As global temperatures continue to rise due to anthropogenic climate change, there is a need to stop or slow this warming trend. Mitigation and adaption attempts have fallen short when it comes to climate change and the warming needs to be stopped before earth reaches the 2°C tipping point of no return. Previous studies have shown geoengineering provides the means to stop or slow the warming. Literature on geoengineering has determined the best solution to climate change is mitigation, but geoengineering is a secondary plan that may be used if mitigation attempts do not succeed.

Through solar radiation management, geoengineering can lower global temperatures.  Reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space using cloud seeding and stratospheric aerosols will lower radiation reaching earth’s surface and lower temperatures. Geoengineering will be effective at lowering global temperatures, but it is not a solution to climate change. Geoengineering offers extra time until carbon emissions are cut so the earth will not enter a new stable state due to rising temperatures. The best way to combat climate change is through a dual mitigation and geoengineering strategy. All in all, geoengineering is a plan B for climate change, but it could have unintended consequences in the future and that’s why mitigation should be the world’s primary focus.

Resource:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/solar_geoengineering_is_not_a_quick_fix.html

As most people know, climate change threatens plants and animals alike. It can raise sea levels and scorch already hot desert sands. As temperatures increase, plants and animals will try and move to reach their preferred climates that are moving ever north, but they may not be able to move fast enough. One idea to help prevent entire ecosystems from going extinct is to actually pick them up and move them.

In New Zealand where some native plants were in the way of a new coalmine, they picked them up and placed them in the location of an old coalmine. This is called ecosystem-scale translocation. This already exists for coal mining so the same principle can be used for climate change. The only question that comes into play is which ecosystems should be moved first as climate change is variable across the planet. In addition, some ecosystems are more prone to stress when moved and moving a new ecosystem should not affect an already existing ecosystem in the same location.

While this does not solve the problem of climate change, moving an ecosystem could provide the planet with extra time to move to more renewable sources of energy while maintaining ecosystem biodiversity.

Resource: http://theconversation.com/climate-change-threatens-entire-ecosystems-lets-pick-them-up-and-move-them-57121

As glaciers around the world are melting at an accelerated rate, sea level is continuing to rise. While it is mainly affecting those who live close to bodies of water, it is also starting to affect space exploration. Around two thirds of NASA’s land coverage is within five meters of sea level. These include including launch sites at the Kennedy Space Center and Houston’s Johnson Space Center. This, along with NASA’s drop in budget in recent years is a concern for space exploration.

Due to the close proximity to sea level in these locations, it puts launching sites at risk of floodwaters. As most people know, putting humans into space is expensive and if these sites are damaged it could cost taxpayers. Another concern is that some senators think NASA is spending too much money on earth sciences rather than space exploration. NASA administrator Charlie Bolden responded by telling them, “We can’t go anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes underwater.”

This article grabbed my attention because I had never thought of space exploration and climate change going hand in hand. It just goes to show that climate change can affect us all, even if we are 5 miles away or exploring space.

Resource:

http://spacenews.com/rising-sea-levels-could-have-acute-impact-on-nasa/

A recent modeling study has predicted that due to climate change, food shortages could cost the world 500,000 extra deaths per year by 2050. The model predicted a 3 percent decrease in calories per person per day. Red meat, fruit and vegetable consumption will take the biggest hit. However, this study also finds that deaths caused by malnutrition will actually fall by 2050.

The model predicts that food availability will actually increase by 2050 even with climate change implications.  Calories per person will be up to 3008 per day from 2817 right now. While this is good that calories will grow, it is not up to the ideal level of 3106 per day that would occur without climate change.

While it seems confusing that calories AND deaths will increase, it is taking into account that the population will also be increasing. This means the extra deaths result from the predicted 3106 calories per day dropping to 3008 due to climate change. The most impacted areas will be areas with high populations that have little access to food like China and India.

I think the study was just trying to inform people that climate change would affect food supplies. Hot places will get hotter and be unable to grow crops, but cool places may actually warm up enough to grow crops. Middle latitudes will actually have weather that is more favorable.  This is a problem because some of the biggest polluters are in middle latitudes and many living in these latitudes will not see the negative effects of climate change.

Resource:

https://weather.com/health/news/climate-change-food-scarcity

In this article, the redistribution of water resources around the globe is discussed. Comparing the years between 1968 and 2010, more water originating from the Artic and North Atlantic Oceans is present lower south in recent years due to increased evaporation up north caused by climate change. They were able to find the source of the water by using isotopic analysis that tells a story of where the water has traveled.  An increased temperature from climate change is causing the ice caps up north to melt faster than ever and this is causing an unstable polar vortex that frequently plunges into North America and brings cold temperatures to the Eastern US. The change in the polar vortex also brings all of that extra water vapor to the south disrupting precipitation distribution.

This is a problem because this can change many of the mechanisms used to transport water around the globe. Lower air temperatures can hold less moisture than warmer temperatures, an increase or decrease in temperature can change when, and where the moisture is released. Seeing as this article is only focusing on one area of the globe, it is hard to say what impacts other areas are having as well. This article stood out to me mainly because of the distance. Changes in the Artic are affecting people over 2500 miles away. It just goes to show that our actions do have equal or greater reactions and we should be conscious of them.

Resource:

http://www.esf.edu/communications/view.asp?newsID=4162

As outlined in the lecture, global warming leads to ocean acidification, which is lowering the ocean’s pH level and causing damage to coral and other ocean life. Many animals in the ocean use calcium carbonate to create their protective shells and exoskeletons, but lower pH levels reduce their ability to create them. While much of ocean life will suffer from ocean acidification, one animal is adapting and fighting back against ocean acidification with mixed results.

The ordinary mussel is adapting to lower pH levels. The mussel is creating more amorphous calcium carbonate to compensate for lower pH levels destroying their shells. Since amorphous calcium carbonate is much more unstable than regular calcium carbonate, the shells are becoming much more brittle and less flexible than previously. This can lead to more breakage in heavy seas and leaves them more susceptible to predators.

While it does seem that mussels are fighting back, it probably is not enough to prepare them for even lower pH levels. This experiment also does not take into account the other effects if ocean acidification and how this can reduce the mussels food source. In addition, the repair function of amorphous calcium carbonate is still lacking. I think the takeaway message from this article is that even with climate change, some animals are trying to adapt. If we slow down climate change or halt it where it is at, there may be ways for the world to adapt.

Resource:
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-mussels-oceanic-acidification.html

Some GCM Models have shown that the Indian Ocean is warming faster than any other ocean due to global warming. This could be due to a number of reasons including restricted ocean circulation due to the ocean being primarily landlocked compared to the Pacific and Atlantic. This leads to heat being dispersed through the whole ocean at a much slower rate. This spells trouble for countries surrounding the Indian Ocean.

Higher temperatures could mean a decrease in phytoplankton and could weaken the monsoon season of South Asia. A decrease in phytoplankton would mean a decrease in fishing as it is the base of marine life food chains. Many South Asian countries are dependent on fishing so this would affect food supplies for a large portion of the earth’s population. In addition, a shift and weakening of the monsoon season could rob many people of much needed rain in the monsoon season. Most places will receive less rain and crops could suffer while editorial locations around the Indian Ocean could experience a rise in precipitation but this may still lead to adverse effects as rainfall totals will be unpredictable. Higher temperatures means the atmosphere can hold higher levels of moisture and this could lead to longer droughts outside of monsoon season.

This article caught my attention because such a small area holds the majority of the world’s population and global warming would be affecting so many people.

Resource: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=141051

In last week’s blog I discussed how Greenland’s ice sheet is melting at a very fast rate and how the introduction of cold, freshwater could disrupt ocean circulation. I will connect that to this week’s blog as scientists believe an ancient Ice Age dam failure impacted local climate in South America. An ice dam contained a giant lake in South America, and when the dam broke/melted tons of freshwater was released into both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. This is believed to have changed rainfall totals and ocean temperatures around South America as ocean circulation was changed.

I can connect this with general climate models because no matter how accurate we can get them, there is always room for error. Unknowns and changes in small things can cause butterfly effects and change a whole climate. That is why every GCM is slightly different.

These scientists used a climate model to predict the impact of dumping all this amount of freshwater into the oceans and they hope it will give them an idea as to what Greenland’s and eventually Antarctica’s melting ice sheets will do to ocean circulation. This could give GCM’s and extra factor to better predict future climates.

Resource: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113412583/massive-ancient-ice-age-dam-failure-impacted-local-climate-pacific-ocean-021316/

As anyone who follows climate news knows, Greenland’s ice sheet is melting at a rate faster than ever. While this is a problem in itself, it may also be causing damage to the ocean circulation. Cold, fresh water from the ice sheet mixes in with the warm, salty ocean just south of Greenland. This is normal and has been driving ocean circulation for centuries, but with freshwater being lighter than salt water, the oceanic circulation can be disrupted with a higher level of cold fresh water. This can mean cooler summers and winters in the North Atlantic along with higher sea levels over North America.

As ocean circulation is one of the main drivers for climates around the world, this can also have serious side effects across the whole world. Cooler fresh water can decrease the strong currents circulating deep in the ocean and may cause warm water to rise and cool water to sink in different places across the world altering local climates. This would have serious consequences for anyone who makes a living off the ocean like fishermen and sailors. In addition, farmers would suffer as the climate becomes unpredictable and planting and harvesting times become disrupted.

If the melting continues at this increased rate, scientists will have to work overtime to determine exactly what the effects will be globally. As climate change continues, the world may reach a tipping point it cannot come back from.

Resource:

http://www.newsweek.com/greenland-meltwater-could-mess-ocean-circulation-418976

As we all know, there was a big snowstorm that hit the east coast last week. Some areas received around 30 inches of snow.  This article by the NPR discussing El Nino states that this massive snowstorm can possibly be attributed to recent climate change. With one of the biggest El Nino’s on record occurring this year, the northeast should be experiencing a relatively dry and mild winter. This has been true so far this year, but not when cooler arctic air dropped down from the north and hit the warm wet air flowing through the southern US. El Nino is caused by unusually warm oceans in the southern pacific and with global warming, this could happen much more frequently. While winters would be more mild in the northeast, massive storms could happen more frequently when arctic air drops into the area. This is all just a theory as of now, but we may be able to determine this as the ocean warms and El Nino’s become more frequent. Strong El Nino’s could also mean strong La Nina’s as the water cools. Strong La Nina’s would mean much cooler and wetter winters. It seems the northeast will not catch a break when it comes to climate change.

Resources:

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/27/464505488/a-big-el-nino-likely-set-last-weeks-blizzard-in-motion

This last week we have learned about rising CO2 levels in and how they have increased over the last 100 years. As someone who is very interested in geoengineering, I found the article “A Sunshade to help Southern Africa Cope with Climate Change?” from The Huffington Post that discusses C02 levels and unique ways to combat global warming. The article goes on to say the ultimate goal is to reduce C02 emissions but some countries rely too much on fossil fuels to make that happen right now. Geoengineering may be an answer to that. Using geoengineering, scientists could inject the atmosphere with S02 which acts as a kind of sunblock that reflects back some of the suns radiation.  Reflecting back some of that radiation would lower temperatures in Southern Africa and reduce evaporation from crops and water supplies. I thought this was a good article to discuss because it could give some people the idea that global warming is not a problem anymore if we can just change the weather whenever we want. This is not the case, however. SO2 is a harmful pollutant and if it were released into the atmosphere constantly, humans and animals would suffer many health consequences. SO2 can be an option for the short term in some areas prone to drought but reducing CO2 emissions should still be the primary concern.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-africa/a-sunshade-to-help-southe_b_9047336.html