Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

glaciers + canoes

  • Mar. 8th, 2008 at 12:34 PM
ground state
This is a climate change and GIS nerd post. You've been warned.

An interesting development for our local student ASPRS chapter - we're looking at adopting a glacier (actually, a remnant snowfield) in the Trinity Alps. There's a glacier monitoring project based out of Portland State - we're hoping to meet with the program managers at a conference in April. As I understand it, they're using thermoimaging and GIS to monitor and model glacial response to climate change. I'm sure there's more to it, but that's the part that got me interested. Apparently, we'd get access to ASTER imaging to do it.

The glacier project complements my 480 project rather well. I'm about 10 hours into an analysis of the social impact of projected sea level rise scenarios on the peninsula communities of Humboldt County. Most of the literature indicates a 1m rise by 2100 under best case scenarios (CO2, CH4, N2O, O3 and black carbon aerosol emissions decrease) and 3m+ by 2100 if we keep our shit up (IPCC scenarios A1B or B2 - insufficient reduction in GHG emissions).* I'm planning on taking a digital elevation map, plotting sea level rise scenarios on it, and overlaying census block data for analysis. It's a lot harder for poor folks to move households (consider the Katrina event), so my hypothesis is that the poor will be hardest hit in the peninsula communities. Yeah, I know, it's obvious heuristically, but telling policymakers something is "obvious" doesn't work as well as pushing a scientific study under their noses. Of course, a lot of times that doesn't work either. It might be moot, though. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do a good analysis at this point - all the elevation models I've found so far don't have the precision I need to make the project work. I'm wondering if I'm going to have to do measurements myself with a GPS unit; I ain't paying for a LIDAR flyover, that's for sure.

Of course, all bets are off if 1500 sq mile ice sheets keep dropping into the sea. Those models predict as much as a 150+ feet rise in sea level. For reference, that's about the height of the Statue of Liberty.**

Buy a bike...and consider saving up for a good canoe.

* = Hansen, James, et al. 2006. “Global Temperature Change.” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 103: 14288-14293.


Incidentally, Hansen (a NASA Climate Scientist) is the same guy that said we have about 10 years to reverse course before we are basically committing to dangerous climate change (catastrophic sea level rise and 60%+ species extinction, etc).

** = Bell, Robin E. 2008. “The Unquiet Ice.” Scientific American 298: 60-67.

Comments

[info]ssinseminator wrote:
Mar. 8th, 2008 11:11 pm (UTC)
Hi - this is Rahul, Sarah's husband. Your study should be quite well received in certain DC circles. I've done a fair bit of work with US EJ groups that are digging in their heals on this issue of climate change impacts on the poor. In Bali last year, I met with a handful of EJ people who are stunned to learn that US EJ groups resist action on climate change. The story in the US of course is that environmental action is zero-sum, and that reductions in GHG's somehow translate into further degraded air quality for the poor. It should be now well understood that many of the EJ groups active in DC are aligned with the oil and chemical industry...the trouble is that elected officials can't simply dismiss their often flawed arguments.

Work like yours is critical and timely. Giving US politicians scientific cover to vote for aggressive climate policy in the face of EJ pressure is vital. There is ample analysis of how sea level rise may impact the poor in developing countries, but American EJ groups don't usually care about those poor people and American politicians need an American body-count estimate to justify a vote.

Thanks for your efforts!
[info]synchronaut wrote:
Mar. 19th, 2008 03:05 am (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I ran some of your comment past a sociology professor of mine, and she wasn't surprised to hear that the EJ communities are concerned about stepping on the toes of Big Chem / Big Oil. I assume their hesitancy to act is because sea level rise is a long-term event, and most EJ groups are concerned first and foremost about site-specific toxins and development. They have a vested interest in keeping the corporations at the table to reach any sort of accord. My plan is to submit my report to the county - hopefully it will help inform the general plan, and get the policymakers to see the local effects of global climate destabilization.
[info]tabittha77 wrote:
May. 23rd, 2008 12:45 pm (UTC)
Nice userpic!

Latest Month

May 2009
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      
Powered by LiveJournal.com