You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International-UN-NGOs
Climate Extremes Are Coming, Study Says
2006-10-21
“ The Western United States, the Mediterranean region and Brazil will likely suffer more extended droughts, heavy rainfalls and longer heat waves ”
The world _ especially the Western United States, the Mediterranean region and Brazil _ will likely suffer more extended droughts, heavy rainfalls and longer heat waves over the next century because of global warming, a new study forecasts.

But the prediction of a future of nasty extreme weather also includes fewer freezes and a longer growing season.

In a preview of a major international multiyear report on climate change that comes out next year, a study out of the National Center for Atmospheric Research details what nine of the world's top computer models predict for the lurching of climate at its most extreme.

"It's going to be a wild ride, especially for specific regions," said study lead author Claudia Tebaldi, a scientist at the federally funded academic research center. Tebaldi pointed to the Western U.S., Mediterranean nations and Brazil as "hot spots" that will get extremes at their worst, according to the computer models.

And some places, such as the Pacific Northwest, are predicted to get a strange double whammy of longer dry spells punctuated by heavier rainfall. As the world warms, there will be more rain likely in the tropical Pacific Ocean, and that will change the air flow for certain areas, much like El Nino weather oscillations now do, said study co-author Gerald Meehl, a top computer modeler at the research center. Those changes will affect the U.S. West, Australia and Brazil, even though it's on South America's eastern coast.

For the Mediterranean, the issue has more to do with rainfall in the tropical Atlantic Ocean changing air currents, he said.

"Extreme events are the kinds of things that have the biggest impacts, not only on humans, but on mammals and ecosystems," Meehl said. The study, to be published in the December issue of the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change, "gives us stronger and more compelling evidence that these changes in extremes are more likely."

The researchers took 10 international agreed-upon indices that measure climate extremes _ five that deal with temperature and five with precipitation _ and ran computer models for the world through the year What Tebaldi called the scariest results had to do with heat waves and warm nights. Everything about heat waves _ their intensity, length and occurrence _ worsens.

"The changes are very significant there," Tebaldi said. "It's enough to say we're in for a bad future."

The measurement of warm nights saw the biggest forecast changes. Every part of the globe is predicted to experience a tremendous increase in the number of nights during which the low temperature is extremely high. Those warm night temperatures that should happen only once every decade will likely occur at least every other year by the time we reach 2099, if not more frequently, Tebaldi said.

Warm nights are crucial because Chicago's 1995 heat wave demonstrated that after three straight hot nights, people start dying, Meehl said. However, heat wave deaths are decreasing in the United States because society has learned to adapt better, using air conditioning, noted University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric sciences professor John Christy. He is one of a minority of climate scientists who downplay the seriousness of global warming.

Similarly, the days when the temperature drops below freezing will plummet worldwide. That's not necessarily a good thing, because fewer frost days will likely bring dramatic change in wildlife, especially bug infestation, Tebaldi said.
“ Fewer frost days will likely bring dramatic change in wildlife, especially bug infestation ”

"It's a disruption of the equilibrium that's been going for many centuries," Tebaldi said. But she noted that a lengthier growing season in general is good.

"This notion of the greening of the planet ... generally is a positive benefit," Christy said. Christy, who did not participate in the study but acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, said an increase in nighttime low temperatures makes much more sense than the rain-and-drought forecasts of the paper.

One of the larger changes in precipitation predicted is in the intensity of rain and snowfall. That means, Tebaldi said, "when it rains, it rains more" even if it doesn't rain as often.

“ Tebaldi's assessment jibes with the National Climatic Data Center's tracking of extreme events in the US ”
Tebaldi's assessment jibes with the National Climatic Data Center's tracking of extreme events in the United States, said David Easterling, chief of the center's scientific services. Easterling's group has created a massive climate extreme index that measures the weather in America. Last year, the United States experienced the second most extreme year in 95 years; the worst year was in 1998.

Posted by:lotp

#10  2x4, the Vostok ice cores which are sampled back to 41,000 years ago and the Mauna Loa samples for CO2 from 1958-2004.

Primarily I was doing a simple trend analysis on the CO2 levels. I forget where the temp estimates came from ... I have to go back and look that up at work.

The Mauna Loa samples show a rise from annual average of about 315 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere in 1958 to about 375 ppm in 2004.

The Vostok ice samples show mostly a steady state of ~~ 310-315 ppm over millenia.
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-21 18:21  

#9  "Global warming will cause temperatures in Summer hot enough to melt snow! And winter cold may actually cause it to snow in some places!"
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-10-21 18:02  

#8  An "computer modeling" of the enviroment is not reliable or accurate and should not be used as a basis for any decisions. It's just not something you can do with our current data set and hardware.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-10-21 17:39  

#7  lotp, I am not sure what data for the last 35kya are you looking at, but it was anything but stable, bare the climatic optimum at about 7500BCE to 5000BCE whence the temperatures were about 2 deg C above the current average. It is harder to extrapolate the temperatures futher in the past you go, but there is a sort of reasonable amount of data from about 10kyaBCE. One minus spike happened cca 4200BCE, then it levelled on the current average, with ocassional oscillations. Another drop cca 1500BCE, with a 15 years showing almost no growth in tree rings. Then follow large oscillations between 900BCE and 680BCE roughly corresponding to 12 year periods, then between 400CE-800CE, another instability with a dip to colder temps and severe droughts in some regions towards the end of the period. Followed by warmer period when Greenland's coast was truly green. Then again it got colder, again warmer between 1500s and 1600s, then we have the "little ice age". Since then we are getting closer to the "climatic optimum"... not only we, but Mars seem wanting not to be left behind (can't say about Venus, she has been insanely hot always as far as anyone recalls).
Posted by: twobyfour   2006-10-21 17:35  

#6  Reading this reminded me of the "forecast " from the old Soupy Sales Show.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-21 17:23  

#5  Cause is a separate issue. That's up for debate.

Trends are simply what the data show. And while it's possible to cherrypick the data to artificially show trends, I've seen some numbers from ice cores through CO2 measurements of the last few decades that show a consistent secular trend in both CO2 and mean temperatures in the last 150 years compared to relatively stable overall means for 35,000 years, with a sharp spike in the last few decades.

Note I said "relatively stable". There ARE periodic changes. But the overall mean stayed roughly the same for a long time.

Now, what CAUSED this rise is open to debate. But that it is happening and has effects on agriculture and possibly public health in some places seems to me, at least, to have some good basis in fact.

What pisses me off is that the tendentious anti-industry agendas of some have made it impossible to discuss this objectively.
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-21 16:58  

#4  looking at trends and determining the causation is the issue with Global Warming advocates. They can't prove their science and accusations that our human activities cause them. Ask them to explain the medieval "warm period" when grapes (and wine) were produced in Britain.....the agenda drives the theory, rather than cause-effect facts
Posted by: Frank G   2006-10-21 16:42  

#3  Daily prediction is actually a much harder problem than looking at long term trends.

I subscribe for $12 a year to the Accu-weather premium site. Their hourly forecasts are pretty accurate for the day, and their daily forecasts for a couple days in advance, enough so that I decide whether to wear a coat or take an umbrella based on them. The TV people, and weather.com, are a lot worse. Guy I know who left grad school just short of a PhD in weather modeling -- to make money programming, btw -- says Acuweather has by far the best prediction models for shortterm forecasting.
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-21 16:37  

#2  not a chance Parabellum - nobody gets Federal grants by doing accurate weather forecasts. The money's in Societal Change Crises™.
Posted by: Frank G   2006-10-21 16:37  

#1  Uh huh. When you idiots can accurately tell me what the weather will be like four days from now I'll start listening.
Posted by: Parabellum   2006-10-21 16:05  

00:00