JPL October 2003 (related post here) note; i will make this more readable after i take a break. anyone with docs they are afraid will disappear under trump send them to me please
Imagining the Unthinkable
The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current
research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United
States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and
reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this
project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,
they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather
than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and
would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.
Executive Summary
There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur
during the 21st century. Because changes have been gradual so far, and are projected
to be similarly gradual in the future, the effects of global warming have the potential
to be manageable for most nations.
Recent research, however, suggests that there is a
possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing
of the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather
conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions
that currently provide a significant fraction of the world’s food production. With
inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying
capacity of the Earth’s environment.
The research suggests that once temperature rises above some threshold, adverse
weather conditions could develop relatively abruptly, with persistent changes in the
atmospheric circulation causing drops in some regions of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit in
a single decade. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that altered climatic patterns could
last for as much as a century, as they did when the ocean conveyor collapsed 8,200
years ago, or, at the extreme, could last as long as 1,000 years as they did during the
Younger Dryas, which began about 12,700 years ago.
In this report, as an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are
so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100
year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago. This abrupt change scenario is
characterized by the following conditions:
• Annual average temperatures drop by up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia
and North America and 6 degrees Fahrenheit in northern Europe
• Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key
areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.
• Drought persists for most of the decade in critical agricultural regions and in
the water resource regions for major population centers in Europe and eastern
North America.
• Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impacts of the changes.
Western Europe and the North Pacific experience enhanced winds.
The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially
de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even
war due to resource constraints such as:
1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production
2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted
precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts
3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess
As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the
world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with
the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving
resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient
enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean
water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and.the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.
This scenario poses new challenges for the United States, and suggests several steps
to be taken:
• Improve predictive climate models to allow investigation of a wider range of
scenarios and to anticipate how and where changes could occur
• Assemble comprehensive predictive models of the potential impacts of abrupt
climate change to improve projections of how climate could influence food,
water, and energy
• Create vulnerability metrics to anticipate which countries are most vulnerable
to climate change and therefore, could contribute materially to an increasingly
disorderly and potentially violent world. • Identify no-regrets strategies such as enhancing capabilities for water
management
• Rehearse adaptive responses
• Explore local implications
• Explore geo-engineering options that control the climate.
There are some indications today that global warming has reached the threshold
where the thermohaline circulation could start to be significantly impacted. These
indications include observations documenting that the North Atlantic is increasingly
being freshened by melting glaciers, increased precipitation, and fresh water runoff
making it substantially less salty over the past 40 years.
This report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of
abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be
elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.
Introduction
When most people think about climate change, they imagine gradual increases in
temperature and only marginal changes in other climatic conditions, continuing
indefinitely or even leveling off at some time in the future. The conventional wisdom
is that modern civilization will either adapt to whatever weather conditions we face
and that the pace of climate change will not overwhelm the adaptive capacity of
society, or that our efforts such as those embodied in the Kyoto protocol will be
sufficient to mitigate the impacts. The IPCC documents the threat of gradual climate
change and its impact to food supplies and other resources of importance to humans
will not be so severe as to create security threats. Optimists assert that the benefits
from technological innovation will be able to outpace the negative effects of climate
change.
Climatically, the gradual change view of the future assumes that agriculture will
continue to thrive and growing seasons will lengthen. Northern Europe, Russia, and
North America will prosper agriculturally while southern Europe, Africa, and
Central and South America will suffer from increased dryness, heat, water shortages,
and reduced production. Overall, global food production under many typical climate
scenarios increases. This view of climate change may be a dangerous act of self
deception, as increasingly we are facing weather related disasters -- more hurricanes,
monsoons, floods, and dry-spells – in regions around the world.
Weather-related events have an enormous impact on society, as they influence food
supply, conditions in cities and communities, as well as access to clean water and
energy. For example, a recent report by the Climate Action Network of Australia
projects that climate change is likely to reduce rainfall in the rangelands, which could
lead to a 15 per cent drop in grass productivity. This, in turn, could lead to
reductions in the average weight of cattle by 12 per cent, significantly reducing beef
supply. Under such conditions, dairy cows are projected to produce 30% less milk,
and new pests are likely to spread in fruit-growing areas. Additionally, such
conditions are projected to lead to 10% less water for drinking. Based on model
projections of coming change conditions such as these could occur in several food
producing regions around the world at the same time within the next 15-30years,
challenging the notion that society’s ability to adapt will make climate change
manageable.
With over 400 million people living in drier, subtropical, often over-populated and
economically poor regions today, climate change and its follow-on effects pose a
severe risk to political, economic, and social stability. In less prosperous regions,
where countries lack the resources and capabilities required to adapt quickly to more
severe conditions, the problem is very likely to be exacerbated. For some countries,
climate change could become such a challenge that mass emigration results as the
desperate peoples seek better lives in regions such as the United States that have the
resources to adaptation.
Because the prevailing scenarios of gradual global warming could cause effects like
the ones described above, an increasing number of business leaders, economists,
policy makers, and politicians are concerned about the projections for further change
and are working to limit human influences on the climate. But, these efforts may not
be sufficient or be implemented soon enough.
Rather than decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests
the possibility that a more dire climate scenario may actually be unfolding. This is
why GBN is working with OSD to develop a plausible scenario for abrupt climate
change that can be used to explore implications for food supply, health and disease,
commerce and trade, and their consequences for national security.
While future weather patterns and the specific details of abrupt climate change
cannot be predicted accurately or with great assurance, the actual history of climate
change provides some useful guides. Our goal is merely to portray a plausible
scenario, similar to one which has already occurred in human experieince, for which
there is reasonable evidence so that we may further explore potential implications for
United States national security.
A Climate Change Scenario For the Future
The past examples of abrupt climate change suggest that it is prudent to consider an
abrupt climate change scenario for the future as plausible, especially because some
recent scientific findings suggest that we could be on the cusp of such an event. The
future scenario that we have constructed is based on the 8,200 years before present
event, which was much warmer and far briefer than the Younger Dryas, but more
severe than the Little Ice Age. This scenario makes plausible assumptions about
which parts of the globe are likely to be colder, drier, and windier. Although
intensified research could help to refine the assumptions, there is no way to confirm
the assumptions on the basis of present models.
Rather than predicting how climate change will happen, our intent is to dramatize
the impact climate change could have on society if we are unprepared for it. Where
we describe concrete weather conditions and implications, our aim is to further the
strategic conversation rather than to accurately forecast what is likely to happen with
a high degree of certainty. Even the most sophisticated models cannot predict the
details of how the climate change will unfold, which regions will be impacted in
which ways, and how governments and society might respond. However, there
appears to be general agreement in the scientific community that an extreme case like
the one depicted below is not implausible. Many scientists would regard this
scenario as extreme both in how soon it develops, how large, rapid and ubiquitous
the climate changes are. But history tells us that sometimes the extreme cases do occur, there is evidence that it might be and it is DOD’s job to consider such
scenarios.
Keep in mind that the duration of this event could be decades, centuries, or millennia
and it could begin this year or many years in the future. In the climate change
disruption scenario proposed here, we consider a period of gradual warming leading
to 2010 and then outline the following ten years, when like in the 8,200 event, an
abrupt change toward cooling in the pattern of weather conditions change is
assumed to occur.
Warming Up to 2010
Following the most rapid century of warming experienced by modern civilization,
the first ten years of the 21st century see an acceleration of atmospheric warming, as
average temperatures worldwide rise by .5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and by as
much as 2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade in the harder hit regions. Such temperature
changes would vary both by region and by season over the globe, with these finer
scale variations being larger or smaller than the average change. What would be very
clear is that the planet is continuing the warming trend of the late 20th century.
Most of North America, Europe, and parts of South America experience 30% more
days with peak temperatures over 90 degrees Fahrenheit than they did a century ago,
with far fewer days below freezing. In addition to the warming, there are erratic
weather patterns: more floods, particularly in mountainous regions, and prolonged
droughts in grain-producing and coastal-agricultural areas. In general, the climate
shift is an economic nuisance, generally affecting local areas as storms, droughts, and
hot spells impact agriculture and other climate-dependent activities. (More French
doctors remain on duty in August, for example.) The weather pattern, though, is not
yet severe enough or widespread enough to threaten the interconnected global
society or United States national security.
Warming Feedback Loops
As temperatures rise throughout the 20th century and into the early 2000s potent
positive feedback loops kick-in, accelerating the warming from .2 degrees Fahrenheit,
to .4 and eventually .5 degrees Fahrenheit per year in some locations. As the surface
warms, the hydrologic cycle (evaporation, precipitation, and runoff) accelerates
causing temperatures to rise even higher. Water vapor, the most powerful natural
greenhouse gas, traps additional heat and brings average surface air temperatures
up. As evaporation increases, higher surface air temperatures cause drying in forests
and grasslands, where animals graze and farmers grow grain. As trees die and burn,
forests absorb less carbon dioxide, again leading to higher surface air temperatures
as well as fierce and uncontrollable forest fires Further, warmer temperatures melt
snow cover in mountains, open fields, high-latitude tundra areas, and permafrost
throughout forests in cold-weather areas. With the ground absorbing more and
reflecting less of the sun’s rays, temperatures increase even higher.
By 2005 the climatic impact of the shift is felt more intensely in certain regions
around the world. More severe storms and typhoons bring about higher storm
surges and floods in low-lying islands such as Tarawa and Tuvalu (near New
Zealand). In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through
levees in the Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague
unlivable. Failures of the delta island levees in the Sacramento River region in the
Central Valley of California creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system
transporting water from northern to southern California because salt water can no
longer be kept out of the area during the dry season. Melting along the Himalayan
glaciers accelerates, causing some Tibetan people to relocate. Floating ice in the
northern polar seas, which had already lost 40% of its mass from 1970 to 2003, is
mostly gone during summer by 2010. As glacial ice melts, sea levels rise and as
wintertime sea extent decreases, ocean waves increase in intensity, damaging coastal
cities. Additionally millions of people are put at risk of flooding around the globe
(roughly 4 times 2003 levels), and fisheries are disrupted as water temperature
changes cause fish to migrate to new locations and habitats, increasing tensions over
fishing rights.
Each of these local disasters caused by severe weather impacts surrounding areas
whose natural, human, and economic resources are tapped to aid in recovery. The
positive feedback loops and acceleration of the warming pattern begin to trigger
responses that weren’t previously imagined, as natural disasters and stormy weather
occur in both developed and lesser-developed nations. Their impacts are greatest in
less-resilient developing nations, which do not have the capacity built into their
social, economic, and agricultural systems to absorb change.
As melting of the Greenland ice sheet exceeds the annual snowfall, and there is
increasing freshwater runoff from high latitude precipitation, the freshening of
waters in the North Atlantic Ocean and the seas between Greenland and Europe
increases. The lower densities of these freshened waters in turn pave the way for a
sharp slowing of the thermohaline circulation system.
The Period from 2010 to 2020
Thermohaline Circulation Collapse
After roughly 60 years of slow freshening, the thermohaline collapse begins in 2010,
disrupting the temperate climate of Europe, which is made possible by the warm
flows of the Gulf Stream (the North Atlantic arm of the global thermohaline
conveyor). Ocean circulation patterns change, bringing less warm water north and
causing an immediate shift in the weather in Northern Europe and eastern North
America. The North Atlantic Ocean continues to be affected by fresh water coming
from melting glaciers, Greenland’s ice sheet, and perhaps most importantly increased
rainfall and runoff. Decades of high-latitude warming cause increased precipitation and bring additional fresh water to the salty, dense water in the North, which is
normally affected mainly by warmer and saltier water from the Gulf Stream. That
massive current of warm water no longer reaches far into the North Atlantic. The
immediate climatic effect is cooler temperatures in Europe and throughout much of
the Northern Hemisphere and a dramatic drop in rainfall in many key agricultural
and populated areas. However, the effects of the collapse will be felt in fits and starts,
as the traditional weather patterns re-emerge only to be disrupted again—for a full
decade.
The dramatic slowing of the thermohaline circulation is anticipated by some ocean
researchers, but the United States is not sufficiently prepared for its effects, timing, or
intensity. Computer models of the climate and ocean systems, though improved,
were unable to produce sufficiently consistent and accurate information for
policymakers. As weather patterns shift in the years following the collapse, it is not
clear what type of weather future years will bring. While some forecasters believe the
cooling and dryness is about to end, others predict a new ice age or a global drought,
leaving policy makers and the public highly uncertain about the future climate and
what to do, if anything. Is this merely a “blip” of little importance or a fundamental
change in the Earth’s climate, requiring an urgent massive human response?
The effects of the drought are more devastating than the unpleasantness of
temperature decreases in the agricultural and populated areas. With the persistent
reduction of precipitation in these areas, lakes dry-up, river flow decreases, and fresh
water supply is squeezed, overwhelming available conservation options and
depleting fresh water reserves. The Mega-droughts begin in key regions in Southern
China and Northern Europe around 2010 and last throughout the full decade. At the
same time, areas that were relatively dry over the past few decades receive persistent
years of torrential rainfall, flooding rivers, and regions that traditionally relied on
dryland agriculture.
In the North Atlantic region and across northern Asia, cooling is most pronounced in
the heart of winter -- December, January, and February -- although its effects linger
through the seasons, the cooling becomes increasingly intense and less predictable.
As snow accumulates in mountain regions, the cooling spreads to summertime. In
addition to cooling and summertime dryness, wind pattern velocity strengthens as
the atmospheric circulation becomes more zonal.
While weather patterns are disrupted during the onset of the climatic change around
the globe, the effects are far more pronounced in Northern Europe for the first five
years after the thermohaline circulation collapse. By the second half of this decade,
the chill and harsher conditions spread deeper into Southern Europe, North America,
and beyond. Northern Europe cools as a pattern of colder weather lengthens the
time that sea ice is present over the northern North Atlantic Ocean, creating a further
cooling influence and extending the period of wintertime surface air temperatures.
Winds pick up as the atmosphere tries to deal with the stronger pole-to-equator
temperature gradient. Cold air blowing across the European continent causes
especially harsh conditions for agriculture. The combination of wind and dryness
causes widespread dust storms and soil loss.
Signs of incremental warming appear in the southern most areas along the Atlantic
Ocean, but the dryness doesn’t let up. By the end of the decade, Europe’s climate is
more like Siberia’s.
An Alternative Scenario for the Southern Hemisphere
There is considerable uncertainty about the climate dynamics of the Southern
Hemisphere, mainly due to less paleoclimatic data being available than for the
Northern Hemisphere. Weather patterns in key regions in the Southern Hemisphere
could mimic those of the Northern Hemisphere, becoming colder, drier, and more
severe as heat flows from the tropics to the Northern Hemisphere, trying to
thermodynamically balance the climatic system. Alternatively, the cooling of the
Northern Hemisphere may lead to increased warmth, precipitation, and storms in
the south, as the heat normally transported away from equatorial regions by the
ocean currents becomes trapped and as greenhouse gas warming continues to accelerate. Either way, it is not implausible that abrupt climate change will bring
extreme weather conditions to many of the world’s key population and growing
regions at the same time – stressing global food, water, and energy supply.
Europe. Hit hardest by the climatic change, average annual temperatures drop by 6
degrees Fahrenheit in under a decade, with more dramatic shifts along the
Northwest coast. The climate in northwestern Europe is colder, drier, and windier,
making it more like Siberia. Southern Europe experiences less of a change but still
suffers from sharp intermittent cooling and rapid temperature shifts. Reduced
precipitation causes soil loss to become a problem throughout Europe, contributing
to food supply shortages. Europe struggles to stem emigration out of Scandinavian
and northern European nations in search of warmth as well as immigration from
hard-hit countries in Africa and elsewhere.
United States. Colder, windier, and drier weather makes growing seasons shorter
and less productive throughout the northeastern United States, and longer and drier
in the southwest. Desert areas face increasing windstorms, while agricultural areas
suffer from soil loss due to higher wind speeds and reduced soil moisture. The
change toward a drier climate is especially pronounced in the southern states.
oward a drier climate is especially pronounced in the southern states.
Abrupt Climate Change
12
Coastal areas that were at risk during the warming period remain at risk, as rising
ocean levels continues along the shores. The United States turns inward, committing
its resources to feeding its own population, shoring-up its borders, and managing the
increasing global tension.
China. China, with its high need for food supply given its vast population, is hit hard
by a decreased reliability of the monsoon rains. Occasional monsoons during the
summer season are welcomed for their precipitation, but have devastating effects as
they flood generally denuded land. Longer, colder winters and hotter summers
caused by decreased evaporative cooling because of reduced precipitation stress
already tight energy and water supplies. Widespread famine causes chaos and
internal struggles as a cold and hungry China peers jealously across the Russian and
western borders at energy resources.
Bangladesh. Persistent typhoons and a higher sea level create storm surges that
cause significant coastal erosion, making much of Bangladesh nearly uninhabitable.
Further, the rising sea level contaminates fresh water supplies inland, creating a
drinking water and humanitarian crisis. Massive emigration occurs, causing tension
in China and India, which are struggling to manage the crisis inside their own
boundaries.
East Africa. Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique face slightly warmer weather, but
are challenged by persistent drought. Accustomed to dry conditions, these countries
were the least influenced by the changing weather conditions, but their food supply
is challenged as major grain producing regions suffer.
Australia. A major food exporter, Australia struggles to supply food around the
globe, as its agriculture is not severely impacted by more subtle changes in its
climate. But the large uncertainties about Southern Hemisphere climate change make
this benign conclusion suspect.
Impact on Natural Resources
The changing weather patterns and ocean temperatures affect agriculture, fish and
wildlife, water and energy. Crop yields, affected by temperature and water stress as
well as length of growing season fall by 10-25% and are less predictable as key
regions shift from a warming to a cooling trend. As some agricultural pests die due
to temperature changes, other species spread more readily due to the dryness and
windiness – requiring alternative pesticides or treatment regiments. Commercial
fishermen that typically have rights to fish in specific areas will be ill equipped for
the massive migration of their prey. With only five or six key grain-growing regions in the world (US, Australia,
Argentina, Russia, China, and India), there is insufficient surplus in global food
supplies to offset severe weather conditions in a few regions at the same time – let
alone four or five. The world’s economic interdependence make the United States
increasingly vulnerable to the economic disruption created by local weather shifts in
key agricultural and high population areas around the world. Catastrophic shortages
of water and energy supply – both which are stressed around the globe today –
cannot be quickly overcome.
Impact on National Security
Human civilization began with the stabilization and warming of the Earth’s climate.
A colder unstable climate meant that humans could neither develop agriculture or
permanent settlements. With the end of the Younger Dryas and the warming and
stabilization that followed, humans could learn the rhythms of agriculture and settle
in places whose climate was reliably productive. Modern civilization has never
experienced weather conditions as persistently disruptive as the ones outlined in this
scenario. As a result, the implications for national security outlined in this report are
only hypothetical. The actual impacts would vary greatly depending on the nuances
of the weather conditions, the adaptability of humanity, and decisions by
policymakers.
Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the
climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to
today. Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural
resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology,
religion, or national honor. The shifting motivation for confrontation would alter
which countries are most vulnerable and the existing warning signs for security
threats.
There is a long-standing academic debate over the extent to which resource
constraints and environmental challenges lead to inter-state conflict. While some
believe they alone can lead nations to attack one another, others argue that their
primary effect is to act as a trigger of conflict among countries that face pre-existing
social, economic, and political tension. Regardless, it seems undeniable that severe
environmental problems are likely to escalate the degree of global conflict.
Co-founder and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment, and Security, Peter Gleick outlines the three most fundamental
challenges abrupt climate change poses for national security:
1. Food shortages due to decreases in agricultural production
2. Decreased availability and quality of fresh water due to flooding and droughts
3. Disrupted access to strategic minerals due to ice and storms
In the event of abrupt climate change, it’s likely that food, water, and energy resource
constraints will first be managed through economic, political, and diplomatic means
such as treaties and trade embargoes. Over time though, conflicts over land and
water use are likely to become more severe – and more violent. As states become
increasingly desperate, the pressure for action will grow.
Today, carrying capacity, which is the ability for the Earth and its natural ecosystems
including social, economic, and cultural systems to support the finite number of
people on the planet, is being challenged around the world. According to the
International Energy Agency, global demand for oil will grow by 66% in the next 30
years, but it’s unclear where the supply will come from. Clean water is similarly
constrained in many areas around the world. With 815 million people receiving
insufficient sustenance worldwide, some would say that as a globe, we’re living well
above our carrying capacity, meaning there are not sufficient natural resources to
sustain our behavior.
Many point to technological innovation and adaptive behavior as a means for
managing the global ecosystem. Indeed it has been technological progress that has
increased carrying capacity over time. Over centuries we have learned how to
produce more food, energy and access more water. But will the potential of new
technologies be sufficient when a crisis like the one outlined in this scenario hits?
Abrupt climate change is likely to stretch carrying capacity well beyond its already
precarious limits. And there’s a natural tendency or need for carrying capacity to
become realigned. As abrupt climate change lowers the world’s carrying capacity
aggressive wars are likely to be fought over food, water, and energy. Deaths from
war as well as starvation and disease will decrease population size, which overtime,
will re-balance with carrying capacity. When you look at carrying capacity on a regional or state level it is apparent that
those nations with a high carrying capacity, such as the United States and Western
Europe, are likely to adapt most effectively to abrupt changes in climate, because,
relative to their population size, they have more resources to call on. This may give
rise to a more severe have, have-not mentality, causing resentment toward those
nations with a higher carrying capacity. It may lead to finger-pointing and blame, as
the wealthier nations tend to use more energy and emit more greenhouse gasses such
as CO2 into the atmosphere. Less important than the scientifically proven
relationship between CO2 emissions and climate change is the perception that
impacted nations have – and the actions they take.
The Link Between Carrying Capacity and Warfare
Steven LeBlanc, Harvard archaeologist and author of a new book called Carrying
Capacity, describes the relationship between carrying capacity and warfare. Drawing
on abundant archaeological and ethnological data, LeBlanc argues that historically
humans conducted organized warfare for a variety of reasons, including warfare
over resources and the environment. Humans fight when they outstrip the carrying
capacity of their natural environment. Every time there is a choice between starving
and raiding, humans raid. From hunter/gatherers through agricultural tribes,
chiefdoms, and early complex societies, 25% of a population’s adult males die when
war breaks out.
Peace occurs when carrying capacity goes up, as with the invention of agriculture,
newly effective bureaucracy, remote trade and technological breakthroughs. Also a
large scale die-back such as from plague can make for peaceful times---Europe after
its major plagues, North American natives after European diseases decimated their
populations (that's the difference between the Jamestown colony failure and
Plymouth Rock success). But such peaceful periods are short-lived because
population quickly rises to once again push against carrying capacity, and warfare
resumes. Indeed, over the millennia most societies define themselves according to
their ability to conduct war, and warrior culture becomes deeply ingrained. The
most combative societies are the ones that survive.
However in the last three centuries, LeBlanc points out, advanced states have
steadily lowered the body count even though individual wars and genocides have
grown larger in scale. Instead of slaughtering all their enemies in the traditional
way, for example, states merely kill enough to get a victory and then put the
survivors to work in their newly expanded economy. States also use their own
bureaucracies, advanced technology, and international rules of behavior to raise
carrying capacity and bear a more careful relationship to it.
All of that progressive behavior could collapse if carrying capacities everywhere
were suddenly lowered drastically by abrupt climate change. Humanity would
revert to its norm of constant battles for diminishing resources, which the battles themselves would further reduce even beyond the climatic effects. Once again
warfare would define human life.
The two most likely reactions to a sudden drop in carrying capacity due to climate
change are defensive and offensive.
The United States and Australia are likely to build defensive fortresses around their
countries because they have the resources and reserves to achieve self-sufficiency.
With diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources, the
United States could likely survive shortened growing cycles and harsh weather
conditions without catastrophic losses. Borders will be strengthened around the
country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an
especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America. Energy supply will be
shored up through expensive (economically, politically, and morally) alternatives
such as nuclear, renewables, hydrogen, and Middle Eastern contracts. Pesky
skirmishes over fishing rights, agricultural support, and disaster relief will be
commonplace. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rise as the U.S. reneges on the
1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River. Relief workers will
be commissioned to respond to flooding along the southern part of the east coast and
much drier conditions inland. Yet, even in this continuous state of emergency the
U.S. will be positioned well compared to others. The intractable problem facing the
nation will be calming the mounting military tension around the world.
As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate
change, many countries’ needs will exceed their carrying capacity. This will create a
sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression in order to
reclaim balance. Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their
populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose
population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply.
Or, picture Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination
of its fresh water supply, eying Russia’s Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an
energy source to power desalination plants and energy-intensive agricultural
processes. Envision Pakistan, India, and China – all armed with nuclear weapons –
skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land.
Spanish and Portuguese fishermen might fight over fishing rights – leading to
conflicts at sea. And, countries including the United States would be likely to better
secure their borders. With over 200 river basins touching multiple nations, we can
expect conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and transportation. The
Danube touches twelve nations, the Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs
through seven.
In this scenario, we can expect alliances of convenience. The United States and
Canada may become one, simplifying border controls. Or, Canada might keep its
hydropower—causing energy problems in the US. North and South Korea may align
to create one technically savvy and nuclear-armed entity. Europe may act as a
unified block – curbing immigration problems between European nations – and
allowing for protection against aggressors. Russia, with its abundant minerals, oil,
and natural gas may join Europe.
In this world of warring states, nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. As cooling
drives up demand, existing hydrocarbon supplies are stretched thin. With a scarcity
of energy supply – and a growing need for access -- nuclear energy will become a
critical source of power, and this will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries
develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security.
China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, France, and Germany will
all have nuclear weapons capability, as will Israel, Iran, Egypt, and North Korea.
Managing the military and political tension, occasional skirmishes, and threat of war
will be a challenge. Countries such as Japan, that have a great deal of social cohesion
(meaning the government is able to effectively engage its population in changing
behavior) are most likely to fair well. Countries whose diversity already produces
conflict, such as India, South Africa and Indonesia, will have trouble maintaining
order. Adaptability and access to resources will be key. Perhaps the most frustrating
challenge abrupt climate change will pose is that we’ll never know how far we are
into the climate change scenario and how many more years – 10, 100, 1000 --- remain
before some kind of return to warmer conditions as the thermohaline circulation
starts up again. When carrying capacity drops suddenly, civilization is faced with
new challenges that today seem unimaginable.
Could This Really Happen?
Ocean, land, and atmosphere scientists at some of the world’s most prestigious
organizations have uncovered new evidence over the past decade suggesting that the
plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher than most of the scientific
community and perhaps all of the political community is prepared for. If it occurs,
this phenomenon will disrupt current gradual global warming trends, adding to
climate complexity and lack of predictability. And paleoclimatic evidence suggests
that such an abrupt climate change could begin in the near future.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute reports that seas surrounding the North
Atlantic have become less salty in the past 40 years, which in turn freshens the deep
ocean in the North Atlantic. This trend could pave the way for ocean conveyor
collapse or slowing and abrupt climate change.
With at least eight abrupt climate change events documented in the geological
record, it seems that the questions to ask are: When will this happen? What will the
impacts be? And, how can we best prepare for it? Rather than: Will this really happen?
Are we prepared for history to repeat itself again?
There is a debate in newspapers around the globe today on the impact of human
activity on climate change. Because economic prosperity is correlated with energy
use and greenhouse gas emissions, it is often argued that economic progress leads to
climate change. Competing evidence suggests that climate change can occur,
regardless of human activity as seen in climate events that happened prior to modern
society.
It’s important to understand human impacts on the environment – both what’s done
to accelerate and decelerate (or perhaps even reverse) the tendency toward climate
change. Alternative fuels, greenhouse gas emission controls, and conservation efforts
are worthwhile endeavors. In addition, we should prepare for the inevitable effects
of abrupt climate change – which will likely come regardless of human activity.
Here are some preliminary recommendations to prepare the United States for abrupt
climate change:
1) Improve predictive climate models. Further research should be conducted so
more confidence can be placed in predictions about climate change. There
needs to be a deeper understanding of the relationship between ocean
patterns and climate change. This research should focus on historical, current,
and predictive forces, and aim to further our understanding of abrupt climate
change, how it may happen, and how we’ll know it’s occurring.
2) Assemble comprehensive predictive models of climate change impacts.
Substantial research should be done on the potential ecological, economic,
social, and political impact of abrupt climate change. Sophisticated models
and scenarios should be developed to anticipate possible local conditions. A
system should be created to identify how climate change may impact the
global distribution of social, economic, and political power. These analyses
can be used to mitigate potential sources of conflict before they happen.
3) Create vulnerability metrics. Metrics should be created to understand a
country’s vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. Metrics may include
climatic impact on existing agricultural, water, and mineral resources;
technical capability; social cohesion and adaptability. 4) Identify no-regrets strategies. No-regrets strategies should be identified and
implemented to ensure reliable access to food supply and water, and to ensure
national security.
5) Rehearse adaptive responses. Adaptive response teams should be established
to address and prepare for inevitable climate driven events such as massive
migration, disease and epidemics, and food and water supply shortages.
6) Explore local implications. The first-order effects of climate change are local.
While we can anticipate changes in pest prevalence and severity and changes
in agricultural productivity, one has to look at very specific locations and
conditions to know which pests are of concern, which crops and regions are
vulnerable, and how severe impacts will be. Such studies should be
undertaken, particularly in strategically important food producing regions.
7) Explore geo-engineering options that control the climate. Today, it is easier
to warm than to cool the climate, so it might be possible to add various gases,
such as hydrofluorocarbons, to the atmosphere to offset the affects of cooling.
Such actions, of course, would be studied carefully, as they have the potential
to exacerbate conflicts among nations.
Conclusion
It is quite plausible that within a decade the evidence of an imminent abrupt climate
shift may become clear and reliable. It is also possible that our models will better
enable us to predict the consequences. In that event the United States will need to
take urgent action to prevent and mitigate some of the most significant impacts.
Diplomatic action will be needed to minimize the likelihood of conflict in the most
impacted areas, especially in the Caribbean and Asia. However, large population
movements in this scenario are inevitable. Learning how to manage those
populations, border tensions that arise and the resulting refugees will be critical.
New forms of security agreements dealing specifically with energy, food and water
will also be needed. In short, while the US itself will be relatively better off and with
more adaptive capacity, it will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling
internally, large number so refugees washing up on its shores and Asia in serious
crisis over food and water. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE
OCT 2003
2. REPORT TYPE
N/A
3. DATES COVERED
-
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United
States National Security
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
The original document contains color images.
PART ONE
https://cityofangels25.blogspot.com/2025/02/an-abrupt-climate-change-scenario-and.html
blogged by Kay Ebeling
born to muckrake
%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)
