Report on Climate Predicts Extremes More Droughts Likely in North America.

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer - Friday, June 20, 2008. Published on page 2 today.

As greenhouse-gas emissions rise, North America is likely to experience more droughts and excessive heat in some regions even as intense downpours and hurricanes pound others more often, according to a report issued yesterday by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

This Story - Report on Climate Predicts Extreme - How Global Warming Has Changed Climate.

The 162-page study, which was led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, provides the most comprehensive assessment yet of how global warming has helped to transform the climate of the United States and Canada over the past 50 years — and how it may do so in the future.

Coming at a time when record flooding is ravaging the Midwest, the new report paints a grim scenario in which severe weather will exact a heavy toll. The report warned that extreme weather events “are among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate.” { We, like everyone else revolt when some preacher tells us that these are punishments from God for this-or-some-other misbehavior - but we accept that this might be Nature’s Reaction to our digging up fossil carbon from its nature intended grave }

While the Southwest is likely to face even more intense droughts, the scientists wrote, heavy downpours will become more frequent in some other parts of the country because of increased water vapor in the air.

“This report addresses one of the most frequently asked questions about global warming: What will happen to weather and climate extremes?” said one of the report’s two co-chairs, Thomas R. Karl, who directs NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.. He added that the report, which synthesizes the findings of more than 100 academic papers, “concludes that we are now witnessing and will increasingly experience more extreme weather and climate events.”

The authors found that the last decade has seen fewer cold snaps than any other 10-year period in the historical record dating back to 1895. Under a middle-range scenario of future greenhouse-gas emissions, climate models indicate that by mid-century, extremely hot days that now occur only once every 20 years will occur every three years.

Richard Moss, vice president and managing director for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund, said in an interview that the report was prepared by “an A-list of authors” and is “really frightening.”

In a conference call with reporters, Karl and the other co-chair, Gerald A. Meehl, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said there is no doubt that human-generated heat-trapping gases have helped intensify both the Southwest’s current drought and heavy downpours, which have been increasing at a rate three times that of average precipitation over the past century.

“That’s a certainty,” Karl said. “People aren’t questioning whether there’s been an increase in heavy downpours.”

By the end of the century, he added, models predict that intense bouts of precipitation that might have occurred once every 20 years will take place every five years.

The researchers, from both the federal and private sectors, reached more tentative conclusions about the connection between greenhouse-gas emissions and hurricanes.

The report noted that the intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms, as measured by an index that combines wind strength, duration and frequency, has shown a “substantial” increase since 1970 and that “there has been a strong statistical connection between tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures and Atlantic hurricane activity.” But the scientists said this suggestion of a connection to human activity is not conclusive.

NOAA research meteorologist Thomas R. Knutson, who contributed to the report and recently published an article in the journal Nature saying that it is too early to attribute more intense hurricane activity to a detectable human influence, said the synthesis reflects the current disagreement among scientists on the question of hurricanes.

“This is a report that is a consensus document, where you have a number of authors who may not agree on all things,” Knutson said.

—————

The Real Story Behind the Midwest Floods? Climate Change.
By Amy Goodman, King Features Syndicate. Posted June 19, 2008.

The floodwaters are rising, swamping cities, breaching levees. Tens of thousands are displaced. Many are dead. No, I am not talking about Hurricane Katrina, but about the Midwest United States. As the floodwaters head south along the Mississippi, devastating communities one after another, the media are overflowing with televised images of the destruction.

While the TV meteorologists document “extreme weather” with their increasingly sophisticated toolbox, from Doppler radar to 3-D animated maps, the two words rarely uttered are its cause: global warming. I asked former Energy Department official Joseph Romm, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, about the disconnect:

“Part of the reason is that the people who write about global warming for most newspapers and TV are not the same people as those who tend to cover weather. In general, the media is covering this as all sort of unconnected events, just regular weather maybe gone a little wacky. But, in fact, the scientific community has predicted for more than two decades now that as we pour more heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the planet will heat up, and that would redistribute water. If you heat up the planet … you evaporate more water, and areas that are wetter will tend to see more intense rainfall and deluges and earlier snowmelts, and all that will lead to flooding. So what we’re seeing is exactly what scientists have been telling us would happen because of human emissions.”
Perry Beeman is an award-winning investigative reporter for The Des Moines Register, and former president of the Society of Environmental Journalists. From his flood-racked city of Des Moines, he told me: “Not even a few weeks before this all happened, we were in the middle of doing a climate-change series that’s going to run over the year. We had two-page graphic talking about the different things that would happen [in Iowa as a result of climate change] and pointing out … that you would expect more torrential rains. What has happened here is consistent with many scientists’ view of what global warming will mean in the Midwest.”

So if the disasters that follow one another, from hurricanes to tornadoes to flooding, are consistent with global warming, why aren’t the networks, the weather reporters, making the link? Dr. Heidi Cullen, a climate expert on The Weather Channel, created a stir in late 2006 when she wrote in her Weather Channel blog: “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS [American Meteorological Society] shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.”

As reporters stood in waist-high water in the flooded downtowns of major American cities, President George Bush basked in the sunlight in Washington, D.C., urging Congress to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling and on oil shale drilling, and to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. While regular people are getting hit in the wallet at the gas pump, paying now more than $4 per gallon for gasoline, the oil, coal and gas industries are reaping huge rewards, and applying pressure to open up protected spaces for resource extraction.

One of the candidates to replace Bush has a solution. When I asked Ralph Nader about global warming this week, he said: “We’ve got to have a national mission of converting our economy, and the example for the world is solar energy, 4 billion years of supply. It is environmentally benign, decentralized, makes us energy-independent and replaces the ExxonMobil/Peabody Coal/uranium complex. That is why we have got to go for economic, political, health and safety reasons.”

Nader understands how the levers of power and influence operate in Washington, but also how flooding can devastate a community. He grew up in Winsted, Conn., where the Mad River and Still River flooded in 1955, where another Nader confronted another Bush. Ralph Nader’s mother, Rose, shook the hand of Bush’s grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush, R-Conn., and refused to let go until he agreed to build a dry dam. The dry dam got built, and Winsted hasn’t flooded since. A half-century later, our global problems have gotten far worse. Citizen activists need to shake not hands but the system, holding to account those with power and influence, from politicians to the personalities who report the weather on TV.

Denis Moynihan assisted on today’s column.