Adaptation to climate change

[Tonington]

So many threads arguing about the stuff that's solid, far less content on the stuff that matters, adaptation and mitigation.

Here's a good paper appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives:
Urban Form and Extreme Heat Events: Are Sprawling Cities more Vulnerable to Climate Change than Compact Cities?

The open source article will be available as soon as the copyedited and formatted version becomes available.

Anyways, the gist of the study is:

Background: Extreme heat events are known to be increasing in frequency in large U.S. cities and are responsible for a greater annual number of climate related fatalities, on average, than any other form of extreme weather. In addition, low density, sprawling patterns of urban development have been associated with enhanced surface temperatures in urbanized areas.

Objectives: This study examines the association between urban form at the level of the metropolitan region and the frequency of extreme heat events over a five decade period.

Methods: We employ a widely published metric of urban form (a “sprawl” index) to measure the association between urban form in 2000 and the mean annual rate of change in extreme heat events between 1956 and 2005.

Results: Our results find the rate of increase in the annual number of extreme heat events between 1956 and 2005 in the most sprawling metropolitan regions to be more than double the rate of increase observed in the most compact metropolitan regions.

Conclusions: The design and management of land use in metropolitan regions may offer an important tool for adapting to the heat-related health effects associated with ongoing climate change.

Build up, not out! Makes sense on many levels, not just from the health impacts of extreme heat events.

 

[Cliffy]

But of course building up would make the urban concentration camps much more efficient in containing larger numbers of humanity. Suburbia was a failed experiment in containment. I foresee a problem in Vancouver where they can't seem to build water proof structures. Black mold is a serious health problem that makes building up taxing on the system. Not very efficient for running that concentration camp, but then it is overdue for a tsunami or major earth quake which should cancel out that problem.

 

[Tonington]

How about some animal adaptation? Salmon in Norway are staying out to sea longer.

Researchers in Norway looked at returns on 59 rivers with Atlantic salmon populations, and found that increased seawater temperatures, and increased river discharge is leading to a reduction in the proportion of grilse returning in November. The largest effects were in the pre-smolt and post-smolt environment.

In order to complete the maturation process, there is a physiological threshold that the individual fish must cross. If they have enough stored energy, they will complete the maturation process at the expense of somatic growth, and migrate back to their natal rivers. If not, they will put the metabolized energy back into growth, and stay at sea another year to build up the energy to be ready for the next fall. So the findings are suggesting that the salmon are returning larger. This would also suggest that the females would be producing larger, and more numerous eggs in their redds.

Whether or not this turns out to be an effective adaptation, is hard to say. The marine phase is very dangerous, and an extra year means more opportunity for death whether due to disease or from predation, and most likely reduced proportions of returning adults. They may be larger, but unfortunately this dataset didn't have any condition factor information. If the condition factor is lower, then the increased risk of another year at sea, and a poor body condition may not be a very good adaptation at all.

It's interesting. Fish that grow fast can return earlier; for males though the smaller faster growing fish will be competing against larger males. Another lacking bit of information from the dataset is sex ratios by age. Lots of discussion to dig into, need more data!

It's too early to tell yet whether or not this strategy will be successful. But it's food for thought.

Contemporary ocean warming and freshwater conditions are related to later sea age at maturity in Atlantic salmon spawning in Norwegian rivers - Otero - 2012 - Ecology and Evolution - Wiley Online Library

 

[eh1eh]

Well if it's not real then how could there be a need for adaptation?

LOOOL. J/K

Keep up the good fight my knowledgeable friend.

 

[beaker]

So many threads arguing about the stuff that's solid, far less content on the stuff that matters, adaptation and mitigation.

Here's a good paper appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives:
Urban Form and Extreme Heat Events: Are Sprawling Cities more Vulnerable to Climate Change than Compact Cities?

The open source article will be available as soon as the copyedited and formatted version becomes available.

Anyways, the gist of the study is:

Background: Extreme heat events are known to be increasing in frequency in large U.S. cities and are responsible for a greater annual number of climate related fatalities, on average, than any other form of extreme weather. In addition, low density, sprawling patterns of urban development have been associated with enhanced surface temperatures in urbanized areas.

Objectives: This study examines the association between urban form at the level of the metropolitan region and the frequency of extreme heat events over a five decade period.

Methods: We employ a widely published metric of urban form (a “sprawl” index) to measure the association between urban form in 2000 and the mean annual rate of change in extreme heat events between 1956 and 2005.

Results: Our results find the rate of increase in the annual number of extreme heat events between 1956 and 2005 in the most sprawling metropolitan regions to be more than double the rate of increase observed in the most compact metropolitan regions.

Conclusions: The design and management of land use in metropolitan regions may offer an important tool for adapting to the heat-related health effects associated with ongoing climate change.

Build up, not out! Makes sense on many levels, not just from the health impacts of extreme heat events.

That is interesting, it also seems counter intuitive. I think of dispersed urban areas as having more green space, more trees, but I see it also has more black top, more windbreak. I was part of a forum discussion about the relative value of large urban centers in the future, not just climate change related but sustainability focussed. I know that there is a lot that can be done, Vancouver went through a change twenty to thirty years ago getting more greenery downtown, they keep trying to get a rational transit system going, and try to get a better living environment so people don't have to travel as far to work. At the same time the constructioin on new freeway appendages just goes on and on.

 

[beaker]

Now that most people seem to have accepted the need for adaptation to inevitable global warming, myself included, there are people who want to adapt things in the name of sustainable development, but with an eye on corporate interests. Such a group as this one come to attention.
"Adaptation is Essential": Global Decision Makers Agree on Urgent Need to Build Resilience - MarketWatch

With apparent good intent, ""Adaptation is Essential": Global Decision Makers Agree on Urgent Need to Build Resilience" but actually saying little, "Adaptation leadership requires us to look toward the future and understand how business will be impacted by population growth, changing ecosystems, shifting demographics, economic development and climate impacts," Dr. Daboub said." And looking like adaptation is less in the interest of the ecosystem and humanity and more towards developing priorities for business.

On the other side of the debate is the World Watch Institute

Worldwatch Report: Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use | Worldwatch Institute

with a little more focussed effort. "Land makes up a quarter of Earth’s surface, and its soil and plants hold three times as much carbon as the atmosphere. More than 30 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions arise from the land use sector. Thus, no strategy for mitigating global climate change can be complete or successful without reducing emissions from agriculture, forestry, and other land uses. Moreover, only land-based or “terrestrial” carbon sequestration offers the possibility today of large-scale removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, through plant photosynthesis."

"• Enriching soil carbon. Soil is the third largest carbon pool on Earth’s surface. Agricultural soils can be managed to reduce emissions by minimizing tillage, reducing use of nitrogen fertilizers, and preventing erosion. Soils can store the carbon captured by plants from the atmosphere by building up soil organic matter, which also has benefits for crop production. Adding biochar (biomass burned in a low-oxygen environment) can further enhance carbon storage in soil.

• Farming with perennials. Perennial crops, grasses, palms, and trees constantly maintain and develop their root and woody biomass and associated carbon, while providing vegetative cover for soils. There is large potential to substitute annual tilled crops with perennials, particularly for animal feed and vegetable oils, as well as to incorporate woody perennials into annual cropping systems in agroforestry systems.

• Climate-friendly livestock production. Rapid growth in demand for livestock products has triggered a huge rise in the number of animals, the concentration of wastes in feedlots and dairies, and the clearing of natural grasslands and forests for grazing. Livestock- related emissions of carbon and methane now account for 14.5 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions—more than the transport sector. A reduction in livestock numbers may be needed but production innovations can help, including rotational grazing systems,manure management, methane capture for biogas production, and improved feeds and feed additives.

• Protecting natural habitat. The planet’s 4 billion hectares of forests and 5 billion hectares of natural grasslands are a massive reservoir of carbon—both in vegetation above ground and in root systems below ground. As forests and grasslands grow, they remove carbon from the atmosphere. Deforestation, land clearing, and forest and grassland fires are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Incentives are needed to encourage farmers and land users to maintain natural vegetation through product certification, payments for climate services, securing tenure rights, and community fire control. The conservation of natural habitat will benefit biodiversity in the face of climate change.

• Restoring degraded watersheds and rangelands. Extensive areas of the world have been denuded of vegetation through land clearing for crops or grazing and from overuse and poor management. Degradation has not only generated a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions, but local people have lost a valuable livelihood asset as well as essential watershed functions. Restoring vegetative cover on degraded lands can be a win-win-win strategy for addressing climate change, rural poverty, and water scarcity."

 

[Cabbagesandking]

There are some strategies outlined here with links to more, including the IPCC report on mitigation and adaptation.

The thing about adaptation is that it is an enormously complex issue and simple propositions can be dangerous. Some researcher made the observation that, "if we are still arguing over Easter Island" then how much more difficult is this - or words to that effect. He also pointed to the flaw in Occam's razor in that it had no relevance to such complex environments.

http://ncse.com/climate/climate-change-101/what-can-we-do

 

[L Gilbert]

Um, development, IMO, is not the best idea. And in order to keep a growing global population, development is necessary. That's why I think "sustainable development" is a bad idea. I would much prefer sustainable stability.

 

[taxslave]

That is interesting, it also seems counter intuitive. I think of dispersed urban areas as having more green space, more trees, but I see it also has more black top, more windbreak. I was part of a forum discussion about the relative value of large urban centers in the future, not just climate change related but sustainability focussed. I know that there is a lot that can be done, Vancouver went through a change twenty to thirty years ago getting more greenery downtown, they keep trying to get a rational transit system going, and try to get a better living environment so people don't have to travel as far to work. At the same time the constructioin on new freeway appendages just goes on and on.

I guess you never heard of the Vancouver syndrome? Thats where after all the good paying jobs are lost as industries are forced to flee for outlying areas the city dwellers are now commuting TO the burbs in ever increasing numbers. WHich of corse means ever more vehicles on the road since there is no way for a proper transit system to keep up with the changes in job patterns.

 

[beaker]

I guess you never heard of the Vancouver syndrome? Thats where after all the good paying jobs are lost as industries are forced to flee for outlying areas the city dwellers are now commuting TO the burbs in ever increasing numbers. WHich of corse means ever more vehicles on the road since there is no way for a proper transit system to keep up with the changes in job patterns.

You are right, that is a new one to me. How have you heard of it? Last time I was in Van the traffic pattern moving into the city, in the morning, and out at night, still seemed to hold true. I guess a proper transit system would be flexible and able to follow its customers. Personally I think the most beautiful place in the world to build a city in should have chosen not to. But there you go.

With AGW, possibly worse droughts than Vancouver has seen, the loss of local ag land to development, etc. I think that people should be looking further than the burbs for their jobs and living conditions.

Um, development, IMO, is not the best idea. And in order to keep a growing global population, development is necessary. That's why I think "sustainable development" is a bad idea. I would much prefer sustainable stability.

Do you think we could develop stability? I remember listening to one of Mulroneys clowns addressing an environmental group and expressing the virtue of sustained development. He quite obviously didn't get it. But I think we have to develop several alternatives, energies, sequestration methods, right down to consumer conciousness. realistic expectations.

 

[petros]

With AGW, possibly worse droughts than Vancouver has seen, the loss of local ag land to development, etc. I think that people should be looking further than the burbs for their jobs and living conditions.

Sorry pumpkin but cool oceans bring droughts. IF the is substancial CLIMATE CHANGE, Vancouver will get even more rain.
It will be a an even rainier rainforest.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Sorry pumpkin but cool oceans bring droughts. IF the is substancial CLIMATE CHANGE, Vancouver will get even more rain.
It will be a an even rainier rainforest.

Will it ever be possible for a little reality to make its way into your consciousness?

Cool oceans can cause droughts; hot land masses can cause droughts. Shifting atmospheric patterns (due to either heat or cold) can cause droughts as they change the areas of rainfall.

The monsoons are failing more often and are entering a state where the parts of Asia that depend on them are in a precarious condition. Does that have anything to do with a cold ocean?

 

[JLM]

Build up, not out! Makes sense on many levels, not just from the health impacts of extreme heat events.

Fewer roofs though for growing gardens on so could f**k up the food supply! :lol:

 

[beaker]

Sorry pumpkin but cool oceans bring droughts. IF the is substancial CLIMATE CHANGE, Vancouver will get even more rain.
It will be a an even rainier rainforest.

Putting this in again in case you missed it.

originally posted by cabbagesandking, "Will it ever be possible for a little reality to make its way into your consciousness?

Cool oceans can cause droughts; hot land masses can cause droughts. Shifting atmospheric patterns (due to either heat or cold) can cause droughts as they change the areas of rainfall.

The monsoons are failing more often and are entering a state where the parts of Asia that depend on them are in a precarious condition. Does that have anything to do with a cold ocean?"

We have no idea at this point that Vancouver won't be the new Baja. More to the point is that weather patterns are expected to become more erratic, I know, like that is possible, but that is the expectation. The jet stream doesn't need to move much from year to year to make the difference between adequate moisture and drought. Vancouver is already under water pressure, not because of climate change, but because of the amount of water use. Adaptation would cut back on water use, migrate people and industries to other areas so that risks are spread out.

 

[petros]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

Build up, not out! Makes sense on many levels, not just from the health impacts of extreme heat events.

Fewer roofs though for growing gardens on so could f**k up the food supply! :lol:

But concrete is a hefty source of GHGs.
​

 

[Walter]

But concrete is a hefty source of GHGs.

Who needs concrete?

 

[L Gilbert]

Who needs concrete?

... for growing stuff on

 

[Tonington]

Fewer roofs though for growing gardens on so could f**k up the food supply! :lol:

Sure, but building up instead of out means more arable land. The same area of farm land will be more productive than the scattered roof-tops of a sub-division.

 

[beaker]

Agricultural land need not be used up for urban growth. Part of our adaptation should focus on minimizing the use and loss of resources like the soil that feeds us. If our population grows more it needs to grow in unproductive areas so the resources we need for sustainability can continue to sustain us. Better yet one approach to adaptability would be to cut our populations.

In the Amazon rain forest there are different concerns.

Climate Change and the Amazon Rainforest

"Forests damaged by drought, logging, fragmentation and previous fire burn repeatedly as tall canopy tree species are gradually replaced by coppicing trees, grasses and other high-biomass plants. These local and regional processes are exacerbated when sea surface anomalies and extreme weather events cause severe drought episodes and the burning of vast forested landscapes. Global warming reinforces these trends by elevating air temperatures, increasing dry season severity and increasing the frequency of extreme weather events."

I see that in Australia concern for the species in their rainforest has initiated a program of improving habitat that might mitigate against species loss. The finding that 45% of species are found now only in thew 25% of the coolest areas, ie higher elevations, has also pointed to a worsening situation.

 

[beaker]

Here is an interesting read from some Canadian researchers, primary option is to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. Failing that ... well, they say it better than I can.

http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/MRS42.pdf

There is considerable research showing that climate change can be expected to undermine agricultural productivity, deplete water resources, increase the likelihood of extreme weather events and decrease biodiversity in many regions around the world, all of which may be expected to increase the vulnerability of populations and the resources they depend upon (please refer to Parry et al. (2007) for a robust
synthesis of these)....

As will be shown, the makings of a perfect storm are in place: human population
numbers are growing fastest in the very regions where the physical risks of climate
change are most likely to undermine livelihoods and stimulate migration. However,
while hundreds of millions of people on the move and fragile states tipping into
climate change-induced conflict are within the realm of possibility, whether such
things come to pass is still within the influence of global policymakers....

Based on the preceding discussion, two broad international policy directions need
to be advanced as priority measures. The first of these consists of actions that reduce
the climatic triggers for distress migration, while the second consists of actions that
build greater capacity within vulnerable populations to adapt to extreme climatic
events and conditions....

The need to build adaptive capacity in vulnerable regions grows proportionally
with the degree of inaction in mitigating GHG emissions. Communities where people
have stable livelihoods and secure land tenure, where basic health care and primary
education are available, where women and girls enjoy fair access to resources and
opportunities, and where local institutions have credibility, can cope with and adapt
to a wide range of climate- and non-climate-related stressors without resorting to
distress migration or violence. At its most essential, building adaptive capacity is an
exercise in fostering sustainable economic development at the local and regional levels
Smit and Pilifosova, 2001). "