User login


French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish

The Home of Evolutioneers

Universe Spirit Blogs


    A NASA scientist recently said that California only has one year of water left. What happens if California runs out of water, and how does it affect the world?


    (CNN)There is no precedent in contemporary weather records for the kinds of droughts the country's West will face, if greenhouse gas emissions stay on course, a NASA study said.

    No precedent even in the past 1,000 years.

    The feared droughts would cover most of the western half of the United States -- the Central Plains and the Southwest.

    Those regions have suffered severe drought in recent years. But it doesn't compare in the slightest to the 'megadroughts' likely to hit them before the century is over due to global warming.

    These will be epochal, worthy of a chapter in Earth's natural history.

    Even if emissions drop moderately, droughts in those regions will get much worse than they are now, NASA said.

    The space agency's study conjures visions of the sun scorching cracked earth that is baked dry of moisture for feet below the surface, across vast landscapes, for decades. Great lake reservoirs could dwindle to ponds, leaving cities to ration water to residents who haven't fled east.

    "Our projections for what we are seeing is that, with climate change, many of these types of droughts will likely last for 20, 30, even 40 years," said NASA climate scientist Ben Cook.

    The Dust Bowl

    That's worse and longer than the historic Dust Bowl of the 1930s, when "black blizzards" -- towering, blustery dust walls -- buried Southern Plains homes, buggies and barns in dirt dunes.

    The Dust Bowl drought in the 1930s: Dust blows up dunes at Oklahoma farm.

    It lasted about 10 years. Though long, it was within the framework of a contemporary natural drought.

    To find something almost as extreme as what looms, one must go back to Medieval times.

    Nestled in the shade of Southwestern mountain rock, earthen Ancestral Pueblo housing offers a foreshadowing. The tight, lively villages emptied out in the 13th century's Great Drought that lasted more than 30 years.

    No water. No crops. Starvation drove populations out to the east and south.

    Much, much worse

    If NASA's worst case scenario plays out, what's to come could be worse.


    Its computations are based on greenhouse gas emissions continuing on their current course. And they produce an 80% chance of at least one drought that could last for decades.

    One "even exceeding the duration of the long term intense 'megadroughts' that characterized the really arid time period known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly," Cook said.

    That was a period of heightened global temperatures that lasted from about 1100 to 1300 -- when those Ancestral Pueblos dispersed. Global average temperatures are already higher now than they were then, the study said.

    Massive data calculation

    The NASA team's study was very data heavy.

    It examined past wet and dry periods using tree rings going back 1,000 years and compared them with soil moisture from 17 climate models, NASA said in the study published in Science Advances.

    As the severe drought in California continues for a third straight year, water levels in the State's lakes and reservoirs is reaching historic lows.

    Scientists used super computers to calculate the models forward along the lines of human induced global warming scenarios. The models all showed a much drier planet.


    Superhuman challenge

    Some Southwestern areas that are currently drought-stricken are filling up with more people, creating more demand for water while reservoirs are already strained.

    The predicted megadroughts will wrack water supplies much harder, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said.

    "These droughts really represent events that nobody in the history of the United States has ever had to deal with," Cook said.

    Compared with the last millennium, the dryness will be unprecedented. Adapting to it will be tough.


    Watch whole playlists of videos on CNN about the world wide drought here... http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/14/us/nasa-study-western-megadrought/index.html

    nike air max 1 blue

  • About the Ocean's "Methane Bomb" Climate Tipping Point or HOW MUCH SHOULD YOU WORRY ABOUT AN ARCTIC METHANE BOMB?
    Methane hydrate, taken from the ocean floor off the coast of Oregon Wikimedia Commons


    Recent warnings that this greenhouse gas could cost us $60 trillion have received widespread publicity. But many scientists are skeptical.


    It was a stunning figure: $60 trillion.

    Such could be the cost, according to a recent commentary in the journal Nature, of "the release of methane from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea, off northern Russia…a figure comparable to the size of the world economy in 2012." More specifically, the paper described a scenario in which rapid Arctic warming and sea ice retreat lead to a pulse of undersea methane being released into the atmosphere. How much methane? The paper modeled a release of 50 gigatons of this hard-hitting greenhouse gas (a gigaton is equal to a billion metric tons) between 2015 and 2025. This, in turn, would trigger still more warming and gargantuan damage and adaptation costs.

    The $60 trillion figure went everywhere, and no wonder. It's jaw dropping. To provide some perspective, 50 gigatons is 10 times as much methane as currently exists in the atmosphere. Atmospheric methane levels have more than doubled since the industrial revolution, but this would amount to a much sharper increase in a dramatically shorter time frame.

    According to the Nature commentary, that methane "is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly." Such are the scientific assumptions behind the paper's economic analysis. But are those assumptions realistic—and could that much methane really be released suddenly from the Arctic?

    A number of prominent scientists and methane experts interviewed for this article voiced strong skepticism about the Nature paper. "The scenario they used is so unlikely as to be completely pointless talking about," says Gavin Schmidt, a noted climate researcher at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

    Schmidt is hardly the only skeptic. "I don't have any problem with 50 gigatons, but they've got the time scale all wrong," adds David Archer, a geoscientist and expert on methane at the University of Chicago. "I would envision something like that coming out, you know, over the centuries."

    Still, the Nature paper is the most prominent airing yet of concerns that a climate catastrophe could be brought on by the release of Arctic methane that is currently frozen in subsea deposits—concerns that seem to be mounting in lockstep with the dramatic warming of the Arctic. That's why it's important to put these fears into context and try to determine just how much weight they ought to be accorded.

    Methane on Ice

    Let's start with some basics on methane—CH4—a greenhouse gas that reaches the atmosphere from sources as diverse as wetlands, gas drilling, and cow burps. Compared with carbon dioxide, methane is kind of like the boxer who punches himself out in the early rounds, whereas carbon dioxide goes the distance and wins by TKO. Pound for pound, methane causes some 25 times as much global warming as carbon dioxide does. But it only remains in the atmosphere for about nine years, on average, before chemical processes break it down. Carbon dioxide, in contrast, has a far longer atmospheric residence time.

    What this means is that methane is most worrisome if a lot of it gets into the atmosphere over a relatively short time period—precisely the scenario contemplated by the Nature paper. So could that happen?

    The answer depends on a complicated and uncertainty-laden issue—the stability of frozen deposits of subsea methane in the Arctic region. Frankly, it's hard to imagine something harder to study: We're talking about deposits residing not only beneath one of the world's most remote and inaccessible oceans, but also beneath the sea floor itself.

    Much of the world's methane is concentrated in the form of so-called gas "hydrates," icelike solids that form from methane and water at cold temperatures and high pressures, e.g., deep beneath the ocean floor. According to the US Geological Survey, the total global carbon content of such methane hydrates is estimated to equal some 1,800 gigatons (to be sure, there is considerable uncertainty about this estimate).

    Cross-section showing the location of methane hydrates, which are most vulnerable to dissolution in regions 2 and 3. Credit: US Geological Survey.

    One thousand eight hundred gigatons would create a climate catastrophe if it were all to be suddenly released, but the vast majority of subsea methane is under deep water, and quite stable. Only a relatively small fraction of global methane hydrates are at issue in the Nature paper, and this methane is in a very peculiar situation: It is frozen in the subsea permafrost of relatively shallow continental shelves in the Arctic region. This frozen sediment was once coastline, but was submerged as oceans rose following the last Ice Age. And now, it is being bathed in warmer waters due to the warming of the Arctic.

    So how much should we worry that these particular methane hydrates might melt, releasing gas that would then travel through both sediment and seawater to reach the atmosphere? That's where the scientific debate begins—over both how much methane falls into this category, and how vulnerable it is to the warming that is now gripping the Arctic region.

    Peering Beneath the East Siberian Sea

    The methane disaster concerns gained major prominence with a 2010 paper in Science by University of Alaska-Fairbanks researcher Natalia Shakhova and her colleagues, who examined methane emissions in a very remote area of the Arctic, the East Siberian Sea north of Russia. The continental shelf underlying this ocean is more than 2 million square kilometers in size, and its subsea permafrost lies only about 50 meters below the sea surface. Traveling to the remote region in Russian ice-breakers, Shakhova's team sampled water content and air content at the sea surface repeatedly, over a series of years. They found high concentrations of methane in the water—"50% of surface waters are supersaturated with methane," the paper reported—and some of the gas was also venting from the water into the atmosphere.

    The East Siberian Sea. Wikimedia Commons

    Although the Science paper did not contain the figure, it seems clear that Shakhova is the source for the idea that a 50-gigaton release of methane could occur in a short time frame. Or as she put it in a 2008 abstract, "[W]e consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time," adding that this could lead to "catastrophic greenhouse warming." The Nature paper cited another 2010 paper by Shakhova and her colleagues in the journal Doklady Earth Sciences, which uses the 50 gigaton figure in discussing possible methane emission scenarios.

    Shakhova did not respond to several requests for comment for this article; her automatic email response said she out doing fieldwork. But Peter Wadhams, the Cambridge physicist who is a coauthor of the Nature paper, said that his work relied on that of Shakhova and her team because "they’ve done the most work there, working there every year, doing field observations…we would rather base it on the estimates of the people actually working there, rather than the people who aren’t working there." Here is a video of Shakhova discussing her research:





    The trouble is that at this point, many other scientists don't accept that work—or rather, don't agree about its implications. None seem to dispute the actual measurements taken by Shakhova and her team, but as soon as the Science paper came out, a group of researchers questioned the idea that there was any cause for alarm. "A newly discovered [methane] source is not necessarily a changing source, much less a source that is changing in response to Arctic warming," they wrote. The implication is that perhaps methane has always been in the water at such levels, without methane hydrates having been disturbed—rather, the methane may be from another source. According to one 2011 study, for instance, the observed methane probably came not from hydrates, but simply from "the permafrost's still adjusting to its new aquatic conditions, even after 8,000 years." The hydrates, in contrast, are thought to be much deeper below the sea surface, due to basic physical constraints on their formation and stability. According to the US Geological Survey, "in permafrost areas, methane hydrate is not stable until about 225 m depth."

    Indeed, according to Ed Dlugokencky, who monitors global atmospheric methane levels at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "so far, there has not been a significant increase in methane emissions in the Arctic." In other words, if methane is really starting to vent into the air in large quantities, Dlugokencky says he isn't seeing it.

    A view of the East Siberian Sea
    A view of the East Siberian Sea Wikimedia Commons

    A Debate Over Hydrate Depth 

    And that's just the first reason that many scientists are skeptical. According to Carolyn Ruppel, who heads the Gas Hydrates Project at the US Geological Survey, there just isn't that much vulnerable methane in submerged permafrost to begin with. "We think very little hydrate on this planet is associated with permafrost, either subsea or terrestrial," she says. Inspired in part by the Shakhova research, the USGS undertook to study the continental shelves of the Beaufort Sea, off Alaska and Canada. "We set out to test this idea that all of the Arctic shelves were going to have high methane emissions," she says. "And at least for the US Beaufort shelf, we're not seeing them."

    Ruppel acknowledges that due to Arctic warming, more methane is going to be released, much of it from permafrost on land. But, she continues, "I would say one of the least likely sources is methane gas hydrates. You are limited by the laws of physics," she adds—noting that the beginning of the zone of stability for these hydrates is some 220 meters deep. That's a recurrent refrain among skeptics—they say hydrates just can't form above a certain depth, and warming can't penetrate such a depth very quickly. "You've got to go from the sea floor of 50 meters depth, down to 200 meters where the hydrate is," explains the University of Chicago's David Archer. "So that just takes a long time."

    Moreover, even if subsea permafrost methane hydrates do thaw, the liberated gas still has to travel through layers of sediment just to get to the ocean floor. So how does that happen? "That's kind of mysterious," says Archer. Perhaps there will be open pathways for gas in some places, but perhaps there won't. Archer also notes that there have been undersea explosions or landslides that release methane in bursts, but "those kinds of things seem like they would be relatively small compared to 50 gigatons, and they would happen sporadically in time over centuries, not everything blows up in a few years."

    Nonetheless, imagine that methane gas from melted hydrate makes it to the sea floor. It now exists as bubbles with, say, 50 meters to go before they reach the sea surface. Most of the bubbles won't make it, say scientists: They'll be dissolved in seawater, and then the methane will be broken down by microorganisms over a period of months. "If methane is in the ocean water column, most of it doesn't get out," explains Bill Reeburgh, a professor of earth system science at the University of California-Irvine who has spent his career studying methane. "Most of it is oxidized" by bacteria, which turn it into carbon dioxide and water, Reeburgh continues. "So all these stories about seeps, people seem to think the bubbles go straight to the atmosphere, and they don't."

    In other words, while the waters of the East Siberian Sea may be full of dissolved methane, for many scientists that doesn't prove that hydrates have been disturbed, or that the Arctic is starting to vent large amounts of methane from below the sea floor into the atmosphere. Not yet, anyway.

    Nonetheless, Cambridge's Peter Wadhams takes a different view. Of the critics, he says that "it comes to not believing that these scientists who are actually working there know what they’re talking about, which I would say is kind of insulting to them." Wadhams also says that there is a new mechanism for methane hydrate release that the critics aren't considering. The retreat of Arctic sea ice, he suggests, is allowing very intense warming of the waters above continental shelves. He adds that there are certain hydrates "detectable at 20 meters" below the sea floor, far shallower than normal. Wadhams calls these hydrates "Ice Age relics" that formed under very different conditions. Shakhova, too, has referred in the past to hydrates occurring at 20 meters depth, saying they have been "sampled in Siberia."

    Other scientists remain skeptical. David Archer says his simulations "never see hydrate stability" above 250 meters.

    So Should You Worry?

    What is clear about this story, then, is that one group of scientists has articulated a set of concerns that a number of others just do not accept at this point. And no doubt this problem is exacerbated by the realities of methane hydrate research—it is extremely difficult (and costly) to take a scientific expedition to the East Siberian Sea, or for that matter, to conduct Arctic research in general. In this case, it appears that one research team, the one actually working in this area, has developed views distant from those of many other researchers.

    So what should you do—and what should you think? Bear in mind that there are many good reasons to be skeptical of a methane disaster—it is hardly a matter of scientific consensus that this is a real concern. And that stands in stark contrast to the issue of climate change in general, an issue on which scientists are overwhelmingly aligned (and where the solution remains incredibly obvious: cutting carbon emissions).

    As global warming proceeds, it is also important to step back and acknowledge that with the unprecedented warming of the Arctic, it would be surprising if there weren't surprises. When we bring on warming this fast, we risk unpredictable consequences, whether with regard to methane or something else.

    "It's weird for me to be saying, 'Oh, it could never happen.' It's always the wrong side of things when you're talking about nature," says David Archer of the Arctic methane catastrophe scenario. "But," he adds, "nobody's come up with a defendable way of it happening all at once."

    —Chris Mooney, August 8, 2013

    source: http://m.motherjones.com/m


    Nike Air Max

  • The Surprise Adaptive or Transformational Benefits of Global Warming and Escalating Climate De-stabilization

    On the following pages of this new article you will find rare instances of good news or other benefits concerning human-caused global warming and its consequent climate destabilization.  In this article you will be presented with many important, new and unique climate re-stabilization perspectives, ideas and solutions not currently found or discussed within other climate or environmental organizations.

    "The mark of maturity is the ability to hold the tension of opposites." Carl Jung

    Knowledge of the disasters of climate destabilization are failing to motivate society to evolve rapidly enough. This article demonstrates how facing the adaptive challenge of climate destabilization may be humanity's greatest evolutionary teacher to date, producing both unforeseen benefits as well as consequences. 

    Part of the reality discussed in this article is that it's not the disasters of climate destabilization that are beneficial, but the innovation, cooperation and community building that facing them will produce. This good climate news of this will help "vaccinate" you against the negative effects of the endless stream of so much new bad news about global warming and the climate destabilization issue.

    Click here to begin reading the good climate news of the Many Benefits of Global Warming and Escalating Climate De-stabilization.

    nike air max 2019 china

  • Global Warming and Climate Destabilization Smacks California Hard in 2014 Hottest Year On Record!

    California saw its hottest year, with annual average temperatures 4.1F (2.3C) higher than 20th century average, and scant relief for a punishing drought. For more about what has happened to all of our planet's lands and oceans in 2014 the hottest year on record, click here.

    nike air zoom pegasus 33 Sale -75% OFF Cheap nike pegasus 33 women's Store

  • What is Climate Destabilization? The Good and Bad News. Climate Destabilization Defined.

    "We now need to re-stabilize our planet's climate. It has destabilized primarily due to the negative effects of global warming, which itself is caused by fossil fuel use and the Greenhouse gas effect. Human caused climate destabilization is an urgent matter and nothing like this has ever occurred before in human history." Lawrence Wollersheim

    Climate destabilization is the new and more precise term used most often to replace the older terms global warming and the misleading term of climate change. Climate destabilization is more than just the combination of the definitions of climate and destabilization.

    It is more complex than just what is happening with human-caused global warming precipitated by the carbon and methane pollution of the atmosphere. This carbon and methane pollution then creates the average global temperature increasing greenhouse gas effect. It is a whole chain of human caused, climate causes and effects involving the total planet.

    To understand the definition of climate destabilization at a deeper level it is helpful to know a bit about what a stable climate is and how the global climate works. It is also necessary to understand how the climate has worked over long periods of time to create different stable and destabilized climactic periods both of which have had good and bad effects on humanity and other species.

    The following video Wake Up, Freak Out - then Get a Grip from Leo Murray on Vimeo is 11 minutes long. It gives a basic, simple and yet detailed animated explanation of what is actually happening to destabilize the global climate as well as how it is happening. Pay particular attention to the animation's excellent explanation of the various critical climate tipping points and their effects. This video explaining the causes of climate destabilization has been viewed over a million times and has been translated into 22 different languages. We strongly recommend viewing it before continuing to read the rest of the climate destabilization definition.



    Please note: The above animation gives temperature degrees in Celsius.  For a quick, rough, Fahrenheit temperature conversion, double the Celsius amount.  The video also presents near the end a polarized viewpoint of us against them [that is, us against the vested fossil fuel interests, corporations and heavily lobbied governments]. It is still a well done animation that does an amazing job of explaining the basics of how and why catastrophic climate destabilization is unfolding.  Our organization does not promote polarizing or dualistic approaches. We try to see things from the big picture viewpoint of progressive universe evolution in which everyone and everything is learning from feedback--and then either adapting and growing or being broken down and recycled (if they don’t learn from feedback).

    How the Global Climate Works

    Our global climate is a complex, adaptive system that has held many different, relatively stable states over Earth's 4.5 billion year history. It also has many climate-related subsystems that can affect the stability of the global climate.  Some of the main climate subsystems that, directly and indirectly, affect the overall stability of the master global climate system and its conditions are:

    a.) The carbon-absorbing ocean, with its currents and different water temperatures holding different amounts of absorbed carbon,

    b.) The glaciers and massive Arctic and Antarctic ice packs reflecting heat back out into space,

    c.) The carbon-eating and carbon-releasing forests,

    d.) The carbon and methane producing volcanoes,

    e.) The carbon-eating or carbon-releasing condition of the soils,

    f.) The total area of heat-reflecting snow and ice cover on the planet at any one time (the albedo effect),

    g.) Carbon-eating plankton and oxygen-producing plankton in the oceans,

    h.) The total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere,

    i.) The amount of methane being released by tundra permafrost,

    j.) The amount of methane being released from methane clathrate crystals from the ocean bottom sediments,

    k.) How much human-caused carbon and methane is being released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, agribusiness and other uses; and,

    l.) Even slight changes in the earth’s axis position that occur about every 40,000 years, also affects the average, global temperature range.

    These climate subsystems, as well as other minor climate subsystems, can have the following characteristics common to complex adaptive systems.  They can be:

    a.) Powerful,

    b.) Often unknown,

    c.)  Highly unpredictable sometimes, and

    d.)  Having nonlinear effect, sometimes, on key climate “tipping points” within the total global climate system.

    When the global climate system or its key subsystems destabilize sufficiently, the global climate moves from one fairly stable state of dynamic equilibrium into a new transitional state of instability and greater unpredictability--until the global climate eventually finds a new, but different, fairly stable state of dynamic equilibrium at some new level and range (a dynamic equilibrium is not static nor a non changing equilibrium; it is an equilibrium that varies within a general or average range of some quality, i.e., average temperature).

    This implies that a useful and accurate definition for climate destabilization would be:

    “Aa transitional state of escalating global climate instability characterized by greater unpredictability, which lasts until the global climate eventually finds a new and different stable state of dynamic equilibrium, and at some different level of temperature and other climate qualities from what it has held for tens or hundreds of thousands of years."

    For hundreds of thousands of years, our planet has moved between a fairly stable state of dynamic equilibrium, known as an Ice Age, into an alternating one where the ice recedes and no Ice Age exists. Humanity has flourished since the last Ice Age ended about 12,000 years ago because of the warmer temperatures and lack of glacial ice cover.

    As our current, global climate moves into a human-caused, global warming, destabilizing, transitional period (from its previously stable state of Ice Age to non-Ice Age dynamic, equilibrium range) and a new state of dynamic equilibrium, many rapid changes are occurring. These changes are characterized, in part, by all kinds of:

    Storms, droughts, floods, wildfires and the changing of past, seasonal weather patterns with increasing unpredictability, and at an increasing scale of size, frequency and severity.

    These new conditions are a significant, core part of the current climate destabilization!

    We are also experiencing major changes in rainfall and snowfall, with either too much or too little at one time. There are many other changes that occur in a climate destabilization transition, such as droughts, floods, wildfires and superstorms.  These will get worse until we have completed this transition and a new, more stable, climate dynamic equilibrium range is established.

    The long-term and big picture good news is that eventually, a destabilized global climate will seek to establish a new, dynamic equilibrium at some new, dynamic equilibrium temperature and other quality states.  If we continue as we are now, and fail to mitigate global warming and its consequent climate destabilization, we will eventually experience a new, fairly stable, climate dynamic equilibrium--and the good news is that stable is generally always better than unstable when it comes to global climate.

    This also means there is some bad news in the global warming-caused climate destabilization that we are now experiencing. The bad news is that our weather is going to become a lot more unpredictable, and our storms are going to become more severe, frequent and of larger scale.

    Fueled by the increasing population and human-caused global warming (carbon and methane greenhouse gas pollution of our atmosphere), we have radically increased the destabilization of our global climate.  And more bad news is that this increasing, average, global temperature (in both the atmosphere and the oceans) then directly or indirectly acts to, once again, increase the destabilization of our global climate in a positive feedback loop by increasing: reef collapse, desertification, deforestation, coastline loss, wildfires, droughts, superstorms, floods, key productive soils degradation, growing season changes, species extinction and water pollution.

    The really bad news is that we are also likely to hit some unpredictable climate tipping points that could change the global climate in ways that the planet has not seen for millions of years--and these changes could last from hundreds to thousands of years.

    Many predictions say we are looking at an 8 to 12°F increase in temperature over the next hundred years. Other predictions say this can occur much sooner if we cross a few key tipping points--as soon as 25 to 50 years from now.

    The next bit of bad news is that we may irreversibly tip the climate into a new, fairly stable, dynamic equilibrium--far from the last 12,000 year old Ice Age climate and dynamic equilibrium cycle that we have been experiencing for over hundreds of thousand of years. The very worst of these climate predictions forecast that billions of humans could die because climate destabilization will radically destabilize our global financial, agricultural, political and social systems.

    Climate change is a term used by fossil fuel paid lobbyists, think tanks and media to confuse us about what is really happening.  The climate isn't just changing--it is destabilizing and searching for a new equilibrium.  We have done this to ourselves by the process of carbon and methane pollution of our atmosphere, leading to global warming.

    "The key things to remember about climate destabilization is that our weather, seasons, temperature and precipitation are going to become even more unpredictable.  Key weather events-- like floods, wildfires, droughts and storms--will generally become more severe, frequent and cover greater areas.  This increased unpredictability will create turmoil and destabilize many areas all over our world." - - Lawrence Wollersheim

    The Worst Effects of Global Warming-Caused Climate Destabilization

    When we talk about climate destabilization, we're not talking about how this summer's temperatures were hotter than last year's. Instead, we're talking about historically large changes that happen over long periods of time to our atmosphere, weather, and environment. These changes are now happening over frighteningly short periods of time!

    The greenhouse gases which cause climate destabilization such as carbon and methane can stay in the atmosphere for years, decades, or hundreds and thousands of years. These greenhouse gases are now heating up the atmosphere.

    Heating up the atmosphere is like heating up a kettle of water. As the water heats from the stove, the water temperature rises and begins to churn, swirl, and boil in unpredictable patterns. That is what will also happen to our weather, average global temperature, winds, rain, snow, and seasonal patterns. Everything is interlinked in the climate system!

    The following is a summary of the worst effects of global warming caused climate destabilization. There are other lesser effects not included in this list. The worse effects of escalating climate destabilization are:

    Increased Average Global Temperature Causing Heat waves. 100 plus degree heat for many more days annually is in our future. In many warm climates, regular temperatures of 115 to 125 degrees Fahrenheit will not be uncommon.

    Droughts due to increased heat. As the climate warms, experts estimate drought conditions may increase by 66 percent.

    Destructive storms over land. Because of increased heat energy in atmosphere.

    Hurricanes. Warmer waters are causing more hurricanes. The destructive power of hurricanes has increased by roughly 50% in the last 30 years, a figure closely connected with the rising temperature of the ocean.

    Shrinking land glaciers. Because of increasing heat, Montana's Glacier National Park has deteriorated over the last seven decades from 150 to just 35 glaciers.

    Shrinking sea Ice. Polar ice caps are also melting as average global temperature rises. As the ice shelves on Greenland and Antarctica melt, sea levels could be more than 20 feet (6 meters) higher in 2100 than they are today. This would flood low-lying areas such as Miami, New York City's Lower Manhattan, and Bangladesh.  

    Flooding over land masses. Destructive storms release more water in unpredictable and changed rain patterns, and rising sea levels will necessitate the relocation of power stations, refineries, water and sewage treatment plants, hospitals, homes, and other businesses.

    Fires and wildfires. Caused by increased long-term heat drying out the land masses, the potential for fires of any kind rises dramatically.

    Desertification. Caused by increased long-term heat and aggravated by soil and vegetation loss, semi-arid and sub-humid areas would endure a future of almost irreversible barrenness caused by evapotranspiration and the accompanying decrease in rainfall.

    Death of the oceans. The oceans absorb roughly 30% of all human caused carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This increases both the average temperature of the oceans and the acidification of the oceans. One of the most critical changes is the ongoing reduction of phytoplankton that are critical to the ocean’s cycle of life. Ocean acidification slowly destroys the shells of crustaceans and warmer oceans affect reproductive cycles in many other species. Ocean stocks will continue to be reduced due the negative consequences of global warming.

    Destruction of ecosystems due to increased heat, desertification, ocean warming, degradation of ocean coral reefs, soils, and so on..

    Loss of animal biodiversity. As the ecosystems degrade, current habitats become uninhabitable to more animal and insect species. As many as 30 percent of plant and animal species alive today risk extinction by 2050 if average temperatures rise more than 2 to 11.5 degrees F (1.1 to 6.4 degrees C).

    Spread of disease. This is due to migrating animals and insects migrating to escape their climate stressed ecosystems. The diseases most likely to spread due to global warming are avian flu, cholera, plague, ebola and tuberculosis.

    Diminished food supplies and water supplies. This is  due to all of the above. This will cause higher prices, malnutrition, starvation, famine, increased disease, and death. Economically or politically unstable countries could descend into anarchy.

    Animal attacks increase as their habitat degrades and they are forced to migrate to new areas.

    Human Migration. The above worsening conditions plus dwindling resources will not only lead to the migration of insects and animals, but also to massive human migration. Millions, then hundreds of millions, and eventually billions of people will seek out already overcrowded urban areas.

    Conflict and wars. Violence and ecological crises are inextricably entangled. Countries suffering from sudden and unplanned migration from other areas, crop loss, and/or water shortages become vulnerable to security trouble, including regional instability, panic, and aggression. Lessening quantities of quality food, water, and land invariably increase in global security threats, conflict, and war.

    Death and suffering by air pollution and smog. Global warming fosters increased smog. Smog is linked to escalating instances of asthma. Smog escalates allergy attacks because it supports weed growth, and exacerbates pre-existing health conditions such as emphysema, bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Outdoor air pollution is also directly related to several of the biggest global causes of death. Directly or indirectly, it causes approximately 11 to 13% [about one in 8] of all deaths globally each year. A World Health Organization survey found that 40 percent of deaths linked to outdoor air pollution were from heart disease; another 40 percent from stroke; 11 percent from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); 6 percent from lung cancer, and 3 percent from acute lower respiratory infections in children).

    Escalating economic costs. Repairing, rebuilding, and building relocated or current new infrastructure homes and businesses will be costly. The Stern Report estimated that the rising costs of global warming caused climate destabilization will soon grow to 5% or more of the gross domestic product of the nations of Earth. Others have estimated all of the related costs of catastrophic climate destabilization to be in the range of $400-$600 trillion dollars — about eight years of the total gross domestic product for all of the nations on Earth.

    Cold waves in some areas due to changing location of jet streams and ocean currents.

    Tsunamis.These can be generated indirectly by the Earth’s increasing temperature and melting of ice sheets. Glacial ice sheets apply massive pressure to the Earth’s surface underneath them. This weight decreases as the glaciers melt, resulting in a lessening of the weight over the tectonic masses below. This can lead to earthquakes and volcanic activity, both of which are capable of creating deadly tsunamis.

    Increased volcanic activity. As already noted, melting glaciations can instigate dangerous episodes of volcanic activity. Large-scale or sustained volcanic activity can have an gargantuan effect on human life. If the volcano is large enough such as a super volcano, the eruption could actually cool the planet and create  two or three year nuclear winters.

    What Are The Three Levels Of Climate Destabilization?

    There are several levels and degrees of climate destabilization. They are:

    a.) Catastrophic, climate destabilization. In spite of what you think, storms like hurricane Sandy, which only cost the U.S. 60 billion dollars, is not yet at the level of catastrophic, climate destabilization (or a level where the population will actually pay attention to this escalating adaptive challenge). When climate destabilization's storms, floods, wildfires and droughts begin to cost a single nation in the range of 250 billion to a half trillion dollars, we will have reached the level that should be called catastrophic, climate destabilization.

    b.) Irreversible, climate destabilization.  This level occurs when we have moved from the relatively stable, dynamic equilibrium of temperature and other key weather conditions that we are currently experiencing between our ice ages. Once a new, dynamic, stable equilibrium has been reached, and the climate continues to operate within this new temperature and weather condition range, we have crossed the line from catastrophic, climate destabilization to irreversible, climate destabilization. We are not, for all intents and purposes, irreversibly at some new climate state.

    c.) Extinction, level climate destabilization.  This occurs when the climate destabilizes to a level where the human species, or other critical human support species, can no longer exist successfully. Not surprisingly, extinction level, climate destabilization has occurred previously during Earth's evolution--and some scientists suggest it has also happened in some form on both Mars and Venus.  If it did occur on both Mars and Venus, it robbed them of what may have once been (or could have been) a productive atmosphere and environment (to learn more about one of Earth's extinction level, climate destabilizations caused by an over-abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere, click here.)

    How Climate Destabilization Effects Humanity's Other Major Global Challenges

    Climate destabilization affects our biggest global challenges by making them into even bigger challenges and harder to solve.

    Those key global challenges are:

    Global Challenge 1, Resource Depletion: Fueled by overpopulation and climate destabilization, we have now (or soon will have) increasing food shortages (1 billion people are hungry now).  Ocean fish stocks are suffering catastrophic losses. We will also be soon facing energy shortages caused by the early attainment of peak oil.  Depleting our resources also acts to increase global poverty, which helps cause the next global challenge.

    Global Challenge 2, Global Economic Instability: The previous challenge also acts in concert to increase global poverty, economic instability, economic inequality (conflicts between rich and poor) and to produce rising, national deficits.  National deficits are rising in many countries in unsustainable ways. These deficits are escalating because of the escalating costs of the growing global challenges. Even worse, these ballooning national deficits are moving us ever closer toward an eventual, bursting, global financial bubble.

    Global Challenge 3, Political Instability in Countries with Low Management Capabilities and Low Resource Resilience: The above global challenges, plus increased political instability, then also act in concert to further increase the likelihood of more wars, terrorism and political injustice.

    Global Challenge 4, Global Pandemic: As the above, resilience-reducing global challenges (including climate destabilization) get worse, this also increases the probability of a global pandemic (this is due to existing or new diseases being poorly treated; the mobility and migration of world populations; or, the overall deterioration of global health services as the stew of all of the global challenges listed above come to a global warming, amplified boil).

    Why Climate Destabilization Should Now Be Considered The Single Most Dangerous Challenge To Our Immediate Future!

    Climate destabilization is the most dangerous challenge because it is the largest, single, keystone multiplier of the other huge problems caused by the global challenges above!  It is the most immediate and probable meta-trigger for the greatest growing possibility of a chain reaction by whipsawing simultaneous ecological, economic, social and political catastrophes, plus system collapses involving the other challenges above.

    Because of the combined meta-triggering, multiplying and whipsawing effects of climate destabilization on humanity's other critical global challenges, it is also the most likely current catalytic source for what could very well turn out to be the greatest planetary destruction, loss of human life and tragedy in all of human history!

    Take a moment to reflect on these climate-related ideas and then ask yourself the following question:

    "Do you, too, believe that escalating levels of climate destabilization could trigger, multiply and whipsaw almost all of the above other global challenges into an unrecoverable Perfect Storm of Perfect Storms?"

    No matter what level of bad climate news may happen in the long-term, the big evolutionary-picture, good news is that eventually, a destabilized global climate will seek to establish a new, dynamic equilibrium at some new, dynamic equilibrium level of temperature and other climate qualities.  The only problem is that this new, fairly-stable, climate dynamic equilibrium may not be a climate that favors the ongoing survival of the human species.

    (If you are under 30, there is unfortunately another global challenge that you face, more so than those who are older than you--click here to see that additional global challenge).

    Why Climate Destabilization Is The New Term Replacing Global Warming And Climate Change

    "How we frame the climate conversation matters --- it matters a lot." Andrew Guzman on NPR Radio

    More non-profit environmental groups, media, NGO's, corporations and governments are beginning to abandon the terms global warming and climate change for the new terms climate cliff, climate destabilization, catastrophic climate destabilization, irreversible climate destabilization and extinction level climate destabilization.

    They are doing so for many reasons:

    1.) It has now become public knowledge that lobbyists, think tanks and PR firms on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry have been working behind-the-scenes to intentionally, and with great concerted effort, use their power to replace the term global warming with the far more nebulous, benign and confusing term “climate change”.  They are doing this at every level in the local, regional, national and even international discussions of the climate crisis (you will find both the media and government using climate change where they used to use global warming). Even large environmental organizations have unconsciously been duped by the clever fossil fuel PR firms and lobbyists, and have themselves picked up and used the confusing, crisis-diminishing language embodied in the term climate change.

    2.) Another good reason for changing to the new climate destabilization term is that the term climate change is so vague, it conveys almost nothing of the real importance about the runaway climate destabilization process and current climate crisis.  The clever fossil fuel PR firms knew that redefining global warming to climate change was brilliant.

    It completely reframed the way one interprets what they are hearing.  For example, because the climate is always changing in our daily experience of our weather, there is no big deal or implied importance within a term about something that seems so innocent as climate change!  After all, the climate is always changing.  It is just the climate change that is always occurring.  This makes the term meaninglessly benign--and it certainly would not alarm anyone or call them to action, even when action and alarm is appropriate.

    Why Global Warming Is Not A Good Term Either

    The term global warming has been confusing to the general public's personal experience of the ever-changing global weather.  Global warming is also not accurate enough to describe the current climate conditions that humanity now faces since the idea of global warming was first introduced to the public in the 1970's.

    Global warming leads the average person to believe that the whole world will be getting warmer consistently.  Yet, as the average temperature of the planet increases, certain places will actually become colder.  Some places may become warmer, it's true, but the problem is not just that our air conditioning costs will rise.  Because of other natural climate factors, some years will be warmer (with worse storms) and some years less, but in spite of this inconsistency, the climate destabilization trend will be toward warmer temperatures and more extreme storms.

    We'll also be dealing with more destructive, frequent and severe storms, which will take new drainage pathways never seen before.  Sudden and extreme flooding will increase in certain places, while intensifying drought, wildfires and desertification will be the issue in others.  We will also be dealing with rising sea levels (possibly up to 2 meters or as many as 8 meters before the end of the century) and storm surges from that rise in sea level, like the planet has not seen in tens of thousands of years.

    The climate cliff, climate destabilization, catastrophic climate destabilization, irreversible and extinction level climate destabilization are the new terms of art, because they are far more accurate and useful in reflecting what is already happening (or, what will continue to happen with increasing severity, scale and frequency)--unless we take effective, planet-wide action immediately (extinction level here is defined as the projected, potential extinction of approximately half or more of the species on earth, and most [60-90%,] if not all, of humanity; irreversible, whenever used, is defined as severe climate destabilization consequences that could take hundreds or even thousands of years to correct or rebalance--or never correct or rebalance)!

    Climate Destabilization is a more accurate term because the global climate is being destabilized from a relatively stable, post-Ice Age state toward a much hotter one, resembling a much hotter state from far earlier in the planet's fiery evolution.  Destabilization is also reflective of what will happen to our economic, political and social systems as increasing human-caused carbon pollution accelerates climate destabilization.

    If we do not take action and solve this challenge, climate destabilization or catastrophic, irreversible or extinction level climate destabilization are the perfect terms for describing what will probably lead to the eventual, catastrophic reduction (from almost 8 billion to several hundred million people forced to live near the poles) or extinction of the human population.

    The terms climate destabilization or catastrophic, irreversible and extinction level climate destabilization also convey the true urgency of the current climate situation every time you use them. They reframe and redefine the climate discussion toward the real problems, and rapidly escalate the catastrophic consequences of the issue (rather than toward vague or misleading descriptions of the issue).

    If you’re a farmer and you lose your annual crop to a climate destabilization-caused drought, that's a catastrophe with urgency!  If you’re a homeowner and you lose your home to climate destabilization-caused floods or wildfires, that's a catastrophe with real urgency!  If you’re a consumer and your food prices keep going up because of climate destabilization-caused droughts and shortages and you cannot afford enough food to eat--that's an urgent, serious matter and potential extinction problem (at least a catastrophe in the making for billions of individual people--just like you and I).

    If climate destabilization goes out of control to its potential, projected, extinction level maximums and 7.8 billion people die, that is the ultimate catastrophe.  It will be the extinction, or near extinction, of the human species and many other species. This growing loss of species is already being called the sixth great mass-extinction event.

    Bringing up the subject of the climate cliff (and catastrophic or irreversible climate destabilization) with others also engenders a whole new level of reaction and emotional engagement.  It sounds bad--is bad and, can convincingly be argued that it is the most important, single issue related to our species' survival or our descending environmental quality of life in the 21st century.

    Simply put, resolving the climate cliff and climate destabilization has become the single, most important task and adaptive challenge in all of human history. Continuing to use the older, confusing or vague terms, such as global warming or climate change, hides the real consequence issues and the criticalness of the problem to all of humanity.

    "The greatest fear for the future of humanity is the still unknown, critical tipping points involved in today's accelerating climate destabilization. Without discovering these quickly, we could find ourselves facing complete extinction as a species without even knowing that we had passed the climate tipping points of no return (or reasonable recovery) until it was too late to do anything about it.  No other appropriate fear or human problem today matches the destructive scope, probability and immediacy of this climate destabilization challenge.

    Catastrophic, irreversible and extinction level climate destabilization should be thought of in the same scope of potential, global destructiveness as a massive asteroid on a direct, certain and imminent collision course with earth.  You certainly would not sit idle in that situation without demanding more and better information from your leaders on arrival dates, consequences and necessary preparations.  Why aren't we collectively doing this now for climate destabilization?" - - Lawrence Wollersheim

    Climate destabilization is a term that also strongly implies human causation.  Please stop using the confusing, misleading and nonspecific terms, global warming and climate change, and start using climate cliff, climate destabilization or catastrophic, irreversible or extinction level climate destabilization, and watch what happens.  From an evolutionary perspective, we have not evolved to adapt effectively to nonspecific and vague threats to our survival.  We need to communicate a real and specific danger to best mobilize our common adaptation abilities to resolve the climate cliff and climate destabilization challenges.

    The older, nonspecific, confusing and misleading global warming and climate change conversation has been going on for over 30 years with little success.  The older terms play right into the hands of the paid climate deniers and merchants of doubt, making fortunes while the planet draws closer and closer to irreversible climate destabilization.  Please encourage individuals and organizations to help change the climate conversation by using these more specific, accurate and useful terms: climate destabilization, catastrophic climate destabilization, irreversible or extinction level climate destabilization or the climate cliff.This is something simple and easy that every one of us can do.  Also, this long overdue, appropriate and more accurate reframing of this issue alone will do a tremendous amount to move us closer to its resolution.  Or, as the Buddhists might say, "Right speech (words), leads to right action."

    (Please note: *The term climate destabilization appears to have been first used by Greg Craven in his book, What's the Worst that Could Happen? A Rational Rresponse to the Climate Change Debate.

    The Climate DeStabilization Conclusion

    It is now time to see another short video that helps explain (even to climate destabilization deniers) why we need to resolve this adaptive, evolutionary challenge quickly. We strongly recommend viewing it before you continue reading. This video, The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See Version 2, is a phenomenal, 10-minute long video that examines the arguments of the deniers and critics as well as the supporters of the facts surrounding catastrophic climate destabilization, allowing you to come to your own conclusions.  At the end, it quickly and brilliantly summarizes what will happen to us if we do not fix the climate destabilization issue and rise to the greatest, adaptive challenge (and transformational, evolutionary adventure) in human history(the first version of this video has been viewed 6 million times, and is made by the same person).



    Some Good News

    No matter what level of bad climate news may happen, the long-term, big evolutionary-picture, good news is that eventually, a destabilized global climate will seek to establish a new dynamic equilibrium at some new dynamic equilibrium level of temperature and other climate qualities. The only problem is that this new, dynamically-stable, climate equilibrium may not be a climate that favors the ongoing survival of the human species.

    To see the first declaration of a global state of emergency due to climate destabilization (caused by fossil fuel use escalating global warming), click here.

    To understand why we need to stop using the term global warming and start using the term climate destabilization, click here.

    To learn more about what you can do about restabilizing the climate, click here for information about the Job One for Humanity Climate Restabilization and Sustainable Prosperity Plan.



  • Climate Destabilization "will make hundreds of millions homeless..." and that is not even close to the worst of what is coming ...

    Carbon dioxide levels indicate rise in temperatures that could lead agriculture to fail on entire continents...

    Climate change is amplifying risks from drought

    Climate change is amplifying risks from drought, floods, storm and rising seas. Photograph: Simon Maina/AFP

    Massive movements of people are likely to occur over the rest of the century because global temperatures are likely to rise to by up to 5C because carbon dioxide levels have risen unabated for 50 years, said Stern, who is head of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.

    "When temperatures rise to that level, we will have disrupted weather patterns and spreading deserts," he said. "Hundreds of millions of people will be forced to leave their homelands because their crops and animals will have died. The trouble will come when they try to migrate into new lands, however. That will bring them into armed conflict with people already living there. Nor will it be an occasional occurrence. It could become a permanent feature of life on Earth."

    The news that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have reached 400ppm has been seized on by experts because that level brings the world close to the point where it becomes inevitable that it will experience a catastrophic rise in temperatures. Scientists have warned for decades of the danger of allowing industrial outputs of carbon dioxide to rise unchecked.

    Instead, these outputs have accelerated. In the 1960s, carbon dioxide levels rose at a rate of 0.7ppm a year. Today, they rise at 2.1ppm, as more nations become industrialized and increase outputs from their factories and power plants. The last time the Earth's atmosphere had 400ppm carbon dioxide, the Arctic was ice-free and sea levels were 40 metres higher.

    The prospect of Earth returning to these climatic conditions is causing major alarm. As temperatures rise, deserts will spread and life-sustaining weather patterns such as the North Indian monsoon could be disrupted. Agriculture could fail on a continent-wide basis and hundreds of millions of people would be rendered homeless, triggering widespread conflict.

    There are likely to be severe physical consequences for the planet. Rising temperatures will shrink polar ice caps – the Arctic's is now at its lowest since records began – and so reduce the amount of solar heat they reflect back into space. Similarly, thawing of the permafrost lands of Alaska, Canada and Russia could release even more greenhouse gases, including methane, and further intensify global warming.

    by:Robin McKie, science editor

    source: http://www.theguardian.com/us

    Where do we go from here?

    We need an honest and effective plan to restabilize the climate before there is nothing left, but a hellish future or even no future for future generations. Click here to begin reading about this new plan as well as to learn about what else that is even worse --- is coming!

    Air Jordan XIV High

  • The Single Most Effective Way to Personally Reduce Global Warming and Climate Destabilization: Why Aren't the Big Environmental Organizations Takling It Up and Pushing it with Their Members?

    To maximally reduce your eco-footprint to reduce carbon pollution, global warming and climate destabilization:

    Eat less animal meat and dairy products as often as you can and get your protein in other ways. The global agribusiness (the cattle, pigs chickens, fish etc industry,) is probably THE single leading cause of climate change and global warming when its total climate polluting greenhouse gas emission effects are taken into effect.

    One study has estimated global agribusiness responsible for 51% of all global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. (The total fossil fuel industry is estimated to be responsible for 40% of all greenhouse gas emissions.) Eating less or no animal meat and dairy products now appears to be the single most effective individual thing that you can do to directly make a real difference that actually matters in reducing carbon pollution --- in fact, by many times over all of the other personal eco-footprint lowering activities when taken as a whole.

    Reducing or eliminating all animal and dairy products from your diet is also vitally important because it IS something within your power right now that has both maximized carbon pollution reducing effectiveness and is within your personal zone of control. So much of what is needed to save the planet from climate destabilization is beyond our zones of influence.

    If you want to do something truly effective to dramatically reduce your personal greenhouse gas emissions, we strongly recommend you get and read the book "Eat to Live" by Dr. Joel Furhman. In it you will learn about how to do your honestly effective personal part to save the planet from climate destabilization while also becoming healthier and looking better than you can imagine.

    And finally, if you would like to learn more of the hard science facts behind why dramatically reducing your animal and dairy product intake or becoming a vegan is so important to the planet's climate future, watch the documentary called Cowspiracy and go to this key facts page http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ .

    If you're really committed to reducing your environmental footprint, consider phasing in a plant-based diet. Why? Because the most highly leveraged environmental action any individual can take is to reduce or eliminate their consumption of animal products (meat, dairy and eggs). Vegan and vegetarian diets generate up to a whopping 42 percent fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and have dramatically lower overall environmental impacts than non-vegetarian diets do. Consider this: Eating a plant-based diet less than one day per week reduces more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than buying local food all year long, and switching to a full-time plant-based diet results in greater GHG reductions than switching from a sedan to a hybrid vehicle. Carol Misseldine
    After you have read over the above linked Cowspiriacy fact sheet and hopefully seen the Cowspiriacy documentary film also see the following two amazing articles on how "voting" with your diet will do a lot to help lessen climate destabilization and solve other key global challenges to our shared future.

    In Summary:

    If going vegan is the single most effective thing that you can actually do to save the planet from global warming and climate destabilization, why aren't the big environmental organizations actively promoting and pushing it?

    Start practicing more sustainability, frugality and lower energy use by going vegan.  Be an example of the change you want to see. This is because that is what almost all of us will be forced to do these things in the later stages of catastrophic climate destabilization.

    Women's shoes

  • Quick Facts on Agribusiness and the Polluntants it Contributes to Climate Destabilization. Is AgriBusiness the Single biggest cause of Global Warming? You be the Judge!

    Changing our diets may be the single most powerful individual action we can do to slow global warming and climate destabilization --- BY FAR!

    It now appears to our organization that eating less animal and dairy products is far, far, far more effective than all of the other things COMBINED that environmental groups have been telling us to do to reduce our personal carbon footprints. So much so, that we had to come out to our members and readers and ask them to read over the information below.

    If after reading this blog post you do decide to change your diet (as our own executive director has recently done,) we strongly recommend that you first read the book "Eat to Live" by Dr Furhman. This way you get all of the health advantages and "best practice" strategies for doing so as well. We also strongly recommend that you see the movie documentary Cowspiracy. (Showing locations and how to get your copy is found at http://www.cowspiracy.com/

    The Key Facts and Research on Global Agribusiness to Consider When Contemplating How you Can Effectively Help Slow Climate Destabilization:

    1.) The World population in 1812: 1 billion; 1912: 1.5 billion; 2012: 7 billion.

    “Human numbers through time.” Nova science programming.


    2.) 70 billion farmed animals are reared annually worldwide. More than 6 million animals are killed for food every hour.

    A well-fed world. factory farms.


    Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

    3.) Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all transportation combined. [i]

    Fao.org. Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.


    4.) Transportation is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

    Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation.

    Environmental Protection Agency. “Global Emissions.”


    5.) Livestock when you add in all of their total byproducts actually account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. (This is more than the whole fossil fuel industry at an estimated 40%.)

    Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

    WorldWatch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19.


    6.) Methane from cow farts is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2.

    “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.


    7.) Methane has a global warming power 86 times that of CO2.

    NASA. “Methane: Its Role as a Greenhouse Gas.” Jet Propulsion Laboratory.


    8.) Livestock is responsible for 65% of all emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas which is 296x more destructive than carbon dioxide and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.

    “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.


    9.) Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) water use ranges from 70-140 billion gallons annually.

    “Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources.” EPA Office of Research and Development. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.


    10.) Animal agriculture use ranges from 34-76 trillion gallons of water annually. [ii]

    Pimentel, David, et al. “Water Resources: Agricultural And Environmental Issues.” BioScience 54, no. 10 (2004): 909-18.


    Barber, N.L., “Summary of estimated water use in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3098.”


    11.) Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of US water consumption.

    “USDA ERS – Irrigation & Water Use.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2013.


    12.) Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of all water use in the US.

    Jacobson, Michael F. “More and Cleaner Water.” In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment.
    Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.


    13.) One hamburger requires 660 gallons of water to produce – the equivalent of 2 months’ worth of showers. [iii]

    Catanese, Christina. “Virtual Water, Real Impacts.” Greenversations: Official Blog of the U.S. EPA. 2012.


    “50 Ways to Save Your River.” Friends of the River.


    14.) 2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef.

    Robbins, John. “2,500 Gallons, All Wet?” EarthSave


    Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group.


    “Water Footprint Assessment.” University of Twente, the Netherlands.


    Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print

    15.) 477 gallons of water are required to produce 1 pound of eggs; 900 gallons of water are needed for cheese.

    “Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group.


    16.) 1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk.

    “Water trivia facts.” United States Environmental Protection Agency.


    17.) 5% of water in the US is used by private homes.
    55% of water in the US is used for animal agriculture.

    Jacobson, Michael F. “More and Cleaner Water.” In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.


    Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

    18.) The meat and dairy industries combined use nearly 1/3 (29%) of all the fresh water in the world today.

    “Freshwater Abuse and Loss: Where Is It All Going?” Forks Over Knives.


    19.) Livestock covers 45% of the earth’s total land.

    Thornton, Phillip, Mario Herrero, and Polly Ericksen. “Livestock and Climate Change.” Livestock Exchange, no. 3 (2011).


    20.) Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution [iv], and habitat destruction.

    Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

    “What’s the Problem?” United States Environmental Protection Agency.


    “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.


    “Fire Up the Grill for a Mouthwatering Red, White, and Green July 4th.” Worldwatch Institute.


    Oppenlander, Richard A. “Biodiversity and Food Choice: A Clarification.” Comfortably Unaware. 2012


    “Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004.


    21.) Every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US.
    This doesn’t include the animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction or in backyards, or the billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the US. [v]

    “What’s the Problem?” United States Environmental Protection Agency.


    “How To Manage Manure.” Healthy Landscapes.


    335 million tons of “dry matter” is produced annually by livestock in the US.

    “FY-2005 Annual Report Manure and Byproduct Utilization National Program 206.”
    USDA Agricultural Research Service. 2008.


    22.) A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people. [vi]

    “Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004.


    23.) Animal agriculture is responsible for 91% of Amazon destruction.

    Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

    Margulis, Sergio. Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Rainforest. Washington: World Bank Publications, 2003.


    24.) 1-2 acres of rainforest are cleared every second.

    “Avoiding Unsustainable Rainforest Wood.” Rainforest Relief.


    Facts about the rainforest.


    Rainforest facts.


    25.) The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops.

    “Livestock impacts on the environment.” Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (fao). 2006.


    26.) 110 plant, animal and insect species are lost every day due to rainforest destruction.

    “Rainforest statistics and facts.” Save the amazon.


    Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

    27.) 26 million rainforest acres have been cleared for palm oil production. [ix]

    “Indonesia: palm oil expansion unaffected by forest moratorium.” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2013.


    28.) 136 million rainforest acres cleared for animal agriculture.



    29.) 1,100 activists have been killed in Brazil in the past 20 years. [x]

    Batty, David. “Brazilian faces retrial over murder of environmental activist nun in Amazon.” The Guardian. 2009.


    30.) Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day. [xi]

    Ross, Philip. “Cow farts have ‘larger greenhouse gas impact’ than previously thought; methane pushes climate change.” International Business Times. 2013.


    31.) 130 times more animal waste than human waste is produced in the US – 1.4 billion tons from the meat industry annually. 5 tons of animal waste is produced for every person. [xii]

    Animal agriculture: waste management practices. United States General Accounting Office.


    32.) 2-5 acres of land are used per cow.

    Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. 

    Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

    33.) The average American consumes 209 pounds of meat per year.

    Haney, Shaun. “How much do we eat?” Real agriculture. 2012. (276 lbs)


    “US meat, poultry production & consumption” American Meat Institute. 2009. (233.9 lbs)


    Bernard, Neal. “Do we eat too much?” Huffington Post. (200 lbs)


    34.) Nearly half of the contiguous US is devoted to animal agriculture. [xiii]
    30% of the Earth’s entire land surface is used by the livestock sector.

    Versterby, Marlow; Krupa, Kenneth. “Major uses of land in the United States.” Updated 2012. USDA Economic Research Service.


    “Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns.”

    UN News Centre, 2006.


    35.) 1/3 of the planet is desertified due to livestock.

    “UN launches international year of deserts and desertification.”

    UN news centre, 2006.


    Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.


    36.) 3/4 of the world’s fisheries are exploited.

    “Overfishing: A Threat to Marine Biodiversity.” UN News Center.


    “General Situation of World Fish Stocks.” United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).


    37.) 90 million tons of fish are pulled from our oceans each year. [vii]

    “World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2012.


    38.) For every 1 pound of fish caught, an average of 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill. [viii]

    “Discards and Bycatch in Shrimp Trawl Fisheries.”


    39.) As many as 40% (63 billion pounds) of fish caught globally every year are discarded.

    Goldenberg, Suzanne. “America’s Nine Most Wasteful Fisheries Named.” The Guardian.


    40.) Scientists estimate as many as 650,000 whales, dolphins and seals are killed every year by fishing vessels.

    Goldenberg, Suzanne. “America’s Nine Most Wasteful Fisheries Named.” The Guardian.


    41.) 100 million tons of fish are caught annually.

    Montaigne, fen. “Still waters: The global fish crisis.” National Geographic.


    42.) Fish catch peaks at 85 million tons.

    “World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2012.




    43.) Throughout the world, humans drink 5.2 billion gallons of water and eat 21 billion pounds of food each day.

    Based on rough averages of 0.75 gallons of water and 3 lbs of food per day.

    Worldwide, cows drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day.

    Based on rough average of 30 gallons of water and 90 lbs of feed per day.

    44.) Land required to feed 1 person for 1 year:
    Vegan: 1/6th acre
    Vegetarian: 3x as much as a vegan
    Meat Eater: 18x as much as a vegan

    “Our food our future.” Earthsave.


    45.) 1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food.
    1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of meat.

    Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

    46.) A person who follows a vegan diet uses 50% less carbon dioxide, 1/11th oil, 1/13th water, and 1/18th land compared to a meat-eater.

    CO2: “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.” Climactic change, 2014.


    Oil, water: “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment.”
    The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003.


    Land: “Our food our future.” Earthsave.


    47.) Each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 sq ft of forested land, 20 lbs CO2 equivalent, and one animal’s life. [xiv]

    “Water Footprint Assessment.” University of Twente, the Netherlands.


    Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

    “Measuring the daily destruction of the world’s rainforests.” Scientific American, 2009.


    “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.” Climactic change, 2014.


    “Meat eater’s guide to climate change and health.” The Environmental Working Group.



    Regarding the facts and research above: Although there may be fluctuations in numbers from year to year and from researcher to researcher, the fact remains that animal agriculture, as a whole, requires tremendous amounts of resources and is a leader in environmental degradation.

    Air Jordan For Women

  • Is AgriBusiness the Biggest Greenhouse Gas Polluter? Even Bigger Than Greenhouse Gases from Burning Fossil Fuels when ALL Factors are Considered!

    Various sectors of agribusiness have been linked to the bulk of the greenhouse gases.

    “New data that has come out clearly shows that industrial agriculture and the globalized food system are responsible of between 44 and 57% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. This figure can be broken down as follows (i) Agricultural activities are responsible for 11 to 15%, (ii) Land clearing and deforestation cause an additional 15 to 18%, (iii) Food processing, packing and transportation cause 15 to 20%, and (iv) Decomposition of organic waste causes another 3 to 4%. It means that our current food system is a major polluter. The question we have to answer now is: how do we solve the climate chaos, hunger and assure a better livelihood for farmers, when the agricultural sector itself is contributing more than half of the total emissions? We believe that it is the industrial and agribusiness model of agriculture that is at the root of the problem, because those percentages that I mentioned earlier come from the deforestation and the conversion of natural forests into monoculture plantations, all of which is being carried out by Agribusiness Corporations.” Claims made in a speech at Copenhagen by Henry Saragih of Via Compesina.

    Steering Questions: Are these claims ridiculous? Is Global climate change really the result of human activity? Or 2. If it is, should CO2 and other greenhouse gases be regulated? What harm would such regulation have on agribusiness? What are some of the changes through technology and practices that can be done to reduce or even sequestering greenhouse gases? How might these practices affect our ability to feed the world? What role should agribusiness play in providing biofuel?

    Oil, coal, and natural gas are collectively known as fossil fuels. Today, eighty-five percent of all energy produced in the United States comes from burning these fuels. That energy powers almost two-thirds of our electricity and virtually all of our transportation.i

    One estimate suggests that reusing a glass jar five times at home can save about half of the energy a commercial packager uses to make five disposable containers.xviii

    There are a number of problems associated with fossil fuels, most of which stem from the by-products created when they are burned to create energy. Chief among those byproducts are carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, greenhouse gases that are major contributors to global warming . Largely because of coal and petroleum combustion, the amount of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in the air today are thirty-five percent and eighteen percent higher, respectively, than they were before the industrial era.iii Other byproducts of fossil fuel combustion include sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, both of which contribute to acid rain, and hydrocarbons, which can react with nitrogen oxides to form smog.iv

    In addition to their environmental harm, the byproducts of burning fossil fuels can cause health problems for humans . Nitrogen oxides, for instance, irritate the lungs.v Particulate matter such as soot and dust contribute to respiratory illness and cardiac problems, including arrhythmias and heart attacks.vi

    Fossil fuel dependence also damages the health of our nation. In 2004, almost sixty percent of petroleum products used in the United States were imported from other countries.vii And despite the fact that fossil fuels are limited resources that cannot be replaced, the Department of Energy acknowledges that their usage in the United States is likely only to grow over the next century. viii This means that unless we dramatically change the way the United States consumes energy, our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels will also grow—and increasingly threaten the stability of American government, business, and daily life.

    Fossil Fuels and Industrial Farming
    Conventional food production and distribution requires a tremendous amount of energy—one study conducted in 2000 estimated that ten percent of the energy used annually in the United States was consumed by the food industry.ix Yet for all the energy we put into our food system, we don’t get very much out. A 2002 study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that, using our current system, three calories of energy were needed to create one calorie of edible food. And that was on average. Some foods take far more, for instance grain-fed beef, which requires thirty-five calories for every calorie of beef produced. x What’s more, the John Hopkins study didn’t include the energy used in processing and transporting food. Studies that do estimate that it takes an average of seven to ten calories of input energy to produce one calorie of food.xi

    Accounting for most of this wasteful equation are the industrial practices upon which our food system is built. These include inefficient growing practices, food processing, and storage, as well as our system of transporting foodstuffs thousands of miles between the field and the end consumer.

    Growing Practices
    The biggest culprit of fossil fuel usage in industrial farming is not transporting food or fueling machinery; it’s chemicals. As much as forty percent of energy used in the food system goes towards the production of artificial fertilizers and pesticidesxii Fertilizers are synthesized from atmospheric nitrogen and natural gas, a process that takes a significant amount of energy. Producing and distributing them requires an average of 5.5 gallons of fossil fuels per acre. xiii

    Manure could be a more energy-efficient alternative to synthetic fertilizers, but because it is heavy this applies only when it can be used a short distance from where it is produced—and our industrial system precludes this option. xiv The problem is over-consolidation: We raise large numbers of livestock in one place and raise the grain they eat in other places. This means that the livestock produce an excess of manure where there’s no cropland for it to be spread on, making it a pollutant rather than a tool. Meanwhile, the fields that grow feed must draw their fertility from synthetic sources.xv We end up with concentrations of unusable manure in one place, and concentrations of chemical fertilizers in the other—and a whole lot of fuel wasted trucking feed and fertilizer around the country.

    The extent of this waste is underscored by the fact that it’s largely unnecessary. Small, pasture-based livestock farms take advantage of natural cycles: the animals feed themselves on grass and distribute their manure themselves, fertilizing the pasture as they go. Rather than fossil fuels, they need only rain and sun to make the system work.

    Packaging, Processing, and Storing Food
    Approximately twenty-three percent of the energy used in our food production system is allocated to processing and packaging food.xvi Another thirty-two percent is burned in home refrigeration and cooking.xvii While no study has quantified the potential energy savings of buying locally, the practice of eating whole foods generally decreases the use of fossil fuels for processing, packaging, and storing foods. (Compare all the energy and packaging behind say, a can of tomato sauce, to simply buying some tomatoes, basil, and garlic, and making it oneself.) If the consumer chooses to store foods for long periods of time at home, this can often be done in a more energy-efficient manner than commercial packagers choose to use. One estimate suggests that reusing a glass jar five times at home can save about half of the energy a commercial packager uses to make five disposable containers.xviii

    Food Transportation 
    Because industrial farming draws on the economy of scale, our food is increasingly grown in concentration in specific areas of the country. This is so common that it has shaped much of our country’s geographic identities—the western Plains are wheat country, the Midwest is the Corn Belt—but it has reached extremes. For instance, approximately ninety percent of all the fresh vegetables consumed in the United States are grown in California’s San Joaquin Valley.xix

    This national-scale system is possible only because it uses large quantities of fossil fuels to transport food products to the consumer. It is now common practice to ship food not just around the country, but around the world. (In 2005, more than $120 billion of agricultural products crossed U.S. borders as imports and exports.)xx As a result, the average American foodstuff travels an estimated 1,500 miles before being consumed.xxi

    Sustainable Farming and Fossil Fuel Savings 
    The most obvious way that small, sustainable farms help reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels is by selling their products locally. The less food has to travel, the less fuel is needed to transport it. But sustainable farming practices also have the potential to reduce fossil fuel dependence by eliminating wasteful production practices. The USDA estimates that making all our farmland’s irrigation systems just ten percent more efficient would annually save eighty million gallons of diesel gasoline spent on pumping and applying the water.xxii Similarly, reducing repetitive fertilizer application on the 250 million acres of major cropland in the United States would save approximately one billion dollars worth of petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides (not to mention prevent soil and water pollution).xxiii These kinds of dramatic reductions in resource consumption can be achieved through management-intensive, sustainable farming practices.

    Exercising proper soil conservation techniques can also help reduce fossil fuel usage. For example, the USDA estimates that no-till farming can save about 3.9 gallons of diesel fuel per acre of land.xxiv As the name suggests, no-till farming means eliminating (or in some cases reducing) the tilling of soil, which decreases the use of diesel-powered heavy equipment.

    No-till can even reverse some of the damage caused by fossil fuel use. Plants absorb carbon from the air and bring it down into the soil, but when farmers till, they release the carbon back up into the air. By not tilling, that carbon stays underground. USDA scientists estimate that if proper soil conservation techniques were used, U.S. cropland could store between twelve and fourteen percent of the nation’s annual carbon emissions.xxv As pollution from fossil fuels and other sources continues to grow, environmentally friendly practices such as no-till farming are more necessary than ever.

    In 2001 the
    US imported:

    68.2% of our fish and shellfish

    27.3 percent of confectionary products

    21.4 percent of fruits, juices, and nuts

    15.5 percent of vegetable oils

    9.3 percent of red meat.xxvii

    Sustainable farms also take advantage of animal power to fuel their operations. When animals graze, they feed themselves and spread their own manure. This eliminates the need to truck feed to the animals and then truck their manure out to fields where it is sprayed. Thus the practice of grazing animals on pasture also decreases the amount of fuel used to produce our food.

    What You Can Do

    • Buy foods grown locally. The equation is simple: the closer the farm is to you, the less fuel is needed to transport its food to your table. You can find local foods through our Eat Well Guide by visiting a local farmers market, or by joining a food co-op or Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) group. See our Shop Sustainable page for more information. And while you’re at it, ask your grocery store to supply locally grown produce.
    • Want to have lettuce that’s truly local? Plant a garden and grow your own fresh produce!
    • Avoid purchasing processed foods. These foods take more energy to produce (and have less nutritional value than whole foods). In addition, choose foods with minimal packaging. This reduces the energy used to produce the packaging and eliminates these materials from the waste stream.
    • Cut back on meat. As much as Americans love to eat it, meat is the least fuel-efficient food we have. Large quantities of energy are required to cultivate, harvest, and ship animal feed, house, transport and slaughter animals, process and package their meat, and refrigerate it until it’s cooked.

    Did You Know?

    • Nitrogen-based fertilizers contribute directly to global warming: Making and transporting one kilogram of nitrogen in a fertilizer releases 3.7 kg of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.xxvi
    • As bountiful as our nation’s agriculture is, we are hardly self-sufficient. To supply the American diet, in 2001 we imported 68.2 percent of our fish and shellfish, 27.3 percent of confectionary products, 21.4 percent of fruits, juices, and nuts, 15.5 percent of vegetable oils, and 9.3 percent of red meat.xxvii

    For More Information


    For this articles original publication location see http://hopkintonschools.libguides.com/content.php?pid=269553&sid=2230783

    We also strongly recommend that you read this very detailed article suggesting that Agribusiness is the largest cause of greenhouse gases causing global warming. Click here for the article.

    Also see this article with more research and summary facts showing agribusiness's major role in climate destabilization and other unsustainable practices.


    Salg Air Force, Adidas Herre, Adidas Bukser Dame, Adidas Sandaler

  • It Now Appears We Will Pass the Critical Global Warming Target of No More that 2 Degrees Celsius About 2039 or Sooner. What it Means to Your and Your Children's Future.

    Our review of the most current climate research points towards passing the world's most commonly recognized critical global warming target of no more that 2 Degrees Celsius warming (over pre industrial levels,) in  2039 or sooner.

    That is very very bad news for future generations. Here is what missing the 2 degree Celsius target (or even less than the two degree target means to your future,):

    The IPCC climate commission of the United Nations found that only moderate warming would lead to more extreme weather events and wipe out coral reefs and lead to the loss of Arctic sea ice in summer.

    For example, warming of more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels (or less than twice the warming that has already occurred) would lead to the loss of 90% or more of all coral reefs.

    Extreme weather events posed a “high risk” with an additional 1 degree warming above recent levels, or 1.6 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

    “Extensive” species extinctions would follow additional warming of 3 degrees Celsius above recent levels, or 3.6 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

    With more than 3 degrees warming above recent levels (3.6 degrees above pre-industrial), the potential for large and irreversible sea level rise took hold.
Beyond that, farmers worldwide would see serious crop damage.

    “Global temperature increases of about 4°C or more above late-20th-century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally and regionally.”

    In the longer term, impacts were more serious even at lower levels of warming. For example, over the next 1,000 years or so, the whole Greenland ice sheet would melt at warming of 1 to 4 degrees above recent levels (1.6 to 4.6 degrees above pre-industrial), contributing up to 7 meters sea level rise, the IPCC said.

    Regional Risks:

    The IPCC’s summary report described climate risks by region, at 2 and 4 degrees warming above pre-industrial levels.

    In Africa, the biggest risk was to crop production, risks described as “very high” with or without adaptation with 4 degrees warming, and “medium” for 2 degrees with adaptation.

    In Europe, the biggest threats were in the Mediterranean, from reduced water availability and economic losses from heat waves including wild fires.

    In Asia, the biggest losses were also from heat waves, which adaptation could only ease slightly at 4 degrees warming.

    In Australia the biggest risk was to coral reefs, which could not be protected at 4 degrees warming and faced high risks even with 2 degrees.

    In North America the biggest threat was to natural ecosystems including forests from wild fires and water stress, where adaptations may not be able to cope with 4 degrees warming, and risks were also high with 2 degrees warming.

    In South America, the biggest risk was to water availability, and in Polar Regions from melting ice and permafrost, which also impacted freshwater.

    - See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/04/01/how-much-worse-is-a-4-degrees-world/#stha...


    air max 90 essential infrared