Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Water

Climate Change's Most Deadly Threat: Drought

By Todd Wilkinson, Christian Science Monitor. Posted March 6, 2008.


A new book reveals that the Earth's distant past can predict the crises that may lie in our future.
Advertisement

Spring is on its way back to northern latitudes. In many locales, it will arrive earlier than "normal," yielding, ostensibly, a longer growing season, a hotter summer, balmier autumn, and future winters will lack their ferocious post-Pleistocene bites.

While vineyards are being planned for northern England, millions of residents around desiccated Atlanta are praying for enough rain to flow through their taps.

Brian Fagan believes climate is not merely a backdrop to the ongoing drama of human civilization, but an important stage upon which world events turn.

As it turns out, the anecdotal evidence of climate change in this, the 21st century, shares much in common with a historical antecedent, the Medieval Warm Period, circa AD 800 to 1200, that radically shaped societies across the globe.

The Medieval Warm Period was a time when the capacity of agriculture rapidly expanded and enabled people to flourish in Europe. Yet elsewhere, extended lack of rainfall, or too much of it, brought famine, plagues, and wars.

This bout of global warming was followed by the Little Ice Age that lasted roughly from AD 1300 until the middle of the 19th century and cast Europe and North America back into a big chill. Since then, mean global temperature has been slowly and steadily rising, accompanied by huge leaps in agricultural output and skyrocketing human population.

Today, climate experts tell us that over the past two decades, temperature has registered an alarming unnatural spike and is expected to keep climbing.

Despite the well-established fact that Earth is heating up, skeptics still are trying to poke holes in the assertion that it is owed to humans pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate change is, and always has been cyclical, they say. Or maybe, some insist, it is God who has his hand on the thermostat.

In his new book, The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations, Fagan does not engage in secular or religious ponderances. An anthropologist and professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the British-born author sees harvest seasons and weather patterns of the past as providing vital prologue for a fast approaching, water-challenged future.

In recent years, a flood of books about global warming has been written for the lay audience. Among the most noteworthy: Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers"; Elizabeth Kolbert's "Notes From A Catastrophe"; Eugene Linden's "The Winds of Change"; and Ross Gelbspan's "The Heat Is On."

Each scopes out its own piece of the climate puzzle, from tundra to tropics and atmosphere to ocean, using plain narratives to explain a phenomenon that, when left to scientific lexicon, can seem too complicated to grasp.

Fagan, author of the bestselling "The Little Ice Age," makes an original contribution in "The Great Warming" by summoning attention to what he calls "the silent elephant in the room": drought.

As polar icecaps melt and glaciers disappear, thus causing seas to rise, low-lying coastal areas may indeed be inundated, creating millions of environmental refugees. But it is the inland agricultural breadbasket regions that feed the world that stand to suffer the greatest upheaval if reliable precipitation patterns vanish.

Such a scenario is not speculative, Fagan insists; it's based upon not only sophisticated computer models, but also the precedent of what's already happened during episodes of climate change half a millennium ago -- in the Arctic, Europe, China, the Southern Hemisphere, and in America's own backyard. By taking readers back to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, Fagan argues that history "shows how drought can destabilize a society and lead to its collapse."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: water, global warming, drought, climage change, water scarcity, water crisis, the great warming

Todd Wilkinson is a freelance writer in Bozeman, Mont.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Selfish, selfish, selfish
Posted by: sanddollar on Mar 6, 2008 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "elephant in the room" may be the destruction of the habitats and life around us.

The upside of drought being what huge numbers of people die from is, it won't be hunger. Maybe the last whale etc. won't be killed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politics to the Frontline?
Posted by: writerman on Mar 6, 2008 2:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is we need to install a radically different form of social organization to one that's currently dominant over most of the globe if we are going to stand a chance of ameliorating the worst effects rapid climate change, changes that may well profoundly threaten human civilization over the long term.

Put brutally, I'm talking about a root and branch reform of the way power and wealth are distributed. This 'revolution' in the way we do things won't be accomplished easily or without provoking opposition from the elite who benefit so disproportionally from the current socio/econimic/political paradigm.

I suppose I'm talking about a kind of cultural revolution, which I see as our only realistic hope of averting environmental disaster and establishing a greener, fairer and sustainable society. Unfortunately those with power and rule over us, have other ideas about the future. For them it's more of the same for as long as possible, and using force on a global scale if they have to.

We are all mostly peasants and city-dwellers confronting an emmensely powerful and wealthy aristocracy who will literally stop at nothing to defend their luxurious lifestyles in their protected Versailles. It's almost like science fiction. How are we going to topple the aristocracy and redistribute wealth and power without resort to revolution and civil war? Is it really possible to 'reform' our civilization before it's too late, or is that just wishful thinking?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Politics to the Frontline? Posted by: sanddollar
» RE: Politics to the Frontline? Posted by: nigelbest
DROUGHT is the SECOND most deadly threat
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 6, 2008 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
H2S from the ocean is the FIRST.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/
environment/76461/?
comments=view&cID=831018
Why John McCain Isn't the Candidate to Stop Climate Change
Posted by Dr. Joseph Romm, Climate Progress at 12:10 PM on
February 8, 2008.

Especially the paragraph:
The next president must make reducing GHG emissions a central
focus of his or her administration if we want to avoid the worst
impacts of global warming: catastrophic sea level rise, widespread
drought and desertification, and loss of up to 70 percent of all
species.

"[L]oss of up to 70 percent of all species" includes Homo Sapiens,
the human race.

The above links to:
http://www.salon.com/
news/feature/2007/
12/12/ipcc_report/
index_np.html
Desperate times, desperate scientists

Fed up with politicians and the media, scientists are pleading to
the world to wake up to the imminent threats of global warming.

By Joseph Romm

How dire is the climate situation? Consider what Rajendra
Pachauri, the head of the United Nations' prestigious
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said last
month: "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we
do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is
the defining moment." Pachauri has the distinction, or misfortune,
of being both an engineer and an economist, two professions not
known for overheated rhetoric.

In fact, far from being an alarmist, Pachauri was specifically
chosen as IPCC chair in 2002 after the Bush administration waged
a successful campaign to have him replace the outspoken Dr.
Robert Watson, who was opposed by fossil fuel companies like
ExxonMobil. So why is a normally low-key scientist getting more
desperate in his efforts to spur the planet to action?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

california
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 6, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
oh,hooray. san francisco becomes the new malibu and los angeles dries up and blows away...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: california Posted by: tornadorider2002
Climate change
Posted by: 2dogarage on Mar 6, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Glad to see the the reference to global warming changing to the much more accurate term: Climate change.

The warming trends and subsequent ice ages of the past occurred without any carbon-based pollution of any kind. These are cyclical occurrences beyond "fixing" by reducing greenhouse gases, etc.

The real problems in our current world are water shortages and peak oil, both a result of overpopulation and reckless waste.

In no way am I implying that we should continue to exploit the earth the way we have been doing because "climate change happens". But I think that the Al Gore chicken littles are barking up the wrong tree in an effort to distract us from the real problems that include, as one poster above noted, the distribution of wealth and the imperialist agenda of the ruling class.

No doubt about it, humans have trashed the place. Perhaps this is just mother nature's way of telling us enough is enough. The world is sick on many levels, the ills of the macrocosm can be directly linked to the microcosms of our own bodies, minds and spirits. As above, so below.

In order to change this trend we will need a massive housecleaning on the personal level, it's not a simple matter of cleaning up greenhouse gases.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Climate change Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Climate change Posted by: CCridr
I don't understand...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Mar 6, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... our planet is surrounded by water!

and the biggest carbon sink known is plant life
[I'm thinking massive deforestation in new guinea and the amazon killed off a major carbon sink and is a major reason for our current woes]

we have nuclear powered ships! with built on RODs [reverse osmosis devices] these provide unlimited fresh drinking water from the ocean to the ships crew! if it can be done at sea... why not drought stricken areas.. or areas that we know will be drought stricken due to man made environmental pressures

We need to put desalination plants [RODs] on the coasts
and pipe all the needed water inland!
we can reverse desertification by planting Neem trees and Hemp in arid zones
and by providing water through massive coastal desalination plants and piping water inland we can reclaim vast deserts and make them into breadbaskets...
The technology exists, so I must ask... why aren't we acting to PLANT TREES and PROVIDE WATER where its needed most!???

For example... a small Candu reactor powering several desalination plants that feed a web of pipelines, could provide as much water as needed to reforest vast sections of the Sahara... they could refill depleted aquifers on all continents etc etc etc... ad nausea

I personally believe that population exersion is stressing our planet and its resources, but also believe we have the ability to correct our mistakes by educating and replanting every arable inch... with water the least of our worries...

We have the technology today, with proven methods of delivery... with known plants to reclaim deserts quickly... we have the science to understand the weather pattern changes that will be brought about by newly created forests [carbon sinks] replacing deforested regions in SE Asia and the Amazon.

we need to get coastal desalination plants and delivery systems up and running...
we need actions and solutions to these problems

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I don't understand... Posted by: Dave F
» Gracias, oceanwaves99999 Posted by: sanddollar
Ignore the environmental lobby - look at the science
Posted by: Scarecrow57 on Mar 6, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First thing to note is that the largest sink of CO2 is the oceans.

Next, if the oceans rise as is predicted by some models, there will be an increased surface area which will allow for more evaporation. Increased water vapor in the air increases the number of storms. At this time it should be noted that research has found through observational data that in a warmer climate the severity of the storms will decrease. The predictions of increases in storms and wide spread droughts contradict one another.

If one looks at the long term (2 billion years) they will find that earth is currently cooler than it has ever been. Warming is a natural phenomena that cannot be controlled by man. I say let us first try to control the formation of storms, then we can move on to the bigger puzzle of climate control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your science is wrong Posted by: ReallyBearish
Sooner or later...
Posted by: vangogh69 on Mar 6, 2008 10:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We will have to grapple with the idea that handling climate change may not be compatible with capitalism. I'm not saying that socialism is the sole way to avert climate change, but clearly capitalism since the industrial revolution is having a catastrophic effect on the environment and life. This may be a light we wish to leave off? What's sad about this issue is that it's not that complicated but it is a difficult one in that it challanges our present way of life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dave F: Nuclear fuel is recyclable, there is no need to waste it.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 6, 2008 11:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

There is an abundant supply of nuclear fuel in Yucca Mountain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So why is a normally low-key scientist getting more desperate?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 6, 2008 11:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The water crisis is the gentlest hint of what is to come. Hydrogen
Sulfide [H2S] gas will Kill all people when the heated oceans
produce it in large quantities. Homo Sap will go EXTINCT
unless drastic action is taken. URLs on this subject are:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322

http://www.geosociety.org/
meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

The Scientific American article is the easiest to read and
understand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How the oceans make H2S
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 6, 2008 11:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article in Scientific American, here is the process by
which the hot ocean makes the H2S that kills everybody.

Step 1: CO2 from some source warms the earth. 251 million
years ago, 201 million years ago and 60 million years ago it was
supervolcanoes. The first of these created Siberia. This time the
CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. Coal is the worst.

Step 2: The oceans cannot dissolve enough oxygen when they get
too warm, so the fish die. I don't know why or when the plants in
the ocean die.

Step 3: "Deep-dwelling anaerobic microbes churn out copious
amounts of hydrogen sulfide, which also dissolves into the
seawater. As its concentration builds, the H2S diffuses upward,
where it encounters oxygen diffusing downward. So long as their
balance remains undisturbed, the oxygenated and hydrogen
sulfide-saturated waters stay separated, and their interface, known
as the chemocline, is stable. Typically the green and purple sulfur
bacteria live in that chemocline, enjoying the supply of H2S from
below and sunlight from above."
The chemocline moves up and down in response to the climate.
The warmer the ocean, the higher the chemocline. Heat alone
cannot take all of the oxygen out of the ocean unless the ocean
boils, but warmer water dissolves less oxygen. Oxygen and
H2S cannot exist in the same mixed volume of water because O2
reacts with H2S by the equation:

6H2S + 9O2 = 6H2O + 6SO2

H2S removes O2 from the ocean long before heat does. If the
deep ocean warms and the supply of sulfur is adequate, the sulfur
bacteria:
1. Work faster because reaction rate doubles with each 10 degrees
C temperature rise and
2. Have a greater volume of ocean that is below the chemocline
and free of oxygen in which to live. Oxygen kills sulfur bacteria.
No, we can't pump enough oxygen down there to kill them.

The supply of H2S increases because of the above positive
feedbacks. The chemocline continues to move upward. Will a
new equilibrium be reached before the surface is reached? Is
there a barrier to chemocline rise or is it like a flipflop circuit? Is
there a threshhold temperature for this to happen? What is the
threshhold temperature of the ocean for this to happen? Does
anybody know? Ocean currents keep the deep water cold now,
but a change in the currents caused by global warming could
warm up part of the deep water. That would be a third positive
feedback.

Setp 4: Since there is no oxygen in the ocean to burn up the H2S,
H2S bubbles out of the ocean. H2S is a poison gas, so everybody
dies. The supply of H2S will be ample in spite of the reaction of
H2S with oxygen, not that we would want to breathe SO2. There
were extinction events 251 million years ago, 201 million years
ago and 60 million years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

estherme
Posted by: estherme on Mar 7, 2008 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone investigated what the government's spraying the air with "Chemtrails" is doing to the planet, land, oceans etc. Research says it is doing harm to our immune system and causing breathing problems etc.. Other research say this spraying causes Drought. There are many web sites on Chemtrails and videos on you tube that show the dangers of this spraying. See www.carnicom.com/conleft.htm www.educateyourself.org/ct (Chemtrails Introduction)
www.youtube.com/watchv=gvioxjul6co&feature=related www.drewswebsite.com ( click on Chemtrails). Don't trust the government sites to tell you the truth or anything but their usual BS !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

its the people...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Mar 12, 2008 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... so many people... so little resources...

of course theres gunna be stresses... but its how we deal with life's stresses that matter!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abolish all the d^&*(m immigration laws so people can move to where it rains
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Mar 12, 2008 6:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is not our "climate", it is the selfishness and viciousness of people who use violence to keep people from moving.

See levels rise? Move somewhere else! Getting drier where you live? Move somewhere else! Getting warm enough to live in Siberia or northern Canada? Make sure Canada and Russia allow people to come and live there. Warm enough to live in Greenland or Antartica? Ditto.

There is plenty of room on this planet if the governments could be abolished.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Most Deadly Threat?
Posted by: Urgelt on Mar 15, 2008 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drought is the most deadly threat?

That isn't what NASA is saying about climate change. Drought is certainly a concern, but there are actually worse consequences if global warming is not stopped in time.

The worst threat may be the release of methane from clathrate deposits, which scientists think could happen if global temperatures warm by about 10 degrees Centigrade. It probably won't happen for a few centuries, but it's well within the realm of possibility if we don't take action.

Methane clathrates are frozen slurries of ice and methane, shallowly buried on the continental shelves. There is a lot of methane locked up in those deposits. They are barely kept in place by pressure and cold water temperatures.

If methane starts to be released from those deposits in bulk due to warmer ocean currents, the greenhouse effect will take off like a rocket. The increased rate of warming will warm more ocean currents and release more methane; it will also put more water vapor into the atmosphere, also a greenhouse gas. It's a probable feedback loop. Once the clathrate deposits become unstable and start releasing methane, we'll have irrevocably passed a critical phase change point. Warming might not stop until all the Earth's water has been vaporized into a thick, hot atmosphere vaguely resembling that of Venus.

Droughts are a bad business, but by no means can droughts be thought the worst possible consequence of global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]