Melting away

Figure 1: an Inuit hunter (source)

At the height of winter, average surface temperatures can reach -50°C across the Arctic region, and over centuries, societies have evolved and adapted to this extreme cold and these barren lands. It is a way of living which has been moulded by the elements; from hunting narwhals to driving dogsleds, polar bear fur coats to whale-meat delicacies. But not even these societies are immune to the effects of today's changing climate as was reported by National Geographic last month. For the 4 million occupants of the Arctic region, melting sea ice and retreating glaciers are threatening their traditional way of life. Having considered how past climate change in Greenland exacerbated the collapse of the Norse colony, this blog will explore the effects of the present day climate change on today's Arctic societies.

Arctic temperatures have increased at a rate well above the average global rates, with a rise of 3°C observed in some parts of Northern Alaska (Hartmann et al., 2013). Ice loss from Greenland has substantially increased from an average rate of 34 gigatonne per year between 1992 and 2001 to 215 gigatonne per year between 2002 and 2011 (Vaughan et al., 2013), contributing together with thermal expansion to the 0.19m rise in global average sea level since 1901 (Rhein et al., 2013). The observed polar amplification of temperatures in the Arctic and positive feedback mechanisms will only amplify future warming. 

A recent study by Fyke et al. (2014) highlights how reducing polar amplification will play a critical role in constraining the deglaciation of the Greenland ice-sheet and the contribution to sea level rise in a higher CO₂ world. The study used an ice-sheet/climate model to simulate the behaviour of the ice-sheet under different climate scenarios and concluded that under a 840ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the Greenland ice-sheet would reduce to 40% of its original volume within 500 years with the greatest melt occurring in western Greenland (figure 2). Uncertainties with climate models cascade through the simulation and reduce the reliability of the results, but nonetheless, they provide a rough prediction of a possible future scenario. 

Figure 2: Snapshots of the reduction in the Greenland ice-sheet simulated under a 840ppm of atmospheric CO2. (source)

As a result of the present day melting and the rapidly retreating ice, the loss of land from sea level rise and the thinning ice is making fishing dangerous and unpredictable. Species of fish not normally seen in the Arctic region, including the Pacific salmon, has been observed, while the decrease in native animals, including the narwhales, is threatening food security. The winter season has lengthened and the formation of thick sea ice has shortened the hunting season.

But as was seen with the collapse of the Norse colony, social instabilities cannot be solely blamed on climate change. Referring back to the five common factors driving the collapse of societies identified by Diamond (2005), the interaction between various factors including socio-economic and political factors makes the story more complex, and climate change can be seen to only worsen the issue already present in societies. And this is seen in the Arctic communities today, the traditional hunting and fishing economy cannot sustain the modern comforts which have become important to some of the people. Young people are moving away from small fishing villages to towns and cities in search of stable jobs as economic and social pressures are forcing the abandonment of settlements and a decline in population. Climate change is aggravating these problems.

Last Sunday in the London Climate March, a group of Sami people (or Laplanders) from the northern-most regions of Scandinavia took to the stage in an attempt to bring attention towards their fight against climate change by singing a traditional song as seen in the YouTube clip below. These indigenous tribes of the Arctic region are fighting to preserve their unique way of life at the frontline against climate change.

Norse colony and the climate catastrophe

Greenland - the terrain colonised by the Norse settlers (source)

 At a time when there is a pressing need to understand how societies respond to a changing climate, studies of past environments provide valuable insights into the relationship between past societies and climate change. Diamond (2005) identified in his five-factor framework, the complexity behind societal collapse, as explored in the last blog. A highly debated collapse story is that of the Norse colony in Greenland around 1450 A.D. and Dugmore et al., (2007) highlights that this case study provides good, scientifically-reliable evidence to explore the relationship between societies and their environment. Firstly, the Vikings kept literate records and unique historical manuscripts which provide an important historical context on the culture of the settlers at the time. Secondly, Greenland offer high quality environmental data from ice cores, soils, sediments and peat and the ability to correlate these proxies to a high standard through radiocarbon dating and tephrachronology. This blog will explore how the original thought of climate change as the main trigger behind the collapse has been evaluated in light of recent findings.

Alkenone based lake water temperature reconstruction (source)



Abrupt climatic cooling has been suggested as a key driver of the collapse of the Norse colony (D’Andrea et al., 2011). A palaeoclimate reconstruction was recently carried out by D’Andrea et al., (2011)were marine sediment cores were used to explore the alkenone saturation, a well-established proxy for sea-surface temperature (see the above graph). The study found that a major and abrupt climatic cooling at a rate of approximately 4°C per 80 years begin in 850 BP and continued until 650 BP coincided with archaeological records of settlement abandonment in Greenland. Considering that the global warming average over the last century and a half has been on average 0.85°C according to the most recent IPCC report (2014), the rate of temperature decline experienced across Greenland by the Norse was substantial. As with all palaeoenvironmental studies, limitations arise by using proxies to reconstruct the past which are crucial to considering. Prahl et al., (2003) acknowledges that factors including degradation conditions, light limitations and nutrient limitations can cause bias in the alkenone saturation data but other studies, such as Riberio et al., (2011) that used marine plankton, dinoflagellates and other palynomorph from sediment cores to infer climate variability, generated similar findings is support of D’Andrea et al., (2011). Nonetheless, the study by D’Andrea et al., (2011), provides the first quantitative temperature record for the area colonised by the Norse settlers and the study shows how quickly temperature changed in the region possibly driving the collapse. 

As noted by Diamond (2005), the indigenous Inuit society thrived during this period of climate change, proving that human survival on Greenland during this time was not impossible, hence, the collapse of the Norse colony cannot be solely driven by climate change. So why did the Norse colony fail to adapt to the changing climate? Diamond (2005) takes a different approach to that of D’Andrea et al., (2011) and Riberio et al., (2011) and is more ready blame to society itself for causing its own collapse rather. As an Iron Age society, the Norse colony was heavily dependent on wood to make charcoal and to then make iron, and this resulted in extensive, short-term soil erosion and deforestation giving rise to an Iron Age society left stripped of its abilities to make iron. Madsen (2014) progresses on the point raise by Diamond and suggests that as the climate deteriorated and supplies ran low on the island, the lack of timber to create ships used to fetch supplies and resources from the mainland, isolated the Norse colony. Another theory, which supports the fourth factors in Diamond's five-factor framework, suggests a bad relationship between the Norse and the Inuit as often the Inuit would block access to the fjords and to key source of food during critical times of the year Diamond (2005).

A conceptual model of the development of the Norse colony (source)

A more recent study by Madsen (2014)challenges this view on the Norse colony as a society which refused to adapt to the changing climate, and provides reliable evidence that the colony persisted for approximately 200 years following the onset of the climatic cooling. Instead of a sudden collapse, the society went into a gradual decline as the society attempted, but failed, to adapt to a changing climate. Madsen (2004) shows how highland and outmost farms were abandoned as a adaptive strategy to the changing climate. The centralisation of power and resources increased the disparity between the rich and the poor, and for a society who’s economy was built around natural resources, farming and man-power, the loss of farming land, the declining population and the limited natural resources was a the cascading indirect effects of climate change. Dugmore (2006)questions the timing of all these events and provides environmental records demonstrating soil erosion and environmental degradation prior to the onset of climate cooling, questioning the stability of the society before the change in the climate. This suggests that the Norse colony themselves could have initiated their collapse but was further exacerbated by climate change. 

The collapse story of the Norse colony shows how difficult it is to detangle the role of climate change and environmental change from nonclimatic factors. Recent evidence by the likes of D’Andrea et al., (2011) and Madsen (2014) provide reliable and scientifically sound evidence from palaeoenvironmental proxies which identify an abrupt climate change at a significant rate coinciding with the timing of the collapse. Dugmore (2006) argues that whether climate change is “bad” or “catastrophic”for a society depends on how the society chooses to cope with this change and will often be determined by the social attitude and social structure of the society. In the light of today’s climate change, challenges arising from global warming, triggering cascading environmental and social effects, will ultimately depend on how a society chooses to cope. Which societies will thrive and which societies will fall?

Are we committing an ecocide?

As the world slowly begins accepting the scientific evidence for climate change, we are already seeing evidence of climate injustice at work as poorer societies are hit hard by the effects of the warming climate. We are seeing fragile societies in Bangladesh battling against rising sea levels, the traditional way of living  of the Inuits threatened by the melting ice, and societies in the Sahel region crumbling due to extreme drought. When we look to the past, we see many examples of societies across the world that have diminished in power, pushed to the brink of existence and then… collapsed. Well-developed, largely populated civilisations, who developed innovative technologies, literacy, arts and form sophisticated armies, have been susceptible to collapse with classic examples being the Mayan civilisation in the Yucatan Valley and the Roman Empire (future blogs will touch on these further). In terms of the challenges facing societies today as they try to adapt to a warming climate, learning from past societal collapses can provide vital evidence enabling us to identify which societies are fragile today based on factors which influenced past societies, comparing and reflecting on our current social behaviour, and considering the environmental and climate implications of our actions. This could provide a means necessary to encourage societies to plan, prepare and change their ways of living. With consideration to the challenges facing societies today, this blog will explore the extent at which environmental and climatic changes have contributed to the collapse of past societies.

An attempt at summarising the main reasons for why societies collapse was made by Diamond (2005) in his book titled ‘Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed’. A summary of his findings can be found in the above video. Diamond uses an extraordinary diversity of cases from the past and present to support his five-factor framework including the New Guinea highlanders to the Inuits in Greenland, from Haiti and China to Rwanda and the Mayas. His five-factor framework for why societies collapse are: 1) Human impact on their physical environment, 2) Climatic changes, 3) Relations with friendly neighbours, 4) Relations with hostile neighbours, and 5) Political, social and cultural factors. Diamond admits that every collapse is different, as different factors contributing more or less to different collapse stories, but there also exists common threads between each story.

Collapse is defined by Diamond as ‘A drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time’ (page 3). The first common thread Diamond identified is that very often societies collapse soon after peak population is reached due to a mismatch in resource availability and resource consumption. This collapse is referred to by Diamond as ‘ecocide’ which occurs as societies destroy the environment upon which they rely on, ensuring their own demise. Page (2006) questions our ability to compare the environmental changes occurring today to the environmental changes by past societies. Strengthening  Diamond’s  argument, he suggests that human interactions with our environment today is far more complex and intense than in the past. Cutting down trees and exhausting soils cannot be compared to such an extent as polluting watersources with manmade chemicals and reorganizing the distribution of species across the world, and this questions the simplicity of Diamond’s five-factor framework and the extent that we can rely the past. 

A second general theme identified by Diamond is that environmental and climatic factors such as volcanic eruptions, latitude and rainfall make some societies more fragile than other societies facing similar challenges. In today’s contexts, this would be like saying that Bangladesh is failing to adapt to the rising sea level because their tropical monsoon climate is suppressing their ability to develop. An article in The Economist written by Sachs (1999) supports the work of Diamond reporting that ‘the fundamental cause of persisting poverty is the difference in ecological zones which mean that societies face different health conditions and must overcome different limitations’. Diamond’s statement has been heavily criticized. Correia (2013) accuses Diamond of promoting environmental determinism, a concept regarding social inequality which shifts the blame from wealthy nations solely onto geographical and environmental reasons. In light of the present day challenges, Correia (2013) sees the views of both Diamond and Sachs as shedding the responsibility of wealthier nations in tackling an issue of their own making and allowing them the freedom to continue blaming the inequality in the world on an ‘unfavourable climates’.

Correia (2013) criticizes that environmental determinism has re-established itself among historical climate change scientists. Often dry or wet climatic periods are identified in palaeoclimatic studies which correlate strongly with key events in human history and hence it is easy to labelled climate change as the key driver. This is similarly reflected in Diamond’s third common thread whereby societies often fail to see what it is they are doing and/or fail to act if they do face a challenge. Conflicts between the short-term interests of elites and long-term interest of the society as a whole is prominent in many of the collapse case studies explored. Today, we are seeing our country’s key decision makers isolating themselves from the rest of the population by living in gated communities, drink bottles water and continuing to invest money in the oil and gas industry despite clear scientific evidence show a negative effect on the climate. A failure to admit, acknowledge and anticipate future changes could have devastating consequences. 

A US solider providing aid after the Haiti earthquake in 2010. Unlike societies in the past, today aid is provided across the world (source)

Page (2006) notes that the role of climate and environmental change as factors contributing to societal collapse work different in a modern context. Today, as a result of globalisation and the development of technology, natural events such as droughts, hurricanes, volcanic eruption rarely cause societal collapses due to the response of aid from across the globe. Secondly, we see that that past societies collapse as they consume their main resources i.e cut down all their trees, but today, we do not face the same issue. Page (2006) argues that since the price of oil reduces its demand,  'no rational seller of oil will let it run out', and that this it will create an incentive to invent new alternatives to oil and avoid total depletion in our energy source. Hence, a direct comparison between factors influencing past societies and factors influencing present day societies is complex.

Now that we have clear scientific evidence in favour of a changing climate, it is time for society to respond. To further this, the story depicted by Diamond in his book is not one of despair for he examines the efforts of the Netherlands; a country which has chosen to act against environmental and climatic change by reclaiming land from the sea. As Diamond puts it – ‘this is an example of a society which has chosen to avoid collapse through a combination of solidarity and smart engineering’. We must remember when we look at the collapses of past societies, that today’s society has come a long way historically, culturally and socially. As written by Brooks (2013), today ‘our assumptions about time and space, our moral intuitions about killing and individual dignity, events of our written history, all the ideas of our thinkers, all the teachings of our religions’ have helped to shape us and to make us distinctive in comparison to past societies. Looking ahead at the challenges facing us today regarding global environmental and climatic changes, we must learn from examples of past societal collapse with an open mind in the hope of avoiding a similar fate.

All eyes on Paris?

Following a study conducted by Cardiff University and the National Institute of Environmental Studies in Japan (2013), the British headlines were dominated by the results of the study which showed that the number of climate sceptics in Britain had risen from 15% to 19%. Why is it that the issue of climate change has become an unexpectedly controversial topic and plain science being questioned by the public? Ahead of the urgently important United Nations Climate Change Conference (aka COP21) in Paris in a fortnight, we must question why is it that a significant proportion of the public continues to question and deny that the climate is changing? This blog will explore how present day society perceives the topic of climate change, referring specially to the public opinion on the upcoming UN climate conference in Paris.

 

 

According to a study published by Yale University (2009), we can categorise people’s perceptions, attitudes, values and motives towards climate change into six distinct groups. A summary of the study is explained in the video above. People who were making substantial changes to their lives and hungry to understand more about the issue can be labelled as being ‘Alarmed’ by climate change and 18% of the public were identified in the study. The largest proportion of the population (33%) were labelled as 'Concerned' with those people being convinced that global warming is happening but yet to make any personal engagement with the issue. The 'Cautions' (19%), 'Disengaged' (12%) and 'Doubtful' (11%) represent different levels of understanding and acceptance. The final category represented 7% of the public which were labelled as being ‘Dismissive’ about climate change, people who were actively involved in opposing any efforts at tackling the issue of climate change. In order to communicate effectively with the audience, the study highlights how crucial it is to understand who the audience is, the level of understanding the audience previously has on the issue, and the psychological, cultural, and political reasons the audience have for acting. Then, and only then, can we being to effectively communicate the science on climate change to the public by tailoring each message to the target audience.

 

With article appearing in the media over recent weeks with headline including “All eye will be on Paris this December” and "Paris climate summit: The world is ready for change", the British public cannot shy away from the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (aka COP21) in Paris. The talks at the end of this month will be a historical event when countries will come together in an urgent response to the changing climate to negotiate and form a long-term, legally binding and universal agreement on climate. For those labelled as ‘Alarmed’, and also possibly the 'Concerned' audience, these will be gripping stuff. But to everyone else, I question how important Paris itself is? I recently attended a talk by the charity Climate Outreach titled ‘Are we engaged: UN Climate Talks and the UK public’ which tackled the question – what does the UK public think about the UN climate negotiations? A certainly lively talk based upon the results of a recently published report by Climate Outreach (2015). The report highlighted: 1) a lack of public understanding and engagement with the upcoming talk, 2) a sense of fear, concern and powerlessness when people hear the words ‘climate change’, 3) the feeling that the government were keeping people in the dark and implementing an attitude of ‘not in front of the children’, and 4) questioning the technical feasibility of the policies, how to measure, monitor and police the negotiations in Paris and the progress after Paris. The study highlights the failures of the scientific community, the government and the media in communicating with the public. 

Clearly, there is a need to revaluate the way that we communicate science and tactics of tackling the issue of climate change with the public. Catastrophic stories about collapsing ice sheets and drowning polar bears play on the public's emotions and create a sense of fear and panic; a key finding from the Climate Outreach study. Capstick and Pidgeon (2014) found that climate scientism was more strongly associated with a lack of concern about climate change, leading the authors to suggests that we should tackle the issue by make climate change relevant to people’s personal lives. This shows that people will being listening as soon as they personally experience the effects of climate change – a reactive attitude not a proactive attitude. Therefore, the argument that we need to use to tackle climate change is one that concerns people’s lifestyle; ears will start listening to climate scientists as soon as energy bills and food prices increase. Lets change people's attitude by encouraging a healthier, Scandinavian-like lifestyle; pollution-free cities and promoting organic gardening and communal activities; tackling climate change at the same in a subtler way. In a study by Lorenzoni and Pidgeon (2006) into European public views on climate change, they conclude that if people grasp personal benefits, they are more likely to listen, act and take interested.

We need to bring the biggest challenge facing the human race to life and make it relevant to people's lives. After the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, a positive and encouraging attitude will be vital to  drive the momentum around the public attitude towards climate change. As found in the study by Climate Outreach, a huge hype leading up to the negotiations in Paris followed by a crashing deflation of public support must be avoided.

 

At the frontline against climate change

Tucked away in the comfort of our modern homes; water, food and heating available at the click of our fingers; we appear, for now anyway, relatively isolated from the direct effects of climate change. It is with ease that we choose to turn a blind eye towards the reality of the situation. But for the millions who live in the vulnerable, fragile corners of the Earth – survival is but a constant battle fought at the frontline against climate change.


Kisilu Banyak

Earlier this week, I went to see the premier of an upcoming Al Jazeera Witness documentary at the Frontline Club somewhere here in London. The film follows the story of a humble, Kenyan farmer, Kisilu Banyak, and his family as their lives are impacted by the changing climate. Kisilu, his wife and their nine children, live off the land as did his father and his grandfather and many generation before him. Mutomo, a previously reliably fertile part of Kenya, has seen staggering changes over recent years. Times are getting harder, and extreme, unpredictable weather sees the family being push to the brink of survival. We see rains failing and severe drought contradicted by violent, unpredicted storms and devastating floods. We see families abandoning their lands and moving to towns in search of secure jobs, taking with them traditions, cultures and a sense of community. Kisilu himself sees his house brutally devastated by a storm, fields of high yielding crops destroyed in a single night by flash floods, and his children refused education when fee can’t be paid. Here we see the raw and direct evidence of the human impact, water and food security problems, as well as social and cultural issues which rise as a result of climate change. The film is moving and a true wakeup call.

But Kisilu is no ordinary farmer. Kisilu begins teaching communities how to adapt to the changing climate by encouraging tree plantations and effective irrigation systems, driving for long-term, small, bottom-up solutions; a key strategy for such societies to adapt to climate change. He is determined man, determined not to run away and turn his back on the problems that he faces but to tackle them face on; an inspirational man with a vision of bring communities together in their attempts at tackling climate change.

The film is an intimate, raw and honest portrayal of life at the frontline of climate change. Living in our comfortable, modern houses, we are but naïve to the reality of climate change, but this poignant film gives us a taste of the reality of the situation faced by many in their day-to-day battle for survival... and as soon as the lights in the theatre were turned back on, my life here in London seemed a world away from that lived by Kisilu.

Following this film, Kisilu has been invited to talk at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris this December. So tune in to Al Jazeera at 8pm on the 2^nd of December to watch the film "Kisilu: The Climate Diaries".

Why an MSc in Climate Change?

 

Grief sucks. 

I sit here attempting to tackle work for the first time in over a month since my brother, my best friend, passed away. As I tip-toe back into the daunting outside world, I find myself questioning my choice in studying an MSc in Climate Change - would I not make a better use of my brief time on Earth by following a medical career path, dedicating my life to saving the lives of others instead of helplessly attempting to tackle a problem which is far beyond my control?
 

Initiated by a paper published by Crutzen in 2002, there is a growing belief among the research community that the global-scale impacts of human activities now rival the greatest forces of Nature, and has led to the proposition that Earth has left its current geological epoch, the Holocene, and has entered a new human-dominated epoch referred to as the Anthropocene. Our global enivornmental effects have escalated as we alter, domesticate and mechanise the world's ecosystems, profoundly engraving our existence onto the skin of the Earth.  Consequently, anthropogenic forcing now rival natural climatic forcing as we pass the 1°C milestone by the end of 2015. Evidence of globa climatic and environmental change dominates the media, and on a daily basis we see societies battling at the frontline against climate change, struggling for water, food and basic human needs, clinging onto existence.   

A bacteria colony in a petri-dish - an analogue for human population. 

The last century has seen a dramatic increase in human population and pressure on the world’s resources. To simply and effectively illustrate the dangers of this, an analogue can be made with the growth of bacteria in a petri-dish (as discussed here). If the bacteria population doubles every generation, as the population exponentially increases and the petri-dish reaches maximum carrying capacity, a mismatch between resource consumption and resource availability will result in a collapse of the bacteria population. There are many examples of societies throughout history which have dramatically collapsed soon after the societies reaches its peak, a classic example includes the Maya civilisation. As the human population continues to exponentially increase, predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050, do we face a similar fate?  

But one can argue that humanity has never had it so good and that we are far from being despair. The UN Millenium Development Goals show how child mortality rates declined by more than a half between 1990 and 2015 from 90 to 43 deaths per 1000 live births, how 1 billion people have been lifted out of poverty since 1990, and how 7.6 million deaths from AIDS were averted from receiving antiretroviral therapy since 1995. And yet, global carbon dioxide emissions rose by over 50 per cent between 1990 and 2012. This increase will continue and predictions have been made that global average levels will reach 400 ppm next calender year; level not exceeded for at least 800,000 years. Solomon et al., show that climate change following an increase in carbon dioxide emission will be largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. The IPCC 5th Assessment Report show how this could result in global average sea level rise of 0.52,-0.92m under extreme emission scenarios and at least a 1.5°C rise in global surface temperatures predicted from all scenarios by the end of the century. These prediction reinforce the need to tackle climate change. To go back to my original question and to attempt to understand the drive behind my personal quest to tackle the issue of climate change - finding cures for human illnesses is a battle on an individual level and is personally important; but in the long-term, and from a broader perspective, the whole human race is in greater battle.

Grief sucks - and as the effects of climate change and the consequence of our illness continues to contaminate societies, pushing humans to the brink of existence, we will  face grief on a tremendous scale. If humans are to survive, we must work towards reaching a sustainable relationship with the Earth.