Readers of my posts should know by now I have been moving away from using certain language when discussing climate change effects. That language includes talking about effects in the far-off future and the uncertainty involved with climate projections (even though they do exist). This transition has happened rapidly as I have read hundred of journal articles detailing the latest science assessments as well as seminal reports like the IPCC’s in 2007. Generally speaking, the American public has no idea what is about to hit them. A solid percentage think climate change is occurring and our species is now the dominant forcing mechanism. That’s the good news. The bad news is far too few Americans realize how quickly conditions are changing and what those changing conditions mean for their future.
An article came out today putting some pieces together that I want to comment on. The article covers the topic of a new paper being published in Climatic Change Letters by a Standford group. It deals with projections of summer conditions around the globe, using the current heat wave affecting a good portion of the country as context. That’s not to say this heat wave can be directly and completely attributed to climate change, but that conditions are primed for heat waves like this to occur with climate change affecting baseline conditions. Unsurprisingly, the group found (among other things) the following:
The Stanford study’s lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh, sought to determine when the current hottest temperatures would become “the new normal.” He says, “According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years.”
Read that again. The coolest summers in 40 years will be hotter than anything we’ve experienced since the 1960s. That projection is in line with the findings of numerous other studies: future decades are likelier to be hotter than preceding decades for a long time to come. Folks across the East Coast and South are experiencing now what will be a typical summer soon. And what we considered to be summer will have to be revised: the climate doesn’t care about arbitrary astronomical designations of seasons. An increase in the number of days with 90F+ daily highs occurring in May and April will occur. The number of days with 100F+ will also increase. Of more worry is the number of nights with higher minimum temperatures than ever before.
What effects will these higher temperatures have? Plenty.
[H]eat waves in 2003 killed an estimated 35,000 people in Europe. Last year, a record heat wave in Russia killed 700 people per day. As for agriculture, new research reveals that global warming has hindered crop yields. Higher temperatures cause dehydration and prevent pollination, resulting in a rise in food prices. Other studies suggest that warmer winters keep pests alive longer, allowing them to carry plant diseases, and greenhouse gases affect a plant’s structure, reducing its protection abilities.
Colorado knows all about the problems of warmer winters, as we’ve witnessed millions of acres of forest fall prey to pine beetles, whose offspring are surviving winters that no longer experience 30F below zero temperatures for extended periods. And contrary to what science-haters say, plants have an optimal range of temperatures, CO2 concentrations, and other environmental conditions. If they had paid attention to science in school, they might be able to deduce that they already live in their optimal range because of evolutionary processes. The critical point is those ranges aren’t very large for most plants. A small numeric change in one or more of those environmental conditions puts plants under tremendous strain. It doesn’t take much to push them over the edge and get them to experience dramatically slower growth rates. In short, more CO2 does not equal faster plant growth.
Another projection cited in the article is worthy of further discussion.
U.N. predictions suggest that there may be 50 million environmental refugees by 2020.
That is an interesting projection since:
This past year alone, natural disasters displaced 42 million people, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre.
The way I read those two sentences is the following: either 8 million more people need to be displaced to hit the U.N. prediction (which shouldn’t be difficult to do in 9 years’ time) or 50 million people need to be displaced in a single year (which shouldn’t be much more difficult than it was to displace 42 million people last year). My point is that the U.N. needs to take a hard, honest look at the latest science and reissue their prediction, because it already seems out-of-date one decade early.
Scientists and government planners announced in May that heavy rains, deep snowfalls, monster floods and deadly droughts signal a “new normal” of extreme U.S. weather events influenced by climate change.
How many looming threats and even visible evidence are needed before serious action is taken to fight global warming?
We might want to start paying attention. The following list contains weather disasters that have costs exceeding $1 Billion – just so far in 2011:
- 2011 Groundhog Day’s blizzard ($1- $4 billion)
- April 3 -5 Southeast U.S. severe weather outbreak ($2 billion)
- April 8 – 11 severe weather outbreak ($2.25 billion)
- April 25 – 28 super tornado outbreak ($3.5 – $6 billion)
- Mississippi River flood of 2011 ($9 billion)
- Texas drought ($1.2 billion)
- Joplin tornado ($1 – $3 billion)
That’s the fastest that 7 $1 Billion weather disasters have occurred after Jan. 1, in case you were wondering. I wrote many times in the past couple of years that we couldn’t afford to continue ignoring climate change. It’s far more expensive to keep burning fossil fuels and living inefficiently than it is to change our habits while we still have the luxury of time to do so. Moving forward, we are now faced with the dual challenges of changing our habits while simultaneously reacting to the weather disasters we brought on ourselves.
Cross-posted at SquareState.




21 Comments

The concept of environmental refugees deserves further discussion in these rooms here.
Thanks, WeatherDem. Recommended.
Thanks, and since I live ever less far from the “dry line” that separates moderate farming area from desert, I have seen this happening for more than a decade. Drought here used to be uncommon, and now is happening just about yearly.
Core idea being the planet carries us — we do not carry the planet.
Humankind exists within/on/in a very thin layer or band between planet’s outer crust and inner atmosphere. Where humankind flourishes or is able to flourish and excell within this thin layer/band is small indeed. Humankind prefers the great river regions and temperate zones. Not the Gobi,Sahara or Death Valley.
With global population now forecast to exceed 9 billion by mid 21st century in stark contrast with where it was in 1900 or 1950 we now face coming realities of more humans needing more habitat and resources than this thin planetary layer/band has yielded since the ascent of humankind on this planet. The pressure of human intrusion/alteration on natural habitat for plants and wildlife since 1900 has only grown more aggressive,destructive.
The air we humans breathe and the water we drink are under more pressure of consumption and abuse. We do require both to remain useable,available and not scarce or rendered polluted/ruined.
The great rivers and riverine habitats of the Amazon and Mekong now face what befell the Nile,Ganges,Rhine,Missisippi,Yangtze and Yellow Rivers. How long before the Congo River does as well?
In view of how the planets great rivers,lakes and oceans have been altered or are being altered by humans we know humankind is in peril of being ignorant of global climate consequences of human over reach.
Humankind needs better and more gifted leadership as we go forward into this century and the one that will follow. It can no longer be a matter of only what the planet’s wealthy and powerful humanbeings seek to sell or gain that governs all else — from education and healthcare to human rights and compassion.
We Americans need better and more gifted leadership with integrity and quality of vision than we are selecting or allowing to be selected to lead and govern thus far into this 21st century.
I count sixteen years of Bush/Cheney and Obama/Geithner/Gates/Panetta — given the large prospect of Barack Obama being POTUS through 2016 — a near total wasted (disastrous?) sixteeen years while what WeatherDem describes above approaches and looms ever larger.
This post 9/11 WOT/American Militarism/Imperialism that both Bush and Obama have led with and given we Americans? Ludicrous in face of the real planetary human existence/consumption driven changes that are coming.
More humans on planet with consumption patterns that have deeply evolved/increased globally from those of 1900 or 1950 and surely will increase by 2050 while we Americans prefer to relive WW2 and pretend the USG can return to 1910 taxing/funding premises?
Ludicrous describing this all very well.
While the USG fiddles and diddles and we Americans keep busy electing 535 Americans to sit in Congress and one American to sit in the WH. Thinking/believing doing little/nothing counts.
but but but… Rush DIRECTED that I accept on faith that this all a leftwing hoax!!! /s
Not to make light of a very very serious topic. Thanks for the post.
Last night some of us commented on a different post about how the “media” is pretty much not reporting on a lot of the issues caused by climate changes, such as the Morganza levee release, the vast flooding ongoing in ND (for quite a while now I believe), the big flood in TN, the huge wild fire in AZ, etc.
In NorCA, we experienced one of the colder, wetter winters in a long, long time. The Sierra snowpack is very deep and has only just begun to melt. I live in the Sacramento Delta, where the levees are in the same or worse shape as those in NOLA. The rivers are already running deep and fast, and the resevoirs are filled to overflowing. I’m really quite concerned about what will happen over the summer as the snow pack gets melting full blast.
Idiotic humans in denial ignoring all of this at our collective peril. Anymore, I’m wondering how much can be done to “improve” the situation, albeit I’m committed to trying.
“90 per cent of those displaced by natural disasters in 2010 were victims of so-called climate-related disasters, such as storms and floods. All over the world climate change is affecting people’s lives and, in the future, natural disasters will cause massive displacement.
Most people displaced by natural disasters are able to return to their homes after a relatively short period of time. Many of those who have fled from conflict, on the other hand, are victims of protracted crises, and have been displaced for years. People displaced by natural disasters may, however, have just as much need of support and protection as those displaced by conflict.”
“The number of people displaced by conflict are cumulative figures, numbers of displaced by natural disasters are, on the other hand, newly displaced in 2010.
All statistics regarding the number of people displaced by war and armed conflict in 2010 are approximate. Final numbers of conflict-induced displacement will be published at the end of June by UNHCR/NRC.”
bold
“CLIMATE-RELATED 38,287,597
EXTREME TEMPERATURES, WILDFIRES, FLOODS,
LANDSLIDES, AND STORMS.
GEOPHYSICAL 4,049,861
VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, EARTHQUAKES, TSUNAMIS.”
http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9570202.pdf
I think you should have read more than two sentences. 4 million of those displaced by natural disasters, was not related to climate change.
And they dont really adjust the numbers by eliminating events that were the result of human
“In Nigeria, over 500,000 people were displaced from
their homes when dam gates were opened by local authorities
following heavy rains. This is an example of how
risks created through lack of preparedness or warnings
to exposed populations, or through apparent mismanagement
by local authorities, may contribute as much
to a disaster as an area’s exposure to a natural hazard
such as heavy rains.” http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1/%28httpInfoFiles%29/15D7ACEC7ED1836EC12578A7002B9B8A/$file/IDMC_natural-disasters_2009-2010.pdf
I think that emphasizing the displacement of populations distracts the subject as sensationalism. With something as important as the subject of Human caused climate change such temptations should be avoided.
When a group/individual asserts a position and details are found to be off, it affects the creditability of the science, even though the science is sound.
It would be better to concentrate on the actual events and the science that shows whether it is Climatological or not.
There is no point in disputing the opposition, it only gives them fame. Better to just state the factual science. Padding that factual science with deceptive assertions leads to the failure of the effort to curb the human activity that is to blame for the changes in the global climate.
The reason for the colder wetter winter in your region is blamed on La Nina. Which is an natural occurring cyclic event. But obviously can be affected by change in the global climate. But it should be noted that naturally La nina or La nino can have anomalies. It is difficult to lay blame on an anomaly circumstance or the effects of global climate change.
To be clear I am not denying anything. I certainly perceive that human activity has affected the global climate conditions. But at best scientists can only wait and see and make current educated predictions.
BTW could you please send some of that water down here to New Mexico?
there’s a certain logic to pressuring policymakers, but when dollars speak louder than people, as they do now, those with few dollars might better spend their time organizing communities — local, regional, national — that can resist the coming natural and unnatural onslaught.
“That’s the fastest that 7 $1 Billion weather disasters have occurred after Jan. 1, in case you were wondering.”
and that’s just one country. What’s the world total?
And in places that have air conditioning, like much of North America, there will be the “feedback” effect of running the air conditioners over longer periods, resulting in burning more coal, oil, and gas, which will then result in increased warming.
With emissions still increasing, and opening up more coal, and more oil to burn, there won’t be much left of the “world economy” not that long into the future.
Great post, thanks very much.
My mom, who lives in San Antonio, recently asked me the same thing. They are in an extended drought and enduring water-use restrictions. I’d send some water if I could; Ohio has had the wettest spring in over 50 years. It’s rained almost every day since March.
You make some very good points. Human-caused climate change is a theory that has not been conclusively proven. Once upon a time not so long ago, eugenics was an unproven theory that was accepted as fact by most people, including most scientists. Adolf Hitler took eugenics to its logical conclusion.
Now, I am not saying that those who believe that human-caused climate change is a fact are heading down Hitler’s path, only that they may not be completely correct and should not be so quick to chalk up every single unusual weather event to human causes.
I do think that climate change itself is an indisputable fact, and that human activity has unquestionably caused at least some of it; how much, I don’t know. That is still reason enough to really make an effort to reduce human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
This means that my personal take on the science is still enough for me to support political policies that seek to preserve our environment from unnecessary human exploitation, be that exploitation capitalist, socialist, or animist.
For a disturbing preview of a hotter Earth, read “Climate Wars” by Gwynne Dyer, who is an expert in national security. Climate refugees are just the beginning of the horrors that await future generations. We’re headed for resource wars (India and Pakistan, both of which have nuclear weapons, will clash over water), the end of food exports, countries (U.S., northern Europe) walling themselves off from starving people to their south, and right-wing authoritarian governments in the few countries that can still manage to feed themselves. All of that could unfold in less than 50 years.
Thank you, WeatherDem.
Great, serious “stuff”, presented such that anyone (or even, everyone) can understand clearly, and at the personal “level” what we ALL may expect, as they say, “looking forward …”
Recommended to the attention of all denizens of the lake.
It is the very, very likely potential rapidity of “change” on such a profoundly “interconnected” myriad of “things” which the species can no longer deny … or pretend to “postpone”.
DW
Yes, that’s true, and I am well aware of El Nina and La Nino, and the affects on weather. And it does run cyclically. However, this is, by far, one of the coldest and wettest winters seen in quite a long long time, as reported frequently throughout the year so far. There have been *record* snowfalls far exceeding anything for quite a number of decades.
Just saying… it’s unusual, even given that El Nino/La Nina cycle that you mention.
Plus I am also bringing up the issue of the state of the levees in Sacramento, which – not that I wish it to be so – I think are almost destined to a NOLA-style failure one of these days.
Given how there appears to be a pretty unceasing and increasing number of disasters anymore… where will the money come from to help citizens get back on their feet?? The ability to be in complete denial about this situation is what I’m also calling attention to.
“You make some very good points. Human-caused climate change is a theory that has not been conclusively proven”
wrong.
It has been proven in overwhelming fashion, the theory that carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere would raise the temperature of the planet was first put forward in the nineteenth century.
In fact, It is very unusual, that there is virtually no disagreement, as is the case with this.
The case is that strong.
ALL of the measurements and observations that have been made since then, not some, all of them, support the theory, it is now accepted as fact by something like 95 percent of scientists in this field.
I strongly recommend you go to the website climateprogress, or the website skepticalscience and read about it.
I am amazed at the regular appearance of people posting here, who say what you are saying.
Here’s the link to skeptical science, they have a list of all of the fake arguments that are advanced, and take them down one by one.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Please read it.
La Niña weather two years in a row. Good article, lousy title. There’s no “Preview” about it.
The case was also “that strong” with eugenics. 95% of all scientists probably believed that theory, too.
I believe that humans have definitely CONTRIBUTED to climate change, but I don’t think anyone really knows by just how much. There is much about what causes climate change that we just don’t understand. It really doesn’t matter, though. We are clearly contributing to screwing up the climate and should stop doing so.
Incredibly well stated, shootthatarrow.
I couldn’t agree more that we need more action at higher levels. Absent crippling disasters, I no longer think we’re going to actually get it. Politicians are too enamored with the theater they think they’re playing in.
NOGOD & onitgoes – Yes, a strong La Nina is now winding down, which was likely the largest component in determining the strength and frequency of winter storms that dumped feet upon feet of snow in the mountains west of the Continental Divide. This La Nina occurred during the warmest global temperature trend in human history. The next El Nino and La Nina will probably occur on top of an even warmer baseline. And so on it will go for hundreds to thousands of years into the future.
onitgoes – Your last paragraph is incredibly salient and is in fact what I was hoping someone would mention given the disasters that have occurred this year so far in the U.S. When disasters start piling up on top of one another, with increasing frequency and severity, how will our society be positioned to respond? Right now, I would say we’re positioned poorly. Too much thought and money has been wasted, IMO, on an extremely low probability of terrorist attack in the U.S. Meanwhile, weather disasters are, in contrast, actually occurring today and they’re not receiving anywhere near the kind of attention or monetary resources to handle them. Combine these event trends with our self-imposed budgetary morass and I’m not confident in our ability to handle next year’s disasters and then the next year’s and then the next year’s…
Let’s be scientifically accurate, please. Climate change is a scientific theory insofar as no one has come along with a more accurate way of describing the situation we’re in. Similarly, gravity is also a scientific theory for the same reason. Both can be demonstrably shown to exist.
A major problem occurs in a scientifically illiterate society such as our own when the common use of `theory` does not match with the words’ specific use in the world of science.
mafr, that’s exactly correct: 7 disasters only in the U.S. before the middle of June. Yikes.
With regard to the economy, you’re also dead on. Too many non-realistic assumptions make up the foundation of our economic theories. Unlike the scientific theories however, I think that the economic theories will be tested and will fail.
Without having read “Climate Wars” (and I appreciate the recommendation), I agree with that assessment. Water will become the fundamental reason for wars in the 21st century. After all, most conflicts and uprisings in the world today have water at their root. That won’t stop as it becomes ever more scarce. We’re not done with world wars either, I fear. 50 years might be optimistic.