Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Latest IPCC report notes grim effects of climate change on ecosystems

As expected, the news is mostly bad, and then worse, and then worse still

Posted by Lisa Hymas at 5:22 PM on 05 Apr 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change impacts | IPCC

severe climate advisoryClimate 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 ...

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).  

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?

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

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.  

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 ?

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!

The 5% Project

apocalypticism

Well put, my dear Leibnizian grouch!

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
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
It starts at the top

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.

Ah, finally something for which the whitehouse can be shown to have provided real leadership.

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:

  1. Increased health

  2. Cheaper housing and land

  3. More food.

  4. Less energy need for heating homes

  5. Less pollution because of less energy need (see 4)

  6. Lower sea levels because of crustal expansion and increased vaporization

  7. More fresh water because of melting and increased water vapor.

  8. Decline in disease because of healthier climate

  9. Decline in pestilence.

  10. Increase in intelligence and emotional sensitivity as well as intuition as our brains are heated to optimal functioning temperature.


Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))
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.

There Ain't No Pine Trees In Fiji

This would be unprecedented and could represent a novel and catastrophic problem for eastern pines.

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.


Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

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.

How about the rest of us?

I think that residents of St. Paul wouldn't mind waking up to 70 degree weather and palm trees in their backyard.

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.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Never mind

Forgive me, I thought we were talking about the same planet.

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...

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...  

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.

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.

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
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...

Non-irreversible extinctions

Just curious, what other type of extinction is there besides irreversible? ;^)

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

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."

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks