Video: Warmer world
Interactive feature: Explore the 4 °C world in Google Earth (.kmz file download
BY 2055, climate change is likely to have warmed the world by a dangerous 4 °C unless we stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere the way we do now. This is the startling conclusion of a study by the UK Met Office, unveiled at a conference in Oxford this week.
Why so soon? Because temperature rises caused by greenhouse gas emissions are expected to trigger dangerous feedback loops, which will release ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gases. The nature and scale of these feedback loops is a subject of vigorous debate among climate scientists, but warmer oceans, for instance, may liberate more dissolved CO2, and plants may decay faster in a warmer climate. The Met Office ran 17 different models with these feedbacks. All concluded a 4 °C world by 2055 was likely if emissions continue to rise. Even if we are lucky, we are still likely to hit 4 °C by 2070.
What will a 4 °C world look like? Brace yourself: the picture painted by the 130 climate researchers at the Oxford conference is not pretty. An average global increase of 4 °C translates to a rise of up to 15 °C at the North Pole. Summers in parts of the Arctic would be as balmy as California's Napa valley. Sea levels would rise by up to 1.4 metres, according to Stefan Rahmstorf at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany. Even the less pessimistic estimate of a 0.65-metre rise by 2100 would put at least 190 million people a year at risk from floods, says Rahmstorf's colleague Jochen Hinkel.
The glimmer of hope? It doesn't have to be this way. If politicians at the UN climate change talks in December agree to cut emissions by 3 per cent every year, the world can limit temperature rise to a "safe" 2 °C, the Met Office says.
The Amazon - gone
In a 4 °C world, climate change, deforestation and fires spreading from degraded land into pristine forest will conspire to destroy over 83 per cent of the Amazon rainforest by 2100, according to climatologist Wolfgang Cramer at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. His climate models show global warming alone converting 30 per cent of the Amazon into degraded shrub land and mixed woodland by 2100. Even this grim estimate is based on the hopeful assumption that extra CO2 in the atmosphere will "fertilise" the forest, buffering it from drought. But we can't be sure this will happen, says Cramer. "If we've overestimated the magnitude of CO2 fertilisation, we risk losing the entire Amazon."
Water lifeline cut
Millions of people in India and China depend on monsoon rains to water their crops and for drinking water. Climate change could sever this lifeline. Anders Levermann at Potsdam University in Germany has developed a model which reflects the physics that drives monsoons. His simulations suggest that in a 4 °C world there will be a mix of extremely wet monsoon seasons and extremely dry ones, making it hard for farmers to plan what to grow. Worse, the fine aerosol particles released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels could put a complete stop to the monsoon rains in central southern China and northern India. Monsoons are generated by sharp heat gradients in the atmosphere where warm land meets cool ocean. By blocking solar energy, aerosols cool the coastal atmosphere and sap monsoons' strength.
Trapped!
Lack of water, crop failure and rising sea levels could force up to 200 million people from their homes by 2050. Attention in rich western nations has focused on the prospect of millions of climate migrants clamouring at their borders. The reality is likely to be harsher, says François Gemenne, a migration expert at the Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations in Paris, France. From a study of the impact of 23 recent environmental disasters he concludes that the people most vulnerable to a 4 °C rise are also least able to escape it. "At 4 °C, the poor will struggle to survive, let alone escape," he says. Invariably, the poor can't afford to flee, and they lack the social networks which would otherwise facilitate migration, Gemenne says.
Climate change is already forcing people to migrate, says Gemenne. Sea level rise is driving an exodus from Tuvalu, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea and the low-lying Carteret Islands, while water stress is forcing people in Mauritania, Sudan, Ghana and Kenya to migrate. Melting permafrost is pushing people out of parts of Alaska and floods are forcing others out of the delta regions of Bangladesh and Vietnam.
Gemenne's research, conducted in conjunction with the EU Commission's EACH-FOR project, will be published in the Journal of International Migration next year.
Fire down under
Projections for Australia present a conundrum. It looks likely to escape extreme temperatures rises of 10 °C or more seen elsewhere (see map, top right), but rainfall projections paint a more troubling picture. There was very little consensus between the different models run by the UK Met Office. More alarmingly, a study of the probability of forest fires suggests that the number of "extreme fire danger days" per year - when uncontrollable fires are likely to break out as a result of low humidity, strong winds and high temperature - will treble by 2050. "Even under a low warming scenario, the frequency rises by 10 to 50 per cent," says David Karoly of the University of Melbourne, who reviewed a range of wildfire projections. "We are unleashing hell on Australia."
Interactive feature: Explore the 4 °C world in Google Earth
- Subscribe to New Scientist and you'll get:
- 51 issues of New Scientist magazine
- Unlimited access to all New Scientist online content -
a benefit only available to subscribers - Great savings from the normal price
- Subscribe now!
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Even good models in areas where we have vast knowledge still produce bad results. I see no difference here.
So, are you calling for an end to computer modeling? If so, what evidence do you have to show that it's an entirely unreliable method?
If not, you're a conspiracy theorist and oughta shut yur yap.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
GIGO = Garbage In Garbage Out
and
ETA = Extrapolation To Absurdity
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Mark has a very valid point, although some tend to look past the real facts here, I'll offer up a more tangable one for you.
The weather forcast! Oh my, when oh when is the weatherman 100% right? We can't even predict the weather correctly for more than 24 hours, let alone 100 YEARS!! So when you point at computer models that try to take the entire globe into consideration the variables are greatly increased. Thus the more variables you have the higher potential for error.
The weather forcast! Oh my, when oh when is the weatherman 100% right? - Snowman.
Snowman, doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. How cute. Most deniers don't.
Climate is more or less, the average weather over longer time frames (30 years as defined by the WMO).
Weather is inherently chaotic, meaning that small perturbations can have a profound effect on the outcome (Butterfly effect).
Long story short, climate is easier to accurately predict than weather.
We can't even predict the weather correctly for more than 24 hours, let alone 100 YEARS! - Snowman.
This is rubbish. GCM's assess future climate, not weather.
Are you saying there are models that are diametrically opposed to this one? Let's see it. Let's see all of it's methods exposed to the same light as this one. Lord knows this is just guess. But it's a reliable ballpark guess. Alarms should be going off, whether or not it's 100% accurate and precise.
Thank you.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Even good models in areas where we have vast knowledge still produce bad results." - Marc
Other than the fact that the modeling results do not mesh with your Conservative Political Agenda, what evidence do you have that they have produced bad results?
Are you going to claim that they are bad because they didn't predict last weeks weather?
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Science asks important questions and gives the best answers possible. In climatology, our best set of answers now come from computer models. What do you propose to replace them?
Bad Models Lead To Bad Results
Fri Oct 02 10:25:59 BST 2009 by Gates
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/campaign/climate_change/
the fact is there is no other way, and we can never be sure. Ignorance will always cast doubt over climate science
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.