A research team led by Stanford University's David Lobell and Marshall Burke at the University of California, Berkeley, has uncovered a possible link between temperature and violence. Mapping connections between African civil wars and local temperature between 1981 and 2002, the team discovered a "strong relationship" between temperature spikes and civil war, leading them to predict a 54 per cent rise in the incidence of civil war by 2030 unless current estimates of global warming are somehow curbed. We await Al Gore's statement on the matter.

African conflicts spurred by warming [New Scientist]

In this case, the Rabb's fringe-limbed treefrog is apparently being wiped out by a species of chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, which has invaded its habitat in central Panama. Since the fungus was detected, only one of the species' males has been heard calling out, but no other males have been heard to answer.

There's also been some forest clear-cutting in its habitat, to build some luxury holiday homes, but that hasn't reached critical levels. Photo by Brad Wilson/UICN/AP Images [Guardian]

In a paper published in Nature this week, a group of scientists explain that boreal forests emit hydrocarbons called "volatile monoterpene compounds," some of which cause the distinct smell of a pine forest. These are all basically particles that float into the clouds, and interact with ozone and other compounds to form small, semi-liquid droplets called cloud condensation nucleii (CCN). The key here is that monoterpene causes more of these CCN droplets to form, which are what make the clouds so reflective. Essentially, it's just sunlight reflecting off water held together with other chemicals.

So if these giant pine forests are always emitting so many monoterpenes, why would the Earth ever warm up? The problem is a compound that comes from deciduous trees and other vegetation called isoprene. Isoprene cancels out monoterpene, and causes fewer of those reflective droplets to form. As the climate changes, it's likely we'll see more of the kinds of plants that make isoprene, and fewer that make monoterpene.

The obvious solution is geoengineering. Why not synthesize a reasonable quantity of monoterpenes and seed the clouds with them? It's a naturally-occurring chemical which would normally float up to the clouds anyway. And it would encourage the production of reflective droplets in our cloud cover, thus reflecting back more sunlight and lowering temperatures.

Either that, or let's start boreal farms whose sole purpose is cloud engineering.

via Nature

Photo by peterkelly

New research suggests that rising ocean levels will result in the northern pole of Earth's spin axis shifting by around 1.5 centimeters per year in the direction of Alaska (Insert your own "If only Sarah Palin was still governor" joke here) if projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that carbon dioxide levels will double in the next hundred years are accurate. That may sound like a lot, but according to NASA Jet Propulsion expert Felix Landerer, we shouldn't be too worried:

The Earth is like a spinning top, and if you put more mass on one side or other, the axis of rotation is going to shift slightly [but the] pole's not going to drift away in a crazy manner.

What it's likely to do, according to New Scientist magazine, is increase the planet's rate of spin:

Previously, Landerer and colleagues showed that global warming would cause Earth's mass to be redistributed towards higher latitudes. Since that pulls mass closer to the planet's spin axis, it causes the planet to rotate faster – just as an ice skater spins faster when she pulls her arms towards her body.

That does it - It's time to unleash Operation Let's All Move To The Center of The Earth.

Global warming could change Earth's tilt [New Scientist]

With no written record to describe the rise of the largest pre-Columbian empire, paleoecologists have investigated the climate that existed in the centuries proceeding the Incas' apex. Pollen and seeds found in the sediment in the Cuzco region of the Peruvian Andes reveal a period of climate warming that began around 1100 CE and continued past the Spanish conquest of the Incas in 1533 CE. Alex Chepstow-Lusty of the French Institute for Andean Studies in Lima, Peru, noted such climate change can have a positive effect on civilizations:

"Climate warming does not always have to be a negative issue. Our research shows that it can favor societal development."

In the case of the Incas, four centuries of warm weather melted the glaciers, pumping water into the formerly arid region. Trees were moved up mountains to combat soil erosion, allowing for agriculture in the newly cleared lands. The result was a lengthy period of plenty, with maize and potato crops feeding a growing population and allowing the Incas to turn their attention to assembling a military, building roads and buildings, and creating an infrastructure.

But climate experts warn that future climate change could have disastrous effects:

"Peru is considered the third most threatened country in the world by climate change, with most of its glaciers predicted to disappear by 2050. The country should be focusing on restoring and protecting its ecosystems," Chepstow-Lusty said.

Incan Empire Aided by Global Warming [Discovery News]

Researchers at the UK National Oceanography Centre have inspected samples from arctic sea floors, discovering that these floors used to teem with life. The samples were replete with a type of algae called diatoms. These diatoms serve as a low rung on the food chain for larger, more complex ecosystems. Other studies suggest that sharks and larger fish once called the warmed arctic their home.

If arctic temperatures continue their upward trend, the arctic ocean floors will be covered in this food source again. As a result, creatures that consume these diatoms could move in during the summer, making the summer arctic oceans as biologically rich as southern oceans.

No word yet on when construction begins for the first arctic beach resort.

Warming arctic could teem with life by 2030 [via NewScientist]

Further reading: Images of the Arctic Ocean as We Will Know It

One big reason why the Earth isn't much warmer already is the fact that the planet has the ability to shed carbon dioxide, say scientists Joseph Kirschvink, Yuk Yung, King-Fai Li and Kaveh Pahlevan. But the bad news is, the planet has nearly exhausted its ability to shed carbon dioxide, hence the risk of cataclysmic overheating. So we need another way to cool the planet, and scientists say the best way is to reduce the atmospheric pressure by eliminating nitrogen from the amosphere.

Yung and Li tell Scientific Blogging:

In the "blanket" analogy for greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide would be represented by the cotton fibers making up the blanket. "The cotton weave may have holes, which allow heat to leak out," explains Li, the lead author of the paper.

"The size of the holes is controlled by pressure," Yung says. "Squeeze the blanket," by increasing the atmospheric pressure, "and the holes become smaller, so less heat can escape. With less pressure, the holes become larger, and more heat can escape," he says, helping the planet to shed the extra heat generated by a more luminous sun.

Nitrogen, after all, makes up the vast proportion of the Earth's atmosphere, so the elimination of nitrogen would help the Earth regulate its surface temperature.

And the best part is that we're already doing it!

Strikingly, no external influence would be necessary to take nitrogen out of the air, the scientists say. Instead, the biosphere itself would accomplish this, because nitrogen is incorporated into the cells of organisms as they grow, and is buried with them when they die.

Since nitrogen is bonded to other elements in the body, when organisms (like humans) die, it isn't released back into the atmosphere. Thus, the more humans are born and then die, the better off it is for global warming, supposedly.

The scientists speculate that by continuing to overpopulate the Earth and then killing one another off, we could extend the life of the Earth by up to 1.3 billion years, which might allow us to make contact with other life forms who could teach us how not to overpopulate the Earth and keep killing each other.

Human Presence May Be Increasing The Lifespan Of Earth [Scientific Blogging]

[Image via "An Inconvenient Truth"]

Researchers from Columbia University, the United Nations University, and CARE International issued In Search of Shelter to highlight the broad impacts of previously expected rising sea levels due to warming water and the new consensus that shows ice melts in Greenland and Antarctica. The two forces, combined, are expected to increase greatly the amount sea levels will rise by the end of this decade — warming waters alone are expected to contribute to a nearly 2 foot rise in sea levels by 2100.

The increased sea levels and ice melts are expected to cause flooding in India and the Himalayan foothills; droughts in Central Mexico; and massive human displacements throughout much of the world. According to the reports' authors, the numbers of climate migrants will reach epic proportions in our lifetimes.

Estimates of the likely numbers range from 25 to 50 million people by 2010, while the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) has pitched a figure of 200 million by 2050.

The authors expect that much of this movement will be from rural to urban areas within affected countries, straining already strained cities and governments.

The authors of the study paint a pretty bleak portrait of the warmer years to come:

Unless aggressive measures are taken to halt global warming, the consequences for human migration and displacement could reach a scope and scale that vastly exceed anything that has occurred before. Climate change is already contributing to migration and displacement.

All major estimates project that the trend will rise to tens of millions of migrants in coming years. Within the next few decades, the consequences of climate change for human security efforts could be devastating.

Plus, as everyone knows, Waterworld really sucked.

Floods, droughts to unleash climate exodus [Cosmos]

[Image via UNHCR]

According to Dan Box at The Ecologist:

The evacuation of the Carteret Islands [has] begun. This morning I stood on black volcanic sand, pressed up right against the jungle, and watched a small white boat powered by a single outboard engine run in against the shore. On board were five men from the Islands, the fathers of five families, who have come to finish building houses and gardens already begun in a cleared patch of jungle at Tinputz, on the east coast of Bougainville. When these homes are ready the five will return to the Carterets, to fetch their wives and children back. Life, they hope, will be better for them here. On the Carterets, king tides have washed away their crops and rising sea levels poisoned those that remain with salt. The people have been forced to move.

The Solmon Islands News provides more details:

The five families were chosen from a criteria set by Tulele Peisa with the emphasis on size of family, whether a family has enough to feed on the island, access to paying school fees and medical services and the whether the family is able to survive on the island for the next two years.

This story is going to become more and more common in the next decade or two, as the people who did the least to cause climate change pay the highest price.

Top photos from Sun Come Up. [via Mother Jones]

The Astronomy Picture Of The Day site featured one of these maps the other day, and it's easy to see why. They're startling and informative, but also eye-catching. They dramatize our nascent climate clusterfuck in a way that's hard to look away from.

[via The Map Room]

A study published this week in Nature argues that pollution has turned plants into better carbon dioxide processing machines. Hazy weather has allowed plants to fix 10% more carbon in the soil than they did before the 1960s, when air quality was better.

Ecologist Lina Mercado, lead author on the study, said polluted air is part of "global dimming." She added:

[Dimming] resulted in a net 10% increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land once other effects were taken into account.

But this study won't be used to justify shooting more particulates into the atmosphere. Instead, it could be used as evidence for geo-engineering as a way of regulating climate change.

According to BBC News:

The research will also add weight to arguments about geo-engineering, the idea of curbing global warming by adding reflective materials to the atmosphere.

Because plants absorb more carbon dioxide when they experience global dimming, geo-engineers might try to bounce light away from the planet to maintain dimming without pollution.

via BBC News

Photo of smog in Beijing by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images.

I fall into that third group, and you probably do, too. It's not because we're scared, although global warming is some heavy shit. I've been watching my hometown sit on the brink of disaster all week, and basically, if tens of thousands of North Dakotans — scientifically recognized as the hardiest, wisest, and most beloved by God of all the Earth's peoples — can barely hold back one stupid river*, then it's horrifying to envision all sorts of similar crises popping up on a planetwide scale. What, for example, will the Italians do? Italians are very lazy.**

You may take offense to my saying that, but I will just note that if any Italians are truly upset, they can write me a letter (not likely — too much work), and more importantly, that you probably don't know that many actual Italians (grandmas do not count). Which brings us to the primary reason most of us don't think about global warming, even if we do believe in it:

The world is just too fucking big.

It has, of course, become popular in the last few decades to note how small the world is, and there's some truth to that, especially relative to how things were for most of history. It used to take months to ship goods from one side of the globe to the other; now we can do it in hours. Sending messages is even faster — we can do it in seconds. Mere moments after I'm done writing this column in Madison, Wisconsin, people in Venice will be able to read it (if they've finally woken up from their "siestas," that is). And since this speeding up of everything is comparatively New and Exciting, and usually involves computers (which are our glowing idols that command our devotion for hours every day), we tend to focus on it.

But, truth is, our brains are still crude products of evolution that haven't changed that much since we rode on dinosaurs, and anything that's farther away than the pterodactyl nest on the next ridge over is difficult to grasp in a fashion that resonates. Oh, a big event — like a September 11 — will get our attention, briefly, but something as slow to happen as climate change is a nonstarter. Especially when, thanks to the newish smallness of the world and the speediness of information, there are more ways than ever to take our minds off of gloomy news.

And this is a problem, I think. Because if global warming — not that I am some kind of weatherologist here — is half as bad as the experts say it will be, then the whole planet is in trouble, particularly if it jumps on top of the daunting dogpile of crises we're presently facing, namely the economy, predicted shortages in fresh water and energy, and the awful standard of living already endured by millions of humans.

(And let me add that even if you don't believe in global warming — well, is that really a gamble you think we should take? I mean, have you ever gone back home to make sure the stove is turned off? Ever double-checked that you locked the car? Ever had a lawyer look at something before you sign it, just in case? If you're that careful with just, like, stuff, all of which is either replaceable or get-by-withoutable, doesn't it kinda seem like we should be really careful with the, uh, planet? At least until we have another one?)

What to do, though? Before we moved from New York almost a month ago, Mrs. Moff had been a volunteer docent at the American Museum of Natural History for many years, where the current exhibition on climate change has been, um, not nearly as well attended (I am told) as the Harry Potter-inspired one they did on mythical beasts. That could be because of the economy, or it could be because jeez, depressing. Even more depressing was the news from the exhibit that, despite the recent push toward greener technology and living, at this point, very little of what we do on a personal basis can make a marked difference in halting the progress of global warming. If useful action is going to be taken, it will have to be on the part of national governments and multinational industries.

There's the paradox. We can't really comprehend the problem on a massive level, and yet our individual efforts aren't enough, on their own, to counter it. I can't believe there's no solution — or absolutely no way to mitigate things, at least — but what is it? Because I'm afraid the technology to clone millions of North Dakotans, who could save us all, is still too far off.

*Which is not to diminish the amazing efforts of all the Fargo-Moorhead residents and others who've been laying sandbags, etc., for days now. But as they all know, it's a close thing, and still will be for at least another week.
**It's OK for me to say this, because not only am I a quarter Italian, I am also very lazy. Identity politics.

And here's an image from Vanity Fair of the rising oceans around New York. Tree Hugger put together a great gallery of what they call "terrifying" global warming images - some real, some photoshopped.

This final image is not touched up in any way. It's a glacier in Patagonia, Argentina - the top image is from 1928 and the second from 2004. Basically this juxtoposed image, put together by Greenpeace, shows that the glacier has melted almost entirely away in less than a century.

via TreeHugger

The Mumbai branch of advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather created this giant ad for the HSBC’s global warming initiative, attaching an aerial photograph of New York City to the bottom of a swimming pool. It’s certainly an eye-catching way to advertise the bank’s interest in global warming, and the bank has made a point of investing in firms working to tackle the problem.

But in terms of alerting the public to the consequences of global warming, it seems to miss the mark. We’ve already been exposed to plenty of images of rising sea levels and submerged cities. For the issue to truly hit home, people need to be made aware of how global warming will affect humanity, not just the relics we’ll leave beneath the water. This image makes me think that I might like to visit a version of Earth where you can swim above the cities, even if intellectually I know I wouldn’t want to live there.

The Global Warming Swimming Pool: Swimming Above a Submerged City [Neatorama]

The Sci Fi Channel has comically billed Lost City Raiders as a combination of two critically panned movies: Waterworld and The Da Vinci Code. In the opening sequence, “Pa” Rubiah (Josh Brolin) tells us that global warming has caused the polar ice caps to melt, and the sea levels have risen to cover most of the Earth. Now the world’s only hope is…the Catholic Church. A group of friendly neighborhood cardinals operating in the city of New Rome have contracted Rubiah and his sons Jack (Ian Somerhalder) and Thomas (Jamie Thomas King) to find a scepter, which, legend says, will lead them to ancient technology that will save the world. And, they have to find it before a generically evil businessman (Ben Cross) can use it to for his own selfish gains.

The movie can be forgiven for being packed with stock characters; we’ve got the wise old salt dad, the rebellious action man son, the technologically proficient other son, the hot girl mechanic, the hot lady scientist, and, of course, the villainous capitalist. But the film suffers the mortal B-movie sin of being dull. The plot is contrived to drag its four most attractive leads to the ultimate world-saving discovery, the acting is wooden where over-the-top would suffice, and the archeological exploration scenes lack the tension of its obvious influences: films like National Treasure and the Indiana Jones franchise. Perhaps most unforgivably, the movie fails to deliver on its promise of mutant sharks. Early on, deep sea diving Jack is warned that a mutant shark is on his tail. Presumably, these sharks were created by the same kind of human negligence that caused the polar ice caps to melt. But what do mutant sharks look like? Are they hideously deformed? Can they shoot lasers from their eyes?

Apparently, the filmmakers blew their budget on underwater green screen scenes and creating the submerged buildings perpetually in the background, because all we get is stock footage sharks. I guess maybe they’re bigger than non-mutant sharks.

The movie is airing tomorrow as part of NBC’s Green Week, and the actors and marketers have harped on the film’s important message regarding climate change. But the global warming of Lost City Raiders looks strangely appealing. Where we would expect to see overcrowding and food shortages, we instead get a world where people get around by boats and everyone lives near the beach. I mean, the leads sit around in lovely restaurants drinking champagne.

And, if the humanity of the movie is saved, it won't be by science or changing its ways. It’ll be saved by the ancient knowledge of a religious institution, while threatened by business interests. The takeaway point seems to be: Church good, business bad, modern science irrelevant. Ultimately, the most frightening thing about Lost City Raiders isn’t the threat of global warming, but the possibility of a sequel.

The entrants include American artist Richard Misrach and legendary Iranian filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami. The exhibition is appropriately on display at the Dubai International Finance Centre through November 8th.

We're partial to New York photographer Mary Mattingly's achingly sad work (like the shot above) but it's an impressive group, and one of them will nab a nifty cash prize. Hopefully they'll do the right thing and give the money to Ed Begley, Jr.

The Prize Website [PrixPictet.com]

In a museum full of dioramas — stuffed skunks and harmless alligators — the thrills have to come from somewhere. The Climate Change exhibit that was installed on Saturday conceptualizes the changes we're forcing on the planet with facts, figures, and taxidermy. After it is displayed here in New York, it'll embark on a world tour.

The exhibition has already come in for some griping: The Times picked on the selective facts and a misleading timeline of the exhibit, as if something next to a gift shop was going to address the issue in a sophisticated way. The tragic world tour begins with a wall-sized version of the Keeling Graph, illustrating the exponential rise in human-produced carbon emissions. Further on, an entire virtual installation asks you to determine how many trees you're going to plant. You can see the effect of your decision on the world's atmosphere on the accompanying viewscreen.

Opposite a wall of notes from people offering their own solutions (left), is a display of the eventual effects of global warming. Manhattan is swallowed up by the onset of water from the ice caps melting. Because a child isn't able to reuse clothing, we have to burn more fossil fuels, and you can see the rings of several trees that suffer as a result.

Overload sets in somewhere between the caps font on everything and the fortieth SUV. Our rich coastal areas will take the most punishment, bringing a vast refugee problem, along with a vast unemployed actor situation, to the middle of the country. The world will change if we don't. Curator Michael Oppenheimer convinces us of the fact that polar bears and other bear species will merge, creating the attractive prospect of a super-bear...strolling through our trash. But hey, climate change might not be all hurricanes and droughts, you know.

What crowds there were in the exhibit — it costs 9 dollars extra to learns how we will all die, per person — were watching a video full of economists that explained, "It's not too late." A second short documentary had no economists, just nonprofit experts opining about what kind of limits should be imposed on the entire world unilaterally, or at least developed countries. For most of the afternoon, this film went unwatched. One sad movie in a depressing exhibition is enough.

While there's a lot of talk about the costs of not doing something, the cost of doing something isn't enumerated. If, as some observers are suggesting, biotechnology could manufacture "carbon-eating" plants, could our strategy of burning coal with reckless abandon actually pay off? Then again, that might just be the carbon emissions talking.

Climate Change Faster Than Anticipated [Telegraph]

And yes, you can mostly blame developing nations for the increase, scientists told the Washington Post:

The new statistics also underscore the growing contribution to the world's "carbon budget" from rapidly industrializing countries such as China, India and Brazil. Developing nations have roughly doubled their carbon output in less than two decades and now account for slightly more than half of total emissions, according to the new figures, up from about a third in 1990. By contrast, total carbon emissions from industrialized nations are only slightly higher than in 1990.

But the article also points out that the federal government still predicts U.S. carbon output will increase, not decrease, in the years to come. Worse yet, we may already have screwed the pooch — even if we stop generating any greenhouse gases tomorrow, we're still looking at a 4.3 degree (Fahrenheit) temperature rise this century. That's partly due to the fact that air-quality measures have reduced our output of aerosols, which actually cool the atmosphere slightly.

Scientists say an increase of anywhere from 3.2 to 9.7 degrees would trigger changes that include major melting of some of the world's greatest ice sheets. Just in case you were too wrapped up in obsessing about the horrendous state of the economy and the failed bailout bill, here's something to get your mind off them.

Image by NORBERTO DUARTE/AFP/Getty Images. [Washington Post]

Here's the old-school Arctic Ocean, the way it looked before the 2000s when things started melting.

(Satellite views via NASA/RADARSAT/Alaska Synthetic Aperture Radar Facility.)

Here's a model predicting almost complete ice melt by 2050.

Chart via Fullerton College

And you've probably seen this image before. It's the most commonly-used infographic showing the extreme ice melting that's taken place over the past decade. The ice cap has shrunk nearly 40 percent in summers during that time, and will probably shrink more than that before this year's melting season is over in late September.

Time lapse map via Wikipedia.

Get used to seeing an ice-free Arctic coast. This was taken last year off the coast of Alaska.

Arctic Coast via Sulekha.com.

About five years ago, some scientists argued that heavy cloud cover over the Arctic would protect the ice from melting. Here is a photograph of those clouds from 2003. Sadly, the swirly clouds didn't prevent melting, and the biggest melts came in 2005 and 2007.

Satellite photo of clouds over Arctic Ocean from 2003 via University of Wisconsin-Madison.

A big worry for environmental scientists right now is the melting of the ice sheet on Greenland, which you can see illustrated here. Obviously, this huge ice sheet melting will raise water levels, but it will also have an effect you might not have realized: When ice melts and then refreezes, it can absorb up to four times more sunlight, and therefore will melt more easily next season and create a magnified melting effect.

Greenland melt from 2005 via NASA.