Climate change affecting world's rich heritage

Addressing the unpredictable climatic changes, a group of researchers have warned that there is a need for strong local management to preserve world’s rich heritage. Apart from climatic changes, man-made activities including over-fishing, pollution, use if excess fertilizers, converting forests into concrete forests, etc. have affected places of global environmental importance like Amazon’s rainforest and the Great Barrier Reef.

The study authors said that without local intervention these places can’t be protected that will create ecological imbalance. “Poor local management makes an ecosystem less tolerant to climate change and erodes its capacity to keep functioning effectively,” said study lead author Professor Marten Scheffer, from Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

Researchers found that some places like Amazon rainforest plays important role climatic changes and are of global importance. Thus they demand extra care and protection, unlike other heritages.  Due to excess carbon dioxide emission, The Great Barrier Reef is seeing ocean acidification and coral bleaching. Furthermore, overfishing and nutrient runoff have worsen the situation.

The world is already suffering from unprecedented climatic changes and global warming, and these deteriorating heritages have increased the woes. According the researchers, if nothing is done to save the heritage of global importance then it might affect the tourism worth of $6 million.

Co-author, Professor Scott Barrett from Columbia University, said that these iconic environmental places value to the whole world, apart from the countries they are in. However, all the countries along with local people should come up with a solution to protect this rich heritage. Government can step in to educate local people, and can make an effort for reducing pollution while locals can take care of the heritage. Moreover, instead of deforestation, every country should focus on reinstalling forests that will also help against global warming.

“Local management options are well understood and not too expensive. So there is really no excuse for countries to let this slip away, especially when it comes to ecosystems that are of vital importance for maintaining global biodiversity,” said Scheffer.

The study appeared in the journal Science.

Tags: , ,

Around the web

Around the web

  • mememine

    No matter how much you hate conservatives, 34 MORE years of climate action failure is 100% certain and 76% of CO2 scientists being 99% certain proves it, however they are 100% sure the planet isn’t flat.

    Exaggerating a crisis to children just to blame conservatives was not “progressive”.

    • Magoo

      The empirical evidence is the only thing that is 100% certain & is the ONLY thing that proves anything. Let’s see what the IPCC says about AGW:

      ‘In GCMs [global climate models], water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases).’


      ‘In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4).’

      To summarise, the IPCC states that water vapour should account for half of the warming in their computer models, and that this should be obvious by the mid-upper troposphere warming at a faster rate than the lower troposphere/surface.

      If we fast forward to the AR5 they have the results to see if this is really occurring (table 2.8, page 197, chapter 2, working group I, IPCC AR5 report):

      ALL temperature records show the lower troposphere (LT) warming faster than the mid/upper troposphere (MT) – i.e., no tropospheric hotspot & the opposite of what was predicted. It’s true the hotspot can be caused by any type of forcing, not just CO2, but the fact that it doesn’t exist shows that there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour regardless of what should be causing it.

      As a result, by the standards set by the IPCC in AR4, half of the predicted warming in the form of positive feedback from water vapour isn’t there. Without water vapour to double the initial forcing of CO2, the most it can warm from a doubling of TOTAL (not just man’s) atmospheric CO2 is 1.2C (please be aware that the IPCC’s estimates for climate sensitivity due to a doubling of CO2 INCLUDES feedbacks. The warming effect of CO2 alone without feedbacks is generally accepted as between 1 and 1.2C per doubling of total atmospheric CO2):

      In the last year from October to October CO2 has risen by 1.77 parts per million (ppm) from 393.51ppm to 395.28ppm, and at that rate it will take 222 years to double to 790.56ppm & rise a maximum of 1.2C. For it to rise another 1.2C it will need to double again from 790.56 to 1581.12ppm which will take a further 446 yrs – a total of 668 yrs to rise a maximum of 2.4C. Considering 1.2C is the extreme amount it can warm it will probably take longer.

      What does it look like when models factor in warming from water vapour that doesn’t exist?:

      No tropospheric hotspot = no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour = no AGW (well, nothing to worry about anyway). If the ‘missing heat’ is in the ocean that makes the case for positive feedback even weaker. So even if it has warmed over the last 18 years (which it hasn’t), it certainly isn’t as a result of our CO2 output. The IPCC made a prediction in AR4 that was supposed to account for 50% of the warming, and this prediction has been empirically falsified by the scientific data in AR5. Lower level water vapour is thought to have a negative feedback (i.e. cooling effect) as it manifests in the form of clouds that reflect the radiation back into space, and releases any stored heat when it rains.