Global warming to worsen human tragedies: IPCC

Impact of climate change ‘harrowing’

AP

Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They are likely to worsen as the world warms from man-made climate change, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will issue a report next March on how global warming is already affecting the way people live and what will happen in the future, including a worldwide drop in income.

A leaked copy of a draft of the summary of the report appeared online Friday on a climate skeptic’s website. Governments will spend the next few months making comments about it.

“We’ve seen a lot of impacts and they’ve had consequences,” Carnegie Institution climate scientist Chris Field, who heads the report, said Saturday. “And we will see more in the future.”

Urban centers, where most of the world’s population now lives, are the most vulnerable, as are the globe’s poorest people.

“Throughout the 21st century, climate change impacts will slow down economic growth and poverty reduction, further erode food security and trigger new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger,” the report says. “Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low- and lower-middle income countries and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries with increasing inequality.”

For people living in poverty, the report says, “climate-related hazards constitute an additional burden.”

The report says scientists have high confidence that what it calls certain “key risks” will occur:

People dying from warming- and sea rise-related flooding, especially in big cities.

Famine because of temperature and rainfall changes, especially in poorer nations.

Farmers going broke because of a lack of water.

Infrastructure failures because of extreme weather.

Dangerous and deadly heat waves worsening.

Certain land and marine ecosystems failing.

“Human interface with the climate system is occurring and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems,” the 29-page summary says.

None of the threats talked about in the report are solely due to global warming nor is climate change even the leading cause, the scientists say. But a warmer world, with bursts of heavy rain and prolonged drought, will worsen some of these existing effects.

For example, regarding disease, the report says until about 2050, “climate change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating health problems that already exist” and then it will lead to worse health compared to a future with no further warming.

If emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas continue at current trajectories, “the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year will compromise normal human activities including growing food or working outdoors,” the report says.

Scientists estimate the world economy may continue to grow, but once the global temperature rises about 1.5 degrees from the current level, it could lead to worldwide economic losses between 0.2 and 2 percent of income.

One of the more controversial sections of the report involves climate change and war. “Climate change indirectly increases risks from violent conflict in the form of civil war, inter-group violence and violent protests by exacerbating well-established drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks,” it says.

The summary went through each continent detailing risks and possible ways that countries can adapt to them.

For North America, the highest risks over the long term are from wildfires, heat waves and flooding. Water — too much and too little — and heat are the biggest risks for Europe, South America and Asia, with South America and Asia having to deal with drought-related food shortages. Africa gets those risks and more: starvation and disease. Australia and New Zealand get the unique risk of losing their coral reef ecosystems, and small island nations risk being inundated by rising seas.

However, Field pointed out that countries can lessen some of the harms through reduced fossil fuel emissions and systems to cope with other changes. “The reason I’m not depressed is because I see the difference between a world in which we don’t do anything and a world in which we try hard to get our arms around the problem,” he said.

  • Jim O’Neil

    17 year now with no rise in temperatures.

  • Leslie Graham

    The first thing that climate change is going to wreck is the economy.

  • Michael Williams

    Climate change is very complicated and forecasting it is equally difficult. Plate tectonics, volcanic activity, and solar cycles are all factors that drastically outweigh human activity. The grand scale of the entire system and the fact that there is no control to compare to that scale, leads to educated opinions that can favor one side over the other; with financial and political influences that distort both sides of the story, leading to a lack of an objective scientific study on the subject.

    There is no denying that climate change occurs and that the forces of nature will at times cause great devastation to humanity; and this will not change until humanity is no longer the driving force on this world. But to think that human activity is the sole cause is foolish. We cannot implement zero carbon balance on a global scale because it is too expensive. Case point is China, good luck getting them to stop burning coal; they would rather sacrifice their own people and their local environment to maximize economic growth at any cost; all while other nations are using tax revenue to invest and subsidize green technology that is less efficient and more expensive.

    Health concerns, droughts, volatile weather, and changes in sea level are all events that have happened before and will continue to happen in the future. The bigger concern that no one is discussing, possible because it is taboo, is the fact that these factors become more obvious due to modern telecommunications, and the fact that they are more probable to occur while also becoming increasingly devastating due to increasing population growth and density.

    Lastly, on the subject of .18C in 17 years. That number is literally humorous and inconsequential. It is a very petty number that is being used to “debunk” someones argument.

    • Starviking

      Actually, volcanic activity and solar cycles have minimal impact on climate change. Plate tectonics are great for sequestering the CO2 in carbonate rocks, but that works on geological time scales. What we have now is much, much too rapid for tectonics to have an effect.

      • http://www.sheldonthinks.com/ Andrew Sheldon

        Good point….but not so fast. Its not necessarily a ‘zero sum’ game though, and I think you can argue that an average of 8cm of subducted crust at the convergent plant boundaries is more important because of its ‘sediment’ loaded. Subduction also drives off a lot of volatiles from the overlying continent, not to mention at mid-ocean ridges. Iceland is the volcano that ‘erupts’ before our eyes for 8 years or so; but what about the dissolved CO2 being emitted into seas in subterranean environments. These scientists are blowing ‘CO2′ up each other’s behinds…they really are scaremongering. This is a plausible cause for acidification that no one sees.

      • Starviking

        If dissolved CO2 was being released into the seas by undersea volcanoes, then we would be able to detect that – the concentrations will be higher nearer the volcanoes, as opposed to more diffuse with an atmospheric origin. There should also be more CO2 in the atmosphere above those points. I have seen nothing to support the undersea volcanoes hypothesis.

        Antoher point is this: if the volcanoes are the main contributor to ocean acidification, something which has been documented as occuring in recent times, then how long have these volcanoes been active?

        If they’ve been active for a long time, then were our oceans alkaline in the historical past?

        If they’ve just started, in concert, around the world, then what is driving them? Also, why have we not seen a similar increase in land volcano activity?

        I’ll finish by noting that the USGS says that there simply aren’t enough surface and submarine volcanoes to match human-driven CO2 emissions.

        http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

      • http://www.sheldonthinks.com/ Andrew Sheldon

        One might ask whether anyone is looking? The source you cite is for a very different type of volcano; not the most populous and ‘inaccessible’ ones – MOR fissure vents. But after more thought, it occurs to me that its not going to be ‘bubbling’ into the sea so much as reacting with ‘wallrock’, in which case its actually going to be absorbed by olivine (Mg-silicate) in volcanic zones.
        http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/gpg/projects/carbon-sequestration.
        Not convinced by your argument; because mid ocean ridges (MORs) emissions are could be precipitating CO2 as carbonates at depths below 4200m – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_compensation_depth. I would have thought a relatively ‘dry’ non-carbonaceous source, but according to this the CO2 is from metamorphism. http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
        I have no idea whether there is a huge CO2 excess, as a ‘wallrock’ once reacted because resistance to further reaction at its face, so you might expect an excess of CO2 emitted.
        When you say ‘volcanoes’, are you talking about those mid-ocean ridges/fissure vents that break the world up into plenty of plates…or just the cone shaped ones that scientists have access to. Hard to believe any scientists really have ‘empirical evidence’ to know better. How many hours have submersibles been at sea; over how much MOR?

      • http://www.sheldonthinks.com/ Andrew Sheldon

        I also note that “Bicarbonate ions also remain in solution; a remnant of the carbonic acid that was used to weather the rocks” (see http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm) – the implication being that the impact of greater land clearing, thanks to deforestation is resulting in greater CO2/ acidifying sea from river runoff. Significant enough? Maybe one of a number of factors. You say there is no increase in the amount of volcanism; but that’s only the volcanism that affects humans at ‘vent’; not the vastness of MORs which are relatively ‘passive’ volcanic features stretching around the world. It seems members of humanity are either arrogantly postulating to know everything about this world, or they apprehensive about knowing anything. I’m not calling for balance; but how about some ‘discerning’ context.

  • Michael Radcliffe

    I hope this article is well-separated from the pieces that stir up anti-nuclear phobia. We don’t want any astute readers to be confronted by climate change and then have to read alarmist fear-mongering about the only actual way to deal with it. The cognitive dissonance may confuse them!

  • Starviking

    What space catastrophe?

    • http://www.sheldonthinks.com/ Andrew Sheldon

      Near-earth objects. They monitor ones of a certain size. But they don’t catch them all, and you’d have to wonder if there is a blind spot. I don’t trust the drivers. lol.

      • Starviking

        Yup, we do need to keep a good eye on the NEOs too.

  • http://www.sheldonthinks.com/ Andrew Sheldon

    Wait a few more years for the trend to change. Salesmen like the ‘quick sale’ and therein ‘pressure tactics’. That chart looks like its just about to turn. Looking at your chart, can you explain why the post-WWII boom was a period of low temperatures…sorry…falling CO2 emissions. I’m guessing they were measuring more heat island affect back then; but that’s a side issue…which can’t be undone. I wonder how they got that skewing of data out of the system. Something is very wrong….I can feel it. lol