In January, I launched the #365climateimpacts project, in which I’ll spend a year tweeting stories of the many ways climate change is impacting people, ecosystems, and the earth; ideas for how to communicate about climate change more effectively; and analyses of technologies and policy proposals that show promise for combatting climate change. Here’s what I’ve shared in the last two weeks.
What does a graph like this mean? It means ocean is taking up heat that CO2 emissions would otherwise add to atmosphere.
I got a bit gif happy with today’s #365climateimpacts tweetstream, so you should really head over to twitter to enjoy the thread. I like snow. I like to sled, build snowmen, snowshoe, and how pretty snow is. Loss of snow is one reason I care about climate change. Today it is 57 F and raining steadily here in NE Ohio. I keep thinking about how we’d have a foot of snow if it were cold enough. Instead, I spent an hour in my class talking about the fun ways hydrologists have of measuring snow. With bare ground outside.
The average US snow season shortened by 2 weeks since 1972. Snow covered area is decreasing. The figure below is from the US EPA’s great Climate Change Indicators site, under the heading “Snow Cover.”
This figure shows the timing of each year’s snow cover season in the contiguous 48 states and Alaska, based on an average of all parts of the country that receive snow every year. The shaded band spans from the first date of snow cover until the last date of snow cover.
Climate normals say that my area averages 45″ of snow per winter, but I haven’t seen anywhere near that most of the 5 years I’ve lived here. Of course, 5 years isn’t long enough to identify any trend (I’m not arguing it is), but my experience fits in the pattern of less snowy winters that are being observed across the United States. Here’s some data stretching 60 years. The figure below is from the US EPA’s great Climate Change Indicators site, under the heading “Snowfall.” Red is less snow, more rain.
This figure shows the average rate of change in total snowfall from 1930 to 2007 at 419 weather stations in the contiguous 48 states. Blue circles represent increased snowfall; red circles represent a decrease.
February 8 (National Kite Flying Day):
Good morning, Twitter. It’s National Kite Flying Day! Do you think I can tie that to climate change?
President Obama has been appreciating kite flying, recently.
Back in the day, it wasn’t just surfboards powered by wind. It was big ships. Admittedly, with sails, not kites, but I’m doing the best I can to tie to #nationalkiteflyingday.
Modern shipping produces huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and wind is a renewable, carbon-free energy source. One idea is to attach big kites to ships to provide free & CO2-free energy.
It’s the middle of winter & something is seriously wrong with Arctic sea ice. Sea ice hit record low extents in November, December, and January. Nice reporting at Mashable by Andrew Freedman.
This figure shows the percentage of the land area of the contiguous 48 states where a much greater than normal portion of total annual precipitation has come from extreme single-day precipitation events. The bars represent individual years, while the line is a nine-year weighted average.
A “pineapple express” atmospheric river takes aim at California in December 2014. (NOAA/NASA GOES image)
Minnesota Public Radio ran a fantastic feature on how climate change is affecting ice cover on Lake Superior between Bayfield and Madeling Island, Wisconsin. For 250 year-round residents of the island, winter offers an ice road and the freedom to move back and forth without being tied to the ferry schedule. Except that, for two years running, the ice hasn’t been thick enough to drive on and the ferry has run all winter. This story is personal for me, because my family has owned land on Madeline Island for 4 generations, and I remember the thrill and terror of driving the ice road on winter visits.
The view from our family’s land on Madeline Island, February 3rd, 2017. Photo courtesy of J. Jarvis.
California is having a very wet winter, with multiple atmospheric rivers dumping feet of precipitation in the mountains. Oroville Dam on the Feather River, is the nation’s tallest dam, is facing serious engineering challenges. This Storify has some of the best links to a rapidly evolving situation.
Our changing climate is already affecting lives in a multitude of ways, and the impacts of climate change will only increase as the world continues to heat up. But because climate operates in the background, it’s easy to ignore the magnitude of the changes happening around us, as we are caught up in a daily news cycle and the rhythms of our own lives. 2017 seems fated to be an eventful – and exhausting – year and it would be all too easy to put climate change on the back burner, while facing seemingly more urgent crises. But, the longer we avoid tackling climate change head on, the more dramatic the impacts we are going to be facing.
I quietly launched a new personal project in January, and now that I’m a month in, I’m ready to tell you about it. I’m tweeting one climate change story per day for each day in 2017, with the tag #365climateimpacts. I’m aiming to tweet timely news stories or compelling visualizations across a wide range of climate change impacted arenas, from oceans to ice, from food to energy, from policy to theology, and more. While I’ve tagged the tweets with the word impacts, I’ll cover climate science and climate solutions as well as the impacts of past, present, and future climate change.
My goals for this project are three-fold:
For those of us who are climate concerned, my goal is to keep climate change on the front burner of our collective agenda with daily reminders of the pervasiveness and magnitude of climate change implications and the hope that individual choice and policy and technological solutions have to offer.
For those who are climate cautious or disengaged, I hope that the in the diversity of topics I tweet at least one will make it across your timeline and resonate with you and the things you care about. We know that just piling on facts doesn’t change people’s minds, but finding a genuine connection is a first step towards a real dialogue. As much as a one-to-many, 140-character limited platform lets me do, I hope I connect with you at some point this year.
The term “Climate Change” is now loaded with so much political baggage that it becomes almost impossible to hold a discussion across political lines. In stakeholder interviews, people generally understand and acknowledge the impacts of climate change on local and regional scales, as long as you don’t call it “Climate Change”. This has been my experience working in rural coastal communities, which tend to be strongly conservative and intimately connected to the changing ocean.
Which is why, when I talk about Climate Change, I don’t talk about science.
When I talk about Climate Change, I talk about Fishing.
A warmer atmosphere can hold more water, so it’s not too surprising that the hottest year on record also had the most precipitable water in the atmosphere. Still it’s nice to see the physics theory borne out in the data.
There was a problem connecting to Twitter.
You are reading one of my #ClimateResolutions right now.
Scientists like me study carbon emissions, deforestation, ocean acidification, desertification, sea-level rise, glacial melting, landscape degradation, groundwater salination, invasive species, global warming and more. There is very little good news to share. Today’s environmental problems are easily big enough to eclipse our inadequate solutions. When people tell me that climate change makes them feel hopeless, I breathe deep, and then I respond. I don’t answer them because I have a good response, but because we all deserve at least a bad response. Here is what I say.
The way I personally counter the despair that reading the latest climate change news can bring is by thinking about all of the technologies and solutions we already have in hand, and how the economics are steadily working ever more in their favor. President Obama makes a strong case for “The irreversible momentum of clean energy” in a policy forum article in Science magazine. I have a feeling Obama (2017) is going to be a highly cited paper over the next few years.
The mounting economic and scientific evidence leave me confident that trends toward a clean-energy economy that have emerged during my presidency will continue and that the economic opportunity for our country to harness that trend will only grow.
Days before handing over power to a Republican administration, the EPA managed to complete a mid-term review of greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars – more than a year ahead of schedule. Wired has the story:
By 2025, cars would have to nearly double their average fuel efficiency (a kind of measure of emissions) and deliver, on average, more than 50 miles per gallon (which, for arcane reasons, equates to a real world figure of 36 mpg). The auto industry caved and agreed, with the caveat that by April 2018, the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do a thorough review of the rules, and adjust them if they proved unduly expensive or just plain unworkable.
By completing the review early – and finding the standards appropriate – the EPA just made it harder for the next administration to take a step backwards on car emissions.
There was a problem connecting to Twitter.
There’s some debate over whether we should really be lumping the Arctic and Antarctic onto the same plot, but there’s no denying that this is a pretty stunning departure from recorded history of sea ice.
We knew it was coming, but January 18th is when NOAA and NASA confirmed that 2016 was the hottest year on record, beating out its immediate predecessor.
We show that over the past 50 years, the population of emperor penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri) in Terre Adélie has declined by 50% because of a decrease in adult survival during the late 1970s. At this time there was a prolonged abnormally warm period with reduced sea-ice extent. Mortality rates increased when warm sea-surface temperatures occurred in the foraging area and when annual sea-ice extent was reduced, and were higher for males than for females. In contrast with survival, emperor penguins hatched fewer eggs when winter sea-ice was extended. These results indicate strong and contrasting effects of large-scale oceanographic processes and sea-ice extent on the demography of emperor penguins, and their potential high susceptibility to climate change.
A stunning visualization of the trends in global temperature over the last 150 years in this temperature spiral, posted by Climate Central.
Global temperature spiral, updated to include 2016 data. Created by Ed Hawkins.
Climate change is already affecting Ohio. Find out how climate change affects your state, on this fantastic climate impacts site (produced by the Federal Government): https://statesummaries.ncics.org/ (Note: If this site disappears, I have copies of the info for the states where I’ve lived: OH, NC, OR, MN).
One of three key messages on climate change impacts being experienced by Ohio. The others focus on increasing temperature (and risks for urban areas) and increasing drought risks. What are the key messages for your state?
Unsure how things like volcanic eruptions and air pollution play into the climate change we are experiencing? This data visualization from Bloomberg does a nice job showing how we can’t explain historical temperature trends without CO2 emissions, and what roles other factors have been playing in the temperature record.
Peatlands are natural storehouse of carbon from the atmosphere — unless they are destroyed. Then, all the carbon goes back up into the atmosphere. Scientists have recently mapped a huge peatland in the Congo basin. It’s estimated to store the equivalent of 20 years worth of fossil fuel emissions from the United States, over an area the size of New York state. Let’s work to make sure it stays protected and the carbon stays in the ground.
Are you watching Katherine Hayhoe’s Global Weirding series of videos yet? You should. One thing I love about Dr. Hayhoe is how clearly she explains why a “just the facts” approach won’t work to convince people skeptical of climate change’s reality. That’s the focus of the latest episode of her series.
Average change in population affected per country given 4?C global warming. Hatching indicates countries where the confidence level of the average change is less than 90%. Figure copyright EU, used in spirit of fair use.
In a month filled with signs that the new US administration will roll back federal comittments to combatting climate change, California is a beacon of light. The state of California, one of the world’s largest economies in it’s own right, is continuing forward with its efforts to decrease its greenhouse gas emissions. As California knows, once the groundwork for a low carbon future is laid, the economics of going backward don’t make sense.
“There’s a whole ecosystem built to reduce emissions,” said Jon Costantino, an environmental policy advisor who previously worked at the California Air Resources Board. “There’s investors, there’s businesses, there’s consultants.”
He added, “To pull the rug out from under that would have a dramatic impact.”
At around 9pm on the 26th January 1700, the Cascadia subduction zone – a shallowly dipping thrust fault that runs more than 1000 km north from Cape Mendocino in Northern California to the vicinity of Vancouver Island, ruptured in an estimated magnitude 9 earthquake. No Europeans were there to witness the shaking and the inundation that followed, as the Oregon and Washington coasts were engulfed by tsunami more than 10 m high. But indigenous people were, and some of their oral accounts, of this earthquake and similar ones before it, still survive. The tsunami crossed the Pacific basin to Japan, where it was recorded as an ‘orphan’ tsunami (one that was not preceded by a large local earthquake). The Japanese records are how we precisely know the day and rough time of the rupture.
More recent records from Japan – pictures and video of the tsunami generated by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake – provide a sobering vision of what the Cascadia megathrust might do to the Pacific Northwest when it next wakes up. 317 years have passed, and we can’t know precisely how many more might pass before the next big earthquake. Records of giant submarine landslides triggered by large subduction zone ruptures, preserved in sediments off the Cascadia margin, show that on average, a big rupture like the 1700 event occurs every 500 years or so. But the Earth is not clockwork, and the gap between two individual earthquakes can vary significantly from the long-term average. All we know is that it will happen at some point in the next few hundred years, and we had best get prepared.
This is not exactly happy knowledge. Nonetheless, having that knowledge is still something to be thankful for, when we consider the all-too-common alternative: us going about our rapid human business, unaware that the slow geological workings of the planet beneath our feet are turning, building up to a disaster we never see coming until it is upon us. But for Cascadia, dogged and careful scientific detective work* over the past thirty years means that we are in the relatively happy position of comprehending the threat before it takes us by unpleasant surprise.
It could still be a tragedy – even the most recent assessments make it clear that there is still plenty of work to do to prepare the region for the day when the ‘years since last rupture’ counter flips back to zero. But knowledge is power, and in this case it is life-saving power.
*much of it, I feel compelled to point out in these interesting times, funded by the USGS and other US government agencies.
We are six days into the Trump administration in the United States of America and we are seeing clear signs that the Trump intends to keep his campaign promises to roll back environmental protection and federal scientific efforts (among a host of other actions). Hiring freezes, gag orders, spending freezes and more have all been announced already for federal scientific agencies (though some have been temporary). Regulatory roll backs are already underway, two oil pipelines previously stopped have been green-lighted, and there’s more new bad news in this vein every time I check the news. Amidst the news blur, I have also been listening to the voices of Canadian scientists who are frantically trying to tell us that this sounds just like the beginning of the Harper administration and that those of us with tenure (job security) absolutely must speak loudly in protest to stop what we can. I am resolved to do that, and it starts here, with this discussion of jobs, economic costs, and the timescales over which we will collectively be paying for Trump’s actions.
Let the record reflect that it is not just federal and academic scientists who are worried about the news coming out of the early days of the Trump administration. Most of those billions of dollars of EPA contracts and grants go to on-the-ground projects at the city and state level, and effectively support the work people of in city and state government agencies. If the funding for those projects go away, or the federal regulations that are enforced at the city and state levels are loosened, those city and state workers will lose their jobs. And it’s not just public sector workers that will be affected.
I was copied on an email chain this morning populated by folks from the environmental consulting world (i.e., private industry) who are worried about the future of their jobs. I have also heard from several small business owners that they may need to lay off employees or close entirely if their scientific, environmental, and clean energy clients decrease their purchases in response to Trump’s policies. These are all-American, small town businesses worried about going out of business because of the coming changes from the Trump administration.
Lots of “real Americans” are going to lose their jobs if Trump carries through with his plans.
We’ll lose the expertise of people currently working in the environmental and science disciplines and we’ll lose a critical cohort of students who will be deterred from training for science and environmental jobs because of uncertain employment futures. Those that value their scientific careers above their geography will leave the US, and those that can’t or don’t want to leave will find other jobs. Those other jobs will often be lower paying. (I heard “the bike shop” mentioned by a 20+ year career scientist in private industry.) When we eventually get an administration that decides to reverse course and re-prioritize science and environmental protection, we won’t be able to get those seasoned experts or the early career folks back. It’s easy to leave a scientific or technical career, but nearly impossible to get back into one after an absence, but the field moves on and your expertise quickly becomes outdated. Even if many of Trump’s gag orders and freezes end up being temporary, the uncertainty and fear will cause businesses to hesitate in making purchases or hiring staff, working scientists will start looking elsewhere for their next career move, and students will shy away from committing to the rigorous, sometimes decade-long, training it takes to become a scientist or environmental professional.
If Trump carries through with his plans to curtail federal science and loosen environmental regulations, there will be real economic costs that will be felt in nearly every city and state in the country… and those costs will last beyond the end of his administration.
Yes, there may be a short-term economic boost as pipelines are laid and extra smokestacks are built, but that boost needs to have the lost incomes and careers of the scientific and environmental work force deducted from it. Plus, once the pipelines are laid and the smokestacks are built, there will be only a few (often low paying) jobs left.
Of course, the environmental costs of Trump’s plans will be even greater and longer lasting than the direct economic costs. Some industries will take advantage of the looser regulatory environment to do “monstrous” things that will directly impair the public health and ecosystems of the communities in which they are situated. The people most likely to feel the worst effects of increased pollution and land degradation are almost certainly going to be poor and most likely to be non-white. The cumulative effects of many small decisions, even maintaining “business as usual” without malicious intent, will result in poorer air and water quality, more greenhouse gas emissions, and greater climate change impacts than we would have without Trump’s rollbacks. Poor air and water quality and extreme weather and sea level rise fueled by climate change have economic(*) impacts that are increasing every year.
We will live with (and pay for) the consequences of the policy decisions being made right now, for the rest of our lives, and for generations to come.
*I would link to a federal government webpage here as they provide the most definitive data for the US, but government webpages and other communications have a nasty habit of disappearing this week.
(An early version of this post appeared as public Facebook post on my account there on the morning of 25 January 2017.)