PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12285901

Preparing for climate change.

Abstract

There is a distinct probability that humankind is changing the climate and at the same time raising the sea level of the world. The most plausible projections we have now suggest a rise in mean world temperature of between 1 degree Celsius and 2 degrees Celsius by 2030--just 40 years hence. This is a bigger change in a smaller period than we know of in the experience of the earth's ecosystems and human societies. It implies that by 2030 the earth will be warmer than at any time in the past 120,000 years. In the same period, we are likely to see a rise of 15-30 centimeters in sea level, partly due to the melting of mountain glaciers and partly to the expansion of the warmer seas. This may not seem much--but it comes on top of the 12-centimeter rise in the past century and we should recall that over 1/2 the world's population lives in zones on or near coasts. A quarter meter rise in sea level could have drastic consequences for countries like the Maldives or the Netherlands, where much of the land lies below the 2-meter contour. The cause of climate change is known as the 'greenhouse effect'. Greenhouse glass has the property that it is transparent to radiation coming in from the sun, but holds back radiation to space from the warmed surfaces inside the greenhouse. Certain gases affect the atmosphere in the same way. There are 5 'greenhouse gases' and we have been roofing ourselves with them all: carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased 25% above preindustrial levels and are likely to double within a century, due to tropical forest clearance and especially to the burning of increasing quantities of coal and other fossil fuels; methane concentrations are now twice their preindustrial levels as a result of releases from agriculture; nitrous oxide has increased due to land clearance for agriculture, use of fertilizers, and fossil fuel combustion; ozone levels near the earth's surface have increased due mainly to pollution from motor vehicles; and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have been released in great quantities through their use in aerosol sprays, refrigerator fluids, and insulating foams. We can get rid of CFCs and curb the pollutants generating ozone, but it will be difficult to put the brake on either methane or nitrous oxide. And the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will demand major changes in energy policy as well as action to slow deforestation. It appears that we are already committed to rising temperatures and sea levels. The question is by how much, in which areas? A number of things can be done to prepare for these changes: Governments must recognize that there is a problem; Better models must be worked out, especially to define where the greatest impacts from climate change and sea level rise will hit; Reference scenarios must be developed to see what the impacts are likely to be in ecological, agricultural, social and economic terms; Every country should develop "avoidance strategies" to minimize risk (for example, by not building on land likely to be flooded); We must cut down on the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from human activities, by eliminating CFCs and adopting energy conservation programs and other measures to minimize CO2 release; Global agreements to protect the atmosphere are needed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Holdgate. 1989. Preparing for climate change.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12285901/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

One-dimensional daisyworld: spatial interactions and pattern formation.

The zero-dimensional daisyworld model of Watson and Lovelock (1983) demonstrates that life can unconsciously regulate a global environment. Here that model is extended to one dimension, incorporating a distribution of incoming solar radiation and diffusion of heat consistent with a spherical planet. Global regulatory properties of the original model are retained. The daisy populations are initially restricted to hospitable regions of the surface but exert both global and local feedback to increase this habitable area, eventually colonizing the whole surface. The introduction of heat diffusion destabilizes the coexistence equilibrium of the two daisy types. In response, a striped pattern consisting of blocks of all black or all white daisies emerges. There are two mechanisms behind this pattern formation. Both are connected to the stability of the system and an overview of the mathematics involved is presented. Numerical experiments show that this pattern is globally determined. Perturbations in one region have an impact over the whole surface but the regulatory properties of the system are not compromised by transient perturbations. The relevance of these results to the Earth and the wider climate modelling field is discussed.

Climate↗

Cavitation, stomatal conductance, and leaf dieback in seedlings of two co-occurring Mediterranean shrubs during an intense drought.

Seedling shrubs in the Mediterranean semi-arid climate are subjected to intense droughts during summer. Thus, seedlings often surpass their limits of tolerance to water stress, resulting in the loss of hydraulic conductivity due to xylem cavitation. The response in terms of stomatal conductance, vulnerability to cavitation, leaf dieback, and survival were analysed in two co-occurring seedlings of mastic tree (Pistacia lentiscus L.) and kermes oak (Quercus coccifera L.) during an intense drought period. Both species reacted to drought with steep decreases in stomatal conductance before the critical water potential brought about the onset of cavitation events. Q. coccifera showed wider safety margins for avoiding runaway embolism than P. lentiscus and these differences could be related to the particular drought strategy displayed by each species: water saver or water spender. The limits for survival, resprout capacity and leaf dieback were also analysed in terms of loss of conductivity. By contrast with previous studies, the species showing higher seedling survival in the presence of drought also showed higher susceptibility to cavitation and operated with a lower safety margin for cavitation. Both species showed a leaf specific conductivity (LSC) threshold below which leaf biomass had to be regulated to avoid runaway embolism. However, each species displayed a different type of response: P. lentiscus conserved total leaf area up to 100% loss of LSC, whereas Q. coccifera continuously adjusted leaf biomass throughout the drought period in order to maintain the LSC very close to the maximum values recorded without loss of conductivity. Both species maintained the capacity for survival until the loss of conductivity was very nearly 100%.

Climate↗

Natural background concentrations of nutrients in streams and rivers of the conterminous United States.

Determining natural background concentrations of nutrients in watersheds in the developed world has been hampered by a lack of pristine sampling sites covering a range of climatic conditions and basin sizes. Using data from 63 minimally impacted U.S. Geological Survey reference basins, we developed empirical models of the background yield of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) from small watersheds as functions of annual runoff, basin size, atmospheric nitrogen deposition rate, and region-specific factors. We applied previously estimated in-stream loss rates to yields from the small watershed models to obtain estimates of background TN and TP yield and concentration throughout the stream/river network in 14 ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Background TN concentration varies from less than 0.02 mg L(-1) in the xeric west to more than 0.5 mg L(-1) along the southeastern coastal plain. Background TP concentration varies from less than 0.006 mg L-(1) in the xeric west to more than 0.08 mg L(-1) in the great plains. TN concentrations in U.S. streams and rivers currently exceed natural background levels by a much larger factor (6.4) than do TP concentrations (2.0). Because of local variation in runoff and other factors, the range of background nutrient concentrations is very large within some nutrient ecoregions. It is likely that background concentrations in some streams in these regions exceed proposed nutrient criteria.

Climate↗