PDA

View Full Version : The century of drought



FORD
10-04-2006, 04:33 AM
The century of drought

One third of the planet will be desert by the year 2100, say climate experts in the most dire warning yet of the effects of global warming

By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor
Published: 04 October 2006

Drought threatening the lives of millions will spread across half the land surface of the Earth in the coming century because of global warming, according to new predictions from Britain's leading climate scientists.

Extreme drought, in which agriculture is in effect impossible, will affect about a third of the planet, according to the study from the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

It is one of the most dire forecasts so far of the potential effects of rising temperatures around the world - yet it may be an underestimation, the scientists involved said yesterday.

The findings, released at the Climate Clinic at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth, drew astonished and dismayed reactions from aid agencies and development specialists, who fear that the poor of developing countries will be worst hit.

"This is genuinely terrifying," said Andrew Pendleton of Christian Aid. "It is a death sentence for many millions of people. It will mean migration off the land at levels we have not seen before, and at levels poor countries cannot cope with."

One of Britain's leading experts on the effects of climate change on the developing countries, Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundation, said: "There's almost no aspect of life in the developing countries that these predictions don't undermine - the ability to grow food, the ability to have a safe sanitation system, the availability of water. For hundreds of millions of people for whom getting through the day is already a struggle, this is going to push them over the precipice."

The findings represent the first time that the threat of increased drought from climate change has been quantified with a supercomputer climate model such as the one operated by the Hadley Centre.

Their impact is likely to even greater because the findings may be an underestimate. The study did not include potential effects on drought from global-warming-induced changes to the Earth's carbon cycle.

In one unpublished Met Office study, when the carbon cycle effects are included, future drought is even worse.

The results are regarded as most valid at the global level, but the clear implication is that the parts of the world already stricken by drought, such as Africa, will be the places where the projected increase will have the most severe effects.

The study, by Eleanor Burke and two Hadley Centre colleagues, models how a measure of drought known as the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is likely to increase globally during the coming century with predicted changes in rainfall and heat around the world because of climate change. It shows the PDSI figure for moderate drought, currently at 25 per cent of the Earth's surface, rising to 50 per cent by 2100, the figure for severe drought, currently at about 8 per cent, rising to 40 cent, and the figure for extreme drought, currently 3 per cent, rising to 30 per cent.

Senior Met Office scientists are sensitive about the study, funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stressing it contains uncertainties: there is only one climate model involved, one future scenario for emissions of greenhouse gases (a moderate-to-high one) and one drought index. Nevertheless, the result is "significant", according to Vicky Pope, the head of the Hadley Centre's climate programme. Further work would now be taking place to try to assess the potential risk of different levels of drought in different places, she said.

The full study - Modelling the Recent Evolution of Global Drought and Projections for the 21st Century with the Hadley Centre Climate Model - will be published later this month in The Journal of Hydrometeorology .

It will be widely publicised by the British Government at the negotiations in Nairobi in November on a successor to the Kyoto climate treaty. But a preview of it was given by Dr Burke in a presentation to the Climate Clinic, which was formed by environmental groups, with The Independent as media partner, to press politicians for tougher action on climate change. The Climate Clinic has been in operation at all the party conferences.

While the study will be seen as a cause for great concern, it is the figure for the increase in extreme drought that some observers find most frightening.

"We're talking about 30 per cent of the world's land surface becoming essentially uninhabitable in terms of agricultural production in the space of a few decades," Mark Lynas, the author of High Tide, the first major account of the visible effects of global warming around the world, said. "These are parts of the world where hundreds of millions of people will no longer be able to feed themselves."

Mr Pendleton said: "This means you're talking about any form of development going straight out of the window. The vast majority of poor people in the developing world are small-scale farmers who... rely on rain."

A glimpse of what lies ahead

The sun beats down across northern Kenya's Rift Valley, turning brown what was once green. Farmers and nomadic herders are waiting with bated breath for the arrival of the "short" rains - a few weeks of intense rainfall that will ensure their crops grow and their cattle can eat.

The short rains are due in the next month. Last year they never came; large swaths of the Horn of Africa stayed brown. From Ethiopia and Eritrea, through Somalia and down into Tanzania, 11 million people were at risk of hunger.

This devastating image of a drought-ravaged region offers a glimpse of what lies ahead for large parts of the planet as global warming takes hold.

In Kenya, the animals died first. The nomadic herders' one source of sustenance and income - their cattle - perished with nothing to eat and nothing to drink. Bleached skeletons of cows and goats littered the barren landscape.

The number of food emergencies in Africa each year has almost tripled since the 1980s. Across sub-Saharan Africa, one in three people is under-nourished. Poor governance has played a part.

Pastoralist communities suffer most, rather than farmers and urban dwellers. Nomadic herders will walk for weeks to find a water hole or riverbed. As resources dwindle, fighting between tribes over scarce resources becomes common.

One of the most critical issues is under-investment in pastoralist areas. Here, roads are rare, schools and hospitals almost non-existent.

Nomadic herders in Turkana, northern Kenya, who saw their cattle die last year, are making adjustments to their way of life. When charities offerednew cattle, they said no. Instead, they asked for donkeys and camels - animals more likely to survive hard times.

Pastoralists have little other than their animals to rely on. But projects which provide them with money to buy food elsewhere have proved effective, in the short term at least.

Steve Bloomfield


Link (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1786829.ece)

Little Texan
10-04-2006, 03:36 PM
I wouldn't doubt it. We've already had the driest year I can ever remember here where I live, and we're presently in the midst of a severe drought as I'm typing this. East Texas may be desert pretty soon if we don't start getting some rain! I know of one lake around here that is nearly completely dried up...you can almost walk on dry ground to the middle of the lake, and all the boathouses and piers on the shore are suspended up in the air...I've never seen such!

scamper
10-04-2006, 03:48 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FORD
The century of drought

One third of the planet will be desert by the year 2100, ........

"We're talking about 30 per cent of the world's land surface

So what is it one third of the planet of 30 percent of the worlds land surface? Isn't 70 percent of the earths surface covered by water? This guy sounds like alot of fun at partys....

Nickdfresh
10-04-2006, 03:50 PM
We got nuthin' but rain here lately!

I can tell you, people can argue about Global Warming and all that. But it's pretty clear that the infamous Buffalo winters have gotten shorter. Yet they're more severe. It seems like winter is about two or three weeks and the rest is late fall or early spring. But we usually get a bad two or three week cold snap where we get most of the snowfall.

The biggest sign of global warming is the imbalance, the extremes of drought or rainy season.

m_dixon1984
10-04-2006, 05:34 PM
Gotta love the publishing of a worst-case-scenario scientific study with tree-hugging help-the-starving-african-nations socialists as the intended audience. Oh, the horror!!

Al Gore scare tactics won't work on me.

I remain very sceptical of the whole global warming issue and my scepticism is further fueled by one sided reporting. LISTEN UP - there is no scientific consensus regarding global warming. This is the biggest lie being reported. About the only thing agreed upon is that there is some localized climate change being observed by some scientists. Scientists in the environmental and geological fields can NOT agree on how it's caused, the current impact, the future impact, short-term solutions, or long-term solutions. But this doesn't make for good news. The only way global warming or climate change makes it in the news is to focus on the most extreme and scary position. The one where millions die and the planet is irreversibly changed. Well, because of my sceptical nature, I went out in search of the truth and, like always, found that there are many, many scientisits that wholeheartedly disagree with much of what is being reported.

I suggest that anyone who is truly interested in this topic use the Internet for it's second greatest purpose...researching topics tht interest you (first greatest purpose of the Internet, of course, is making porn available to the masses). You'll find lots of information about why the currently reported Global Warming issue should be treated with great scepticism. "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is a very good start although quite contoversial as most positions on this topic are.

Please don't rely on the media or FORD to provide you with your only insight into this topic. It deserves better and so does the planet.

M
M

Nitro Express
10-06-2006, 01:32 AM
I sold my boat because we litteraly had no water in either Jackson Lake or Palisades Resevior for the last sevral years.

The Tetons used to have glaciers on them year round. In August there was no glaciers on them. They were just bare rocks.

Nitro Express
10-06-2006, 01:41 AM
Shit. They can't even predict the hurrican season. Hey, if the supervolcano in the Yellowstone National Park region has had three erruptions every 600,000 years. It's due for another explosion.

If it goes, my white ass will be blown away almost instantly so I don't have to worry about the global cooling and a year of darkness it would cause.

Sometimes I feel like we are a bunch of ants in some kids sandbox and that kid has a magnifying glass and a bunch of firecrackers. LOL!

Nickdfresh
10-06-2006, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by m_dixon1984
...LISTEN UP - there is no scientific consensus regarding global warming. This is the biggest lie being reported...

M
M

Indeed, you keep reporting this "lie" alright. There is no POLITICAL consensus, but there is indeed plenty of scientific consensus!

Scientists Issue Global Warming Report
Wednesday, October 4, 2006 8:52 PM EDT
The Associated Press (http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?ps=969&id=13141287&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS)
By LINDA A. JOHNSON

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Global warming could strain the Northeast's power grid, farms, forests and marine fisheries by the next century unless carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 3 percent each year, according to a report released Wednesday.

The climate in the nine states — from New Jersey and Pennsylvania up to Maine — could become like that of the South with longer, much hotter summers and warmer winters with less snow, the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists said.

"This has enormous implications for human health. It puts a lot of stress on the energy system. It could lead to blackouts," said Katherine Hayhoe, an associate professor of geosciences at Texas Tech University and a lead author of the two-year study.

If power plant and auto emissions of carbon dioxide — considered the main culprit in global warming — continue unabated, average temperatures in the Northeast could rise between 6.5 degrees and 12.5 degrees by the end of the century, she said. A shift to cleaner, renewable energy sources would cut that increase in half, she said.

The study said Boston could see its number of 90-degree-plus summer days jump from one to 40 if no changes are made. New York City could have 70.

Doug Inkley, senior science adviser at the National Wildlife Federation, said the report was done by top-tier scientists and backs up his group's research showing a warmer climate in the Northeast will push out temperature-sensitive species from sugar maple and northern pine trees to songbirds and trout.

"This report is yet another wake-up call we cannot ignore," Inkley said.

The report targeted the Northeast because it is the world's seventh-largest source of emissions, behind the U.S. as a whole and five other nations, and because the region's leaders have taken steps to reduce emissions and could spur efforts elsewhere.

Mike MacCracken of The Climate Institute, a former head of the interagency group that did climate assessments under a Clinton-era research program, called the report "a high-quality job" that gives "pretty reliable indications of the amount of change."

John R. Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville, said regional analyses he's done indicate the latest climate models can't predict well for a region, especially for rain and snow.

He said the report's recommendations — mostly centered on replacing or upgrading buildings, cars and appliances with more energy-efficient ones — won't have much effect on the total amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere, partly because energy demand will keep growing.

———

On the Net:

Union of Concerned Scientists report: www.ucsusa.org

Guitar Shark
10-06-2006, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by m_dixon1984
LISTEN UP - there is no scientific consensus regarding global warming. This is the biggest lie being reported.

Keep sticking your head in the sand. There will soon be many more places for you to do so.

m_dixon1984
10-06-2006, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Keep sticking your head in the sand. There will soon be many more places for you to do so.

Wow, that statement has completely changed my outlook on this whole issue. :rolleyes:

But wait...global warming is supposed to melt the polar caps, thus making the seas rise, resulting in less land mass. Wouldn't that leave me with less sand in which to stick my head?

BTW, I'm confronting a problem and the problem is we're being lied to, often and blatantly. My head is sticking way up and is continually working on determining when I'm being fed a pile of bullshit. I'm quite comfortable with my position on this issue, thank-you-very-much.

You keep believing Al Gore because he has absolutely nothing to gain and has no reason to try to get a large portion of the american population on his side of an issue. ;)

M

Baby's On Fire
10-06-2006, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by m_dixon1984
Wow, that statement has completely changed my outlook on this whole issue. :rolleyes:

But wait...global warming is supposed to melt the polar caps, thus making the seas rise, resulting in less land mass. Wouldn't that leave me with less sand in which to stick my head?

BTW, I'm confronting a problem and the problem is we're being lied to, often and blatantly. My head is sticking way up and is continually working on determining when I'm being fed a pile of bullshit. I'm quite comfortable with my position on this issue, thank-you-very-much.

You keep believing Al Gore because he has absolutely nothing to gain and has no reason to try to get a large portion of the american population on his side of an issue. ;)

M

You're a total fucking idiot. Global warming ha sbeen a scientifici concern for the last 20 years. There is concensus by scientists AROUND THE WORLD. Invoking Al Gore's name to try and rebuff it proves to us you truly are an idiot blinded by your neo-facist support of the BCE.

The poalr icecaps ARE melting at a precarious rate. This has NEVER happened in geologic hisotry. The earth has been its warmest it has ever been on the average, and has been rising steadily.

You are a fucking idiot. I'm sure we have scientific concensus on that.

scamper
10-07-2006, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
This has NEVER happened in geologic hisotry.

Where are you getting your info?

m_dixon1984
10-08-2006, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
You're a total fucking idiot. Global warming ha sbeen a scientifici concern for the last 20 years. There is concensus by scientists AROUND THE WORLD. Invoking Al Gore's name to try and rebuff it proves to us you truly are an idiot blinded by your neo-facist support of the BCE.

The poalr icecaps ARE melting at a precarious rate. This has NEVER happened in geologic hisotry. The earth has been its warmest it has ever been on the average, and has been rising steadily.

You are a fucking idiot. I'm sure we have scientific concensus on that.

Um, it's you that's wrong. Relearn your geographic history before calling me names. Once you have a solid foundation for your position I'll gladly have a debate with you. I would start with your position that the earth is currently the warmest it has ever been, on average. This is so wrong I don't know where to begin with your re-eduacation. Maybe you could open a childrens book on dinosaurs, that will bring you back 250 million years, and cover a couple hundred million years. SPOILER ALERT: the earth was considerably warmer then than it is now, in the neighborhood of 10-15 degrees centigrade AND the polar regions were temperate and verdant.

Please educate yourself a little so you can have an intelligent position on this topic. Otherwise, find less intellectual topics on which to state your opinion. Maybe something about Britney's last shopping spree.

M

DEMON CUNT
10-08-2006, 03:25 AM
Show me a single subject as broad as global warming that ALL scientists agree on.

Historians and scholars don't even agree on the details of something as recent as the Holocaust. Let alone what happened a million years ago.

To fully dismiss something because every scientist (and the self-declared experts here) do not agree is just plain silly.

Real scientists are interested in all available data.

m_dixon1984
10-08-2006, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Show me a single subject as broad as global warming that ALL scientists agree on.

That's really what I'm bitching about when I say there is no consensus. The media, environmentalists, and Kyoto supporters, would love you to believe that every scientist on the planet agrees on every aspect of the issue. This just isn't true. Scientists, as a group, love to disagree with each other and rarely see eye to eye on any issue. The points being debated in the scientific community surrounding global warming are compelling. There's the planet's geological history, the scientific methods being used to gather the recent data, and the political angle to the issue, just to name a few. At the very least it should make people sceptical, and that really is my point. If you're going to have a strong opinion on this subject at least make it an informed one. Me, I'm going to remain sceptical and I'm not going to support any radical position.

M

DEMON CUNT
10-08-2006, 03:49 AM
Do you believe that we should be responsible when it comes to our behaviour and it's impact on our environment?

m_dixon1984
10-08-2006, 04:29 AM
If my position on the environment will help in the discussion then I'll answer you. Yes, I believe we need to be responsible and I do believe we have an impact on the environment. I don't believe this has to be a global concern because I don't believe the world can ever agree on anything that would make a difference, on a global scale. The interests of western nations, developing nations and third-world nations just differ so wildly that once they agree on any environmental proposal it would be so watered down as to be useless (Montreal and Kyoto Protocols both come to mind).

I think as a nation my country has failed miserably in holding big industry accountable for its polution levels. I've also been surprised by how long it has taken for Canada to adopt clean diesel laws, which it has only just done. For so long the Canadian people have essentially been fed the line that energy conservation, recycling, and composting, at a personal level would make an impact on our environment. It has proven not to be the case. Our politicians need to start balancing the interets of big industry with the need to protect our own environment. We need to start seeing some real benefits to the changes here at home before we can start concerning ourselves with the rest of world.

I'd love to see some real serious initiatives to reduce our need for gasoline powered vehicles. Initiatives that can only really come from dedicated politicians who aren't in the pocket of the automotive and oil industries. I'd like to see city politicians make some serious commintment to reducing smog levels in our cities, by possibly eliminating traffic in downtown city centres. I'd like politicians to truly embrace clean technologies for waste treatment, some of which are being used in european countries right now.

I think if we see true leadership from our politicians that we can also take pride in our individual contributions.

I was once again made furious when it was reported in Canada that we will not meet our Kyoto commitments for 2012 (or something) but that it wouldn't matter because we would simply buy climate credits from China, costing us the taxpayer Billions of dollars (dollars going to China - a country we were supposed to be boycotting because of their horrendous human rights record but have so conveniently ignored since they've opened their economy to the west). You see the environment just wouldn't benefit from this and is once again why I want my country to back out of Kyoto all together and start making real differences here at home.

I think if we can lead by example we can then hold other nations accountable as well and in the end we'll end up with a much cleaner environment that we can sustain. I don't think the solutions we're currently being force fed will make the slightest difference and to tie this back to my original position, scare tactics like the end-of-world predictions in FORD's posting are just downright insulting to my intelligence.

M