11 research outputs found

    Killer Heat in the United States: Climate Choices and the Future of Dangerously Hot Days

    Get PDF
    This UCS analysis provides a detailed view of how extreme heat events caused by dangerous combinations of temperature and humidity are likely to become more frequent and widespread in the United States over this century. It also describes the implications for everyday life in different regions of the country.We have analyzed where and how often in the contiguous United States the heat index—also known as the National Weather Service (NWS) "feels like" temperature—is expected to top 90°F, 100°F, or 105°F during future warm seasons (April through October). While there is no one standard definition of "extreme heat," in this report we refer to any individual days with conditions that exceed these thresholds as extreme heat days. We also analyzed the spread and frequency of heat conditions so extreme that the NWS formula cannot accurately calculate a corresponding heat index. The "feels like" temperatures in these cases are literally off the charts.We have conducted this analysis for three global climate scenarios associated with different levels of global heattrapping emissions and future warming. These scenarios reflect different levels of action to reduce global emissions, from effectively no action to rapid action. Even the scenario of rapid action to reduce emissions does not spare our communities a future of substantially increased extreme heat. For the greatest odds of securing a safe climate future for ourselves and the ecosystems we all depend on, we would need to take even more aggressive action, in the US and globally, than outlined in any of the scenarios used here. Our challenge is great, but the threat of not meeting it is far greater

    Attributing ocean acidification to major carbon producers

    Get PDF
    © The Author(s), 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Licker, R.; Ekwurzel, B.; Doney, S. C.; Cooley, S. R.; Lima, I. D.; Heede, R.; Frumhoff, P. C. Attributing ocean acidification to major carbon producers. Environmental Research Letters. 14(12), (2019): 124060, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab5abc.Recent research has quantified the contributions of CO2 and CH4 emissions traced to the products of major fossil fuel companies and cement manufacturers to global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level rise. This work has informed societal considerations of the climate responsibilities of these major industrial carbon producers. Here, we extend this work to historical (1880–2015) and recent (1965–2015) acidification of the world's ocean. Using an energy balance carbon-cycle model, we find that emissions traced to the 88 largest industrial carbon producers from 1880–2015 and 1965–2015 have contributed ~55% and ~51%, respectively, of the historical 1880–2015 decline in surface ocean pH. As ocean acidification is not spatially uniform, we employ a three-dimensional ocean model and identify five marine regions with large declines in surface water pH and aragonite saturation state over similar historical (average 1850–1859 to average 2000–2009) and recent (average 1960–1969 to average of 2000–2009) time periods. We characterize the biological and socioeconomic systems in these regions facing loss and damage from ocean acidification in the context of climate change and other stressors. Such analysis can inform societal consideration of carbon producer responsibility for current and near-term risks of further loss and damage to human communities dependent on marine ecosystems and fisheries vulnerable to ocean acidification.The approach of using equation (1) benefited from discussions with Myles R Allen (University of Oxford) and Inez Fung (University of California, Berkeley). M W Dalton provided insights for the incorporation of the updated carbon producers data. Chloe Ames provided support for references. S Doney acknowledges support from the US National Science Foundation and the University of Virginia Environmental Resilience Institute. R Licker, B Ekwurzel and P C Frumhoff acknowledge the support of the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, Wallace Global Fund, and Rockefeller Family Fund to the Union of Concerned Scientists. R Heede gratefully acknowledges the financial support of Wallace Global Fund, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Union of Concerned Scientists. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which greatly improved our manuscript

    Use of agro-climatic zones to upscale simulated crop yield potential

    Get PDF
    Yield gap analysis, which evaluates magnitude and variability of difference between crop yield potential (Yp) or water limited yield potential (Yw) and actual farm yields, provides a measure of untapped food production capacity. Reliable location-specific estimates of yield gaps, either derived from research plots or simulation models, are available only for a limited number of locations and crops due to cost and time required for field studies or for obtaining data on long-term weather, crop rotations and management practices, and soil properties. Given these constraints, we compare global agro-climatic zonation schemes for suitability to up-scale location-specific estimates of Yp and Yw, which are the basis for estimating yield gaps at regional, national, and global scales. Six global climate zonation schemes were evaluated for climatic homogeneity within delineated climate zones (CZs) and coverage of crop area. An efficient CZ scheme should strike an effective balance between zone size and number of zones required to cover a large portion of harvested area of major food crops. Climate heterogeneity was very large in CZ schemes with less than 100 zones. Of the other four schemes, the Global Yield Gap Atlas Extrapolation Domain (GYGA-ED) approach, based on a matrix of three categorical variables (growing degree days, aridity index, temperature seasonality) to delineate CZs for harvested area of all major food crops, achieved reasonable balance between number of CZs to cover 80% of global crop area and climate homogeneity within zones. While CZ schemes derived from two climate-related categorical variables require a similar number of zones to cover 80% of crop area, within-zone heterogeneity is substantially greater than for the GYGA-ED for most weather variables that are sensitive drivers of crop production. Some CZ schemes are cropspecific, which limits utility for up-scaling location-specific evaluation of yield gaps in regions with crop rotations rather than single crop species

    Women and Gender Norms

    No full text

    The influence of climate variability on internal migration flows in South Africa

    No full text
    This work investigates the impact of climate variability on internal migration flows in post-apartheid South Africa. We combine information from South African censuses and climatic data to build a panel database covering the waves 1997-2001 and 2007-2011. The database enables the examination of the effect of spatiotemporal variability in temperature and precipitation on inter-district migration flows defined by five-year intervals. We employ a gravity approach where bilateral migration flows are explained by climate variability at the origin, along with a number of geographic, socio-economic and demographic factors traditionally identified as potential drivers of migration. Overall, we find that an increase in positive temperature extremes as well as positive and negative excess rainfall at the origin act as a push effect and enhance out-migration. However, the significance of the effect of climate on migration greatly varies by migrant characteristics. Particularly, flows of black and low-income South African migrants are strongly influenced by climatic variables whereas those of white and high-income migrants exhibit a weak impact. We also argue that agriculture may function as a transmission channel through which adverse climatic conditions affect migration

    Quantifying the contribution of major carbon producers to increases in vapor pressure deficit and burned area in western US and southwestern Canadian forests

    No full text
    Increases in burned forest area across the western United States and southwestern Canada over the last several decades have been partially driven by a rise in vapor pressure deficit (VPD), a measure of the atmosphere’s drying power that is significantly influenced by human-caused climate change. Previous research has quantified the contribution of carbon emissions traced back to a set of 88 major fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers to historical global mean temperature rise. In this study, we extend that research into the domain of forest fires. We use a global energy balance carbon-cycle model, a suite of climate models, and a burned area (BA) model to determine the contribution of emissions traced to the major carbon producers to the long-term increase in VPD during 1901–2021 and to cumulative forest fire area during 1986–2021 in the western US and southwestern Canada. Based on climate model data, we find that emissions traced to these carbon producers contributed 48% (interquartile range (IQR) 38%–63%) of the long-term rise in VPD between 1901 and 2021. BA modeling indicates that these emissions also contributed 37% (IQR 26%–47%) of the cumulative area burned by forest fires between 1986 and 2021 in the western US and southwestern Canada. The increase in VPD in this region is linked to both increased fire activity and the region’s current and prolonged megadrought. As loss and damage from these hazards mounts, this research can inform public and legal dialogues regarding the responsibility carbon producers bear for addressing past, present, and future climate risks associated with fires and drought in the western US and southwestern Canada

    Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities

    No full text
    This chapter assesses climate-related risks in the context of Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). {Box 19.1} Such risks arise from the interaction of the evolving exposure and vulnerability of human, socioeconomic, and biological systems with changing physical characteristics of the climate system. {19.2} Alternative development paths influence risk by changing the likelihood of climatic events and trends (through their effects on greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other emissions) and by altering vulnerability and exposure. {19.2.4, Figure 19-1, Box 19-2}
    corecore