Module 9: Food and Climate Change

Module 9: Food and Climate Change sxr133

Introduction

We've seen in previous modules how crucial climate is in food production. Temperature and precipitation are critical factors in the growth of crops, choice of crops, and food production capacity of a given region. In this module, we'll first review the mechanism and projected effects of human-induced climate change. We'll also explore the role that agriculture plays in contributing to human-induced climate change. In the second half of this module, you'll explore the varied impacts that climate change may have on agricultural production. The summative assessment for this module will be an important contribution to your capstone project, as you'll be exploring the potential future climate changes in your assigned regions, and begin proposing strategies to improve the resilience of your assigned region.

Goals and Learning Objectives

Goals and Learning Objectives azs2

Goals

  • Outline the basic science behind human-induced climate change and the contribution from agriculture.
  • Compare various potential impacts of climate change on our global and local food systems.
  • Select strategies that enhance the resilience of food systems in the face of a changing climate.

Learning Objectives

After completing this module, students will be able to:

  • Identify climate variables that affect agriculture.
  • Explain possible climate change impacts on crops.
  • Summarize the mechanisms of human-induced climate change.
  • Explain the role of food systems in contributing to climate change.
  • Discuss how climate change impacts food production and yield.
  • Evaluate how farmers adapt to climate change.
  • Differentiate impacts of climate change on climate variables in different regions.

Module 9.1: Understanding Global Climate Change and Food Systems

Module 9.1: Understanding Global Climate Change and Food Systems jls164

We hear a lot about global climate change and global warming in the news, especially about the controversy surrounding proposed strategies to reduce carbon emissions, but how well do you understand the science behind why our climate is changing and our planet is warming? In this unit, we'll review the basic science that underpins our understanding of global warming. Agriculture is one of the human activities that contributes carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, so we'll consider those contributions and how they can be reduced. Finally, we'll start to look to the future. What are some of the projections for future temperatures? We need to know what the future projections are so that we can plan to make our food systems more resilient to expected changes.

Introduction

Introduction azs2

Understanding the Science of Climate Change: The Basics

Module 9 focuses on how agriculture contributes to global climate and how climate change will affect global agriculture. In addition, we'll explore agricultural strategies for adapting to a changing climate. But, before we explore the connections between global climate change and food production, we want to make sure that everyone understands some of the basic science underpinning global climate change.

Have you ever thought about the difference between weather and climate? If you don't like the weather right now, what do you do? In many places, you just need to "wait five minutes"! If you don't like the climate where you live, what do you do? Move! Weather is the day-to-day fluctuation in meteorological variables including temperature, precipitation, wind, and relative humidity, whereas climate is the long-term average of those variables. If someone asked you what the climate of your hometown is like, your response might be "hot and dry" or "cold and damp". Often we describe climate by the consistent expected temperature and precipitation pattern for the geographic region. So, when we talk about climate change, we're not talking about the day-to-day weather, which can at times be quite extreme. Instead, we're talking about changes in those long-term temperature and precipitation patterns that are quite predictable. A warming climate means that the average temperature over the long term is increasing, but there can still be cold snowy days, and blizzards even!

The two videos below are excellent introductions to the science of climate change. We'll use these videos as your introduction to the basic science behind our understanding of climate change that we'll build on as we explore the connections between climate change and food production in the rest of this module. Follow instructions from your instructor for this introductory section of Module 9.

Optional Video Climate Change: Lines of Evidence

The National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine have prepared an excellent 20-minute sequence of videos, Climate Change: Lines of Evidence, that explains how scientists have arrived at the state of knowledge about current climate change and its causes. Use the worksheet linked below to summarize the story that the video tells about anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting changes in Earth's climate. The narrator speaks pretty quickly, so you'll want to pause the video and rewind when you need to make sure you understand what he's explaining. It's important to take the time to understand and answer the questions in the worksheet because you'll use this information in a future assignment.

If instructed by your instructor, download detailed questions about the Climate Change: Lines of Evidence videos:

Video: What is Climate? Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 1 (25:59)

What is Climate? Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 1
Seven consecutive videos. Video #1 What is Climate? Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 1. The National Academy of Sciences has produced this video to help summarize what is known about climate change. What is climate? Climate is commonly thought of as the average weather conditions at a given location or region over time. People understand climate in many familiar ways. For example, we know that winter will generally be cooler than summer. We also know the climate in the Mojave Desert will be much different than the climate in Greenland. Climate is measured by statistics such as average temperatures and rainfall and frequency of droughts. Climate change refers to changes in these statistics over seasons and year-to-year changes, as well as decades - over centuries and even over thousands of years, as with how Earth moves in and out of ice ages and warm periods. This video is intended to help people understand what has been learned about climate change. Enormous inroads have been made in increasing our understanding of climate change and its causes. And a clearer picture of current and future impacts is emerging. Research is also shedding light on actions that might be taken to limit the magnitude of climate change or adapt to its impacts. We lay out the evidence that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for much of the warming and related changes being observed on earth. The information is based on a number of national research council reports, each of which represents the consensus of experts who have reviewed hundreds of studies, describing many years of accumulating evidence. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for most of the global warming being observed. But how is this conclusion reached? Climate science, like all science, is a process of collective learning that relies on the careful gathering and analysis of data, the formulation of hypotheses, and the development of computer models to help understand past and present change. It is the combined use of observations and models that help test scientific understanding, in order to help predict future change. Scientific knowledge builds over time, as new observations and data become available. Confidence in our understanding grows when independent global analysis, by scientific groups in different countries, show the same warming pattern, or if other explanations can be ruled out. In the case of climate change, scientists have understood for more than a century that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels should lead to an increase in the Earth's average surface temperature. Decades of observations and research have confirmed and extended this understanding. Video #2 Is Earth Warming? Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 2 How do we know that earth is warmed? Scientists have been taking widespread global measurements of Earth's surface temperature for centuries. By the 1880s, there was enough data to produce reliable estimates of global average temperature. These data have steadily improved and today temperatures are recorded by thermometers at many thousands of locations, both on land and over the oceans. Different research groups, including NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Great Britain's Hadley Center, and the Japanese Meteorological Agency, have used these raw measurements to produce records of long-term surface temperature change. Research groups work carefully to make sure the data aren't skewed by such things as changes in the instruments taking the measurements, or by other factors that affect local temperature, such as additional heat that has come from the gradual growth of cities. These analyses all show that Earth's average surface temperature has increased by more than 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, with much of this increase taking place over the past 35 years. A temperature change of one point four degrees Fahrenheit may not seem like much if you're thinking about a daily or seasonal fluctuation. However, it is a significant change when you think about a permanent increase averaged across the entire planet. For example, one point four degrees is more than the average annual temperature difference between Washington, DC and Charleston, South Carolina, which is more than 450 miles south of Washington. Think about this. On any given day, a difference of nine degrees Fahrenheit might be the difference between wearing a sweater or not. But a change of nine degrees in the global average temperature is the estimated difference between the climate of today and an ice age. In addition to surface temperature, other parts of the climate system are also being monitored carefully. For example, a variety of instruments are used to measure temperature, salinity, and currents beneath the ocean surface. Weather balloons are used to probe the temperature, humidity, and winds in the atmosphere. A key breakthrough in the ability to track global environmental changes began in the 1970s, with the dawn of the era of satellite remote sensing. Many different types of sensors, carried on many dozens of satellites, have allowed us to build a truly global picture of changes in the temperature of the atmosphere, and of the ocean and land surfaces. Satellite data are also used to study shifts in precipitation and changes in land cover. Even though satellites do not measure temperature in the same way as instruments on the surface of Earth, and any errors would be of a completely different nature, the two records agree. A number of other indicators of global warming have also been observed. For example, heat waves are becoming more frequent. Cold snaps are now shorter and milder. Snow and ice cover are decreasing in the northern hemisphere. Glaciers and ice caps around the world are melting and many plants and animal species are moving to different latitudes or higher altitudes due to changes in temperature. The picture that emerges from all of these datasets is clear and consistent. Earth is warming. Video #3 Greenhouse Gases: Climate Change, Lines of Evident: Chapter 3 How do we know that greenhouse gases lead to warming? As early as the 1820s scientists began to appreciate the importance of certain gases in regulating the temperature of Earth. Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, act like a blanket covering the earth, trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Although greenhouse gases are only a tiny fraction of Earth's atmosphere, they are critical for keeping the planet warm enough to support life as we know it. Here's how the greenhouse effect works. As the sun's energy hits earth, some of it is reflected back to space, but most of it is absorbed by land and oceans. This absorbed energy is then radiated upward from the surface of Earth in the form of heat. In the absence of greenhouse gases, this heat would simply escape to space and the planet's average surface temperature would be well below freezing. But greenhouse gases absorb and redirect some of this energy downward, keeping heat near the surface of Earth. As concentrations of heat trapping greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, Earth's natural greenhouse effect is amplified, like having a thicker blanket, and surface temperatures slowly rise. Reducing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would cause a decrease in surface temperature. Video #4 Increased Emissions: Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 4 How do we know humans are causing greenhouse gas concentrations to increase? Determining the human influence of greenhouse gas concentrations was challenging, because many greenhouse gases occur naturally in Earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is produced and consumed in many natural processes that are part of the carbon cycle. Once humans began digging up long buried forms of carbon, such as coal and oil, and burning them for energy, additional CO2 was released into the atmosphere, much more rapidly than in the natural carbon cycle. Other human activities, such as cement production and cutting down forests, have also added CO2 to the atmosphere. Until the 1950s, many scientists thought the oceans would absorb most of the excess CO2 released by human activities. Then a series of scientific papers were published that examined the dynamics of carbon dioxide exchange between the ocean and atmosphere, including a paper by oceanographers Roger Revelle and Han Soos in 1957, and another by Bert Bolin and Erik Erikson in 1959. This work led scientists to the hypothesis that the oceans could not absorb all of the CO2 being emitted. To test this hypothesis, Ravel's colleague Charles David Keeling began collecting air samples at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, to track changes in CO2 concentrations. Today such measurements are made at many sites around the world. The data reveal a steady increase in atmospheric CO2. To determine how CO2 concentration varied prior to modern measurements, scientists have studied the composition of air bubbles trapped in ice cores extracted from Greenland and Antarctica. These data show that for at least two thousand years before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration was steady and then began to rise sharply beginning in the late 19th century. Today atmospheric CO2 concentration exceeds 390 parts per million, around 40 percent higher than pre-industrial levels. And according to ice core data, higher than any point in the past 800,000 years. Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of other important greenhouse gases as well. Methane, which is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, the raising of livestock, the decay of landfill wastes, the production and transport of natural gas, and other activities, increased sharply throughout the industrial age, before starting to level off at about two and a half times its pre-industrial level. Nitrous oxide has increased by roughly fifteen percent since 1750, mainly as a result of agricultural fertilizer use, but also from fossil fuel burning and certain industrial processes. Some industrial chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigerants and spray cans, act as potent greenhouse gases and are long-lived in the atmosphere. However, the concentration of CFCs are decreasing due to the success of the 1989 Montreal Protocol, which banned their use. Because CFCs do not have natural sources, their increases can easily be attributed to human activities. In addition to direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there are detailed records of how much coal, oil, and natural gas is burned each year. Through science, estimates are made of how much CO2 is being absorbed on average, by the oceans and plant life on land. These analyses show that almost half of the excess CO2 emitted from human activity remains in the atmosphere for many centuries. Just as a sink will fill up if water enters faster than it can drain, human production of CO2 is outstripping Earth's natural ability to remove it from the air. As a result, atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing. A forensic style analysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere reveals the chemical fingerprints of natural and fossil fuel carbon. These lines of evidence prove conclusively that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. Video #5 How Much Warming? Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 5 How much are human activities heating earth? Greenhouse gases are referred to as forcing agents because of their ability to change the planets energy balance. A forcing agent can push Earth's temperature up or down. Greenhouse gases differ in their forcing power. For example, a single methane molecule has about 25 times the warming power of a single CO2 molecule. However, methane has a shorter lifetime in the atmosphere and is less abundant, while CO2 has a larger warming effect because it is much more abundant and stays in the atmosphere for much longer periods of time. Scientists can calculate the forcing power of greenhouse gases based on the changes in their concentrations over time, and on physically based calculations of how they transfer energy through the atmosphere. Some forcing agents push Earth's energy balance toward cooling, offsetting some of the heating associated with greenhouse gases. For example, some aerosols, which are tiny liquid or solid particles such as sea spray, or visible air pollution suspended in the atmosphere, have a cooling effect because they scatter a portion of incoming sunlight back into space. Human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, have increased the number of aerosol particles in the atmosphere, particularly over and around major urban and industrial areas. Changes in land use and land cover are another way that human activities are influencing Earth's climate, and deforestation is responsible for 10 to 20 percent of the excess CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. As mentioned previously, agriculture contributes nitrous oxide and methane. Changes in land use and land cover also modify the reflectivity of Earth's surface. The more reflective a surface, the more sunlight is sent back to space. Cropland is generally more reflective than undisturbed forest, while urban areas often reflect less energy than undisturbed land. Globally, human land-use changes have had a slight cooling effect. When all human agents are considered together, scientists have calculated that the net change in climate forcing, between 1750 in 2005, is pushing earth toward warming. The extra energy is about 1.6 watts per square meter on the surface of Earth. When multiplied by the total surface area of Earth, this represents more than 800 trillion watts of energy. This energy is being added to Earth's climate system every second of every day. That means each year we add to the climate system more than 50 times the amount of power produced annually, by all the power plants of the world combined. The total amount of warming that will occur in response to a climate forcing is determined by a variety of feedbacks, which either amplify or dampen the initial change. For example, as Earth warms, polar snow and ice melt away, allowing the darker colored land and oceans to absorb more heat, causing Earth to become even warmer, which leads to more snow and ice melt and so on. Another important feedback involves water vapor. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases as the ocean surface and the lower atmosphere warm up. Warming of 1 degree Celsius or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit increases water vapor by about 7%. Because water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, this increase causes additional warming. Feedbacks that reinforce the initial climate forcing are referred to in the scientific community as positive or amplifying feedbacks. There is an inherent lag time in the warming caused by a given forcing. This lag occurs because it takes time for parts of the Earth's climate system, especially the massive oceans, to warm or cool. Even if by magic we could hold all human produced forcing agents at present-day values, Earth would continue to warm well beyond the 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit already observed because of human emissions to date. Video #6 Solar Influence: Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 6 How do we know the current warming trend isn't caused by the Sun? Another way to test the scientific theory is to investigate alternative explanations. Because the sun's output has a strong influence on Earth's temperature, scientists have examined records of solar activity to determine if changes in solar output might be responsible for the observed global warming trend. The most direct measurements of solar output are satellite readings, which have been available since 1979. These satellite records show that the sun's output has not shown a net increase during the past 30 years and thus cannot be responsible for the global warming during that period. Before satellites solar energy had to be estimated by more indirect methods, such as records of the number of sunspots observed each year, which is an indicator of solar activity. These indirect methods suggest that there was a slight increase in solar energy during the first half of the 20th century, and a decrease in the latter half. The increase may have contributed to warming in the first half of the century, but that does not explain warming in the latter part of the century. Further evidence that current warming is not a result of solar changes can be found in the temperature trends in the different layers of the atmosphere. These data come from two sources, weather balloons which have been launched twice daily from hundreds of sites around the world since the late 1950s, and satellites, which have monitored the temperature of different layers of the atmosphere since the late 1970s. Both of these datasets have been heavily scrutinized and both show a warming trend in the lower layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere, and a cooling trend in the upper layer, the stratosphere. This is exactly the vertical pattern of temperature change expected from increased greenhouse gases, which trap energy closer to the Earth's surface. If an increase in solar output were responsible for the recent warming trend, the vertical pattern of warming would be more uniform through the layers of the atmosphere. Video #7 Natural Cycles: Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 7 How do we know that the current warming trend is not caused by natural cycles? Detecting human influence on climate is complicated by the fact that there are many natural variations in temperature, precipitation and other climate variables. These natural variations are caused by many different processes that can occur across a wide range of timescales, from a particularly warm summer or snowy winter, to changes over many millions of years. Among the most well-known short-term climate fluctuations are El Nino and La Nina, which are periods of natural warming and cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Strong El Nino and La Nina are associated with significant year-to-year changes in temperature and rainfall patterns across many parts of the planet, including the United States. These events have been linked as causes of some extreme conditions, such as flooding in some regions and severe droughts in other areas. Globally, temperatures tend to be higher during El Nino periods such as 1998, and lower during La Nina periods such as 2008. But it is clear that these natural variations are notably smaller than the 20th century warming trend. Major eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, expel massive amounts of particles into the stratosphere that cooled the earth. However, surface temperatures typically rebound in two to five years, as the particles settle out of the atmosphere. The short-term cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions can be seen in the 20th century temperature record, as can the global temperature variations associated with strong El Nino and La Nina events. But an overall warming trend is evident. Natural climate variations can also be forced by slow orbital changes, affecting how solar energy impacts the earth climate system, as is the case with the ice age cycles. For the past 800,000 years, these longer-term natural cycles between ice ages and warm periods saw carbon dioxide fluctuating between around 180 parts per million, at the coldest points, up to about 300 parts per million at the warmest point. Today with carbon dioxide concentrations rising above 390 parts per million, we are overriding the natural cycle and forcing Earth's climate system into a warmer state. Attributing climate change to human activities relies on the combined assessment from observations, as well as information from climate models to help test scientific understanding. Scientists have used these models to simulate what would have happened if humans had not modified Earth's climate during the 20th century. In other words, how global temperatures would have evolved if only natural factors were influencing the climate system, such as volcanoes, the sun, or ocean cycles. These undisturbed earth simulations predict that in the absence of human activities there would have been negligible warming, or even a slight cooling, over the 20th century. When human greenhouse gas emissions and other activities are included in the models, the resulting surface temperatures more closely resemble the observed changes in temperature. Based on a rigorous assessment of available temperature records, climate forcing estimates, and sources of natural climate variability, scientists have concluded that there is more than a 90 percent chance that most of the observed global warming trend over the past 50 to 60 years can be attributed to emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. Understanding the causes of climate change provides valuable information to help us manage our future, to find smarter more economical and better ways to produce the food, energy and technologies we need to live and thrive.
Credit: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. "What is Climate? Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 1." YouTube. July 12, 2012.

Another resource you can use to help answer the questions is the booklet that goes with this video: Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts, Choices. It is 40 pages, so you might not want to print it. Use it as an online reference.

Penn State geology professor, Richard Alley's, 45-minute video uses earth science to tell the story of Earth's climate history and our relationship with fossil fuels. There is no worksheet associated with this video.

Optional Video: Earth: The Operators' Manual (53:42)

Earth: The Operators' Manual.

RICHARD ALLEY: All across the planet, nations and cities are working to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and promote sustainable energy options.

ANNISE PARKER: Because it's the smart thing, because it makes business sense, and it's the right thing. NARRATOR: In China, Europe, and Brazil, energy innovations are changing how we live. And in the US, every branch of the military is mobilizing to cut its carbon bootprint.

DAVID TITLEY: We really believe that the climate is changing.

RICHARD ALLEY: In this program, we'll share how we know Earth is warming and why and discover what Earth science tells us about clean, green energy opportunities. I'm Richard Alley. I'm a geologist at Penn State University. But my research has taken me around the planet, from Greenland to Antarctica. I'm fascinated by how our climate has changed dramatically and often, from times with ice everywhere to no ice anywhere on the planet. Records of past climate help us learn how our Earth operates. What has happened can happen again. And I know that sometimes, things change really fast. I'm a registered Republican, play soccer on Saturdays, and go to church on Sundays. I'm a parent and a professor. I worry about jobs for my students and my daughter's future. I've been a proud member of the UN Panel on Climate Change. And I know the risks. And I've worked for an oil company and know how much we all need energy. And the best science shows we'll be better off if we address the twin stories of climate change and energy, and that the sooner we move forward, the better. Our use of fossil fuels for energy is pushing us towards a climate unlike any seen in the history of civilization. But a growing population needs more and more clean energy. But I believe science offers us an operator's manual with answers to both of these huge challenges.

[MUSIC PLAYING] NARRATOR: "Earth-- The Operator's Manual" is made possible by NSF, the National Science Foundation, where discoveries begin.

RICHARD ALLEY: Humans need energy. We always have and always will. But how we use energy is now critical for our survival. It all began with fire. Today, it's mostly fossil fuels. Now we're closing in on 7 billion of us, and the planet's population is headed toward 10 billion. Our cities and our civilization depend on vast amounts of energy. Fossil fuels-- coal, oil, and natural gas-- provide almost 80% of the energy used worldwide. Nuclear is a little less than 5%, hydropower a little under 6%, and the other renewables-- solar, wind, and geothermal-- about 1%, but growing fast. Wood and dung make up the rest. Using energy is helping many of us live better than ever before. Yet well over 1.5 billion are lagging behind, without access to electricity or clean fuels. In recent years, Brazil has brought electricity to 10 million. But in rural Ceara, some still live off the grid-- no electricity, no running water, and no refrigerators to keep food safe. Life's essentials come from their own hard labor. Education is compulsory, but studying is a challenge when evening arrives. The only light is from kerosene lamps. They're smoky, dim, and dangerous. Someday, this mother prays, the electric grid will reach her home.

TRANSLATOR: The first thing I'll do when the electricity arrives in my house will be to say a rosary and give praise to God.

RICHARD ALLEY: More than half of China's 1.3 billion citizens live in the countryside. Many rural residents still use wood or coal for cooking and heating, although most of China is already on the grid. China has used energy to fuel the development that has brought more than 500 million out of poverty. In village homes, there are flat-screen TVs and air conditioners. By 2030, it's projected that 350 million Chinese-- more than the population of the entire United States-- will move from the countryside to cities, a trend that's echoed worldwide. Development in Asia, Africa, and South America will mean 3 billion people will start using more and more energy as they escape from poverty. Suppose we make the familiar, if old-fashioned, 100-watt light bulb our unit for comparing energy use. If you're off the grid, your share of your nation's energy will be just a few hundred watts, a few light bulbs. South Americans average about 13 bulbs. For fast-developing China, it's more like 22 bulbs. Europe and Russia, 5,000 watts, 50 bulbs, and North Americans, over 10,000 watts, more than 100 bulbs. Now let's replace those light bulbs with the actual numbers. Population is shown across the bottom and energy use displayed vertically-- off the grid to the left, North America to the right. If everyone everywhere started using energy at the rate North Americans do, the world's energy consumption would more than quadruple. And using fossil fuels, that's clearly unsustainable. No doubt about it-- coal, gas, and oil have brought huge benefits. But we're burning through them approximately a million times faster than nature saved them for us, and they will run out. What's even worse-- the carbon dioxide from our energy system threatens to change the planet in ways that will make our lives much harder. So why are fossil fuels such a powerful, but ultimately problematic, source of energy? Conditions on the waterways of today's Louisiana help us understand how fossil fuels are made and why they're ultimately unsustainable. Oil, coal, and natural gas are made from things-- mostly plants-- that lived and died long ago. It's taken hundreds and millions of years for nature to create enough of the special conditions that saved the carbon and energy and plants to form the fossil fuels that we use. Here's how it works. Plants, like these tiny diatoms encased in silica shells, grow in the upper layers of lakes and oceans, using the sun's energy to turn carbon dioxide and water into more plants. When they die, if they're buried where there's little oxygen to break them down, their chemical bonds retain the energy that began as sunlight. If enough carbon-rich matter is buried deeply enough for long enough, the Earth's heat and pressure turn it into fossil fuel, concentrating the energy that once fed the growing plants. Vary what goes into Earth's pressure cooker and the temperature, and you end up with the different kinds of fossil fuel. Woody plants make coal. Slimy plants, algae, will give you oil, and both of them give rise to natural gas. The fossil fuels formed over a few hundred million years, and we're burning them over a few hundred years. And if we keep doing that, sooner or later, they must run out. But there's a bigger problem with fossil fuels. As we've seen, they're made of carbon, primarily. And when you burn them, you add oxygen, and that makes CO2 that goes in the air. We're reversing the process by which they formed. And if we keep doing this, it must change the composition of Earth's atmosphere. What CO2 does was confirmed by basic research that had absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

REPORTER: A continuance of the Upper Air Program will provide scientific data concerning the physics of the upper atmosphere.

RICHARD ALLEY: World War II was over, but the Cold War had begun. The US Air Force needed to understand the atmosphere for communications and to design heat-seeking missiles. At certain wavelengths, carbon dioxide and water vapor block radiation, so the new missiles couldn't see very far if they used a wavelength that CO2 absorbs. Research at the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory in Hanscom, Massachusetts produced an immense database with careful measurements of atmospheric gases. Further research by others applied and extended those discoveries, clearly showing the heat-trapping influence of CO2. The Air Force hadn't set out to study global warming. They just wanted their missiles to work. But physics is physics. The atmosphere doesn't care if you're studying it for warring or warming. Adding CO2 turns up the planet's thermostat. It works the other way as well. Remove CO2, and things cool down. These are the Southern Alps of New Zealand, and their climate history shows that the physicists really got it right. These deep, thick piles of frozen water are glaciers-- slow-moving rivers of ice sitting on land. But once, when temperatures were warmer, they were liquid water stored in the sea. We're going to follow this one, the Franz Josef, from summit to ocean to see the real world impact of changing levels of CO2. It's beautiful up here on the highest snow field, but dangers lurk beneath the surface. I've spent a lot of time on the ice. It's standard practice up here to travel in pairs, roped up for safety. The glacier is fed by something like six meters of water a year-- maybe 20 meters, 60 feet of snowfall, so really seriously high snowfall. The snow and ice spread under their own weight, and it's headed downhill at something like a kilometer a year. When ice is speeding up a lot as it flows towards the coast, it can crack and open great crevasses that give you a view into the guts of the glacier. Man, this is a big one. 10, 20, 30, meters more, 100 feet or more heading down in here. And we can see a whole lot of the structure of the glacier right here.

MAN: So what we're going to do is just sit on the edge and then walk backwards, and then I'll lower you.

RICHARD ALLEY: Tell me when. OK. Roll her around, and down we go. Snowfall arrives in layers, each storm putting one down. Summer sun heats the snow and makes it look a little bit different than the winter snow. And so you build up a history. In these layers, there's indications of climate-- how much it snowed, what the temperature was. And all of this is being buried by more snow. And the weight of that snow squeezes what's beneath it and turns it to ice. And in doing that, it can trap bubbles. And in those bubbles are samples of old air-- a record of the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, including how much CO2 was in it, a record of the temperature on the ice sheets and how much it snowed. As we'll see, we can open those icy bottles of ancient air and study the history of Earth's atmosphere. This landscape also tells the story of the Ice Ages and the forces that have shaped Earth's climate. Over the last millions of years, the brightness of the sun doesn't seem to have changed much. But the Earth's orbit, and the tilt of its axis, have shifted in regular patterns over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. The orbit changes shape, varying how close and far the Earth gets as it orbits the sun each year. Over 41,000 years, the tilt of Earth's axis gets larger and smaller, shifting some of the sunshine from the Equator to the poles and back. And our planet has a slight wobble, like a child's top, altering which hemisphere is most directly pointed towards the sun when Earth is closest to it. Over tens of thousands of years, these natural variations shift sunlight around on the planet, and that influences climate. More than 20,000 years ago, decreasing amounts of sunshine in the Arctic allowed great ice sheets to grow across North America and Eurasia, reaching the modern sites of New York and Chicago. Sea level fell as water was locked up on land. Changing currents let the oceans absorb CO2 from the air. That cooled the Southern Hemisphere and unleashed the immense power of glaciers, such as the Franz Josef, which advanced down this wide valley, filling it with deep, thick ice. Now we're flying over today's coastline, where giant boulders are leftovers from that last ice age. A glacier is a great earth-moving machine. It's a dump truck that carries rocks that fall on top of it. It's a bulldozer that pushes rocks in front of it, and it outlines itself with those rocks, making a deposit that we call a moraine that tells us where the glacier has been. We're 20 kilometers, 12 miles, from the front of the Franz Josef glacier today. But about 20,000 years ago, the ice was depositing these rocks as it flowed past us and out to sea. The rocks we can still see today confirm where the glacier once was. Now, in a computer-generated time lapse condensing thousands of years of Earth's history, we're seeing what happened. Lower CO2, colder temperatures, more snow and ice, and the Franz Josef advanced. 20,000 years ago, 30% of today's land area was covered by great ice sheets which locked up so much water that the global sea level was almost 400 feet lower than today. And then, as Earth's orbit changed, temperatures and CO2 rose, and the glacier melted back. The orbits set the stage. But by themselves, there weren't enough. We need the warming and cooling effects of rising and falling CO2 to explain the changes we know happened. Today, atmospheric CO2 is increasing still more, temperatures are rising, and glaciers and ice sheets are melting. You can see this clearly on the lake formed by the shrinking Tasman Glacier across the range from the Franz Josef. This is what the end of an ice age looks like-- glaciers falling apart, new lakes, new land, icebergs coming off the front of the ice. In the early 1980s, we would have been inside New Zealand's Tasman Glacier right here. Now we're passing icebergs in a new lake from a glacier that has mostly fallen apart and ends over six kilometers, four miles away. One glacier doesn't tell us what the world is doing. But while the Tasman has been retreating, the great majority of glaciers on the planet have gotten smaller. This is the Columbia Glacier in Alaska. It's a type of glacier that makes the effects of warming easy to see. It's been retreating so fast that the Extreme Ice Survey had to reposition their time-lapse cameras to follow its motion. In Iceland, warming air temperatures have made this glacier simply melt away, leaving streams and small lakes behind. Thermometers in the air show warming. Thermometers in the air far from cities show warming. Put your thermometer in the ground, in the ocean, look down from satellites-- they show warming. The evidence is clear. The Earth's climate is warming. This frozen library, the National Ice Core Lab in Denver, Colorado, has ice from all over, kept at minus 35 degrees. The oldest core here goes back some 400,000 years. Here, really ancient ice from Greenland in the north and Antarctica in the south reveals Earth's climate history. Let's see what cores like this can tell us. First are those layers I mentioned in the New Zealand snow. They've turned to ice, and we can count them-- summer, winter, summer, winter. Like tree rings, we can date the core. Other cores tell other stories. Look at this. It's the ash of an Icelandic volcano that blew up to Greenland 50,000 years ago. Cores hold other, and even more important, secrets. Look at these bubbles. They formed as the snow turned to ice and trapped old air that's still in there. Scientists now are working with cores from Antarctica that go back even further. They tell us, with a very high degree of accuracy, how much carbon dioxide was in the air that far back. Researchers break chunks of ice in vacuum chambers and carefully analyze the gases that come off. They're able to measure, very precisely, levels of carbon dioxide in that ancient air. Looking at the cores, we see a pattern that repeats-- 280 parts per million of CO2, then 180, 280, 180, 280. By analyzing the chemistry of the oxygen atoms in the ice, you can also see the pattern of rising and falling temperature over time-- colder during the ice ages, warmer during the interglacial periods. Now put the two lines together, and you can see how closely temperature and carbon dioxide track each other. They're not exactly alike. At times, the orbits caused a little temperature change before the feedback effects of CO2 joined in. But just as we saw in New Zealand, we can't explain the large size of the changes in temperature without the effects of CO2. This is the signature of natural variation, the cycle of the ice ages driven by changes in Earth's orbit with no human involvement. But here's where we are today. In just 250 years since the Industrial Revolution, we've blown past 380 with no sign of slowing down. It's a level not seen in more than 400,000 years, 40 times longer than the oldest human civilization. So physics and chemistry tell us that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms things up, and Earth's climate history shows us there will be impacts, from melting ice sheets to rising sea level. But how do we know, with equal certainty, that it's not just more natural variation, that humans are the source of the increasing CO2? When we look at a landscape like this one, we know immediately that volcanoes put out all sorts of interesting things, and that includes CO2. So how do we know that the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere that we see comes from our burning of fossil fuels and not from something that the volcanoes have done? Well, the first step in the problem is just bookkeeping. We measure how much CO2 comes out of the volcanoes. We measure how much CO2 comes out of our smokestacks and tailpipes. The natural source is small. Humans are putting out 50 to 100 times more CO2 than the natural volcanic source. We can then ask the air whether our bookkeeping is right, and the air says that it is. Volcanoes make CO2 by melting rocks to release the CO2. They don't burn, and they don't use oxygen. But burning fossil fuels does use oxygen when it makes CO2. We see that the rise in CO2 goes with the fall of oxygen, which says that the rising CO2 comes from burning something. We can then ask the carbon in the rising CO2 where it came from. Carbon comes in three flavors-- the lightweight, carbon-12, which is especially common in plants, the medium weight, carbon-13, which is a little more common in the gases coming out of volcanoes, and the heavyweight, carbon-14. It's radioactive and decays almost entirely after about 50,000 years, which is why you won't find it in very old things, like dinosaur bones or fossil fuels. We see a rise in carbon-12 which comes from plants. We don't see a rise of carbon-13, so the CO2 isn't coming from the volcanoes. And we don't see a rise in carbon-14, so the CO2 can't be coming from recently living plants. And so the atmosphere says that the rising CO2 comes from burning of plants that have been dead a long time. That is fossil fuels. The CO2 is coming from our fossil fuels. It's us. So physics and chemistry show us carbon dioxide is at levels never seen in human history. And the evidence says it's all of us burning fossil fuels that's driving the increase. But what about climate change and global warming? Are they for real? Here's what those who have looked at all the data say about the future.

MAN: Climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.

RICHARD ALLEY: Who do you suppose said that? Not a pundit, not a politician. The Pentagon. These war games at Fort Irwin, California provide realistic training to keep our soldiers safe. The purpose of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, the QDR, is to keep the nation safe. The review covers military strategies for an uncertain world. The Pentagon has to think long-term and be ready for all contingencies. The 2010 QDR was the first time that those contingencies included climate change. Rear Admiral David Titley is oceanographer of the Navy and contributed to the Defense Review.

DAVID TITLEY: Well, I think the QDR really talks about climate change in terms that really isn't for debate. And you take a look at the global temperatures. You take a look at sea level rise. You take a look at what the glaciers are doing-- not just one or two glaciers, but really glaciers worldwide. And you add all of those up together, and that's one of the reasons we really believe that the climate is changing. So the observations tell us that. Physics tells us this as well.

RICHARD ALLEY: What climate change means for key global hotspots is less clear.

DAVID TITLEY: We understand the Earth is getting warmer. We understand the oceans are getting warmer. What we do not understand is exactly how that will affect things like strong storms, rainfall rates, rainfall distribution. So yes, climate change is a certainty, but what is it going to be like in specific regions of the world, and when?

RICHARD ALLEY: One area of particular concern to the Navy is sea level rise.

DAVID TITLEY: Sea level rise is going to be a long-term and very, very significant issue for the 21st century.

RICHARD ALLEY: The QDR included an infrastructure vulnerability assessment that found that 153 Naval installations are at significant risk from climatic stresses. From Pearl Harbor, Hawaii to Norfolk, Virginia, the bases and their nearby communities will have to adapt.

DAVID TITLEY: Even with one to two meters of sea level rise, which is very, very substantial, we have time. This is not a crisis, but it is certainly going to be a strategic challenge.

RICHARD ALLEY: Globally, climate change is expected to mean more fires, floods, and famine. Nations may be destabilized. For the Pentagon, climate change is a threat multiplier. But with sound climate science, Titley believes forewarned is forearmed.

DAVID TITLEY: The good thing is the science is advanced enough in oceanography, glaciology, meteorology that we have some skill at some frames of predicting this. And if we choose to use those projections, we can, in fact, by our behavior, alter the future in our favor. RICHARD ALLEY: Titley and the Pentagon think the facts are in.

DAVID TITLEY: Climate change is happening, and there is very, very strong evidence that a large part of this is, in fact, man-made.

RICHARD ALLEY: The military is America's single largest user of energy, and it recognizes that its use of fossil fuels has to change. The Pentagon uses 300,000 barrels of oil each day. That's more than 12 million gallons. An armored Humvee gets four miles to the gallon. At full speed, an Abrams battle tank uses four gallons to the mile. And it can cost as much as $400 a gallon to get gas to some remote bases in Afghanistan. Fort Irwin is a test bed to see if the Army can operate just as effectively while using less fossil fuel and more renewables. And it's not just Fort Irwin in the Army. At Camp Pendleton, Marines were trained on an energy-saving experimental forward operating base that deployed with them to Afghanistan.

ROBERT HEDELUND: Before any equipment goes into theater, we want Marines to get trained on it. So what are some of the things that we can take hold of right away and make sure that we can make a difference for the warfighter down range? RICHARD ALLEY: They test out different kinds of portable solar power units. They also practice how to purify stagnant water and make it drinkable. The Army and Marines both want to minimize the number of convoys trucking in fuel and water. A report for the Army found that in five years, more than 3,000 service members had been killed or wounded in supply convoys.

ROBERT HEDELUND: And if you've got Marines guarding that convoy, and God forbid, it get hit by an IED, then what are the wounded, what are the deaths involved in that? And are we really utilizing those Marines and that capability the way we should?

RICHARD ALLEY: Generators used to keep accommodations livable and computers running are also major gas guzzlers.

ADORJAN FERENCZY: Right now, what we're doing is putting up a power shade. It has flexible solar panels on the top and gives us enough power to run small electronics, such as lighting systems and laptop computers. It also provides shade over the tent structure. Experimenting with this equipment in Africa proved that it could reduce the internal temperature of the tent seven to 10 degrees.

RICHARD ALLEY: All the LED lights in the entire tent use just 91 watts, less than one single old-fashioned incandescent bulb.

ADORJAN FERENCZY: It's a no-brainer when it comes to efficiency.

RICHARD ALLEY: Light-emitting diodes don't weigh much, but they're still rugged enough to survive a typical Marine's gentle touch.

ZACH LYMAN: When we put something into a military application and they beat it up, it's ruggedized. It's ready for the worst that the world can take. And so one thing that people say is if the military has used this thing and they trust it, then maybe it's OK for my backyard.

RICHARD ALLEY: Renewable energy will also play an important role at sea and in the air. The Navy's Makin Island is an amphibious assault ship with jump jets, helicopters, and landing craft. It's the first vessel to have both gas turbines and a hybrid electric drive, which it can use for 75% of its time at sea. This Prius of the ocean cut fuel costs by $2 million on its maiden voyage. By 2016, the Navy plans to have what it calls a Great Green Fleet, a complete carrier group running on renewable fuels with nuclear ships, hybrid electric surface vessels, and aircraft flying only biofuels. By 2020, the goal is to cut usage of fossil fuels by 50%. Once deployed in Afghanistan, the XFOB cut down on gas used in generators by over 80%. In the past, the Pentagon's innovations in computers, GPS, and radar have spun off into civilian life. In the future, the military's use of renewable energy can reduce dependence on foreign oil, increase operational security, and save lives and money.

JIM CHEVALLIER: A lot of the times, it is a culture change more than anything else. And the Department of Defense, over the years, has proved, time and time again, that they can lead the way in that culture change.

RICHARD ALLEY: If the US military is the largest user of energy in America, China is now the largest consumer on the planet. At 1.3 billion, China has a population about four times larger than the US, so average per-person use in CO2 emissions remain about 1/4 those of Americans. But like the US Military, China is moving ahead at full speed on multiple different sustainable energy options. And it pretty much has to. Cities are congested. The air is polluted. Continued rapid growth using old technologies seems unsustainable. This meeting in Beijing brought together mayors from all over China, executives from state-owned enterprises, and international representatives. The organizer was a US-Chinese NGO headed by Peggy Liu.

PEGGY LIU: Over 20 years, we're going to have 350 million people moving into cities in China. And we're going to be building 50,000 new skyscrapers, the equivalent of 10 Manhattans, 170 new mass transit systems. It's just incredible, incredible scale.

RICHARD ALLEY: This massive, rapid growth comes with a high environmental cost.

MARTIN SCHOENBAUER: They recognize that they're spending as much as 6% of their gross domestic product on environmental issues.

RICHARD ALLEY: In 2009, China committed $35 billion, almost twice as much as the US, TO energy research and incentives for wind, solar, and other clean energy technologies. It's attracted an American company to set up the world's most advanced solar power research plant. China now makes more solar panels than any other nation. But it's also promoting low-tech, low-cost solutions. Solar water heaters are seen on modest village homes. Some cities have them on almost every roof.

PEGGY LIU: China is throwing spaghetti on the wall right now in terms of over 27 different cities doing LED street lighting, or over 20, 30 different cities doing electric vehicles.

RICHARD ALLEY: But visit any city, and you can see that the coal used to generate more than 70% of China's electricity has serious consequences with visible pollution and adverse health effects. China uses more coal than any other nation on Earth, but it's also trying to find ways to burn coal more cleanly.

PEGGY LIU: In three years, 2006 to 2009, while China was building one new coal-fired power plant a week, it also shut down inefficient coal plants. So it's out with the old and in with the new. And they're really trying hard to invent new models.

RICHARD ALLEY: This pilot plant, designed for carbon capture and sequestration, was rushed to completion in time for Shanghai's 2010 World Expo. It absorbs and sells carbon dioxide and will soon scale up to capture 3 million tons a year that could be pumped back into the ground, keeping it out of the air.

MARTIN SCHOENBAUER: Here in China, they are bringing many plants online in a much shorter time span it takes us in the US. PEGGY LIU: China is right now the factory of the world. What we'd like to do is turn it into the clean tech laboratory of the world. RICHARD ALLEY: If nations choose to pay the price, burning coal with carbon capture can offer the world a temporary bridge until renewables come to scale. PEGGY LIU: China is going to come up with the clean energy solutions that are cost-effective and can be deployed at large scale-- in other words, solutions that everybody around the world wants.

RICHARD ALLEY: Can low-carbon solutions really give us enough energy to power the planet and a growing population? Let's put some numbers on how much energy we can get from non-fossil fuel renewables. Today, all humans everywhere on Earth use about 15.7 terawatts of energy. That's a big number. In watts, that's 157 followed by 11 0's, or 157 billion of those 100-watt light bulbs we used as a reference. To show what's possible, let's see if we can get to 15.7 terawatts using only renewable energy. I'm here in the Algodones Dunes near Yuma, Arizona. The Guinness Book of Records says it's the sunniest place in the world. There's barely a cloud in the daytime sky for roughly 90% of the year. 0.01%, 1/100 of 1%-- if we could collect that much of the sun's energy reaching the Earth, it would be more than all human use today. Today's technologies have made a start. This was the world's first commercial power station to use a tower to harvest concentrated solar energy. Near Seville, Spain, 624 mirrors stretch over an area of more than 135 acres, beaming back sunlight to a tower nearly 400 feet high. Intense heat produces steam that drives the turbine, which generates electricity. When completed, this one facility will be able to power 200,000 homes, enough to supply the entire nearby city of Seville. Remember our target of 15.7 terawatts? Well, the sun delivers 173,000 terawatts to the top of Earth's atmosphere, 11,000 times current human use. No way we can capture all of that potential energy at Earth's surface. But the deserts of America's Southwest, with today's technology, have enough suitable land to supply 80% of the entire planet's current use. Of course, there's one big problem with solar power-- night. But with more efficient transmission lines, and as part of a balanced renewable energy portfolio that includes storage, the sun's potential is vast. In tropical nations like Brazil, the sun heats water, makes clouds, and unleashes rainfall that feeds some of the planet's largest rivers. Iguazu Falls is a tourist attraction, one of the most spectacular waterfalls on Earth, where you can feel the immense power of falling water. The nearby Itaipu Dam on the border of Brazil in Paraguay produces the most hydroelectric power of any generating station in the world. This one dam supplies most of the electricity used in Sao Paulo, a city of more than 11 million. Sao Paulo is 600 miles away, but Brazil made the decision to build innovative, high-voltage direct current transmission lines to minimize energy loss. The Itaipu to Sao Paulo electrical grid has been in operation since 1984 and shows that renewable energy can go the distance. Dams can't be the answer for every nation. They flood landscapes, disrupt ecosystems, and displace people. But hydropower gives Brazil, a nation larger than the continental United States, 80% of its electricity. And worldwide, hydropower could contribute 12% of human energy use, ready at a moment's notice in case the sun goes behind a cloud. Brazil is also using its unique natural environment in another way. Its tropical climate provides ideal conditions for sugarcane, one of the Earth's most efficient plants in its ability to collect the energy of sunlight. Plantations like this one harvest the cane for the production of sugar and the biofuel called ethanol. The US is actually the number one producer of ethanol in the world, mostly using corn instead of cane. But ethanol made from sugar cane is several times more efficient at replacing fossil fuel than corn-based ethanol. Modern facilities like this one pipe back wet waste to fertilize the fields and burn the dry waste, called the gas, to generate electricity to run the factory. For Brazil, at least, ethanol works. Today, almost all cars sold in Brazil can use flex fuels. Drivers choose gasoline blended with 25% ethanol or pure ethanol, depending on price and how far they plan to drive. Local researchers say that if all the gasoline in the world suddenly disappeared, Brazil is the only nation that could go it alone and keep its cars running. Using food for fuel raises big questions in a hungry world. As of now, sugarcane ethanol hasn't affected food prices much. But there are concerns with corn. So here in the US, government labs like NREL, the National Renewable Energy Lab, have launched programs to see if biofuels can be made from agricultural waste. It does work, and researchers are trying to bring the cost down. So with plants capturing roughly 11 times human energy use, they're a growing opportunity. New Zealand takes advantage of another kind of energy. These are the geysers and hot springs at Rotorua on the North Island. Once, they were used by the native Maori people for cooking and bathing. Now geothermal power plants harvest heat and turn it into as much as 10% of all New Zealand's electricity. Many power projects are partnerships with the Maori, benefiting the local people and avoiding the "not in my backyard" problems that often complicate energy developments. Globally, geothermal energy offers three times our current use. But we can mine geothermal, extracting the energy faster than nature supplies it, cooling the rocks deep beneath us to make power for people. This energy exists even where you don't see geysers and mud pots, so it can be extracted without harming these natural wonders. A study by MIT showed that the accessible hot rocks beneath the United States contain enough energy to run the country for 130,000 years. And like hydroelectric, geothermal can provide peaking power, ready to go at a moment's notice if the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Mining energy from deep, hot rocks is a relatively new technology, but people have been using windmills for centuries, and the wind blows everywhere. Here's where the United States is very lucky. Let's take a trip up the nation's wind corridor, from Texas in the South to the Canadian border. Bright purple indicates the strongest winds. All along this nearly 2,000 miles, there's the potential to turn a free, non-CO2-emitting resource into electricity. But that takes choices and actions by individuals and governments. Here's what's been happening in West Texas. It's a land of ranches and farms and, of course, oil rigs and pump jacks. But in the early '90s, this was one of the most financially depressed areas in the state. Communities like Nolan Divide fell on hard times. Schools closed. People moved away. But since 1999, the new structures towering above the flat fields aren't oil derricks, but wind turbines. The largest number-- more than 1,600-- is in Nolan County. Greg Wortham is Mayor of Sweetwater, the county seat.

GREG WORTHAM: It wasn't a philosophical or political decision. It was ranchers and farmers and truck drivers and welders and railroads. and wind workers.

RICHARD ALLEY: Steve Oatman's family has been ranching the Double Heart for three generations. Steve may have doubts about the causes of climate change, but not about wind energy.

STEVE OATMAN: But it's been a blessing. It helps pay taxes. It helps pay the feed bill. Rosco, 30 May.

GREG WORTHAM: We talk about this being green energy because it pays money. The ranchers and the farmers call it mailbox money. They have to get up, and sweat, and work hard all day long. Things are pretty stressful. And if you can just walk to the mailbox and pick up some money because you've got turbines above the ground, that makes life a lot easier. RICHARD ALLEY: Each windmill can generate between $5,000 and $15,000 per year. So a ranch with an average of 10 to 20 turbines can provide financial stability for people who have always lived with uncertainty.

STEVE OATMAN: I don't just believe in it because I make a living from it. It's something that's going to have to happen for the country.

RICHARD ALLEY: So now, local schools have growing enrollments and funds to pay for programs.

GREG WORTHAM: We had about $500 million in tax based in the whole county in 2000. And by the late part of that decade, in less than 10 years, it went up to $2.5 billion in tax value.

RICHARD ALLEY: By the end of 2009, the capacity of wind turbines in West Texas totaled close to 10,000 megawatts. If Texas were a country, it would rank sixth in the world in wind power. The US Department of Energy estimates that wind could supply 20% of America's electricity by 2030. New offshore wind farms would generate more than 43,000 new jobs. That translates into a $200-billion boost to the US economy. Worldwide, wind could provide almost 80 times current human usage. No form of energy is totally free of environmental concerns or hefty startup costs. Some early wind farms gave little consideration to birds and other flying critters, like migrating bats. But recent reports by Greenpeace and the Audubon Society have found that properly sighted and operated turbines can minimize problems. Mayor Wortham, for one, welcomes wind turbines into his backyard.

GREG WORTHAM: We like them. Some people don't. But we're more than happy to export our energy to those states who want to buy green, but don't want to see green.

STEVE OATMAN: In the long run, I hope we have wind turbines everywhere they can produce energy. We need them. That's what America is going to have to do. That's the next stepping stone to save ourselves.

RICHARD ALLEY: The state of Texas has invested $5 billion to connect West Texas wind to big cities like Dallas and Fort Worth. Farther south is Houston, one of the most energy-hungry cities in the country. Its port is America's largest by foreign tonnage, and its refineries and chemical plants supply a good portion of the nation. But already, perhaps surprisingly, Houston is the largest municipal purchaser of renewable energy in the nation. 30% of the power city government uses comes from wind, with a target of 50%. And its mayor wants to cut energy costs and increase energy efficiency.

ANNISE PARKER: I want to go from the oil and gas capital of the world to the green and renewable energy capital of the world.

RICHARD ALLEY: Supported by federal stimulus dollars, the local utility is ahead of schedule to install smart meters. These will help consumers economize on energy use. The city has already installed 2,500 LED traffic lights using 85% less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs. That translates into savings of $3.6 million per year. City Hall thinks it can also improve air quality by changing the kinds of cars Houstonians drive.

ANNISE PARKER: If

RICHARD ALLEY: The city already operates a fleet of plug-in hybrids. Now it's encouraging the development of an infrastructure to make driving electric vehicles easy and practical. And in Houston's hot and humid environment, it helps to have an increasing number of energy-efficient, LEED-certified buildings. ANNISE PARKER: We're going to do it because it's the smart thing, because it makes business sense, and it's the right thing.

RICHARD ALLEY: Some estimates are that the US could save as much as 23% of projected demand from a more efficient use of energy.

ANNISE PARKER: Well, if you're going to tackle energy efficiency, you might as well do it in a place that is a profligate user of energy. And when you make a difference there, you can make a difference that's significant.

RICHARD ALLEY: Globally, efficiency could cut the demand for energy by 1/3 by 2030. Bottom line-- there are many ways forward, and we can hit that renewable energy target. And if next-generation nuclear is also included, one plan has the possible 2030 energy mix transformed from one relying on fossil fuels to one that looks like this, with renewables-- sun, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower-- totaling 61%, fossil fuels down to 13%, and existing and new nuclear making up the balance. Another plan meets world energy needs with only wind, water, and solar. And in fact, there are many feasible paths to a sustainable energy future. Today's technologies can get us started, and a commitment to research and innovation will bring even more possibilities. We've traveled the world to see some of the sources the planet offers to meet our growing need for clean energy. There's too many options to cover all of them here. And besides, each nation, each state, each person must make their own choices as to what works best for them. But the central idea is clear. If we approach Earth as if we have an operator's manual that tells us how to keep the planet humming along at peak performance, we can do this. We can avoid climate catastrophes, improve energy security, and make millions of good jobs. For "Earth-- The Operator's Manual," I'm Richard Alley.

NARRATOR: "Earth-- The Operator's Manual" is made possible by NSF, the National Science Foundation, where discoveries begin.

[MUSIC PLAYING] For the annotated, illustrated script with links to information on climate change and sustainable energy, web-exclusive videos, educator resources, and much more, visit pbs.org. "Earth-- The Operator's Manual" is available on DVD. The companion book is also available. To order, visit shoppbs.org, or call us at 1-800-PLAY-PBS.

Credit: Earth: The Operators' Manual. "Earth: The Operators' Manual." YouTube. April 4, 2012.

Optional Follow-up Questions to the Videos

If instructed by your instructor, download the following questions that can be applied to either video:

Understanding the Science of Climate Change

Understanding the Science of Climate Change azs2

At this point, you should have either watched one or two of the videos from the introduction, or you're already familiar with how human activities have resulted in the warming of the planet in the last century. Now, we'll explore some of the latest data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review and to help us better understand the connections between increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change.

Data on current atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are collected and compiled by NOAA and can be found at NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. The longest record of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is from Mauna Loa in Hawaii and was initiated in the 1950s. The resulting curve is often referred to as the “Keeling Curve” (Figure 9.1.1) after the atmospheric scientist who first began collecting CO2 data.

Graph of Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.1. Monthly mean atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. The carbon dioxide data (red curve), measured as the mole fraction in dry air, on Mauna Loa constitute the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. They were started by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a facility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Keeling, 1976]. NOAA started its own CO2 measurements in May of 1974, and they have run in parallel with those made by Scripps since then [Thoning, 1989]. The black curve represents the seasonally corrected data. Data are reported as a dry mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of molecules of dry air multiplied by one million (ppm).

Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. Human activities have also increased concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide. The IPCC has compiled data from many sources to summarize the changes in greenhouse gas concentrations for the last 2000 years (Figure 9.1.2), and concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides have all risen dramatically with industrialization. The increases in carbon dioxide concentrations have the greatest impact on global climate, but the increases in the other greenhouse gases play a supporting role.

Graph depicting the concentration of greenhouse gases from 0 to 2005. Refer to the caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.2. Atmospheric concentrations of important long-lived greenhouse gases over the last 2,000 years. Increases since about 1750 are attributed to human activities in the industrial era. Concentration units are parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb), indicating the number of molecules of the greenhouse gas per million or billion air molecules, respectively, in an atmospheric sample.
Credit: Forster, P.; Ramawamy, V.; Artaxo, P.; Berntsen, T.; Betts, R.; Fahey, D.W.; Haywood, J.; Lean, J. et al. (2007), "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing", Climate Change 2007: the Physical Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

To understand Earth's past climate, scientists use data extracted from air bubbles trapped in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to study past carbon dioxide concentrations and temperatures. The longest ice core record is from Vostok, Antarctica and gives us a picture of changes in CO2 concentrations and temperatures for the last 800,000 years (Figure 9.1.3). In November 2015, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere reached 400.16 ppm, a level not seen in the past 800,000 years on Earth. Also, there is a clear correlation between temperature changes and changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The graph shows temperature and carbon dioxide records from 800,000 years ago to recent times.
Figure 9.1.3. Historical carbon dioxide (right axis and blue lines) and reconstructed temperature (as a difference from the mean temperature for the last 100 years in red) records based on Antarctic ice cores, providing data for the last 800,000 years. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, as measured in air, are higher today than at any time during the past 800,000 years.
Credit: Used under under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported by Leland McInnes at the English language Wikipedia.

NASA has compiled surface air and ocean temperature data from around the globe and summarized temperature changes into an index (Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet) that compares annual average temperature with the average temperatures from 1951-1980 (Figure 9.1.4). Global temperatures have been rising for the last 100 years. We'll explore more temperature data and consider the impact of rising temperatures as we continue in this module.

Global land-ocean temperature index. See caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.4. Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index graph. This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2014 ranks as the warmest on record.
Credit: NASA/GISS

Activate your learning

Question 1 - Short Answer

How does the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compare with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations measured in the Vostok ice core (Figure 9.1.3)?

ANSWER:
Current carbon dioxide concentrations (400 ppm in November 2015) are higher than at any time in at least the past 800,000 years.

Question 2 - Short Answer

In the Keeling Curve (Figure 9.1.1), there is a clear upward trend in carbon dioxide concentrations, and there is also a smaller oscillating pattern in the data. Each year, CO2 concentration increase and decrease. What could be causing the annual cycle in carbon dioxide concentrations?

ANSWER:
The annual cycle is a result of the large deciduous forests in the northern hemisphere. Trees take up more CO2 in the summer time when they have green leaves that are taking up CO2 to create new plant material via photosynthesis. In the fall, this process stops. In the winter, when deciduous trees lose their leaves, CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase as photosynthetic rates decline and as CO2 is released as plant material decays. The upward trend, since recording started in the late 1950s, is a result of the burning of fossil fuels and other anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Question 3 - Short Answer

What is the source of the increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that is evident in the Keeling Curve (Figure 9.1.1), and that has occurred since about 1850 (Figure 9.1.2)?

ANSWER:
The increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere since 1850 is primarily from the burning of fossil fuels (petroleum, coal and natural gas). Other human activities also contribute, such as deforestation.

Question 4 - Short Answer

Global average temperatures have been increasing since about 1920. Explain the relationship between global temperature increase and increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

ANSWER:
As carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, more heat energy is trapped in the Earth's lower atmosphere, which results in an increase in temperature. As temperature increases, evaporation rates also increase. Water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas, so there is a positive feedback that causes an additional increase in temperature.

Climate is Already Changing

Climate is Already Changing gar5209

The impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are already being felt around the globe, though the degree of change varies with location. The Third National Climate Assessment (NCS), released in 2014 by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), reports that over the last century increasing average temperatures, increasing weather variability, increasing warmer nights and winters, lengthening of the growing season, and an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events have already been observed. The severity of these impacts varies throughout the US and the world because of regional topography, proximity to the ocean, atmospheric circulation patterns, and many other factors.

Changing Temperature Patterns

The average temperature in the United States has increased in the last century, with each recent decade being warmer than the past, but this warming is not uniform across the United States (Figure 9.1.5). In general, western and northern regions have warmed more than the southeastern US. In the most recent decade, all regions have shown warming. What impact might this warming trend have on our food production and water supply? For example, we know from our study of water for food production that plants evaporate or transpire water and that the rate of evaporation is dependent on temperature. If temperatures go up, we know that plants will transpire more water. The southwestern US is already a water-scarce area, so increasing temperatures will exacerbate that condition.

We'll explore more connections between climate change and food production in the next section of this module. First, let's investigate changes in some other climate variables.

Observed US Temperature Change. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.5. Observed US Temperature Change. The colors on the map show temperature changes over the past 22 years (1991-2012) compared to the 1901-1960 average for the contiguous U.S., and to the 1951-1980 average for Alaska and Hawai'i. The bar graph shows the average temperature changes by decade for 1901-2012 (relative to the 1901-1960 average). The far-right bar (2000s decade) includes 2011 and 2012. The period from 2001 to 2012 was warmer than any previous decade in every region.
Credit: USGCRP

Changing Precipitation Patterns

In addition to changing temperatures, the recent decades have seen changes in precipitation patterns. Nationwide average precipitation has increased (Figure 9.1.6), but the patterns of change are not as clear as those for temperature. Notice in Figure 9.1.6 that the water-scarce Southwest experienced a decline in precipitation in recent decades. Additionally, some of the precipitation increase in the eastern US came in form of extremely heavy precipitation (Figure 9.1.7) and resulted in flooding (Figure 9.1.8). Both of these effects are anticipated results of increased concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere.

Observed US Precipitation Change. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.6. Observed US Precipitation Change. The colors on the map show annual total precipitation changes for 1991-2012 compared to the 1901-1960 average, and show wetter conditions in most areas. The bars on the graph show average precipitation differences by decade for 1901-2012 (relative to the 1901-1960 average). The far right bar is for 2001-2012.
Credit: USGCRP
Observed Change in Very Heavy Precipitation. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.7. Observed Change in Very Heavy Precipitation. The map shows percent increases in the amount of precipitation falling in very heavy events (defined as the heaviest 1% of all daily events) from 1958 to 2012 for each region of the continental United States. These trends are larger than natural variations for the Northeast, Midwest, Puerto Rico, Southeast, Great Plains, and Alaska. The trends are not larger than natural variations for the Southwest, Hawai‘i, and the Northwest. The changes shown in this figure are calculated from the beginning and endpoints of the trends for 1958 to 2012.
Credit: USGCRP
Trends in Flood Magnitude. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.8. Trends in flood magnitude. Trend magnitude (triangle size) and direction (green = increasing trend, brown = decreasing trend) of annual flood magnitude from the 1920s through 2008. Local areas can be affected by land-use change (such as dams). Most significant are the increasing trend for floods in the Midwest and Northeast and the decreasing trend in the Southwest.
Credit: USGCRP

Projected Climate Changes

Projected Climate Changes ksc17

So far in module 9, we've studied the basics of the science of climate change and by now you should have a pretty good understanding of the relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature. We've seen how human activities, including our food systems, are contributing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. And, as greenhouse gas concentrations increase, more heat energy is trapped, so temperatures at the Earth's surface increase.

We've also seen that temperatures are already increasing around the globe and that precipitation patterns are changing, but what does the future hold? How much will temperatures increase? Will precipitation increase or decrease? Those are very good questions! And, the answers aren't perfectly clear. Atmospheric and climate scientists all over the world are working hard to estimate how Earth's climate will change as greenhouse gas concentrations increase. Future predictions are made by running computer models that simulate natural processes and human activities and estimate future conditions. Model results vary from model to model, but they all predict future warming. Also, as we've already seen, the amount of warming varies from place to place.

What are the predictions for future climate?

The models used to predict future climate are very complicated and incorporate a vast number of variables, natural processes, and human activities. Projecting into the future is always a tricky endeavor and is always fraught with uncertainty. However, all of the models predict continued warming in the future. The magnitude of the warming varies from model to model and depending on which carbon emission scenario is used. For example, warming might slow in the future if we manage to curb our burning of fossil fuels, which would result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.

The model results are presented on two websites (National Climate Change View and Global Climate Change Viewer) that allow us to view the future projections for the US and for the globe on easy-to-read maps. In the summative assessment for this module, you'll explore these websites in greater depth to extract data for your capstone assignment. Right now, we'll just look at a few of the maps to get an idea of how the climate is projected to change in the latter part of this century. Exploring these maps develops our spatial thinking skills, which in turn enhances our math skills! And, who doesn't want to be better at math?

Future climate projections are presented as the projected change compared to the latter part of the last century (1950-2005). So for example, if the projected temperature change for 2050-2074 is 4oF, then that means the 2050-2074 average temperature is projected to be 4oF higher than the average temperature from 1950-2005. All of the following maps present projected change in this manner.

First, let's look at temperature. The National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV) (Figures 9.1.9 and 9.1.10) and Global Climate Change Viewer (GCCV) (Figure 9.1.11) both provide maps of projected temperature changes. Notice that the global map gives temperature change in degrees Celsius, and the US map is in Fahrenheit. One notable aspect of all three maps is that temperature is expected to increase everywhere. As you look at these maps, notice where the temperature change is expected to be the greatest. Can you make any generalizations? What is the expected temperature change in the region where you live right now? For example, if we were in New York City, the map in Figure 9.1.9 suggests that the average maximum temperature by 2050-2074 could be 4oF higher than it was in 1950-2005.

Projected temperature change. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.9. Projected Change in Annual Mean Maximum Temperature (oF) 2050-2074 compared to 1950-2005. Model results are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, which is a scenario projecting continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Projected temperature change. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.10. Projected Change in Annual Mean Minimum Temperature (oF) 2050-2074 compared to 1950-2005. Model results are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, which is a scenario projecting continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Projected temperature change. Refer to caption for more details.

Figure 9.1.11. Projected Change in Annual Mean Temperature (oC) 2050-2074 compared to 1980-2004. Model results are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, which is a scenario projecting continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

Credit: Global Climate Change Viewer

The projected changes in precipitation aren't quite as straightforward or certain as the projected temperature changes. Some regions are expected to receive more precipitation and some regions less. You can see in Figure 9.1.12 the southwestern US, a region that is already water-scarce, is expected to receive less annual precipitation on average. On the global map in Figure 9.1.13, equatorial regions are expected to receive a little more precipitation, and there's a band just north and south of the equator where precipitation is expected to decrease. The certainty in the precipitation predictions is lower than for temperature and the variability within a given year and from year to year in how the precipitation falls is expected to increase.

Projected precipitation change. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.12. Projected Change in Annual Mean Precipitation (in/day, 100ths of an inch)) 2050-2074 compared to 1950-2005. Model results are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, which is a scenario projecting continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Projected precipitation change. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.13. Projected Change in Annual Mean Precipitation (mm/day) 2050-2074 compared to 1980-2004. Model results are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, which is a scenario projecting continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

The NCCV also allows you to view projected changes in a few more variables that are not available on the GCCV. Students studying food regions outside of the US will need to work with their instructor to find similar data for their regions.

Precipitation falls on the land surface and flows into streams and rivers, which is called runoff. If precipitation is projected to decrease in the future, it would make sense that runoff would also decrease. Also, as temperatures increase and cause evaporation and transpiration to increase, there is less water available to run off into streams and rivers. The NCCV runoff map (Figure 9.1.14) suggests that runoff will also decrease in many areas of the US. The units for runoff are given in inches of water per month, similar to units for precipitation. In water-scarce regions where the precipitation is low, for example in deserts, often agriculture is irrigation with runoff from upstream regions where the precipitation is higher. Decreases in runoff could have adverse impacts on some regions that rely on runoff for irrigation.

As temperatures increase, there is an expected decrease in annual snowpack. While this is bad news for avid skiers, it's also bad news for regions that rely on water stored in snowpack in the winter that melts and is used for irrigation in the summer months. Figure 9.1.15 illustrates the projected change in annual mean snow in inches. Regions that don't normally get snow are indicated as zero (the deep south and southwest). The Rockies, Sierra Nevadas, Cascades as well as the mountains in the northeast are all expected to see significant decreases in annual snowpack.

The combination of increased temperatures with increased evaporation and transpiration rates will leave soils drier. Soil moisture content is projected to decrease across much of the US (Figure 9.1.16). Soil moisture is measured in units of depth of water (inches) and is the water available to plants. Some of our very important agricultural regions, the Midwest, are expected to see some of the largest declines in soil moisture storage.

The last data set, evaporative deficit, (Figure 9.1.17) gives us an idea of how much water could evaporate compared to how much water is actually available. An increase in evaporative deficit is a symptom of a transition to a hotter and drier climate. Not surprisingly the entire US is projected to see an increase in evaporative deficit, with the highest increases being in the Southwest and Midwest.

In summary, the future projected climate for the US is generally hotter and drier. Precipitation projections are more variable and less certain, but the increase in temperature and resulting increase in evaporation and transpiration will result in less runoff and drier soils in much of the US. The implications for agriculture are significant. We've already seen how water is essential for crop growth and changes in the temperature regime may have some surprising impacts on growing our food. In the next section, we'll explore projected climate changes and the potential impacts on agriculture in more detail. We'll also consider some possible adaptation strategies that can make our food systems more resilient to our changing climate.

Projected runoff change. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.14. Projected Change in Annual Mean Runoff (in/mo) 2050-2074 compared to 1950-2005. Model results are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, which is a scenario projecting continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Projected change in snow pack. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.15. Projected Change in Annual Mean Snow (in) 2050-2074 compared to 1950-2005. Model results are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, which is a scenario projecting continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Projected change in soil storage. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.16. Projected Change in Annual Mean Soil Storage (in) 2050-2074 compared to 1950-2005. Model results are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, which is a scenario projecting continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Projected change in soil storage. Refer to caption for more details.
Figure 9.1.17. Projected Change in Annual Mean Evaporative Deficit (in/mo) 2050-2074 compared to 1950-2005. Model results are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, which is a scenario projecting continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Role of Our Food Systems in Climate Change

The Role of Our Food Systems in Climate Change ksc17

Food systems, including agriculture, play a significant role in contributing to global warming, perhaps contributing between 19% to 29% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (Vermeulen et al. 2012). Growing food requires energy. While the sun is the source of energy for plant growth, a majority of the energy that fuels our modern food system comes from fossil fuels (petroleum and natural gas). Petroleum is used as a fuel for tractors and other vehicles that transport food. Natural gas is used in fertilizer production and other fossils fuels are burned to generate electricity that is used in the processing and refrigeration of food. The burning of fossil fuels is our largest source of greenhouse gases globally, and food production is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases.

The Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that “the food sector (including input manufacturing, production, processing, transportation marketing and consumption) accounts for around 95 exa-Joules (1018 Joules), ...— approximately 30 percent of global energy consumption — and produces over 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions” (from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).

In addition to carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuel consumption associated with agricultural activities discussed above, agriculture also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions in other ways (Figure 9.1.18). The loss of above-ground vegetation when grasslands and forests are converted to agriculture contributes about six percent of the global warming potential from greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, methane released from irrigated agriculture and from digestion and decomposition of manure from ruminants combined with nitrous oxide emissions from mismanagement of fertilizers contributes about 14 percent of the increase in total warming potential (Nelson 2014).

Global warming potential pie chart. More details in text description below.
Figure 9.1.18. Global warming potential from greenhouse gas emissions by sector (2009)
Text description of the Figure 9.1.18.

The image is a pie chart titled “Global warming potential from greenhouse gas emissions by sector (2009)”, sourced from the World Resources Institute (2014). The chart illustrates the percentage contribution of different sectors to global greenhouse gas emissions based on their warming potential. The largest segment, shown in dark blue, represents Energy, which accounts for 70% of emissions, making it the dominant contributor. Other sectors include Agriculture (14%), Land use and forestry (6%), Waste (3%), Industrial processes (5%), and Bunker fuels (2%), which refers to fuel oil used on ships. Each sector is represented by a distinct color, with energy occupying the majority of the circle, emphasizing its overwhelming impact compared to other sources. The chart highlights the critical role of energy production and consumption in driving climate change, while also showing smaller but significant contributions from agriculture and land use.

Credit: Nelson, 2014, p. 16. Data from World Resources Institute 2014

Module 9.2: Food Production in a Changing Climate

Module 9.2: Food Production in a Changing Climate jls164

In Module 9.1, we explored the causes of global climate change, the ways that our food systems contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, and how climate variables are expected to change in different parts of the US. In this unit, we’ll consider the expected impacts of global climate change on food production.

Farmers have always had to struggle against the vagaries of the weather in their efforts to produce food for a growing population. Floods, droughts, heatwaves, hailstorms, late frosts, and windstorms have plagued farmers for centuries. However, with increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere trapping more heat energy, farmers will face more extreme weather events, greater variability, and more extreme temperatures. Unpredictable and varied weather can lead to a domino effect through the entire food system, creating shortages and food price spikes. Farmers are developing strategies for resilience in the face of a changing climate, such as, more efficient irrigation, better soil health, and planting more resilient crop varieties.

Climate change can have both direct and indirect impacts on agricultural food production. Direct effects stem directly from changes in temperature, precipitation, and CO2 concentrations. For example, as temperatures increase in crop water demands and stresses on livestock increase. Changes in the maximum number of consecutive dry days can affect crop productivity. Increases in precipitation can increase soil erosion. Increased incidence of extreme weather events can also have direct impacts on agriculture, in the form of floods, droughts, hail and high winds.

Indirect effects of climate change include changes in weed, disease, and insect populations and distributions, which will have impacts on costs of managing pests and may increase crop losses. Increased incidence of wildfire can favor survival on invasive species. Some weeds respond well to increasing CO2 concentrations and may put greater pressure on crops.

In summary, a 2015 report on Climate Change, Global Food Security, and the U.S. Food System states that by 2050, global climate change may result in decreased crop yields, increased land area in crop production, higher food prices, and slightly reduced food production and consumption, compared to model results for 2015 with no climate change (Brown et al. 2015).

Global Effects of Climate Change

Human influences will continue to alter Earth’s climate throughout the 21st century. Current scientific understanding, supported by a large body of observational and modeling results, indicates that continued changes in the atmospheric composition will result in further increases in global average temperature, changes in precipitation patterns, rising sea level, changes in weather extremes, and continued declines in snow cover, land ice, and sea ice extent, among other effects that will affect U.S. and global agricultural systems.

While climate change effects vary among regions, among annual and perennial crops, and across livestock types, all production systems will be affected to some degree by climate change. Temperature increases coupled with more variable precipitation will reduce crop productivity and increase stress on livestock production systems. Extreme climate conditions, including dry spells, sustained droughts, and heatwaves will increasingly affect agricultural productivity and profitability. Climate change also exacerbates indirect biotic stresses on agricultural plants and animals. Changing pressures associated with weeds, diseases, and insect pests, together with potential changes in timing and coincidence of pollinator lifecycles, will affect growth and yields. When occurring in combination, climate change-driven effects may not simply be additive, but can also amplify the effects of other stresses on agroecosystems.

From Expert Stakeholder Workshop for the USDA Technical Report on Global Climate Change, Food Security, and the U.S. Food System
Brown, M., P. Backlund, R. Hauser, J. Jadin, A. Murray, P. Robinson, and M. Walsh
June 25-27, 2013, Reston, VA,

Brown, M.E., J.M. Antle, P. Backlund, E.R. Carr, W.E. Easterling, M.K. Walsh, C. Ammann, W. Attavanich, C.B. Barrett, M.F. Bellemare, V. Dancheck, C. Funk, K. Grace, J.S.I. Ingram, H. Jiang, H. Maletta, T. Mata, A. Murray, M. Ngugi, D. Ojima, B. O’Neill, and C. Tebaldi. 2015. Climate Change, Global Food Security, and the U.S. Food System. 146 pages.

Climate Variables that Affect Agriculture

Climate Variables that Affect Agriculture azs2

In the first part of this module, we looked at observed and predicted changes in temperature and precipitation. Now, we'll consider some of the impacts that changes in temperature and precipitation may have on crops. For example, the projected increase in temperature will increase the length of the frost-free season (the period between the last frost in the spring and the first frost in the fall), which corresponds to a similar increase in growing season length. Increases in frost-free season length have already been documented in the US (Figure 9.2.1). An increase in growing season length may sound like a great thing for food production, but as we'll see, that can make plants more vulnerable to late frosts and can also allow for more generations of pests per growing season, thus increasing pest pressure. The complexity of the system makes adapting to a changing climate quite challenging, but not insurmountable.

Observed changes in the frost-free season. See caption for more details.
Figure 9.2.1. Observed Changes in the Frost-free Season in1986-2015 compared to 1901-1960. The frost-free season length is the period between the last occurrence of 32°F in the spring and the first occurrence of 32°F in the fall. Increases in frost-free season length correspond to similar increases in growing season length.

Crops, livestock, and pests are all sensitive to temperature and precipitation, so changes in temperature and precipitation patterns can affect agricultural production. As a result, it's important to consider future projections of climate variables so that farmers and ranchers can adapt to become more resilient.

Projected changes in some key climate variables that affect agricultural productivity are shown in Figure 9.2.2. The lengthening of the frost-free or growing season and reductions in the number of frost days (days with minimum temperatures below freezing), shown in the top two maps, can have both positive and negative impacts. With higher temperatures, plants grow and mature faster, but may produce smaller fruits and grains and nutrient value may be reduced. If farmers can adapt warmer season crops and planting times to the changing growing season, they may be able to take advantage of the changing growing season.

The bottom-left map in Figure 9.2.2 shows the expected increase in the number of consecutive days with less than 0.01 inches of precipitation, which has the greatest impact in the western and southern part of the U.S. The bottom-right map shows that an increase in the number of nights with a minimum temperature higher than 98% of the minimum temperatures between 1971 and 2000 is expected throughout the U.S., with the highest increase expected to occur in the south and southeast. The increases in both consecutive dry days and hot nights are expected to have negative effects on both crop and animal production. There are plants that can be particularly vulnerable at certain stages of their development. For example, one critical period is during pollination, which is very important for the development of fruit, grain or fiber. Increasing nighttime temperatures during the fruit, grain or fiber production period can result in lower productivity and reduced quality. Farmers are already seeing these effects, for example in 2010 and 2012 in the US Corn Belt (Hatfield et al., 2014).

Some perennial crops, such as fruit trees and grape vines, require exposure to a certain number of hours at cooler temperatures (32oF to 50oF), called chilling hours, in order for flowering and fruit production to occur. As temperatures are expected to increase, the number of chilling hours decreases, which may make fruit and wine production impossible in some areas. A decrease in chilling hours has already occurred in the Central Valley of California and is projected to increase up to 80% by 2100 (Figure 9.2.3). Adaptation to reduced chilling hours could involve planting different varieties and crops that have lower chilling hour requirements. For example, cherries require more than 1,000 hours, while peaches only require 225. Shifts in the temperature regime may result in major shifts in certain crop production to new regions (Hatfield et al., 2014).

To supplement our coverage of the climate variables that affect agriculture, read p. 18, Box 4 in Advancing Global Food Security in the Face of a Changing Climate, and scroll down to the Learning Checkpoint below.

Projected Changes in Key Climate Variables Affecting Agricultural Productivity as described in text above.
Figure 9.2.2. Projected Changes in Key Climate Variables Affecting Agricultural Productivity. Changes are shown for 2070-2099 compared to 1971-2000 and projected under an emissions scenario that assumes continued increases in greenhouse gases.
Figure 3 – Reduced winter chilling projected for California’s Central Valley, 2050 and 2090 as described in text above.
Figure 9.2.3. Reduced winter chilling projected for California’s Central Valley, assuming that observed climate trends continue through 2050 and 2090.

Learning Checkpoint

What are some of the challenges that farmers will face in a changing climate?

Possible Answers:

  • increased temperatures
    • leads to increased ET - increased water needs for the same crop production and increased water needs for irrigation
    • heat stress
    • can lead to reduced crop yields
  • change in timing and intensity of rainfall
  • more extreme weather events – floods and droughts
  • increased CO2 concentrations
    • may benefit some crops and weeds
    • may negatively affect the nutritional makeup of some crops
  • shifting zones of crop production
  • changing threats from pests, disease, and invasive species
    • insects
    • weeds

In the first part of this module, we explored some maps from the National Climate Change Viewer. Discuss how the predicted changes in climate that you saw in those maps (Module 9.1 Projected Climate Changes) will likely affect farmers.

ANSWER: The NCCV shows that temperatures are predicted to increase, including max and min temperatures. Growing seasons will be longer. Increased temperatures could result in heat stress for some crops and increased yields for others. Changes in temperature may result in changing zones of crop production, so farmers may have to change the crops and crop varieties that they grow. Increasing temperatures will lead to increased evaporation and transpiration rates, reduced soil moisture and runoff. If precipitation in an area decreases, then farmers may need to find alternative irrigation water or change to lower-water use crops. In general, a hotter and drier climate will create the need for more water-efficient farm practices and crops.

Direct Effects of Climate Change on Crops

Direct Effects of Climate Change on Crops azs2

Plants, whether crops or native plant species have adapted to flourish within a range of optimal temperatures for germination, growth, and reproduction. For example, plants at the poles or in alpine regions are adapted to short summers and long, cold winters, and so thrive within a certain range of colder temperatures. Temperature plays an important role in the different biological processes that are critical to plant development. The optimum temperature varies for germination, growth, and reproduction varies and those optimum temperatures needed to occur at certain times in the plant's life cycle, or the plant's growth and development may be impaired.

Let's consider corn as an example. In order for a corn seed to germinate, the soil temperature needs to be a minimum of 50oF. Corn seed typically will not germinate if the soil is colder than about 50oF. The minimum air temperature for vegetative growth (i.e., the growth of stem, leaves, and branches) is about 46oF, but the optimum range of temperatures for vegetative growth of corn is 77-90oF. At temperatures outside of the optimal range, growth tends to decline rapidly. Many plants can withstand short periods of temperatures outside of the optimal range, but extended periods of high temperatures above the optimal range can reduce the quality and yield of annual crops and tree fruits. The optimal reproduction of corn occurs between 64 and 72oF, and reproduction begins to fail at temperatures above 95oF. Reproductive failure for most crops begins around 95oF.

Water availability is a critical factor in agricultural production. We saw in Module 4 how increased temperature leads to increased transpiration rates. High rates of transpiration can also exhaust soil water supplies resulting in drought stress. Plants respond to drought stress through a variety of mechanisms, such as wilting their leaves, but the net result of prolonged drought stress is usually reduced productivity and yield. Water deficit during certain stages of a plant's growth can result in defects, such as tougher leaves in kales, chards, and mustards. Another example, blossom end rot in tomatoes and watermelon, is caused by water stress and results in fruit that is unmarketable (Figure 9.2.4 and for more photos of blossom end rot on different vegetables, visit Blossom end rot causes and cures in garden vegetables).

In addition to water stress and impacts on plant productivity and yield, increased temperatures can have other effects on crops. High temperatures and direct sunlight can sunburn developing fruits and vegetables. Intense heat can even scald or cook fruits and vegetables while still on the plant.

Blossom end rot in tomatoes
Figure 9.2.4. Blossom-end-rot in a tomato

Crop yield

A warming climate is expected to have negative impacts on crop yields. Negative impacts are already being seen in a few crops in different parts of the world. Figure 9.2.5 shows estimated impacts of climate trends on crop yields from 1980-2008, with declines exceeding 5% for corn, wheat, and soy in some parts of the world. Projections under different emissions scenarios for California's Central Valley show that wheat, cotton, and sunflower have the largest declines in yields, while rice and tomatoes are much less affected (Figure 9.2.6). Notice that there are two lines on the graphs in Figure 9.2.6 projecting crop yields into the future. The red line corresponds to temperature increases associated with a higher carbon dioxide emissions scenario. We saw in Module 9.1 that the more CO2 we emit, the more heat energy is trapped in the lower atmosphere, and therefore the warmer the temperatures. For some crops, those higher temperatures are associated with great impacts on the crop's yield.

Why are some crops affected more by observed and projected temperature increases than others? It depends on the crop, the climate in the region where the crop is being grown, and the amount of temperature increase. Consider the Activate your learning questions below to explore this more deeply.

Why do some crops see a positive yield change with increasing temperatures, such as alfalfa in Figure 9.2.6? Generally, warmer temperatures mean increased crop productivity, as long as those temperatures remain within the optimal range for that crop. If a crop is being grown in a climate that has typical temperatures at the cooler end of the plant's optimal range, than a bit of warming could increase the crop's productivity. If the temperatures increase above the optimal range or exceed the temperature that leads to reproductive failure, then crop yields will decline.

Climate change effects on crop yields bar charts as described in text above.
Figure 9.2.5. Climate change effects on crop yields
Credit: Nelson, 2014
Crop Yield Response to Warming in California’s Central Valley from 2010 to 2094 as described in caption below.
Figure 9.2.6. Crop Yield Response to Warming in California’s Central Valley. Changes in climate through this century will affect crops differently because individual species respond differently to warming. This figure is an example of the potential impacts on different crops within the same geographic region. Crop yield responses for eight crops in the Central Valley of California are projected under two emissions scenarios, one in which heat-trapping gas emissions are substantially reduced (B1) and another in which these emissions continue to grow (A2). This analysis assumes adequate water supplies (soil moisture) and nutrients are maintained while temperatures increase. The lines show five-year moving averages for the period from 2010 to 2094, with the yield changes shown as differences from the year 2009. Yield response varies among crops, with cotton, maize, wheat, and sunflower showing yield declines early in the period. Alfalfa and safflower showed no yield declines during the period. Rice and tomato do not show a yield response until the latter half of the period, with the higher emissions scenario resulting in a larger yield response.

Activate your learning

Inspect Figure 9.2.5 above. Which crops' yields have already been most affected by climate change, and which crops the least?

ANSWER: Corn and wheat have seen the largest yield impact. Corn yields were reduced by more than 5% in China and Brazil between 1980 and 2008 and wheat yields in Russia were affected by nearly 15% and globally more than 5%. Rice has seen the least impact with nearly no yield reduction globally.

What are some possible reasons for the difference in yield impact between corn, wheat, and rice that you see in Figure 9.2.5?

ANSWER: The temperature increase between 1980-2008 produced temperatures outside of the optimal range for vegetative growth and reproduction for corn and wheat, while rice has a warmer range of optimal temperatures. Also, the regions where the different crops are grown may have experienced different ranges of temperature increase between 1980 and 2008.

Consider the graph for Wheat in Figure 9.2.5. What is the % yield impact in Russia and United States? What could cause differences in yield impact between regions?

ANSWER: Between 1980 and 2008, Russia experienced a nearly 15% yield impact on wheat, while the US experienced a slightly positive impact on the yield of wheat. As we saw in Module 9.1, the temperature increase associated with climate change varies from place to place on the globe, with some regions warming more or less than others. It's possible that the wheat-growing regions of Russia experience greater warming from 1980-2008 that exposed their wheat crops to temperatures outside of their optimal range. In addition, some wheat may be being grown in regions where the climate is already on the borderline of being optimal for that crop. So wheat grown in regions where the climate is already near the warmer range of optimal temperatures will see declines sooner. On the other hand, climates that are near the colder side of the optimal temperatures might see an increase in yield with warming temperatures. For example, in the US, wheat is grown in North Dakota where a warming climate could increase yields as the temperatures are more optimal for more of the growing season.

Indirect Effects of Climate Change on Plants

Indirect Effects of Climate Change on Plants gar5209

Weeds, Insects, and Diseases

Warming temperatures associated with climate change will not only have an effect on crop species; increasing temperature also affects weeds, insect pests, and crop diseases. Weeds already cause about 34% of crop losses with insects causing 18% and disease 16%. Climate change has the potential to increase the large negative impact that weeds, insects, and diseases already have on our agricultural production system. Some anticipated effects include:

  • several weed species benefit more than crops from higher temperatures and increased CO2 levels
  • warmer temperatures increase insect pest success by accelerating life cycles, which reduces time spent in vulnerable life stages
  • warmer temperatures increase winter survival and promote the northward expansion of a range of insects, weeds, and pathogens
  • longer growing seasons allow pest populations to increase because more generations of pests can be produced in a single growing season
  • temperature and moisture stress associated with a warming climate leaves crops more vulnerable to disease
  • changes in disease prevalence and range will also affect livestock production

Modeling and predicting the rate of change and magnitude of the impact of weeds, insects, and disease on crops is particularly challenging because of the complexity of interactions between the different components of the system. The agricultural production system is complex and the interactions between species are dynamic. Climate change will likely complicate the management of weeds, pests, and diseases as the ranges of these species changes.

Effects on Soil Resources

The natural productive capacity of a farm or ranch system relies on a healthy soil ecosystem. Changing climate conditions, including extremes of temperature and precipitation, can damage soils. Climate change can interfere with healthy soil life processes and diminish the ecosystem services provided by the soil, such as the water holding capacity, soil carbon, and nutrients provided by the soils.

The intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation events are already increasing and is expected to continue to increase, which will increase soil erosion in the absence of conservation practices. Soil erosion occurs when rainfall exceeds the ability of the soil to absorb the water by infiltration. If the water can't infiltrate into the soil, it runs off over the surface and carries topsoil with it (Figure 9.2.7). The water and soil that runoff during extreme rainfall events are no longer available to support crop growth.

Shifts in rainfall patterns associated with climate change are projects to produce more intense rainstorms more often. For example, there has been a large increase in the number of days with heavy rainfall in Iowa (Figure 9.2.8), despite the fact that total annual precipitation in Iowa has not increased. Soil erosion from intense precipitation events also results in increased off-site sediment pollution. Maintaining some cover on the soil surface, such as crop residue, mulch, or cover crops, can help mitigate soil erosion. Better soil management practices will become even more important as the intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation increases.

Soil erosion in an agricultural field
Figure 9.2.7. Heavy rainfall can result in increased surface runoff and soil erosion.
Credit: Hatfield et al., 2014
Increasing downpours in Iowa as described in caption below.
Figure 9.2.8. Increasing Heavy Downpours in Iowa. Iowa is the nation’s top corn and soybean producing state. These crops are planted in the spring. Heavy rain can delay planting and create problems in obtaining a good stand of plants, both of which can reduce crop productivity. In Iowa soils with even modest slopes, rainfall of more than 1.25 inches in a single day leads to runoff that causes soil erosion and loss of nutrients and, under some circumstances, can lead to flooding. The figure shows the number of days per year during which more than 1.25 inches of rain fell in Des Moines, Iowa. Recent frequent occurrences of such events are consistent with the significant upward trend of heavy precipitation events documented in the Midwest
Credit: Hatfield et al., 2014

How Farmers Adapt to Climate Change

How Farmers Adapt to Climate Change azs2

Farmers have had to adapt to the conditions imposed on them by the climate of their region since the inception of agriculture, but recent human-induced climate change is throwing them some unexpected curve balls. Extreme heat, floods, droughts, hail, and windstorms are some of the direct effects. In addition, there are changes in weed species and distribution, and pest and disease pressures, on top of potentially depleted soils and water stress. Fortunately, there are many practices that farmers can adopt and changes that can be made to our agricultural production system to make the system more resilient to our changing climate.

Farmers and ranchers are already adapting to our changing climate by changing their selection of crops and the timing of their field operations. Some farmers are applying increasing amounts of pesticides to control increased pest pressure. Many of the practices typically associated with sustainable agriculture can also help increase the resilience of the agricultural system to impact of climate change, such as:

  • diversifying crop rotations
  • integrating livestock with crop production systems
  • improving soil quality
  • minimizing off-farm flows of nutrients and pesticides
  • implementing more efficient irrigation practices

The video below introduces and discusses several strategies being adopted by New York farmers to adapt to climate change. In addition, the fact sheet from Cornell University's Cooperative Extension about Farming Success in an Uncertain Climate produced by Cornell University's Cooperative Extension outlines solutions to challenges associated with floods, droughts, heat stress, insect invasions, and superweeds. Also, p. 35, Box 8 in Advancing Global Food Security in the Face of a Changing Climate outlines some existing technologies that can be a starting point for adapting to climate change.

Learning Checkpoint: How can farmers adapt to climate change?

Video: Climate Smart Farming Story: Adaptation and Agriculture (15:09)

Climate Smart Farming Story: Adaptation and Agriculture.

Dale Stein. Stein Farms, Le Roy, NY: The weather is definitely becoming more erratic and more extreme than what it had been in the past. Paul King, Six Mile Creek Vineyard, Ithaca, NY: I have that tendency, as others do that have lived a long time in the same place, to say, “Well the winters aren't as cold, we're not getting as much snow.” Rod Farrow, Lamont Fruit Farm, Waterport, NY: Certainly it's been a surprise over the last few years, how much earlier the seasons have become in general. Jessica Clark, Assistant Farm Manager, Poughkeepsie Farm Project: And I would say that it actually does seem like the season gets hotter faster. David Wolfe, Professor of Horticulture, Cornell University: We're here at one of Cornell's apple orchard research sites. New York is well known for the quality of its apples. We’re usually second or third in the US in apple production. And we got there by, farmers from over many years, really working with Cornell researchers to come up with best management practices. But of course, now we're facing, like farmers everywhere, new challenges, challenges associated with climate change. For example, I never expected when I got into this climate change research realm back in the 1990's, that one of the most important things that would come up with regards to the fruit crop growers is actually cold and frost damage in a warming world. The reason for that is that these plants can sometimes be tricked into blooming earlier with a warming winter. And we had known from looking at historical records that the apples were blooming a few days earlier than they used to. But in 2012 there was a real record breaker. The apples in the state bloomed about four weeks earlier than normal, never, never observed before. And of course, this put them into a really long period of frost risk. And sure enough, we lost close to half the crop in much of the state, millions of dollars of damage. So to deal with this sort of thing, we have to think about things like frost risk warning systems for farmers. Farmers may have to consider misting systems or wind machines for frost protection. And our apple breeders may have to think about coming up with genetic types that don't jump the gun in terms of early bloom in warm winters. So the experience of adapting to climate change may be different for each farm. But nevertheless, many of the state's leading agricultural industries, which include dairy, grapes, apples, and fresh market produce, all face new challenges, new risks, and new opportunities. When it comes to climate change and adaptation, farmers across New York all have a story to tell. Dale Stein. Stein Farms, Le Roy, New York: I'm Dale Stein, senior partner at Stein Farms in Le Roy. We milk 850 cows, work almost 3,000 acres of land. Today we've had very heavy rain all morning, they got flood watches up all over. We've seen years where a drought, where on the gravel ground you get almost no yield. We actually had two years in a row, 2011 and 2012 were too dry here, so all our forages were lower production. We feed 75 ton of feed a day, so about 4 tractor-trailer loads of feed a day. We ended up, by the end of 2012, running out of our surplus forage. We used all that up. We end up on those years buying more grain, which increases our cost of production and lowers your profit down. But we're harvesting 1500 to 2000 ton of Triticale every May, that if I didn't have, that's extra on the same ground. If I didn't have that, we would have been in a lot worse place than we were without it. Bill Verbeten, Cornell Extension Specialist: The forage inventory shortages that we've had from extreme weather conditions in recent years, is really just a sign of things to come unfortunately. Farmers have to deal with a change in climate each and every day. And so in Extension, we really try to help farmers manage their risk. And growing a triticale forage crop, or another small grain for forage, can really give another opportunity to protect their resources over the winter, because they're more vulnerable to extreme precipitation events and losing that soil. We can protect the soil. Notice the fibrous root system. This is why this crop can hold soil. Just see how much soil, even in this couple inches of roots, that this is holding onto. Dale Stein. Stein Farms, Le Roy, New York: My standpoint, from what I've seen on this farm, Triticale works very well for us and the palatability is phenomenal, the cow's love it Bill Verbeten, Cornell Extension Specialist: So this is an awesome combination of a profitable crop that protects the environment. Dale: Baffles me why more farmers aren't using Triticale, just baffles me. Paul King, Six Mile Creek Vinyard, Ithaca, New York: I'm Paul King. I do most of the vineyard management, and most of the winemaking, and all of the distilling, here at Six Mile Creek Vineyard, and I've been here for almost 25 years. If we talk about climate change, longer growing season and a little hotter weather will ripen the fruit more dependably. There are some varieties, and I can give you two or three examples. Pinot Noir is a little fussy, Merlot for sure, Cabernet Sauvignon, and to a lesser degree, Chardonnay. I think these are varieties that will benefit. The best management option for any individual vineyard to deal with increasingly varying weather, if we talk about climate change, would be to think carefully about the varieties that they're growing. That's really the biggest management strategy, because everything else you're doing is then a little bit of, sort of a stopgap. Wind turbines help in only very specific weather conditions, where very calm conditions are set up and there's a deep gradient between the temperatures at the surface and just a few hundred feet in the air, and mixing up that layer can help a lot. But they're pretty specific weather conditions and it's a pretty costly investment. You need to grow the varieties that you can grow well, and that's what you need to do. That is especially true at Six Mile Creek, but it's also true for any of the other vineyards. Last winter was a particularly cold one and its really interesting. I think the minimum low temperature in Ithaca is still probably minus 23 degrees Fahrenheit, or so. We didn't really approach that, but what we did see here were lots of excursions to minus 14, minus 15, minus 16 degrees and that is a very, very critical temperature. You're going to get significant blood loss right around that threshold. What is that going to have on the quality and quantity of wine grapes that are grown in region? And certainly at Six Mile Creek Vineyard, we have lost most of the riesling, the fruit that we had here, as compared with our seyval, a hybrid, where we have virtually a full crop. There is a lack of name recognition of some of these hybrids. Seyval Blanc, that sounds a lot like Sauvignon Blanc, but but well is it a Sauvignon Blanc? And well it's not a Sauvignon Blanc, it's a completely different variety. It's my personal favorite. I get six ton per acre, even here. It's disease resistant. It's one of the first great varieties to ripen. It's a beautiful grape variety, it's just relatively unknown. But I think the people that I know that most enjoy wine, really like trying new wines. So there's a huge, huge outlet out there for exploring some of the new hybrids, they're great varieties. It's one of the Finger Lakes fortes. In the long run that's gonna serve to help us. Rod Farrow, Lamont Fruit Farm, Waterport, NY: I'm Rod Pharaoh, one of the owners and operators of Lamont Fruit Farm in Waterport, New York. We operate about 500 acres of apples, grow all kinds of varieties, about 29 different ones. The major varieties would be Empire Honeycrisp, Gala, Fugis, SweeTangos. We've certainly moved our bloom time forward, probably at least five to seven days, and then some years a lot more than that. How much of this we can attribute to climate change is still a little bit debatable to me personally, but there's certainly a sense that things are changing here, and that the climate is getting a little more unpredictable. And the risk of early season and early bloom seems to be greater and greater every year. The chances of a warm spell in March, an extended warm spell, seem to much larger now than they were ten years ago. I would say, in general, our farm’s definitely vulnerable to extreme weather events. It always has been. We're at the mercy of Mother Nature no matter what we do. The question is, has the frequency increased and the risk? Certainly I’d say there have been a lot of extreme instances of weather over the last thirty plus years here. We've had a number of very large hail storms, but certainly the frequency of that has been greater since 1998. One of the things that drives what you do in terms of risk management is the profitability of your business. And a profitable business can afford to do things to mitigate risk, whether that be invest in frost machines or try to choose better orchard sites, or add overhead cooling or overhead irrigation, frost protection. Through the 2000s the orchard business has generally been pretty healthy. So I certainly see an uptick in an investment in risk management. So anywhere we have reasonable sites, or good orchard sites, we've survived any frost that we've ever had, including 2012. And we look at it as a company strategy that investing in the highest possible fruit sites or orchard sites, has just as big, if not greater, economic impact then trying to mitigate a site that's going to be at risk in years when it's cold. Certainly multi-peril insurance can help in years of distinct disaster and actually make years that could be very, very bad for you, actually years that you could not necessarily thrive in, but you can at least survive through. So we're big believers in that. The strategies that are being used at the moment to lower your risk are definitely trying to try to preserve the economic viability of fruit farms and businesses in general in western New York. Not all climate change is negative. So increasing the number of heat units per season has a positive impact on what we can do for fruit size, potential yield, and return bloom tree health. So there's always gains and balances with anything. We certainly have a little bit higher risk but we also possibly have a slightly higher potential in terms of yield and value. Jessica Clark, Assistant Farm Manager, Poughkeepsie Farm Project: My name is Jessica Clark. I'm the assistant farm manager at the Poughkeepsie Farm Project. And the Poughkeepsie Farm Project is a nonprofit that has an educational mission and also a working CSA farm. We are not certified organic, but we do try to use organic practices. We notice climate change in terms of the disease susceptibility of our plants, and I've seen definitely an increase in the number of different diseases and pests that can affect us here in the Northeast. Certainly when we have very extreme weather events, and certainly when we have sort of these very strange, you know, very, either early summer, very late summers or very, very, late falls, so that it doesn't actually get to freezing until February. You know I'm sure that that extends how strong the disease pressure can be the next year, and the pest pressure. And heat stress actually can be a big factor for a lot of our Brassicas. And in general that's something you deal with as a farmer. And the changing of the seasons, spring to summer, brassicas are always going to be a challenge, but they're even more of a challenge. And they're a good indicator in terms of crops, because they do not like a lot of variability in their whether. They pretty much like the weather to always be, you know, relatively mild, not too wet, not too dry, and pretty much the same temperature all the time and that’s really just not what you get here. So we're already dealing with a change in climate, you know, what was it two years ago when we would have 80-degree weather in early March, and then go freezing in April. Crazy things can happen in a season. It's almost like predicting for unpredictability. Having that kind of reinforces the fact that we, you know, should have diversified market areas and also diversified crops. You don't have to be as diversified as the CSA because certainly that can be a little bit overboard in some areas, but certainly to rely on one crop is, you know, like playing a game of dice, like sometimes it's just not going to come up your turn. And if, certainly, if you don't have crop insurance, and even if you do have crop insurance, you know, it can be a very risky, you know, game to play. I know people who are in the orchard business in Ulster County and even their kind of going more into agro-tourism, they're going more into different crops, different specialty crops, just to have something on the side that they can rely on. You know it kind of makes one, as a farmer, more bold, to say like, “oh well, we'll just see how early we can get tomatoes if it's going to be warmer earlier”, or “we'll see how late we can have crops, you know, into the fall”. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but you never know and probably something else is going to fail in the meantime. I personally like to also make sure that our organic matter is high in our soils to begin with, so that it has that hummus and organic matter that's capable of holding water, as well as, as much as possible, keeping our soil covered in a cover crop, when we can. And then, even when we're tilling in that cover crop, to try and choose moments where we're not losing too much soil. Certainly we're thinking about carbon sequestration, and being able to lock in a lot of that carbon into our soil. It’s partially because it's good for the earth and partially because it's good for our plants to have that much, you know, to have a high carbon soil. You know, you come into the idea of sustainable farming knowing that you're trying to not, you know, ruin the planet and trying to, you know, make sure that you're not, um yeah, you're not messing things up to bad. David Wolfe, Professor of Horticulture, Cornell University: Well these are just some of the experiences and challenges that farmers throughout the Northeast are dealing with in adapting to climate change. But we have advantages in this region too, such as being relatively water rich. And with a longer growing season, this could open up new opportunities for new markets and new crops. Here at Cornell and Cornell's Institute of Climate Change in Agriculture, we are poised and ready to take on climate change challenges and work with our grower partners, stay one step ahead of the curve, and take advantage of any opportunities that might come our way.

Credit: Cornell Climate Smart Farming. "Climate Smart Farming Story: Adaptation and Agriculture." YouTube. September 29, 2015.

Check Your Understanding

How can frost damage increase with climate change, even if temperatures are overall warming?

ANSWER: If temperatures overall warm, some crops will bud earlier in the year as the winter warms making them more susceptible to frost damage in the event of a late frost. For example, in 2012 in the state of New York, apples bloomed four weeks earlier and close to half of the state's apple crop was lost to frost damage.

What are some ways that the risk of frost damage can be reduced in a warming climate?

ANSWER: Frost risk warning systems, misting systems, wind machines, and breeding varieties of crops that don't bloom too early in warming winters.

Why is triticale a beneficial forage crop for farmers to grow?

ANSWER: Extreme weather conditions, such as floods and droughts, can affect the harvest of forage crops. Triticale has a fibrous root system, so it can hold soil. It's a profitable crop that cows love and is more resilient to extreme weather conditions.

What is an important management strategy that farmers can use in growing grapes to work with a changing climate?

ANSWER: Think carefully about the varieties that they are growing, to make sure that they are appropriate for the climate in their region and are resilient to potential future climate changes. For example, some varieties are more cold hardy and other are more heat tolerant. Wind turbines help when the surface temperatures are very cold and there's a steep gradient, and can help prevent frost damage, but they are expensive.

What climate change impacts are the farmers in the video dealing with?

ANSWER: As our global climate changes growing seasons become hotter and some crops are susceptible to heat stress. Warm spells occur early provoking earlier bloom leaving crops vulnerable to frost risks. The frequency of extreme weather incidents has increased (e.g., floods, droughts, hail storms). Increase in the number of diseases and pests. Less predictability in length of growing season, temperature and precipitation.

What strategies are implemented by the farmers in the video to manage their farms in a changing climate?

ANSWER: Wind machines, overhead irrigation, choosing plant varieties appropriately, and siting orchards in appropriate locations. Diversified markets and diversification in crops grown increase resilience. Crop insurance decreases risk. Increase organic matter in soil and use cover crops to increase the water-holding capacity of soils and to protect soils.

References:

  • Hatfield, J., G. Takle, R. Grotjahn, P. Holden, R. C. Izaurralde, T. Mader, E. Marshall, and D. Liverman, 2014: Ch. 6: Agriculture. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 150-174. doi:10.7930/J02Z13FR. On the Web: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/agriculture
  • Lengnick, L. 2015. Resilient Agriculture: Cultivating Food Systems for a Changing Climate, New Society Publishers.

Climate Change in the Coupled Human-Natural System

Climate Change in the Coupled Human-Natural System azs2

We've covered quite a bit of ground in this module. We explored how human activities have led to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which in turn is increasing the surface temperature of the Earth and changing precipitation patterns. The resulting impacts on our agricultural production system are complex and potentially negative. As a result, farmers are adopting new practices and technologies to adapt to our changing climate and create more resiliency in the agricultural system.

Let's put global climate change and its interaction with our agricultural system into the Coupled Human-Natural System (CHNS) diagram that we've been using throughout the course. The development of global climate change is illustrated in the CHNS diagram in Figure 9.2.9, where the increased burning of fossil fuels within the human system results in more CO2 in the atmosphere. The response in the natural system is that more heat energy is trapped. The resulting feedback that affects the human system is that temperature increases along with all of the other climate change effects that we discuss in this module.

Diagram of Human-Natural System. See text description in link below

Figure 9.2.9. Coupled Human-Natural System diagram illustrating the development of global climate change

This loop shows the human system with an arrow labeled drivers pointing to natural system with an arrow labeled feedbacks pointing back to human system. Those four concepts are defined as follows:

Human system (human system internal interactions): human population growth, industrialization, and increased burning of fossil fuels

Drivers: increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases

Natural system (natural system processes and interactions): increased greenhouse gas concentrations trap more heat energy in atmosphere

Feedbacks: increased temperatures, extreme weather events, sea level rise and precipitation variability

Credit: Human-Natural system diagram © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

What would be the next step in the diagram? Consider the feedbacks associated with the arrow at the bottom of the diagram that will affect the human system. What are the possible responses in the human system to these feedbacks? Our response can be categorized into two broad categories: mitigation and adaptation. We've already discussed adaptation strategies that can be implemented by farmers to adapt to a changing climate. Some examples are to change the crops grown to adapt to the higher temperatures or to install more efficient irrigation systems so that crops can be grown more efficiently.

What about mitigation? Mitigation strategies are those that are targeted at reducing the severity of climate change. One important mitigation strategy is to reduce the burning of fossil fuel, and our agricultural system is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Shifting to use renewable energy sources and more fuel-efficient equipment are two mitigation strategies. There are other important mitigation strategies that target other greenhouse gas emissions, such as nitrous oxide from fertilizer use and methane from ruminants and some types of irrigated agriculture.

In the next couple of modules, we'll talk more about strategies to make our agricultural systems more resilient and sustainable, and you'll see how our food production can become more resilient to climate change. In addition, you'll get the opportunity to explore the project climate change impacts on your capstone region and to consider how those projected change might affect the food systems of that region.

Summative Assessment: Climate Change Predictions in your Capstone Region

Summative Assessment: Climate Change Predictions in your Capstone Region jls164

Summary

The summative assessment for Module 9 involves exploring the predictions of future climate variables from climate models for the US, then considering the possible impacts of increased temperature on your capstone region. Also, you will propose strategies to increase the resilience of the food systems in your capstone region to increasing temperatures.

The summative assessment for this module has two parts:

  1. Exploration of the National Climate Change Viewer - view national predicted change in climate variables for the US
  2. Data collection and interpretation from the National Climate Change Viewer for your capstone region

The second part requires that you work on the data collection for Stage 3 of the capstone project. Your grade for the module summative assessment will be based on your answers to the questions in the worksheet, which you will answer using the data you download and organize for the capstone.

For the capstone project, you will need to consider the resilience and vulnerabilities of the food systems in your assigned region to projected increases in temperatures. Your task now is to determine what are the temperature increases projected in your assigned region as a result of human-induced climate change. Also, you'll need to start thinking about what impacts those changes may have on the food system in your region. You'll use the National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV) to explore predicted changes in climate variables for the US and to investigate the projected changes in minimum and maximum monthly temperatures in your assigned region.

Instructions

Download the worksheet linked on the next page.

Submitting Your Assignment

Type your answers in essay format into the provided worksheet. If you can, highlight your answers. Submit your document to Module 9 Summative Assessment in Canvas.

Grading Information and Rubric

Your assignment will be evaluated based on the following rubric. The maximum grade for the assignment is 35 points. Pay very close attention to this rubric. The final questions on the worksheet are worth the most points! 

Rubric
CriteriaPossible Points
1. Summary of projected changes in climate demonstrates a clear understanding of the data retrieved from the NCCV. Correct units of measure are used in the discussion of climate variables.10
2. Summary of climate change impacts on crops shows that the students understand basic connections between plants growth and climate variables.10
3. The answer demonstrates that students considered the adaptation strategies presented in this module and identified strategies appropriate for the regions, including consideration of the region's crops, climate, and food systems.10
Answers are typed and clearly and logically written with no spelling and grammar errors5

Summary and Final Tasks

Summary and Final Tasks ksc17

Summary

In Module 9, we covered the human activities that have led to climate change and the resulting impacts on global climate. We explored some of the climate variables that will affect agriculture and then considered possible adaptation strategies that can be employed to make agriculture more resilient to climate change.

In the next two modules, we will delve deeper into the complexity of the coupled human-natural food system, continuing to employ spatial thinking. In Module 11, we will explore strategies to make food systems more resilient and sustainable. In order, to do that though we need to understand how vulnerable those systems are to stressors like climate change, and to identify the adaptive capacity of those systems. In that final module before the capstone, many of the concepts covered in the course will come together.

Finally, your capstone data collection should be proceeding. The Summative Assessment for Module 9 required that you capture some critical information for your capstone region. The data gathered about projected temperature changes in your capstone region is integral to your final assessment of the resilience of the food systems in your capstone region.

Reminder - Complete all of the Module 9 Tasks!

You have reached the end of Module 9. Double-check the to-do list on the Module 9 Roadmap to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there before you begin Module 10.

References and Further Reading

Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Climate Change Facts, 2013, Farm Energy, Carbon, and Greenhouse Gases, (https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.cornell.edu/dist/8/4308/files/2015/02/CornellClimateChange_Farm_Energy_mitigation_FINAL-262l8bt.pdf)

Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Climate Change Facts, 2013, Farming Success in an Uncertain Climate (https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/54950/CornellClimateChange_Farming-Success-in-an-Uncertain-Climate_FINAL-2l8vftg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

Hatfield, J., K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B.A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, and D. Wolfe, 2008. Agriculture. In: The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC., USA, 362 pp. (CCSP_Ag_Report.pdf from http://www.sap43.ucar.edu/documents/Agriculture.pdf)

Hatfield, J., G. Takle, R. Grotjahn, P. Holden, R. C. Izaurralde, T. Mader, E. Marshall, and D. Liverman, 2014: Ch. 6: Agriculture. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 150-174. doi:10.7930/J02Z13FR. (NCA3_Full_Report_06_Ag.pdf from http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/agriculture)

Lengnick, L., 2015, Resilient Agriculture: Cultivating Food Systems for a Changing Climate, New Society Publishers, 288 pp.

Nelson, G.C., 2014, Advancing Global Food Security in the Face of a Changing Climate, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Vermeulen, S.J., B.M. Campbell, J.S.I. Ingram, 2012, Climate Change and Food Systems, Annual Review of Environmental Resources, Vol. 37: 195-222. (Vermeulen_etal_2012_ClimateChangeFoodSystems.pdf from http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608 )