# data[].attributes.body
What is photosynthesis?
What Is Photosynthesis? From Light Energy to Chemical Energy
https://www.livescience.com › 5...

# data[].attributes.headline
 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS MORE WOMEN THAN MEN     Kardo Lempu

# data[].attributes.subject
 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS MORE WOMEN THAN MEN     Kardo Lempu

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43294221http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43294221

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Women are more likely than men to be affected by climate change, studies show.

UN figures indicate that 80% of people displaced by climate change are women.

Roles as primary caregivers and providers of food and fuel make them more vulnerable when flooding and drought occur.

The 2015 Paris Agreement has made specific provision for the empowerment of women, recognising that they are disproportionately impacted.

In central Africa, where up to 90% of Lake Chad has disappeared, nomadic indigenous groups are particularly at risk. As the lake's shoreline recedes, women have to walk much further to collect water.

"In the dry season, men go to the towns... leaving women to look after the community," explains Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, coordinator of the Association of Indigenous Women and People of Chad (AFPAT).

With dry seasons now becoming longer, women are working harder to feed and care for their families without support. "They become more vulnerable... it's very hard work," Ibrahim recently told the BBC's 100 Women initiative.

A global problem

It is not just women in rural areas who are affected. Globally, women are more likely to experience poverty, and to have less socioeconomic power than men. This makes it difficult to recover from disasters which affect infrastructure, jobs and housing.

After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, African American women were among the worst affected by flooding in Louisiana. As sea levels rise, low-lying cities like New Orleans will be increasingly at risk.

"In New Orleans, there was much higher poverty among the African American population before Katrina," says Jacquelyn Litt, professor of women's and gender studies at Rutgers University.

"More than half the poor families in the city were headed by single mothers," she told BBC News.

"[They] are reliant on interdependent community networks for their everyday survival and resources. The displacement that happened after Katrina essentially eroded those networks. It places women and their children at much greater risk."

In the immediate aftermath of extreme events, emergency shelters can be inadequately equipped to support women. The Superdome, in which evacuees were temporarily housed after Hurricane Katrina, didn't have enough sanitary products for the women accommodated there.

Increased incidences of violence against women, including sexual assault and rape, have also been documented in the wake of disasters.

'Natural' disasters?

Much as climate change is accelerated by human behaviours, the impact of weather and climate events is influenced by societal structures. Disasters do not affect all people equally.

In the wake of the 2004 tsunami, an Oxfam report found that surviving men outnumbered women by almost 3:1 in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and India.

While no one cause was clear, there were similar patterns across the region. Men were more likely to be able to swim, and women lost precious evacuation time trying to look after children and other relatives.

Another study spanning 20 years noted that catastrophic events lowered women's life expectancy more than men; more women were being killed, or they were being killed younger. In countries where women had greater socioeconomic power, the difference reduced.

Half the world

In recognition of this vast disparity, governments and organisations working on climate change are gradually moving to include women's voices in policy and planning.

The UN has highlighted the need for gender sensitive responses to the impacts of climate change, yet the average representation of women in national and global climate negotiating bodies is below 30%.

The numbers don't improve at the local level.

"Women are often not involved in the decisions made about the responses to climate change, so the money ends up going to the men rather than the women," environmental scientist Diana Liverman told the BBC's Science in Action programme on the World Service this week.

As an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports influence climate change policy, Liverman has been monitoring the numbers of women involved.

Twenty-five percent of those nominated to participate in the next report are women. "IPCC has been very receptive to this and is actually discussing how they can support women better," explains Liverman.

"Women are half the world. It's important they participate in all major decisions,"

"Climate change is not a fight for power," points out Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, "it's a fight for survival."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Women are more likely than men to be affected by climate change, studies show. UN figures indicate that 80% of people displaced by climate change are women. Roles as primary caregivers and providers of food and fuel make them more vulnerable when flooding and drought occur.

# data[].attributes.body
Negative effects of climate change
https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/en/campaigns/climate-change/impacts/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A stable climate is a vital foundation for all life on Earth - but our climate is now changing dangerously fast, with widespread and harmful effects on people and the wild places we love. Melting ice sheets and glaciers are adding to sea level rise, putting millions at risk. Heatwaves, droughts and fires are becoming more ferocious.

We can't wait any longer. It's time to break our remaining ties to the polluting energy systems responsible for these climate change impacts, and shift to the 100 percent renewable energy future we all want.

Glaciers and polar ice are melting

As the climate warms, glaciers are melting . Yet millions of people depend on the planet's 190,000 glaciers to supply water in dry seasons. Arctic sea ice is melting rapidly, a process that further speeds up climate change. On the West Antarctic Peninsula, massive ice shelves have crumbled into the ocean.

Sea levels are rising, faster

As glaciers and land-based ice sheets melt, they contribute to sea level rise. This increases flood risk for millions of people on coasts, where populations and cities are growing fast. Sea levels could rise by a meter by the end of this century if we don't reign in emissions. For people of small islands and low-lying coastal areas, sea level rise is already a harsh reality.

Ramped up droughts, floods and other extreme weather

More extreme droughts, tropical cyclones, forest fires, and intense rainfall are projected for our warming climate. Many types of extreme weather are already getting worse. Each day we delay action means more damage to lives, economies and ecosystems.

Climate change ecosystem and extinction threats

From tropical mountain cloud forests to polar pack ice, we must protect the ecosystems that enrich our lives with beauty and adventure. But climate change is already causing widespread harm to polar life, coral reefs and other unique and vulnerable ecosystems. Extinctions will ramp up unless we act.

Air pollution is worse with climate change

Air pollution - already a silent and serious killer - is set to become worse still under climate change. Yet we can fight both air pollution and climate change with the shift to 100 percent renewable energy, a hugely important double win for the health of people and our planet.

What is Greenpeace doing?

Greenpeace is driving the urgent shift away from the polluting, dangerous energy systems. We're working to accelerate the leap to a bright new future built on 100 percent safe, clean energy from the sun, wind, water and earth.

We believe it's time to hold big carbon polluters to account. We're also working to stop the flow of money to these dirty and destructive fossil fuel industries. Instead, we want to make the finance industry a lever for positive change.

And because healthy oceans can better fight many impacts of climate change, Greenpeace is calling for a network of ocean sanctuaries in the and around the globe.

What can you do?

Find out what Greenpeace is doing to fight climate change where you live .

Join our Save the Arctic movement and help Greenpeace make a stand for Arctic protection.

Support Greenpeace's work to create a global network of ocean sanctuaries.

Climate change is a global problem, but you can still take important steps to tackle it in your daily life. Choose your own solutions to suit your lifestyle and your home.

The latest updates

Berlin, 30 January 2018 - Greenpeace activists in Berlin and Taipei called out Samsung for sponsoring this year's Winter Olympic Games in South Korea, which are touted to be powered by 100% renewable energy. Renewables account for only 1% of...

It is that time again. Four years roll by and once more the greatest winter athletes in the world will come together to wow us on death-defying luge runs, courageous ski jumps or surprisingly mesmerising curling slides matches. ...

Hong Kong, 24 January 2017 - The Chinese State Oceanic Administration announced that oil from the sunken tanker Sanchi may now cover an area of 332km2, much larger than previously reported.

Oslo, Norway, January 4, 2018 - In the case brought against the Norwegian Government by Greenpeace Norway, Nature and Youth and the Grandparents Climate Campaign for granting new oil licenses to drill in the Arctic, the Oslo District Court has...

After years of global mobilisation, movement building and courageous people-powered actions, the tide is turning away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. The critica l question is, will global powers and industry leaders...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the climate warms, glaciers are melting . Yet millions of people depend on the planet's 190,000 glaciers to supply water in dry seasons. Arctic sea ice is melting rapidly, a process that further speeds up climate change. On the West Antarctic Peninsula, massive ice shelves have crumbled into the ocean.

# data[].attributes.body
THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learn about the effects of climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The effects of climate change are likely to be some of the biggest environmental challenges our generation has ever faced.

# data[].attributes.body
Kaheksa märki sellest, et meie kliima on tõesti muutumas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Normaalsetes kliimatingimustes puhub tuul kõrgemas atmosfääris ümber pooluse vastupäeva. Kuna aga Arktika merejää soojenemise tõttu sulab, tõuseb neil aladel ka õhurõhk, õhuvool nõrgeneb ja külm õhk liigub lõuna poole, keskmistele laiuskraadidele. Nii on ka Lääne-Euroopas olnud sellel kevadel külmalaineid," pani sünoptik Eesti kevade laiemasse konteksti.

Antarktika hakkab servast rohetama

Soojenev kliima on pannud kiiremini kasvama ka Lõunapooluse vähesed taimed, teatasid hiljuti seal töötavad teadlased.

Kokku võib taimi leida vaid ligi ühel protsendil Antarktika pinnal. Mandri põhjapoolseimal Antarktika poolsaarel toimub aga iga-aastaselt koguni maapinna sulamine 30 sentimeetri ulatuses. Lühikese kasvuperioodi jooksul jõuab pinnale kasvada ka õhukene kiht samblaid, mis sügise tulles taas lume alla jäävad ning kevadel uute sammalde alla mattuvad.

Tuleb välja, et samblad on viimase 50 aasta jooksul hakanud kasvama koguni kolm korda kiiremini. Uuringu autorite hinnangul on praegune rohenemine vaid algus.

Kaos Põhjapoolusel

Teatavasti sõltub kogu elusloodus normaalseks toimimiseks kliimarütmide paigas püsimiseks - rändlindude põhjaaladele jõudmine peab langema kokku nende sealsete saakloomade populatsiooni kevadise kõrghetkega, need omakorda aga sõltuvad taimede õitsemisest. Taimed aga vajavad õigel ajal tolmeldamist, idanemist jne.

Aastaaegade rütmiga seonduvaid muutusi uurivat teadusharu kutsutakse fenoloogiaks ning selle uurijad kirjeldasid märtsis Arktika aastaaegade "uut reaalsust". Aastatepikkustest aegridadest selgub, et näiteks Gröönimaal on teatud taimed viimastel aastatel hakanud õitsema koguni 26 päeva varem kui muidu. Teatud puuliikide kasvuperioodi algus on nihkunud iga kümne aasta kohta viis päeva varasemaks, teised aga püsivad oma tavalises rütmis. Muutused taimkatte hooajalisuses on aga halb uudis põhjapõtradele, kes on harjunud konkreetsete, päeva täpsusega paika pandud aastaaegade tsüklitega.

Mereelustiku massiline suremine

Austraalia külje all asuva Suure Vallrahu päästmiseks on praeguseks tõenäoselt hilja. 2900 väiksemast rahust ja 900 saarest koosnevat hiiglaslikku korallide loodud süsteemi peetakse üheks olulisemaks looduslikuks maailmaimeks, kuid globaalse soojenemise põhjustatud korallide massilise suremise tagajärjel võis kevadel lugeda mitmest allikast, et rahu päästmiseks ei ole enam erilist lootust.

"Alates 2014. aasta juunist oleme näinud pidevat pleekimist. 70 protsenti maailma korallrahudest on puutunud kokku pleekimist põhjustava temperatuuriga," ütles PBSile USA Riikliku Ookeanide ja Atmosfääri Administratsiooni NOAA teadlane C. Mark Eakin.

Põhjapõtrade massiline suremine

Kui soojenev kliima võib paljudele kõlada pigem elutegevust kergendava muutusena, siis 2006. ja 2013. aastal toimunud põhjapõtrade massiline näljasurm on tõsiseks hoiatuseks selle kohta, mis võib juhtuda, kui häirida arktilisi hapraid ökosüsteeme. Nimelt suri Venemaal Jamali poolsaare 275 000-pealisest põhjapõtrade populatsioonist 2006. aastal 20 000 looma, 2013. aastal aga koguni 61 000.

Neid sündmusi uurinud bioloogid Lapimaa ülikoolist leidsid, et surma tõi just nimelt kliima soojenemine. Nimelt on põhjapõtrade peamiseks toiduseks samblikud, mida põdrapullid suudavad peaaegu poole meetri sügavusest lumest välja kaevata. Ebatavaliste soojalainete tõttu langes saatuslike talvede alguses lumekihile aga suur kogus vihma. Peagi naasnud pakasega märg sulalumi jäätus ning loomade toit jäigi paksu jääkilbi alla.

Teadlased ei ole kliimaandmeid moonutanud

Üks kliimaskeptikute levinumatest argumentidest on, et kliimateadlased teenivad "pseudoteema" upitamisega raha ning moonutavad andmeid nii, et neid saaks ära kasutada ettevõtlust piiravate reeglite loomiseks.

Märtsikuus ajakirjas Climate Change ilmunud uuring võttis vaatluse alla küsimuse, kas kliimamuutustest rääkivates teadusartiklites tõesti esineb kallutatust ehk leidude statistilist moonutamist. Kokku analüüsiti 120 teadusartiklit ja 1154 eksperimenti vahemikust 1997-2013. Analüüsi tulemus - kliimateadlased ei ole võimalikke kliimamuutusi varjavaid asjaolusid varjanud.

Kuigi statistikaga mängimist ja tulemuste moonutamist ei leitud, võis mõne artikli puhul siiski ilmneda teatud valikulisust, kus statistiliselt olulisemad tulemused toodi välja kohe töö peaosas, kuid vähemolulisemad ja väiksemad järeldused jäid pigem artiklite tehniliste tulemuste ossa.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kaheksa märki sellest, et meie kliima on tõesti muutumas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Normaalsetes kliimatingimustes puhub tuul kõrgemas atmosfääris ümber pooluse vastupäeva. Kuna aga Arktika merejää soojenemise tõttu sulab, tõuseb neil aladel ka õhurõhk, õhuvool nõrgeneb ja külm õhk liigub lõuna poole, keskmistele laiuskraadidele. Nii on ka Lääne-Euroopas olnud sellel kevadel külmalaineid," pani sünoptik Eesti kevade laiemasse konteksti.

# data[].attributes.body
Global Warming: News, Facts, Causes & Effects

https://www.livescience.com/topics/global-warminghttps://www.livescience.com/topics/global-warming

# data[].attributes.body
Raul Potisepp: kliimamuutuste tagajärjed võivad olla halvimal juhul katastroofilised

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kui me jätkame fossiilsetesse kütustesse investeerimist ning põletamist senisel kujul, võivad kliimamuutuste tagajärjed olla halvimal juhul katastroofilised. Selles, et inimtegur on peamine kliimamuutuste põhjustajaid, ei kahtle teadlaste tasemel peaaegu enam mitte keegi. NASA andmetel on 97 protsenti maailma kliimateadlastest seisukohal, et tänu inimkonna tegevustele (peamiselt tänu fossiilsete kütuste põletamisele) toimuvad kliimamuutused.

Järgmise kahe nädala jooksul toimub Pariisis ilmselt üks olulisemaid globaalseid tippkohtumisi lähiaastatel - Pariisi kliimakonverents, kus loodetakse sõlmida kokkulepe, millega riigid võtavad endale kohustuse vähendada kasvuhoonegaaside õhkupaiskamist määral, mis hoiab ära ohtlikud kliimamuutuste tagajärjed.

Praegu paisatakse tänu inimtegevusele õhku igal aastal 50 miljardit tonni kasvuhoonegaase. 2013. aastal arvutas Rahvusvaheline Kliimamuutuste Paneel (IPCC), et kui inimkond jätkab senise tempoga kasvuhoonegaaside õhku paiskamist, siis saavutatakse juba järgmise 15-25 aasta jooksul heitmete kogus atmosfääris, mida ületades tõuseb globaalne temperatuur üle kahe kraadi. Sellist temperatuuri kasvu peetakse piiriks, mis hoiab ära ohtlikud kliimamuutused. See tähendab, et muutused peaksid aset leidma juba täna ja kõige hiljem homme.

Paradoksaalsel viisil kannatavad kliimamuutuste tagajärgede käes riigid, kes ise on sellele kõige vähem kaasa aidanud - arenevad riigid.
Kliimamuutuse tagajärgedel on nii keskkondlikud kui sotsiaalsed mõjud
Kliimamuutused põhjustavad rohkem ekstreemsemaid ilmastikuolusid, mis tähendab, et praegu tihedalt asustatud aladel ei pruugi tulevikus olla võimalik elada. Põhjused selleks võivad olla järgmised: orkaanide või kuumalainete sagenemine ning tugevnemine, merevee taseme tõus ning magevee varude või viljaka pinnase kadumine.

Kliimamuutuste tagajärgede tõttu peavad miljonid inimesed ümber asuma. Hiljuti Saksamaad külastades ütles visionäärist ettevõtja Elon Musk, et praegune pagulaste ränne on alles eelmäng seoses sellega, mis võib järgneda siis kui kliimamuutuste tõttu peavad kuni paar sada miljonit inimest endale uue elukoha leidma.

Paradoksaalsel viisil kannatavad kliimamuutuste tagajärgede käes riigid, kes ise on sellele kõige vähem kaasa aidanud - arenevad riigid. Arenenud riigid, eriti Euroopa ja USA peaksid kliimamuutuste teemal suurema vastutuse võtma, sest just need riigid on ajaloo vältel kõige rohkem fossiilseid kütuseid põletanud.
Eesti osa kliimamuutustes
Kuigi Eesti paiskab absoluutkogustes õhku väiksel määral kasvuhoonegaase, siis kui vaadata kasvuhoonegaaside heitmeid elaniku kohta, oleme me Euroopas teised ning maailmas kahetsusväärse 20 suurema saastaja hulgas. See näitab, et meie oma elustiiliga Eestis aitame kaasa kliimamuutuste põhjustele ning kõigi probleemide tekitamisele, mis kliimamuutustega kaasnevad. Seega on meilgi moraalne vastutus vähendada oma heitmeid.

Kui vaadata, milline sektor Eestis paiskab õhku kõige rohkem kasvuhoonegaase, siis on selleks energeetika sektor, mis moodustab 87 protsenti Eesti kasvuhoonegaaside heitmetest ning konkreetsemalt on põhjuseks põlevkivi põletamine elektritootmiseks.

Eestis võime heitmete vähendamiseks igasuguseid erinevaid meetmeid rakendada muudes sektorites, aga heitmete reaalseks vähendamiseks tuleb põlevkivi otsepõletamine lõpetada. Samuti pole ekspordile üles ehitatud põlevkivi õlitööstuse arendamine kliimamuutuste probleemile lahenduseks, sest toimub kasvuhoonegaaside heitmete eksport teistesse riikidesse, kuna heitmeid mõõdetakse riikides, kus õli põletatakse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Raul Potisepp: kliimamuutuste tagajärjed võivad olla halvimal juhul katastroofilised

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eestis on viimasel ajal on olnud üha rohkem juttu sellest, milline on kliima Eestis 2100. aastal ning mida see meie jaoks kaasa toob. Seda, milliseks kliima kujuneb järgmise sajandi vahetuse ajaks, mõjutavad suures osas just meie tegevused lähima paari aastakümne jooksul, kirjutab Eesti Taastuvenergia Koja projektijuht Raul Potisepp.

# data[].attributes.body
The consequences of climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our Trajectory

Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound

The potential future effects of global climate change include more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in some regions, and an increase in the wind intensity and rainfall from tropical cyclones. Credit: left - Mike McMillan/USFS, center - Tomas Castelazo / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0, right - NASA.

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth's climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.

Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.

" The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming."

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change - modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

A Degree of Difference

So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century. What's the big deal?

Read more

The IPCC's Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900. The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.

What's the difference between climate change and global warming?

"Global warming" refers to the long-term warming of the planet. "Climate change" encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet, including rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times.

detailed answer

The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.

" The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future." ²

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Future Effects in the U.S.

U.S. Regional Effects

U.S. Regional Effects

Climate change is bringing different types of challenges to each region of the country. Some of the current and future impacts are summarized below. These findings are from the Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Is it too late to prevent climate change?

Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries.

detailed answer

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose increasing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Farmers can explore new crop options, but these adaptations are not cost- or risk-free. Moreover, adaptive capacity, which varies throughout the region, could be overwhelmed by a changing climate. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of peak flows in rivers and streams are reducing water supplies and worsening competing demands for water. Sea level rise, erosion, flooding, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire incidence and severity, heat waves, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread forest die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region's economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also worsen a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Climate change has caused increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks. In turn, these changes have made wildfires more numerous and severe. The warming climate has also caused a decline in water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, and triggered heat-related health impacts in cities. In coastal areas, flooding and erosion are additional concerns.

References
References
Header image shows cracked mud stretches across sections of the Panamint Valley. Credit: NPS/Kurt Moses; A degree of concern thermometer image credit: Pixabay/geralt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
intergovernmental panel on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Long-term effects of global climate change in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
Mis on kliimamuutus?

http://www.knaufinsulation.ee/et/mis-kliimamuutus

# data[].attributes.body
Kliimamuutuste põhjused
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_et

# data[].attributes.body
What is Climate Change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climate change, also called global warming, refers to the rise in average surface temperatures on Earth. An overwhelming scientific consensus maintains that climate change is due primarily to the human use of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air. The gases trap heat within the atmosphere, which can have a range of effects on ecosystems, including rising sea levels, severe weather events, and droughts that render landscapes more susceptible to wildfires.

Is climate change real?

There is broad-based agreement within the scientific community that climate change is real. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concur that climate change is indeed occurring and is almost certainly due to human activity.

What are the causes of climate change?

The primary cause of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, which emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere-primarily carbon dioxide. Other human activities, such as agriculture and deforestation, also contribute to the proliferation of greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

While some quantities of these gases are a naturally occurring and critical part of Earth's temperature control system, the atmospheric concentration of CO ₂ did not rise above 300 parts per million between the advent of human civilization roughly 10,000 years ago and 1900. Today it is at about 400 ppm, a level not reached in more than 400,000 years.

Increased burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change.

(Photo: Chris Conway/Getty Images)

What are the effects of climate change?

Even small increases in Earth's temperature caused by climate change can have severe effects. The earth's average temperature has gone up 1.4° F over the past century and is expected to rise as much as 11.5° F over the next. That might not seem like a lot, but the average temperature during the last Ice Age was about 4º F lower than it is today.

Rising sea levels due to the melting of the polar ice caps (again, caused by climate change) contribute to greater storm damage; warming ocean temperatures are associated with stronger and more frequent storms; additional rainfall, particularly during severe weather events, leads to flooding and other damage; an increase in the incidence and severity of wildfires threatens habitats, homes, and lives; and heat waves contribute to human deaths and other consequences.

Climate change: the debate

While consensus among nearly all scientists, scientific organizations, and governments is that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity, a small minority of voices questions the validity of such assertions and prefers to cast doubt on the preponderance of evidence. Climate change deniers often claim that recent changes attributed to human activity can be seen as part of the natural variations in Earth's climate and temperature, and that it is difficult or impossible to establish a direct connection between climate change and any single weather event, such as a hurricane. While the latter is generally true, decades of data and analysis support the reality of climate change-and the human factor in this process. In any case, economists agree that acting to reduce fossil fuel emissions would be far less expensive than dealing with the consequences of not doing so.

What flashcards would you like to see? Email us or let us know in the comments below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change, also called global warming, refers to the rise in average surface temperatures on Earth. An overwhelming scientific consensus maintains that climate change is due primarily to the human use of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air.

# data[].attributes.body
What Does the Antarctic Ice Shelf Break Really Mean?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.
One of the largest icebergs ever recorded has just broken away from the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica. Over the past few years I've led a team that has been studying this ice shelf and monitoring change. We spent many weeks camped on the ice investigating melt ponds and their impact-and struggling to avoid sunburn thanks to the thin ozone layer. Our main approach, however, is to use satellites to keep an eye on things.

We've been surprised by the level of interest in what may simply be a rare but natural occurrence. Because, despite the media and public fascination, the Larsen C rift and iceberg "calving" is not a warning of imminent sea level rise, and any link to climate change is far from straightforward. This event is, however, a spectacular episode in the recent history of Antarctica's ice shelves, involving forces beyond the human scale, in a place where few of us have been, and one which will fundamentally change the geography of this region.

Ice shelves are found where glaciers meet the ocean and the climate is cold enough to sustain the ice as it goes afloat. Located mostly around Antarctica, these floating platforms of ice a few hundred meters thick form natural barriers which slow the flow of glaciers into the ocean and thereby regulate sea level rise. In a warming world, ice shelves are of particular scientific interest because they are susceptible both to atmospheric warming from above and ocean warming from below.

Back in the 1890s, a Norwegian explorer named Carl Anton Larsen sailed south down the Antarctic Peninsula, a 1,000km long branch of the continent that points towards South America. Along the east coast he discovered the huge ice shelf which took his name.

For the following century, the shelf, or what we now know to be a set of distinct shelves-Larsen A, B, C and D-remained fairly stable. However the sudden disintegrations of Larsen A and B in 1995 and 2002 respectively, and the ongoing speed-up of glaciers which fed them, focused scientific interest on their much larger neighbour, Larsen C, the fourth biggest ice shelf in Antarctica.

Some great aerial footage from @BAS_News of the rift on Larsen C! pic.twitter.com/aXyCx9QTzX
- Project MIDAS (@MIDASOnIce) February 21, 2017

This is why colleagues and I set out in 2014 to study the role of surface melt on the stability of this ice shelf. Not long into the project, the discovery by our colleague, Daniela Jansen, of a rift growing rapidly through Larsen C, immediately gave us something equally significant to investigate.

Nature at work

The development of rifts and the calving of icebergs is part of the natural cycle of an ice shelf. What makes this iceberg unusual is its size-at around 5,800 km² it's the size of a small US state. There is also the concern that what remains of Larsen C will be susceptible to the same fate as Larsen B, and collapse almost entirely.

Our work has highlighted significant similarities between the previous behaviour of Larsen B and current developments at Larsen C, and we have shown that stability may be compromised. Others, however, are confident that Larsen C will remain stable.

What is not disputed by scientists is that it will take many years to know what will happen to the remainder of Larsen C as it begins to adapt to its new shape, and as the iceberg gradually drifts away and breaks up. There will certainly be no imminent collapse, and unquestionably no direct effect on sea level because the iceberg is already afloat and displacing its own weight in seawater.

This means that, despite much speculation, we would have to look years into the future for ice from Larsen C to contribute significantly to sea level rise. In 1995 Larsen B underwent a similar calving event. However, it took a further seven years of gradual erosion of the ice-front before the ice shelf became unstable enough to collapse, and glaciers held back by it were able to speed up, and even then the collapse process may have depended on the presence of surface melt ponds.

Updated #Sentinel1 InSAR sequence shows final branching at the rift tip as it reaches within 4.5 km (2.8 miles) of breaking through to calve pic.twitter.com/6F1Bs8Zmkv
- Adrian Luckman (@adrian_luckman) July 6, 2017

Even if the remaining part of Larsen C were to eventually collapse, many years into the future, the potential sea level rise is quite modest. Taking into account only the catchments of glaciers flowing into Larsen C, the total, even after decades, will probably be less than a centimetre.

Is this a climate change signal?

This event has also been widely but over-simplistically linked to climate change. This is not surprising because notable changes in the earth's glaciers and ice sheets are normally associated with rising environmental temperatures. The collapses of Larsen A and B have previously been linked to regional warming, and the iceberg calving will leave Larsen C at its most retreated position in records going back over a hundred years.

However, in satellite images from the 1980s, the rift was already clearly a long-established feature, and there is no direct evidence to link its recent growth to either atmospheric warming, which is not felt deep enough within the ice shelf, or ocean warming, which is an unlikely source of change given that most of Larsen C has recently been thickening. It is probably too early to blame this event directly on human-generated climate change.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Does the Antarctic Ice Shelf Break Really Mean?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research. One of the largest icebergs ever recorded has just broken away from the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica. Over the past few years I've led a team that has been studying this ice shelf and monitoring change.

# data[].attributes.body
Photosynthesis discovery could help design more efficient artificial solar cells

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-photosynthesis-discovery-efficient-artificial-solar.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

A natural process that occurs during photosynthesis could lead to the design of more efficient artificial solar cells, according to researchers at Georgia State University.

During photosynthesis, plants and other organisms, such as algae and cyanobacteria, convert solar energy into chemical energy that can later be used as fuel for activities. In plants, light energy from the sun causes an electron to rapidly move across the cell membrane. In artificial solar cells, the electron often returns to its starting point and the captured solar energy is lost. In plants, the electron virtually never returns to its starting point, and this is why solar energy capture in plants is so efficient. A process called inverted-region electron transfer could contribute to inhibiting this "back electron transfer."

This study's findings, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provide quantitative evidence that inverted-region electron transfer is responsible for the very high efficiency associated with solar energy conversion in photosynthesis.

Theoretical work on this phenomenon won Dr. Rudolph Marcus the 1992 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, but until now the mechanism has not been demonstrated in natural photosynthetic systems. The researchers studied photosynthetic reaction centers from the freshwater cyanobacterium species Synechocystis, which has the same photosynthetic machinery as plants.

"We were able to reveal the existence of the mechanism for the first time by inventing a method to allow us to successfully undertake the required challenging experiments," said Dr. Gary Hastings, lead author and professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Georgia State. "Our findings point to new ways on how one might think about designing artificial solar cells that can be used, for example, for producing hydrogen gas, which can be used as a clean and renewable fuel."

Solar energy, the cleanest and most abundant renewable energy source available, can be converted into thermal, chemical or electrical energy. By tapping into and converting a tiny fraction of the solar energy that falls on the earth each year, humans' increasing thirst for energy may be quenched, Hastings said. The solar market industry in the United States is working to scale up the production of solar technology and drive down costs, but it faces some challenges, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

"Plants convert solar energy ultra-efficiently, considerably more efficiently than any artificial solar cell," Hastings said. "In photosynthesis, light comes in, an electron moves across a membrane and it doesn't come back. The big problem with artificial systems is the electron does go back much of the time. That's the real heart of why plants are so efficient at converting solar energy.

"The details that underlie efficient solar energy conversion in plants are poorly understood. This is unfortunate, as detailed knowledge in this area is important to aid in quests to design economically viable artificial solar converters. Our work has revealed one design principle that is at play in efficient solar energy conversion in plants, and the hope is that this principle could be utilized in the design of new and better types of artificial solar cells."

More information: Hiroki Makita et al. Inverted-region electron transfer as a mechanism for enhancing photosynthetic solar energy conversion efficiency, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2017). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1704855114

Provided by: Georgia State University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Photosynthesis discovery could help design more efficient artificial solar cells

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A natural process that occurs during photosynthesis could lead to the design of more efficient artificial solar cells, according to researchers at Georgia State University. During photosynthesis, plants and other organisms, such as algae and cyanobacteria, convert solar energy into chemical energy that can later be used as fuel for activities.

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. just hit a major milestone for energy storage — which is also great news for solar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/06/the-u-s-just-hit-a-major-milestone-for-energy-storage-which-is-also-great-news-for-solar/?utm_term=.a226aec11a75

# data[].attributes.body
No Children Because of Climate Change? Some People Are Considering It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
That has changed, she said - either because more people are having doubts, or because it has become less taboo to talk about them.

Facing an uncertain future

If it weren't for climate change, Allison Guy said, she would go off birth control tomorrow.

But scientists' projections, if rapid action isn't taken, are not "congruent with a stable society," said Ms. Guy, 32, who works at a marine conservation nonprofit in Washington. "I don't want to give birth to a kid wondering if it's going to live in some kind of 'Mad Max' dystopia."

Parents like Amanda PerryMiller, a Christian youth leader and mother of two in Independence, Ohio, share her fears.

"Animals are disappearing. The oceans are full of plastic. The human population is so numerous, the planet may not be able to support it indefinitely," said Ms. PerryMiller, 29. "This doesn't paint a very pretty picture for people bringing home a brand-new baby from the hospital."

The people thinking about these issues fit no single profile. They are women and men, liberal and conservative. They come from many regions and religions.

Cate Mumford, 28, is a Mormon, and Mormons believe God has commanded them to "multiply and replenish the earth." But even in her teens, she said, she could not get another point of doctrine out of her head: "We are stewards of the earth."

Ms. Mumford, a graduate student in a joint-degree program at Johns Hopkins and Brigham Young Universities, plans to adopt a child with her husband. Some members of her church have responded aggressively, accusing her of going against God's plan. But she said she felt vindicated by the worsening projections.

A few years ago, she traveled to China, where air pollution is a national crisis. And all she could think was, "I'm so glad I'm not going to bring a brand-new baby into this world to suffer like these kids suffer."

'Some pretty strong cognitive dissonance'

For many, the drive to reproduce is not easily put aside.

"If a family is what you want, you're not just going to be able to make that disappear entirely," said Jody Mullen, 36, a mother of two in Gillette, N.J. "You're not just going to be able to say, 'It's not really good for the environment for humans to keep reproducing, so I'll just scratch that idea.'"

And so compromises emerge. Some parents resolve to raise conscientious citizens who can help tackle climate change. Some who want multiple children decide to have only one.

For Sara Jackson Shumate, 37, who has a young daughter, having a second child would mean moving to a house farther from her job as a lecturer at the Metropolitan State University of Denver. She is not sure she can justify the environmental impact of a larger home and a longer commute.

But for Ms. PerryMiller, the Ohio youth leader, the thinking went the opposite way: Once she had her first child, climate change made a second feel more urgent.

"Someday, my husband and I will be gone," she said. "If my daughter has to face the end of the world as we know it, I want her to have her brother there."

Laura Cornish, 32, a mother of two near Vancouver, said she felt "some pretty strong cognitive dissonance around knowing that the science is really bad but still thinking that their future will be O.K."

"I don't read the science updates anymore because they're too awful," she said. "I just don't engage with that, because it's hard to reconcile with my choices."

'The thing that's broken is bigger than us'

People who choose not to have children are used to being called "selfish." But many of them see their decision as a sacrifice.

Parenthood is "something that I want," said Elizabeth Bogard, 18, a freshman at Northern Illinois University. "But it's hard for me to justify my wants over what matters and what's important for everyone."

This attitude seems particularly common among people who have seen the effects of climate change firsthand.

Hemanth Kolla is from Hyderabad, in India, where drought and scorching heat waves have been deadly. He lives in California, where the threat of wildfires is increasing and a six-year drought only recently ended. Mr. Kolla, 36, said it felt wrong to have a child when he did not believe the world would be better for him or her.

And Maram Kaff, who lives in Cairo, said she had been deeply affected by reports that parts of the Middle East may be too hot for human habitation by 2100.

"I've seen how Syrian refugees, who are running from a devastating war, are being treated," Ms. Kaff, 33, said in an email. "Imagine how my children will be treated if they have to flee their country due to extreme weather, drought, lack of resources, flooding."

"I know that humans are hard-wired to procreate," she said, "but my instinct now is to shield my children from the horrors of the future by not bringing them to the world."

Ms. Kallman and Josephine Ferorelli, the founders of Conceivable Future, said that the predominant emotion at their gatherings was grief - and that the very existence of these conversations should spur political action.

"These stories tell you that the thing that's broken is bigger than us," Ms. Ferorelli said. "The fact that people are seriously considering not having children because of climate change is all the reason you need to make the demands."

Most of the people interviewed, parents and non-parents alike, lamented having to factor climate change into their decisions at all.

"What kind of nightmare question is that?" asked Ms. Guy, the Washington nonprofit worker. "That we have to consider that?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No Children Because of Climate Change? Some People Are Considering It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
That has changed, she said - either because more people are having doubts, or because it has become less taboo to talk about them. Facing an uncertain future If it weren't for climate change, Allison Guy said, she would go off birth control tomorrow.