indicated by fairly consistent evidence of "bush encroachment" or "shrub encroachment" in many grasslands of the world...

While these changes may seem quite benign on the surface, they actually pose many subtle threats. By altering the composition of forest and savanna ecosystems, we affect the biodiversity in that particular biome. The effects of this alteration are unknown but are unlikely to be positive. Such changes can contribute, among other things, to species extinction, enhance summer flooding by altering water uptake and/or change the fire regime. These effects can act as further feedbacks on the environment, further accelerating change.

The fact is that we humans remain quite ignorant about the workings of the ecosystems of the Earth. It is quite arrogant of us to think that we can alter our environment willy-nilly and not expect problems to arise. We certainly don't know enough to manage the problems; any 'solutions' we try are just as likely to worsen the problem as they are to fix it. Even discounting the warming effect of CO2, the evidence suggests that our “enhancement experiment” is not going to end well. The best thing we can do is to act to slow down or even stop the experiment by reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. It is the responsible thing to do for future generations.