Climatic impacts and global health Flashcards
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE
ON HEALTH
Specific learning outcomes
On completion of this topic,
you should be able to:
* Outline in general terms the
scientific explanations used to
account for anthropogenic
climate change
* Discuss how climate change
may directly or indirectly
impact on health and
wellbeing
- The process of climate change/global
warming is linked to the “greenhouse
effect.”
… before we can explore this
phenomenon, we need to ask what
regulates the Earth’s temperature
when there is no human
intervention.
After all, we know that the Earth has
been plunged into Ice Ages and then
warmed considerably – what has been
going on to create these climatic
extremes?
a. CONCEPTS AND SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF “CLIMATE
CHANGE”
- According to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
“climate change” is a
“change in the state of the climate that
can be identified (e.g., by using
statistical tests) by changes in the mean
[average] and/or the variability of its
properties and that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or
longer.”
…This may be due to
“natural processes” or to
“persistent anthropogenic [human‐
driven] changes in the composition of
the atmosphere or in land use.”
- The global factors refer to
the complex
interrelationship between
the atmosphere,
hydrosphere and the
biosphere.
For example, volcanic emissions release large
amounts of sulphur dioxide and particulate
matter – this may result in global cooling as
occurred after Mount Pinatubo in 1991.
- Carbon dioxide is also the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas with an annual release of over 7
gigatonnes
it constitutes > 2/3 of what is termed ‘radiative forcing’ = degree to which infrared radiation is absorbed
by greenhouse gases and re‐emitted, thus warming the atmosphere
BUT the RATE of change of carbon dioxide is far faster than is usual for natural geological processes, and the
AMOUNT of carbon dioxide is greater than we have experienced in recent geological time
- The rise has been detected from the late 1950s – now CO2 stands at about 30% greater than
existed in pre‐industrial times.
…this rise largely appears related to fossil fuel use (slight dip in the 1970s during the fuel crisis)
Carbon dioxide has a residence time in the atmosphere of up to 200 years
Even when there is no human intervention (and
long before there were people on the Earth), ,
water vapour and carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere exert some greenhouse effect
…….In fact, these “natural” greenhouse gases are
important – our planet would be 33 deg C
cooler without them, and the profusion of life
with which we are familiar would be quite
restricted.
* For our hostile near neighbour,
the planet Venus, the process of greenhouse
heating has spiralled out of control: the Venusian
atmosphere contains more than 95% carbon
dioxide (compared to a fraction of one per cent on
Earth),
and ‐ although the planet may at one time have
supported oceans of water ‐ these days the
surface temperatures can hit 460°C.
- The pre‐industrial levels of carbon
dioxide were about 280 parts per
million (shortened to “ppm”)…we are
around 400 ppm and climbing. - Historically, atmospheric carbon
dioxide at these levels has not been
seen for at least 800 000 years (based
on Antarctic ice core analysis), and
probably not even for the last 2.1
million years (based on the shells of
plankton in marine deposits). - Despite the temperature fluctuations
over these hundreds of thousands of
years – which saw ice ages come and
go ‐ the carbon dioxide levels
remained at a remarkably stable
setting between 180ppm (at
maximum glaciation) and 300 ppm
(when the glacial periods had
passed).
Apart from CO2, other
greenhouse gases include
methane and nitrous oxide in the
troposphere; and CFCs
(chlorofluorocarbons))in the
stratosphere
all these gases are highly
effective at absorbing infrared
radiation, so they are effective
at trapping heat.
‐ CFCs have an effect out of
proportion to their tiny
quantities because they absorb
certain infrared frequencies not
captured by the other gases
‐ this potential to trap heat is called the GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL or GWP of these gases – essentially, all
gases are compared to carbon dioxide as a baseline in terms of their ability to induce global warming.
= methane per unit weight is 24 times better than carbon dioxide at inducing global warming
…while CFCs per unit weight are ~5 000‐10 000 times better …CFCs persist for many decades in the atmosphere, so
their contribution will be with us some time yet.
- When considering the fate and cycling of greenhouse gases, we can consider the sources and
sinks of these gases
= sinks are sites or processes by which the gas is removed
& the rate of movement between the source and sink is called the flux
- Major sources of carbon
dioxide are burning of fossil
fuels
and to lesser degree
deforestation (though burning
and decomposition) and land‐
use change.
The sinks are the ocean (e.g.
forms basis of shells and
skeletons of aquatic animals ‐
eventually limestone) and
plants in photosynthesis –
especially when there is forest
regrowth
Deforestation has
a “double whammy” effect
in relation to generating carbon dioxide
…Removal of this vegetation
= creates more carbon dioxide as it burns and
decomposes
AND also the loss of these plants removes an
important sink
- Major sources of methane =
produced by fermentation I.E. where
no oxygen (anaerobic condition) –
produced in marshes, ponds, paddy
fields and from the gastrointestinal
tracts of ruminants, such as cattle
– thus humans contribute to this by
large areas of irrigation in rice
production
AND large numbers of farm animals –
…also termites produce a fair bit of methane,
and the volume and number of termite
mounds increase after deforestation. - Methane is also stored in tundra –
there is a suggestion that in regions
such as Siberia could be produced in
massive quantities if the permafrost
(permanently frozen layer on or
under Earth’s surface) thaws as a
result of global warming
There has also been some
counteractive effect from
dust and soot in the
atmosphere, which stops
the Sun’s energy from
hitting the surface of the
planet
BUT
overall even this has not
overcome the greenhouse
effect
b. ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF GREENHOUSE
EMISSIONS
- A wide range of
evidence suggests that
the addition of
greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere will
eventually lead (and
may have already
contributed) to some
level of climate
change/global
warming.
The main scientific issues relating to
climate change/global warming are
as follows:
‐ what is the magnitude of the
change/warming? ‐ will it substantially
disrupt our livelihoods and ecologies?
‐ over what time scale will it occur? ‐ is
it here now, or will we see it in a
generation or two?
- This estimated effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere was formally
calculated back in the 1890s, when Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius
worked out that if you double the concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere, the global temperature will increase by around 5 degree
Celsius
… It took him around two years to complete this calculation by hand.
so in fact we have known about CO2, industrial activity and the risk of a
warming planet since at least 1896… - The current best estimate is around +3 degrees C increase with CO2
doubling …but Arrhenius’ original +5 degrees C in fact remains in the
range of possible values
- There are
a number of
models used to predict the
outcome of global warming
–
these are called GLOBAL
CIRCULATION (or CLIMATE)
MODELS or GCMs
A common mid
‐range
estimate is that we might
expect an average rise in
surface temperature of
between
1 and 3.5 degC
during the course of the
21st century, if carbon
dioxide and other emissions
are not substantially
reduced.
- Of course, the great majority of scientists argue that the evidence is there already
‐‐> Since 1880, there does appear to be an increase in average global temperatures of about 1.1 degrees
Centigrade ‐ with much of this occurring since the mid‐20th century.
This estimate incorporates averages across day and night as well as seasonal fluctuations. The rate of warming
has been more noticeable in the Northern Hemisphere (especially the Arctic)
BUT does this represent a “true” warming trend…or just “natural variation”?
- Significant temperature fluctuations
have occurred in the past 1000 years,
such as the Medieval Warm Period
(from around 900‐1300AD), which
was followed by the Little Ice Age
(which in fact comprised three cooling
events ranging from around 1350 ‐
1850AD). - The cause of these trends is
uncertain, and have been variously
attributed to astronomical influences
(fluctuations in solar activity), natural
aberrations (a disturbance in the
North Atlantic Ocean systems and the
Gulf Stream), and even human factors
(the massive mortality from the Black
Death leading to the return of forests
and their increased uptake of carbon
dioxide).
….However, even during the Medieval Warm
Period, the temperature probably never rose
to the levels that the Northern Hemisphere
has been experiencing in the past two
decades.
More extreme scenarios are being considered by some scientists
there is chance that global warming may enter a kind of “runaway
mode.”
How might such a process get underway?
‐ One of the first steps would involve forests and grasslands starting to act
more as a carbon source than a sink, such as if large areas were to catch
alight or die from loss of water.
…Next, zones of permafrost may melt at a faster rate, releasing ever more
methane from vast boglands in the Arctic.
‐ Finally, there is some doubt over the capacity of the ocean to keep acting
as a sink for greenhouse gases. Seawater currently “soaks up” about half
of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but if the oceans warm up, the
underlying chemical reaction that helps to “capture” the gas will not work
as efficiently.
Any of these processes could accelerate the creation of a
greenhouse world.
It is still difficult to precisely estimate
the consequences of greenhouse gases
in terms of warming or other effects
….but:
* It is expected even a moderate level
of warming would start melting the
polar ice caps, and would contribute
to a rise in sea levels and flooding
&
there would also be a change in
precipitation patterns and a greater
frequency of extreme weather
events
&
geographical shifts or
transformations in many ecosystems
- A rise in temperature has quite variable effects on rainfall
= some parts of North America and Eurasia could receive slightly higher levels overall (maybe with cyclonic events
and flooding?) …except locations such as the south and western US which would be drier - Parts of Australia might also experience more rainfall, although southern WA will most likely be drier
If this progresses……
* in Australia –the shoreline will
change, and saltwater will
intrude into coastal lands and
aquifers + also flooding
* Increases in sea temperatures
will also cause a greater
number and intensity of
tropical cyclones
– they will also occur further
south.
…These will cause damage (bad
outcome) but may also bring
increased rainfall to some
areas (beneficial?)
- For the oceans,
any increase in temperature causes
water to expand (thermal expansion)
and
‐ together with the loss of terrestrial
glaciers and icecaps with runoff into
the ocean ‐
leads to a sea level rise
– It is estimated that there has been a
rise of about 0.2 metre since the
1880s
It is predicted that by 2050, there
will be an increase of around
another 0.3m from now,
and some suggest much higher levels
as we move beyond that date
In some regions (e.g. around the
Pacific), a large unknown factor
is the effect of ENSO, the El
Niño Southern Oscillation
* This cycle begins over in eastern Pacific,
close to South America.
The periods of the warm waters in eastern
Pacific (El Niño) and periods of cooler waters
(La Niña) are accompanied by changes of air
pressure in the east and west Pacific
= these are called the Southern Oscillation.
* El Niño events occur irregularly, about every
2‐7 years. They last from 12 to 18 months.
* The effects of La Niña are generally less
pronounced and tend to be the opposite of
those of El Niño