Post Climate Change World: Importing an Ecology
William P. Baird
wildly, but rigorously. I'd like to see preferences, but constrained
by some reality.
There have been some interesting articles that I've linked from
my blog as of late. They are about climate change. When
people often talk about it, they say that the world's temperature
is going to go up/down/whatever by x number of degrees C. This
is misleading. Climate change is not uniform. Some places
change a lot more than others. The climate is an enormously
complicated beast. Whether you are a winner, loser, or net
neutral, it really depends on your location.
For our discussion here, we are going to assume that the
climate change in question is global warming and that it is
really happening as bad as said. I am also going to go by
some of the off hand conversations I've had with climate
guys around here and to reference articles I've found online.
I'll differentiate between them where I can.
Based on the conversations here, the net gain in world
temperature is going to be 5 C by mid century. We'll use
that for the discussion. It may or may not be exactly right.
Modeling is a triksy business, hobbitses.
Now as for some losers in the climate change, if you're 9
meters or less above sealevel, you're going to get flooded.
(local convo) This is due to the ice cap meltings and the
the ice free summers that the Arctic is headed to under
the models(climate modeling group conference coming up).
The middle east through central asia are supposed to
get it bad too. Temperatures, iirc, go up 7 or 8 C.
A net neutral is Antarctica. It will lose some ice, but the
Antarctic Current seems to be protecting the icy continent
much more than previously thought and acts as an excellent
bit of protection. The anarctic pennisula might end up with
some marginally habitable land, but mostly AA is cold is
going to stay frackin cold. One area that might be a net
neutral (and was in the presentations here at LBNL) was
the American midwest. For some reason the sims show
it not going up or down much in temperature, but it might
have more catastrophic precipitation that comes up from
the Gulf of Mexico.
A net gainer, and the focus of the post, is Greenland. There
was an article[1] in Spiegel about the fact that Greenland is
already experiencing more than twice the effect of the rest
of the world in temperature rise. Some models predict that
it might get twice the temperature rise, on average, than
the rest of the world. Largely this is because of the
wholsale melting of the icecap. Locals here predict its
going away altogether. That has a huge impact, one of
which is that the atmospheric circulation no longer is
impacted by that great big hunk of cold ice. IDK what that
will have as an impact exactly, but my climate coconspirator
for SC05 said it has as much of an impact on the climate of
Europe as the Atlantic Conveyor. It's loss is a net negative
for said climate, but in what way...well. IDK.
What will the climate look like? Assuming that the 2x increase
and the 5C global are valid, I went and grabbed some climate
data for different locations in Greenland: Thule AFB[2], Godthab[3],
Angmagssalik[4],and Narsarsuaq[5]. There is a map[6].
New Mean Temperatures (in C):
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
A 3 2 2 6 11 14 17 16 13 9 6 3
G 3 2 2 6 11 14 17 16 13 9 7 4
N 3 4 5 10 15 18 20 19 16 11 7 4
T -13 -15 -16 -8 4 12 15 14 8 -1 -8 -12
It still remains damned cold in Thule during the winter, to be
sure, but the more southerly cities, things actually look
habitable now. Even cozy. Narsarsuaq would look nicer,
temperature wise, than does London[7] and in fact looks quite
a bit like Paris[8].
We know that Greenland used to have forests warm enough
for primates[9]. That was some time ago. there would have
to be a lot of soil importation because what's there after the
ice is little more than glacial leftovers and most of it inorganic
at that. Pielou's work[10] is actually handy here as to what
might happen over the course of thousands of years in
Greenland, but that's not going to happen with all of us
biological transporters around.
The question for discussion for ahf is what could and would
live in the new, warm, and hip Greenland? What would you
put on this ubersized island? Why?
Remember, the light and dark cycles up north impact what
plants can and cannot live there without tinkering. Alas,
my redwoods wouldn't work out too well. Conifer forests
would be great though and I am sure that those would make
it there, but what else? Why?
Will
1.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html
2. http://www.thule.af.mil/Lifestyle/Weather.htm
3. http://uk.weather.com/weather/climatology/GLXX0003
4. http://uk.weather.com/weather/climatology/GLXX0001
5. http://uk.weather.com/weather/climatology/GLXX0005
6. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/greenland.jpg
7. http://uk.weather.com/weather/climatology/UKXX0052
8. http://uk.weather.com/weather/climatology/FRXX0076
9. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/07/19/hopping_to_wyoming_1.php
10.
http://www.amazon.com/After-Ice-Age-Glaciated-America/dp/0226668126/sr=8-1/qid=1158264960/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8475177-3631902?ie=UTF8&s=books
--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Home: anzhalyu@gmail. has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Work: wba...@nersc.go is something big, mean, with very sharp
Blog: thedragonstales teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
+ com/v/.blogspot.com somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.
Straha
Interesting... so how will the east coast from maine to florida change
under your predictions/ WAs the long hot, literally almost monsoon like
summer that we in upstate NY had this year a preview of the ufutre?
William P. Baird
Well, this is tangental to the original post, but...
First take a look here:
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=35.53222622770337,-116.69677734375&z=11&m=9
Explore the world. Visit the Everglades while you can. :S
Second, I haven't asked about the east coast. I have seen a
few articles float across about surveying the models out there
and see what happens. One stated that the east coast will dry
out overall, after a 3.mumble C rise but the rains when they do
come are very catastrophic in nature. Very monsoonal, yes.
Prior to going over the 3.mumble rise though, the weather gets
wetter for all of you out there. The hurricanes get worse
no matter what with temperature rise. Expect them. In
fact, a Katrina at some time ought to hit NYC, iirc.
Now, any thoughts on Warmer Postglacial Greenland?
Will
Straha
Well I've already been to south florida so...
Wait why would it dry out? Doesn't global warming mean warmer AND
wetter? After vall increased temperatures mean more evaporation rates
which means more available water vapor for rains. So we're talking
about a postglacial western New york which could look more like a
cooler, wetter california with a monsoon season?
Given how everywhere will keep getting warmer and wetter I'd imagine a
postglacial greenland to look like a mix of hudson's bay canada, Norway
plus a cooler verison of the pacific northwest(rain). I'm doubtful on
the long term survival of polar bears there. IF anytinhg poalr bears
will probably end up surviving only in zoos(assuming we don't move them
to antarctica).
As for a postglacial greenland's geopolitical implciations? I'd imagine
it would become eventually the home for what's left of denmark(and
eventually become a STRONG part of the world once the glaciers are all
gone). Once the ice caps start melting(well once the melt has an
effect) I'd imagine that what agriculture you can do in tundra/taiga
coudl be possible there. Within 100 years Denmark coudl once again be a
strong nation. Depending on the mineral resoruces it could greatly
boost denmark's clout.
William P. Baird
> Wait why would it dry out? Doesn't global warming mean warmer AND
> wetter?
First off, that's not neccessarily true. Frex, the Oligocene was
warmer than current and the whole of the US was pretty arid.
http://www.scotese.com/oligocen.htm
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
The main problem is what happens to all the circulation patterns.
Does the Atlantic Conveyer continue? What about the
atmospheric circulation changes due to the Greenland Ice Cap
missing?
The sum seems to make the east coast get more extreme and
catastrophic in its rainfall and climate. Note, I am unsure
whether or not the AC actually shuts down. I am pretty sure
that the climate guys are unsure too. If it does, Europe gets
to be a pretty miserable place. Yet if the AC does shutdown
Greenland's not going to warm nearly as much...soooo...
> After vall increased temperatures mean more evaporation rates
> which means more available water vapor for rains.
If the moisture goes to the same places...
> So we're talking
> about a postglacial western New york which could look more like a
> cooler, wetter california with a monsoon season?
Kinda, sorta. More extreme for the spike to summer temperatures.
Monsoonal. WInters warmer, but might be more continental.
> Given how everywhere will keep getting warmer and wetter I'd imagine a
> postglacial greenland to look like a mix of hudson's bay canada, Norway
> plus a cooler verison of the pacific northwest(rain).
Makes sense. However, a big problem is that unless you tinker
with much gene wise, you have issues with the light cycle and plant
reproduction.
> I'm doubtful on
> the long term survival of polar bears there. IF anytinhg poalr bears
> will probably end up surviving only in zoos(assuming we don't move them
> to antarctica).
alas. They're either going to hybridize or be preserved by humanity
in zoos.
> As for a postglacial greenland's geopolitical implciations? I'd imagine
> it would become eventually the home for what's left of denmark(and
> eventually become a STRONG part of the world once the glaciers are all
> gone).
Denmark's rise might take a couple hundred years. The reason being
that it would take a lot of work to make inland Greenland into a
inhabitable place. Otherwise inland is a northern desert.
Straha
William P. Baird wrote:
> Straha wrote:
> > Wait why would it dry out? Doesn't global warming mean warmer AND
> > wetter?
>
> First off, that's not neccessarily true. Frex, the Oligocene was
> warmer than current and the whole of the US was pretty arid.
>
> http://www.scotese.com/oligocen.htm
> http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
>
> The main problem is what happens to all the circulation patterns.
> Does the Atlantic Conveyer continue? What about the
> atmospheric circulation changes due to the Greenland Ice Cap
> missing?
That could bugger things up alot for the world. HOW it woudl affect it
I'm not sure. All I know is that it woudln't be good.
>
> The sum seems to make the east coast get more extreme and
> catastrophic in its rainfall and climate. Note, I am unsure
> whether or not the AC actually shuts down. I am pretty sure
> that the climate guys are unsure too. If it does, Europe gets
> to be a pretty miserable place. Yet if the AC does shutdown
> Greenland's not going to warm nearly as much...soooo...
>
> > After vall increased temperatures mean more evaporation rates
> > which means more available water vapor for rains.
>
> If the moisture goes to the same places...
Hm..
>
> > So we're talking
> > about a postglacial western New york which could look more like a
> > cooler, wetter california with a monsoon season?
>
> Kinda, sorta. More extreme for the spike to summer temperatures.
> Monsoonal. WInters warmer, but might be more continental.
So the best analogue might be a temperate version of india(strong
temperature variations, monsoon season, continental weather) with some
elemetns of california and current southern US added in?
>
> > Given how everywhere will keep getting warmer and wetter I'd imagine a
> > postglacial greenland to look like a mix of hudson's bay canada, Norway
> > plus a cooler verison of the pacific northwest(rain).
>
> Makes sense. However, a big problem is that unless you tinker
> with much gene wise, you have issues with the light cycle and plant
> reproduction.
I was talking about climate not vegetation but you are still right.
>
> > I'm doubtful on
> > the long term survival of polar bears there. IF anytinhg poalr bears
> > will probably end up surviving only in zoos(assuming we don't move them
> > to antarctica).
>
> alas. They're either going to hybridize or be preserved by humanity
> in zoos.
Sounds plausible to me. Either that or engineer them to like penguin
meat and put them in antarctica.
>
> > As for a postglacial greenland's geopolitical implciations? I'd imagine
> > it would become eventually the home for what's left of denmark(and
> > eventually become a STRONG part of the world once the glaciers are all
> > gone).
>
> Denmark's rise might take a couple hundred years. The reason being
> that it would take a lot of work to make inland Greenland into a
> inhabitable place. Otherwise inland is a northern desert.
That is true. I'd expect them to to take the effort to terraform inland
greenland. Adter all if the original homeland of denmark is under
water/
William P. Baird
> That could bugger things up alot for the world. HOW it woudl affect it
> I'm not sure. All I know is that it woudln't be good.
If the AC shuts down then Europe gets rather cold. Especially northern
Europe. The proposed reason that would happen is all the freshwater
being added to the Atlantic would disrupt the saltinity balance.
> So the best analogue might be a temperate version of india(strong
> temperature variations, monsoon season, continental weather) with some
> elemetns of california and current southern US added in?
Close enough.
> That is true. I'd expect them to to take the effort to terraform inland
> greenland. Adter all if the original homeland of denmark is under
> water/
Well, a portion of the homeland would go under water, but more than
half would persist even if we went over 14 m sea level rise.
sam kayley
...
> The main problem is what happens to all the circulation patterns.
> Does the Atlantic Conveyer continue? What about the
> atmospheric circulation changes due to the Greenland Ice Cap
> missing?
down, we could see argentina making grabs for parts of the antarctic,
kerguelen inhabited...
...
>> As for a postglacial greenland's geopolitical implciations? I'd imagine
>> it would become eventually the home for what's left of denmark(and
>> eventually become a STRONG part of the world once the glaciers are all
>> gone).
>
> Denmark's rise might take a couple hundred years. The reason being
> that it would take a lot of work to make inland Greenland into a
> inhabitable place. Otherwise inland is a northern desert.
controversial as adding to the warming&rising sea levels), followed by
super-lichen to make soil from bare rock?