Climate Change and Human Health

[awakening2lite]

Climate Change and Human Health

Impacts of global environmental changes
http://www.who.int/entity/globalchange/climatefrontpage.jpg

Climate change is a significant and emerging threat to public health, and changes the way we must look at protecting vulnerable populations.

The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that there is overwhelming evidence that humans are affecting the global climate, and highlighted a wide range of implications for human health. Climate variability and change cause death and disease through natural disasters, such as heatwaves, floods and droughts. In addition, many important diseases are highly sensitive to changing temperatures and precipitation. These include common vector- borne diseases such as malaria and dengue; as well as other major killers such as malnutrition and diarrhoea. Climate change already contributes to the global burden of disease, and this contribution is expected to grow in the future.

The impacts of climate on human health will not be evenly distributed around the world. Developing country populations, particularly in Small Island States, arid and high mountain zones, and in densely populated coastal areas, are considered to be particularly vulnerable.

Fortunately, much of the health risk is avoidable through existing health programmes and interventions. Concerted action to strengthen key features of health systems, and to promote healthy development choices, can enhance public health now as well as reduce vulnerability to future climate change.

WHO supports member states in protecting public health from the impacts of climate change, and provides the health-sector voice within the overall UN response to this global challenge.

source: http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/en/index.html

[awakening2lite]

Study: Global Warming May Cause Increased Kidney Stones

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

As global warming heats up temperatures around the United States, it will likely cause a painful sensation on some sensitive human areas, The Globe and Mail reported Tuesday.

Temperatures warming over the next 42 years will cause a 30 percent jump in nephrolithiasis, or kidney stones, especially in hotter regions of the country, said scientists at the University of Texas.

"This will come and get you in your home," said Dr. Tom Brikowski, lead researcher and an associate professor at the University of Texas at Dallas. "It will make life just uncomfortable enough that maybe people will slow down and think what they're doing to the climate."

And, as temperatures increase, so does the risk for dehydration in humans, which can form solid, painful plugs in the bladder and kidneys.

Experts are not completely sure of the connection between global warming and kidney stones, but they are not surprised. Climate changes have brought on other ailments such as malaria and the West Nile Virus.

The study will appear in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,383456,00.html

[franker01]

Isn't this what we've traditionally referred to as "weather"?:smile:

[awakening2lite]

Isn't this what we've traditionally referred to as "weather"?:smile:

Not really.

Weather:

EXCERPT

The weather is a set of all the phenomena in a given atmosphere at a given time.[1] Weather phenomena lie in the hydrosphere and troposphere.[2][3] Weather refers to current activity, as opposed to the term climate, which refers to the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.[4] When used without qualification, "weather" is understood to be the weather of Earth.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather

Global warming:

EXCERPT

Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century, and its projected continuation.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Climate:

EXCERPT

Climate encompasses the temperatures, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorogical factors weather in a given region over long periods of time

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

Climate Change:

EXCERPT

Climate change is any long-term significant change in the “average weather” that a given region experiences. Average weather may include average temperature, precipitation and wind patterns. It involves changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere over durations ranging from decades to millions of years. These changes can be caused by dynamic processes on Earth, external forces including variations in sunlight intensity, and more recently by human activities.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

[awakening2lite]

EPA issues dire new warning on effects of climate change

Jul. 18, 2008 12:00 AM

Climate change threatens the health and well-being of every American but could widen the divide between people who can adapt to a more hostile environment and society's youngest, oldest and poorest, a new government report said Thursday.

No area of the country will escape the effects of rising temperatures, from rising sea levels on the Alaskan coast to deadly heat waves in New England, said the report, released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Arizona and the West sit at a critical crossroads, their growing cities increasingly vulnerable to heat, drought, wildfire, bad air and energy shortages.

The report was unusually blunt for an agency criticized for its past response to climate change. Written by scientists, the document acknowledges that the effects of global warming are already evident and will become more evident in the next 50 years. The report also affirms parts of a 2007 international climate study that spelled in detail the serious nature of climate change.

"The message is coming out loud and clear that climate change is very real," said Jonathan Overpeck, director of the University of Arizona's Institute for the Study of Planet Earth. "There's no doubt that the findings of the (2007 study) are now being considered totally legitimate by the U.S. government."

What the report does not contain are recommendations to quell the warming. The Bush administration has refused to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and has only recently admitted that the gasses play a role in global climate change.

Instead, the authors advise adapting to the changes and suggest that city, state and federal leaders begin a serious discussion about long-term sustainability.

Among the report's findings:


• Warmer temperatures will produce more extreme weather conditions, triggering floods, more intense storms, longer droughts and extended hot-weather seasons.


• People will feel the effects beyond the immediate weather events. Water and airborne diseases could spread more quickly and more people could develop asthma or other pulmonary ailments. Deaths related to heat and declining air quality will climb rapidly among the most vulnerable: the young, elderly and poor.


• Climate change will hit hard in locations and among populations least-prepared to adapt. People in Boston or other Northern cities, for example, often lack air-conditioning and will suffer during heat waves.


• The economy will suffer. Dealing with the effects will strain government budgets and could hurt tourism. The report predicts widespread losses to cold-water fisheries and other recreational amenities.

For the West, the report foresees a hotter, drier future. Culling research from a growing number of climate researchers, the EPA scientists said climate change would disrupt the critical runoff cycle that provides water to millions of people.

Warmer winters shorten the snow season and send water into streams too early or hasten its evaporation. The Phoenix area relies on runoff from the Colorado, Salt and Verde rivers for about two-thirds of its annual water needs.

The shorter winter could also trigger an earlier wildfire season, which, in turn, would spew more soot into the air.

The disrupted runoff cycle may cause more serious problems than the EPA report predicted, according a separate study released this week through Purdue University.

That study used more detailed models and found that earlier snowmelt actually leads to even warmer temperatures, which then keep snow from accumulating in the mountains. The researchers believe the effect could reduce the amount of snow and runoff twice as much as earlier thought.

"If these projections become reality, then the ecosystems of the northern and central Rockies will undergo dramatic changes," said Gregg Garfin, one of the study's authors and a deputy director at the UA institute.

UA's Overpeck said the EPA report should focus greater attention on how climate change affects people. Arizonans will likely feel the heat before anything else as temperatures climb 10 degrees or more by late in this century, a figure Overpeck bases on the 2007 international report.

That would drive up the demand for water and, more critically, electricity to power air-conditioners. If both resources are in short supply, as researchers suggest, the results are obvious, Overpeck said.

"In the worst-case scenario, we're talking about temperatures in the 100s from mid-spring through fall, even into early winter," he said. "Arizonans know it's that long, hot summer season that's the toughest part of living here. It could become a lot longer and a lot hotter."

source: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/07/18/20080718climate-risks0718.html

[wheezer]

Need another reason to feel guilty about feeding your children that Happy Meal - aside from the fat, the calories and that voice in your head asking why you can't be bothered to actually cook a well-balanced meal now and then? Rajendra Pachauri would like to offer you one. The head of the U.N.'s Nobel Prize–winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Pachauri on Monday urged people around the world to cut back on meat in order to combat climate change. "Give up meat for one day [per week] at least initially, and decrease it from there," Pachauri told Britain's Observer newspaper. "In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity." So, that addiction to pork and beef isn't just clogging your arteries; it's flame-broiling the earth, too.

By the numbers, Pachauri is absolutely right. In a 2006 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions - by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. Much of livestock's contribution to global warming come from deforestation, as the growing demand for meat results in trees being cut down to make space for pasture or farmland to grow animal feed. Livestock takes up a lot of space - nearly one-third of the earth's entire landmass. In Latin America, the FAO estimates that some 70% of former forest cover has been converted for grazing. Lost forest cover heats the planet, because trees absorb CO2 while they're alive - and when they're burned or cut down, the greenhouse gas is released back into the atmosphere.

Then there's manure - all that animal waste generates nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that has 296 times the warming effect of CO2. And of course, there is cow flatulence: as cattle digest grass or grain, they produce methane gas, of which they expel up to 200 L a day. Given that there are 100 million cattle in the U.S. alone, and that methane has 23 times the warming impact of CO2, the gas adds up.

The worrisome news is that as the world economy grows, so does global meat consumption. The average person in the industrialized world eats more than 176 lb. of meat annually, compared with around 66 lb. consumed by the average resident of the developing world. As developing nations get richer, one of the first things citizens spend their extra income on is a more meat-rich diet. Whereas pork would once have been a rare luxury in China, today even the relatively poor in the country's cities can afford a little meat at almost every meal - so much so that pork imports to China rose more than 900% through the first four months of the year. In 2008, global meat production is expected to top 280 million tons, and that figure could nearly double by 2050.

Producing all that meat will do more than just warm the world; it will also raise pressure on land resources. The FAO estimates that about 20% of the planet's pastureland has been degraded by grazing animals, and increased demand for meat means increased demand for animal feed - much of the world's grain production is fed to animals rather than to humans. (The global spike in grain prices over the past year is in large part due to the impact on grain supplies of the growing demand for meat.) The expanded production of meat has been facilitated by industrial feedlots, which bleed antibiotics and other noxious chemicals. And of course, the human health impact of too much meat can be seen in everything from bloated waistlines in America to rising rates of cardiovascular disease in developing nations, where heart attacks were once as rare as a T-bone steak.

So is Pachauri right that going vegetarian can save the planet? (At least the 68-year-old Indian economist practices what he preaches.) It's true that giving up that average 176 lb. of meat a year is one of the greenest lifestyle changes you can make as an individual. You can drive a more fuel-efficient car, or install compact fluorescent lightbulbs, or improve your insulation, but unless you intend to hunt wild buffalo and boar, there's really no green way to get meat - although organic, locally farmed beef or chicken is better than its factory-raised equivalents. The geophysicists Gidon Eschel and Pamela Martin have estimated that if every American reduced meat consumption by just 20%, the greenhouse gas savings would be the same as if we all switched from a normal sedan to a hybrid Prius.

Still, Pachauri is just slightly off. It's a tactical mistake, first of all, to focus global warming action on personal restrictions. The developed world could cut back hugely on its meat consumption, but those gains would be largely swallowed up - sorry - by the developing world, which isn't likely to give up its newly acquired taste for cheeseburgers and pork. The same goes for energy use, or travel. It's great for magazines to come up with 51 ways you can save the environment, but relying on individuals to voluntarily change their behavior is nowhere near as effective as political change aimed at speeding the transition to an economy far less carbon-intensive than our current one. So, by all means cut back on the burgers - I recommend a nice deep-fried scorpion - but remember that your choices from the takeout menu will matter less than the choices made by those who inherit the White House next January.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080910/hl_time/meatmakingglobalwarmingworse;_ylt=AuYMZXJ7YCxHvvR1 SX2G8dSs0NUE

[Alibar]

isn't this what we've traditionally referred to as "weather"?:smile:


:67302: :67302: :67302:

[awakening2lite]

Climate-Sensitive Diseases

Climate change may increase the risk of some infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in warm areas and are spread by mosquitoes and other insects. These "vector-borne" diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Also, algal blooms could occur more frequently as temperatures warm — particularly in areas with polluted waters — in which case diseases (such as cholera) that tend to accompany algal blooms could become more frequent.

Higher temperatures, in combination with favorable rainfall patterns, could prolong disease transmission seasons in some locations where certain diseases already exist. In other locations, climate change will decrease transmission via reductions in rainfall or temperatures that are too high for transmission. For example, temperature and humidity levels must be sufficient for certain disease-carrying vectors, such as ticks that carry Lyme disease, to thrive. And climate change could push temperature and humidity levels either towards or away from optimum conditions for the survival rate of ticks.

Though average U.S. and global temperatures are expected to continue to rise, the potential for an increase in the spread of diseases Exit EPA Disclaimer will depend not only on climatic but also on non-climatic factors, primarily the effectiveness of the public health system (WHO, 2003).

The IPCC has noted that the global population at risk from vector-borne malaria will increase by between 220 million and 400 million in the next century. While most of the increase is predicted to occur in Africa, some increased risk is projected in Britain, Australia, India and Portugal (IPCC, 2007).

Tick-borne Lyme disease also may also expand its range in Canada. However, socioeconomic factors such as public health measures will play a large role in determining the existence or extent of such infections. Water-borne diseases may increase where warmer air and water temperatures combine with heavy runoff from agricultural and urban surfaces, but may be largely contained by standard water-treatment practices.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html#climate

[awakening2lite]

Air Quality


Climate change is expected to contribute to some air quality problems (IPCC, 2007). Respiratory disorders may be exacerbated by warming-induced increases in the frequency of smog (ground-level ozone) events and particulate air pollution.

Ground-level ozone can damage lung tissue, and is especially harmful for those with asthma and other chronic lung diseases. Sunlight and high temperatures, combined with other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, can cause ground-level ozone to increase. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect is uncertain. For other pollutants, the effects of climate change and/or weather are less well studied and results vary by region (IPCC, 2007).

Another pollutant of concern is "particulate matter," also known as particle pollution or PM. Particulate matter is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. When breathed in, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment (haze) in the nation’s cities and national parks. Climate change may indirectly affect the concentration of PM pollution in the air by affecting natural or “biogenic” sources of PM such as wildfires and dust from dry soils.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html#climate

[awakening2lite]

http://www.who.int/entity/globalchange/climate/en/ccfig.gif

The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that there is overwhelming evidence that humans are affecting the global climate, and highlighted a wide range of implications for human health. Climate variability and change cause death and disease through natural disasters, such as heatwaves, floods and droughts. In addition, many important diseases are highly sensitive to changing temperatures and precipitation. These include common vector- borne diseases such as malaria and dengue; as well as other major killers such as malnutrition and diarrhoea. Climate change already contributes to the global burden of disease, and this contribution is expected to grow in the future.


The impacts of climate on human health will not be evenly distributed around the world. Developing country populations, particularly in Small Island States, arid and high mountain zones, and in densely populated coastal areas, are considered to be particularly vulnerable.


source: http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/en/index.html



more info:

http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/activities/en/index.html

[tommygreen]

Hi,

This is certainly a very unique perspective over climate changes... I had never seen it this way... The way you have portrayed it is too good... Thanks a lot for sharing the info...

[awakening2lite]

Hi,

This is certainly a very unique perspective over climate changes... I had never seen it this way... The way you have portrayed it is too good... Thanks a lot for sharing the info...

Thank you, tommygreen, and welcome to HFTM :howdy:

Your avatar is great! I look forward to reading your input on our planet's condition and how we can help.

[awakening2lite]

Air Pollution Linked To Premature Birth In Pregnant Women

ScienceDaily (Aug. 27, 2007) — Women who lived in regions with high carbon monoxide or fine-particle levels — pollution caused mainly by vehicle traffic — were approximately 10 to 25 percent more likely to have a preterm baby than women who lived in less polluted areas. This was especially true for women who breathed polluted air during the first trimester or during the last months and weeks of pregnancy.

Air pollution in Los Angeles County remains a major public health problem that affects everybody, particularly pregnant women. This study provides further facts to policymakers to weigh the costs and benefits of reducing air pollution, both in terms of dollars and human health.
The first large-scale air pollution study of its kind, this study collected detailed information on more than 2,500 women who gave birth in 2003. Through personal interviews, researchers were able to determine the risks due to air pollution separate from other risk factors, such as smoking, exposure to secondhand smoke and alcohol use.
Reference: Dr. Beate Ritz, professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health; Michelle Wilhelm; Katherine J. Hoggatt; and Jo Kay C. Ghosh, American Journal of Epidemiology, online.
Funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and partial funding from the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center, supported the research.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823150343.htm

[awakening2lite]

Researchers Link Childhood Asthma To Exposure To Traffic-related Pollution

ScienceDaily (Sep. 21, 2005) — LOS ANGELES (Sept. 20) -Living near a freeway may mean more than the annoying rumble of cars and trucks: For children, it brings an increased risk of asthma, according to researchers at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California.

Scientists studying air pollution levels in 10 Southern California cities found that the closer children live to a freeway, the greater their chance of having been diagnosed with asthma. They report their findings in the November issue of the journal Epidemiology.
Researchers also found that children who had higher levels of nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, in the air around their homes were more likely to have developed asthma. NO2 is a product of pollutants emitted from combustion engines, such as those in cars and trucks.
"These results suggest that tailpipe pollutants from freeway traffic are a significant risk factor for asthma," says lead author James Gauderman, Ph.D., associate professor of preventive medicine at the Keck School. "Considering the enormous costs associated with childhood asthma, today's public policy toward regulating pollutants may merit some re-evaluation."
"These results have both scientific and public health implications," says David A. Schwartz, M.D., director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the federal agency that funded the study. "They strengthen an emerging body of evidence that air pollution can cause asthma, and that exposure to outdoor levels of nitrogen dioxide and other traffic-related air pollutants may be a significant risk factor for this illness."
Researchers looked at the pollution-asthma link in 208 children who were part of the USC-led Children's Health Study, the longest investigation ever into air pollution and kids' health. The study has tracked the respiratory health of children in a group of Southern California cities since 1993.
The investigators placed air samplers outside the home of each student to measure NO2 levels. In addition, they determined the distance of each child's home from local freeways, as well as how many vehicles traveled within 150 meters (about 164 yards) of the child's home. Finally, they estimated traffic-related air pollution levels at each child's home using models that take weather conditions, vehicle counts and other important factors into account.
In all, 31 children (15 percent) had asthma. Scientists found a link between asthma prevalence in the children and NO2 levels at their homes. For each increase of 5.7 parts per billion in average NO2-which represents a typical range from low to high pollution levels among Southern California cities-the risk of asthma increased by 83 percent. Risk of wheezing and current asthma medication use also rose as NO2 levels increased.
They also found that the closer the students lived to a freeway, the higher the NO2 levels outside their homes. NO2 levels also corresponded with traffic-related pollution estimates from the group's statistical model.
It was not surprising, then, when they found that the closer the students lived to a freeway, the higher the students' asthma prevalence. For every 1.2 kilometers (about three-quarters of a mile) the students lived closer to the freeway, asthma risk increased by 89 percent. For example, students who lived 400 meters from the freeway had an 89 percent higher risk of asthma than students living 1,600 meters away from the freeway.
Interestingly, the researchers saw that air pollution from freeway traffic influenced NO2 concentrations at homes more strongly than pollution from other types of roads. Traffic counts within 150 meters of homes (which primarily comprised traffic from smaller streets) were only weakly correlated with measured NO2.
In any community, a freeway is a major source of air pollution. "Cars and trucks traveling on freeways and other large roads may be a bigger source of pollutants that matter for asthma than traffic on smaller roads," Gauderman says. Scientists also find it difficult to get good data on traffic on smaller streets, which may make it harder to find associations between asthma and local traffic.
Gauderman cautions that researchers do not yet know that NO2 is to blame for the asthma. NO2 travels together with other airborne pollutants, such as particulate matter, so it may be a marker for other asthma-causing pollutants.
Study sites included the cities of Alpine, Atascadero, Lake Elsinore, Lancaster, Long Beach, Mira Loma, Riverside, San Dimas, Santa Maria and Upland.
###
The Children's Health Study is supported by the NIEHS, California Air Resources Board, the Southern California Particle Center and Supersite, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Hastings Foundation.
W.J. Gauderman, E. Avol, F. Lurmann, N. Kuenzli, F. Gilliland, J. Peters and R. McConnell, "Childhood Asthma and Exposure to Traffic and Nitrogen Dioxide," Epidemiology. Vol. 16, No. 6, November 2005



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050921082651.htm

[awakening2lite]

Trees in Western U.S. Forests Dying Due to Climate Change


Death Rates Have Doubled, Researchers Find

By Juliet Eilperin (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/juliet+eilperin/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 22, 2009; 4:35 PM


The death rates of trees in western U.S. forests have doubled over the past two to three decades, driven in large part by warmer temperatures and water scarcity linked to climate change, a new study spearheaded by the U.S. Geological Survey has found.



The findings, published today in the online journal Science Express, examined changes in 76 long-term forest plots in three broad regions across the West, and found similar shifts regardless of the areas' elevation, fire history, dominant species and tree sizes. It is the largest research project based on old-growth forests in North America.



Nathan L. Stephenson, one of the lead authors, said summers are getting longer and hotter in the West, subjecting trees to greater stress from droughts and attacks by insect infestations, all factors that contribute to greater tree die-offs.



"It's very likely that mortality rates will continue to rise," said Stephenson, a scientist at the Geological Survey's Western Ecological Research Center, adding that the death of older trees is rapidly exceeding the growth of new ones, akin to a town where deaths of old people are outpacing the number of babies being born. "If you saw that going on in your home town, you'd be concerned."



The study was conducted by a team of 11 researchers from institutions including the USGS and the Forest Service; the University of British Columbia in Vancouver; the University of Washington at Seattle; Northern Arizona University; Oregon State University; the University of Colorado at Boulder; and Pennsylvania State University.



They examined a variety of tree types including pine, fir and hemlock, documenting major die-offs in Northern California, Oregon, Washington and southern British Columbia along with such interior Western states as Colorado and Arizona. In the Pacific Northwest the researchers found that tree death rates had doubled in just 17 years, compared with 29 years for interior Western forests, but the researchers cautioned against making too much of these differences.



The recent warming in the West "has contributed to widespread hydrologic changes, such as a declining fraction of precipitation falling as snow, declining water snow pack content, earlier spring snowmelt and runoff, and a consequent lengthening of the summer drought," they wrote.



The scientists said it was hard to predict how the changes would transform the region's landscape, although they anticipated that in the future the West will boast sparser forests that cannot store as much carbon as they do now, which could contribute to even more warming in the future.



"In the end, the forest will tend to equilibrate at a lower level of stored carbon," said Jerry F. Franklin, at UW-Seattle's College of Forest Resources, noting this will occur "over a very long time period."



Franklin added that some of the West's most imperiled animal species, such as marbled murrelets and the northern spotted owl, depend on old growth trees for critical habitat.



"There's a large array of organisms that depend on large trees," he said.
Thomas T. Veblen, a geography professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said the combination of increased wildfires, drought and bark beetles has devastated some of his state's forests. Temperatures in Colorado's subalpine forests, which are between 8,500 and 10,000 feet in altitude, have risen markedly over the past 50 years during all seasons, he said.



Mountain pine bark beetles have killed roughly 3.5 million acres of lodgepole pine forests in northwestern Colorado over the past decade, wiping out 90 percent of pine forests in that area, Veblen said. During the same time period, spruce bark beetles also killed large areas of spruce forest in northern and southwestern Colorado.



"Our society needs to devise policies that will help us to adapt to the changes that are underway," Veblen said. "This is further evidence that we're seeing continued effects of the warming in increased fire risk."



If current tree mortality rates continue and even accelerate, the paper's authors warned, there is a chance that U.S. forests could shift from being a carbon sink that takes greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere to becoming a net emitter of carbon dioxide. Franklin said policymakers should keep that in mind when negotiating a new international climate pact.



"One of the things that should absolutely be on the table in terms of any global agreement is the notion of avoided carbon releases," he said, adding that when you lose older trees in a forest, "there's no way you can make up for that."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012202473.html

[tommygreen]

Trees in Western U.S. Forests Dying Due to Climate Change


Death Rates Have Doubled, Researchers Find

By Juliet Eilperin (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/juliet+eilperin/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 22, 2009; 4:35 PM


The death rates of trees in western U.S. forests have doubled over the past two to three decades, driven in large part by warmer temperatures and water scarcity linked to climate change, a new study spearheaded by the U.S. Geological Survey has found.



The findings, published today in the online journal Science Express, examined changes in 76 long-term forest plots in three broad regions across the West, and found similar shifts regardless of the areas' elevation, fire history, dominant species and tree sizes. It is the largest research project based on old-growth forests in North America.



Nathan L. Stephenson, one of the lead authors, said summers are getting longer and hotter in the West, subjecting trees to greater stress from droughts and attacks by insect infestations, all factors that contribute to greater tree die-offs.



"It's very likely that mortality rates will continue to rise," said Stephenson, a scientist at the Geological Survey's Western Ecological Research Center, adding that the death of older trees is rapidly exceeding the growth of new ones, akin to a town where deaths of old people are outpacing the number of babies being born. "If you saw that going on in your home town, you'd be concerned."



The study was conducted by a team of 11 researchers from institutions including the USGS and the Forest Service; the University of British Columbia in Vancouver; the University of Washington at Seattle; Northern Arizona University; Oregon State University; the University of Colorado at Boulder; and Pennsylvania State University.



They examined a variety of tree types including pine, fir and hemlock, documenting major die-offs in Northern California, Oregon, Washington and southern British Columbia along with such interior Western states as Colorado and Arizona. In the Pacific Northwest the researchers found that tree death rates had doubled in just 17 years, compared with 29 years for interior Western forests, but the researchers cautioned against making too much of these differences.



The recent warming in the West "has contributed to widespread hydrologic changes, such as a declining fraction of precipitation falling as snow, declining water snow pack content, earlier spring snowmelt and runoff, and a consequent lengthening of the summer drought," they wrote.



The scientists said it was hard to predict how the changes would transform the region's landscape, although they anticipated that in the future the West will boast sparser forests that cannot store as much carbon as they do now, which could contribute to even more warming in the future.



"In the end, the forest will tend to equilibrate at a lower level of stored carbon," said Jerry F. Franklin, at UW-Seattle's College of Forest Resources, noting this will occur "over a very long time period."



Franklin added that some of the West's most imperiled animal species, such as marbled murrelets and the northern spotted owl, depend on old growth trees for critical habitat.



"There's a large array of organisms that depend on large trees," he said.
Thomas T. Veblen, a geography professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said the combination of increased wildfires, drought and bark beetles has devastated some of his state's forests. Temperatures in Colorado's subalpine forests, which are between 8,500 and 10,000 feet in altitude, have risen markedly over the past 50 years during all seasons, he said.



Mountain pine bark beetles have killed roughly 3.5 million acres of lodgepole pine forests in northwestern Colorado over the past decade, wiping out 90 percent of pine forests in that area, Veblen said. During the same time period, spruce bark beetles also killed large areas of spruce forest in northern and southwestern Colorado.



"Our society needs to devise policies that will help us to adapt to the changes that are underway," Veblen said. "This is further evidence that we're seeing continued effects of the warming in increased fire risk."



If current tree mortality rates continue and even accelerate, the paper's authors warned, there is a chance that U.S. forests could shift from being a carbon sink that takes greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere to becoming a net emitter of carbon dioxide. Franklin said policymakers should keep that in mind when negotiating a new international climate pact.



"One of the things that should absolutely be on the table in terms of any global agreement is the notion of avoided carbon releases," he said, adding that when you lose older trees in a forest, "there's no way you can make up for that."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012202473.html



Woah!!! This totally shocking isn't it??? I wonder people will realize all these and make up their mind to stop these drastic changes...

[awakening2lite]

Woah!!! This totally shocking isn't it??? I wonder people will realize all these and make up their mind to stop these drastic changes...

We can hope more people will realize it is the sum total, of all the effects, that cause the biggest impact. Just like a cancer that first effects only a tiny portion of cells, when taken as a tiny percent of the body, could be over looked, or possibly ignored, until one day it has grown to be of a size where life itself becomes uncertain. As human beings, so many of us, tend not to be concerned about that which we do not see in our own backyards. Alarmingly, when we do see climate change in our own backyards it is, more than likely, too late for any change (that we could implement) to make a difference.

I am reminded of school days, long ago, when naughty children were caught and each of them said they didn't do it. Not being able to prove, beyond the shadow of doubt, which was guilty, all walked free. Everyone had the knowledge that, without intervention, no change could be expected. Relating this to climate change, (I believe) the majority still don't want to know their life styles and goods they desire contribute to, and have an effect, on the climate.

The biggest hurdle to implementing actions is overcoming the need to place blame, for at least a portion of the adverse effects, on human beings. There are so many who do not want to accept blame, and therefore, prefer to ignore the problem. Why do we ask why, and seek answers to the obvious changes, when we do not welcome the various reasons and solutions as a people?

Yes, we can still hope more will become aware of the problems and what is at stake. Then we can hope, each of us, will take some of the simple first steps to make individual changes in our lives. We need to take care of our home.

[awakening2lite]

EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health


By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 15 mins ago


WASHINGTON – The EPA on Friday declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases sent off by cars and many industrial plants "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.
The action by the Environmental Protection Agency marks the first step toward requiring power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said while the agency is prepared to move forward with regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration would prefer that Congress addressed the climate issue through "cap-and-trade" legislation limiting pollution that can contribute to global warming.
Limits on carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases would have widespread economic and social impact, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to limiting emissions from power plants and industrial sources, changing the way the nation produces energy.
In announcing the proposed finding, Jackson said the EPA analysis "confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations" and warrants steps to curtail it.
While EPA officials said the agency may still be many months from actually issuing such regulation, the threat of dealing with climate change by regulation could spur some hesitant members of Congress to find another way to address the problem.
"The (EPA) decision is a game changer. It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., whose Energy and Commerce subcommittee is crafting broad limits on greenhouse emissions. "It's now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee responsible for climate legislation, said EPA's action is "a wake-up call for Congress" — deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate.
Friday's action by the EPA triggered a 60-day comment period before the agency issues a final endangerment ruling. That would be followed by a proposal on how to regulate the emissions.
The agency said in its finding that "in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem" and that carbon dioxide and five other gases "that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act."
The EPA concluded that the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is "compelling and overwhelming." It also said tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change.
The EPA action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a danger to human health or public welfare.
The Bush administration strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing the so-called "endangerment finding" demanded by the high court in its April 2007 ruling.
The court case, brought by Massachusetts, focused only on emissions from automobiles. But it is widely assumed that if the EPA must regulate emissions from cars and trucks, it will have no choice but to control similar pollution from power plants and industrial sources.
Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.
In addition to carbon dioxide, a product of burning fossil fuels, the EPA finding covers five other emissions that scientists believe are warming the earth when they concentrate in the atmosphere: Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_on_go_ot/epa_climate;_ylt=A0LEapB.2uhJh2IAJVSs0NUE;_ylu=X3o DMTJjYWFrbHNxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNDE3L2VwYV9jbGltY XRlBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN lcGFmaW5kc2dyZWU-