Global warming likely to impact rainfall patterns

Climate models project that the global average temperature will rise about 1 degree C by mid-century, if we continue with business as usual and emit greenhouse gases.

The global average, though, does not tell us anything about what will happen to regional climates.

Analysing global model warming projections in models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a team headed by meteorologist Shang-Ping Xie at the University of Hawaii finds that ocean temperature patterns in the tropics and sub-tropics will change in ways that will significantly alter rainfall patterns.

Scientists have mostly assumed that the surfaces of oceans will warm rather evenly in the tropics. This assumption has led to “wetter-gets-wetter” and “drier-gets-drier” regional rainfall projections.

Xie’s team has gathered evidence that, although ocean surface temperatures can be expected to increase mostly everywhere by mid-century, the increase may differ by up to 1.5degreesC depending upon the region.

“Compared to the mean projected rise of 1degreesC, such differences are fairly large and can have a pronounced impact on tropical and subtropical climate by altering atmospheric heating patterns and therefore rainfall,” explains Xie.

“Our results broadly indicate that regions of peak sea surface temperature will get wetter, and those relatively cool will get drier,” adds Xie, according to the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

The study is slated for publication in the Journal of Climate this month.

Warming panel, under attack, seeks outside review

The Nobel Prize-winning international scientific panel studying global warming is seeking independent outside review for how it makes major reports.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says it’s seeking some kind of independent review because of recent criticism about its 2007 reports.

Critics have found a few unsettling errors, including projections of retreats in Himalayan glaciers, in the thousands of pages of the reports.

The panel shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with former Vice President Al Gore. The panel was created by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization.

A top panel official, Chris Field, said yesterday it will be hard finding an independent organization, such as a scientific society, to do the review.

Global warming both bane and boon for world's poor

A new study by researchers at Stanford University, US, has determined that global warming may have an adverse impact on food prices and hunger in poor populations of the world, while others would be helped out of poverty because of it.

Researchers say that higher temperatures could significantly reduce yields of wheat, rice and maize - dietary staples for tens of millions of poor people who subsist on less than 1 dollar a day. The resulting crop shortages would likely cause food prices to rise and drive many into poverty.

“But even as some people are hurt, others would be helped out of poverty,” said Stanford agricultural scientist David Lobell. Lobell and his colleagues recently conducted the first in-depth study showing how different climate change scenarios could affect incomes of farmers and labourers in developing countries. In the study, Lobell, former FSE researcher Marshall Burke and Purdue University agricultural economist Thomas Hertel focused on 15 developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Hertel has developed a global trade model that closely tracks the consumption and production of rice, wheat and maize on a country-by-country basis. The model was used to project the effects of climate change on agriculture within 20 years and the resulting impact on prices and poverty. The study revealed a surprising mix of winners and losers depending on the projected global temperature. The “most likely” scenario projected by the International Panel on Climate Change is that global temperatures will rise 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) by 2030. In that scenario, the trade model projected relatively little change in crop yields, food prices and poverty rates.

But under the “low-yield” scenario, in which temperatures increase by 2.7 F (1.5 C), the model projects a 10 to 20 percent drop in agricultural productivity, which results in a 10 to 60 percent rise in the price of rice, wheat and maize. Because of these higher prices, the overall poverty rate in the 15 countries surveyed was expected to rise by 3 percent.

However, an analysis of individual countries revealed a far more complicated picture. In 11 of the 15 countries, poor people who owned their own land and raised their own crops actually benefited from higher food prices, according to the model. In Thailand, for example, the poverty rate for people in the non-agricultural sector was projected to rise 5 percent, while the rate for self-employed farmers dropped more than 30 percent - in part because, as food supplies dwindled, the global demand for higher-priced crops increased.

“If prices go up and you’re tied to international markets, you could be lifted out of poverty quite considerably,” Lobell explained.

No doubt, Himalayan glaciers are melting fast: Pachauri

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which came under fire for an error in predicting that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, said on Tuesday that the contentions of snowfall discrediting the meltdown were incorrect and there was no ambiguity that the glaciers were melting.

He was speaking at a conference on Eco-Housing held here. “People may say that our Himalayan glaciers are not melting. That is incorrect. There is no doubt that the glaciers are melting at a rapid rate. Unfortunately, there has been very little research done on this in our country. Not enough measurements have been taken. This could cause the rivers in north India to flood. There is a huge possibility that floods and droughts could rise. [We have seen] floods in Rajasthan which never experienced flooding,” he said, driving home the problem of water scarcity.

In a veiled defence of his position in the aftermath of the controversy, Mr. Pachauri said: “There are still some people who think outside the ambit of science and disbelieve the phenomenon of global warming. Some powerful vested interests don’t wish to bring about a change in their lifestyles. When I raise my voice on the ill-effects [of climate change] on the poor, they don’t like [that view].”

Referring to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s backing, Mr. Pachauri said: “This country has nurtured me and I hope the Indian citizens will support me. Some days ago our Prime Minister gave me his blessings at a summit on sustainable development in Delhi. I am saying all this [on global warming and climate change] because the Indian people are a wise lot. If we see the signs, we can adopt measures and give a better future to our children.”

Mr. Pachauri warned that Mumbai faced a risk of rising sea-levels. “The IPCC has predicted that the precipitation patterns like rainfall and snowfall are changing. The Mumbai floods of 2005 were an example of that. Such incidents are happening all over the world. ”

Mr. Pachauri also spoke of the 2003 heatwave in Andhra Pradesh. “There were 4,000 recorded deaths. Victims did not know of oral rehydration therapy. Since mobiles were not much in use, we had no means of warning people.”

Chief Minister Ashok Chavan vowed that Maharashtra would be an aggressor in achieving the goals of sustainable development.

Nuclear energy key to climate change: Obama

US President, Barack Obama, on Wednesday said nuclear energy and clean coal energy technology is key to the successful fight against climate change and on the latter it is important to bring India and China on board.

“I know it’s controversial in some quarters, but if you’re serious about dealing with climate change then you’ve got to take a serious look at the nuclear industry,” Mr. Obama said at a Town Hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire.

“If you are serious about climate change, you’ve got to figure out is there technology that can allow us to sequester coal and the emissions that are set out,” he said.

The reason for that is not just for the US, Mr. Obama observed.

“China is building a coal-fired plant once a week, just about -- India is doing the same -- because coal is cheap,” he said.

“Unless we can come up with some energy alternatives that allow us to franchise that technology so that they are equipped to burn that coal cleanly, we’re going to have problems no matter what we do in this country when it comes to the environment,” Mr. Obama said.

So technology is the key, he argued. “We can make significant profits and create huge jobs just upgrading traditional technologies”.

“Then you’ve got the whole clean energy sector, which is ready to take off if we provide the kind of seed capital, the kind of R&D credits that are necessary,” he said.

Mr. Obama said this recession almost killed a lot of US homegrown clean energy sectors.

“You talk to the wind industry or the solar industry, if we hadn’t passed the Recovery Act and all the support for clean energy, a lot of them would have completely gone under and we would have been ceding leadership as we already have, unfortunately, to a lot of countries like Spain and Germany and Japan that are doing a lot more work on it“.

“So this is a huge engine for job creation, and we’ve got to make those investments,” he said.

Mr. Obama said the US is one of the least efficient advanced economies when it comes to energy usage.

“It is estimated that we could probably lop off 30 per cent of our energy consumption just on efficiency without changing our lifestyles significantly“.

I say “significantly” because you’d have to start buying LED batteries or LED light bulbs. But it’s still a light bulb. You don’t have to sit in the dark. You don’t have to use gas lanterns. You just have to make the investment.

“And one of the things that a company like ARC Energy is doing is trying to bring down the unit cost for each of those light bulbs,” he said.