Extreme Weather Warning

Fires. Floods. Freak storms. Droughts. Why it’s only going to get worse.

by Cathy Gulli and Tom Henheffer on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 9:20am - 0 Comments

ADREES LATIF & RAFAEL MARCHANTE /REUTERS/ DMITRY LEBEDEV/ZUMA/KEYSTONE PRESS

Last week, after rampant forest fires had decimated thousands of hectares of his homeland, and burned alive dozens of his countrymen, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin boarded an amphibious aircraft to witness the blazes for himself. Within a few minutes of sitting in the passenger compartment, Putin—never one to resist a fight, or a photo op for that matter—strode briskly to the cockpit and assumed the co-pilot’s seat and headset. Upon direction, Putin, who doesn’t have his flying licence, swooped down and drew 12 tonnes of water from the Oka River, and then doused the scorching forests beneath, extinguishing two fires. All this in 30 minutes.

As superheroic as this act may have seemed, it fell drastically short: below, hundreds more raging fires were turning lush trees into charred toothpicks. At least 2,000 homes have burned down, including 341 in less than an hour. Survivors found nothing but scrap metal, which they gathered up to sell off. Farmers, meanwhile, have seen their grain crop cut by a third, and counting.

The only thing spreading faster than the fires is fear: that dangerous radioactive material on land contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster will be churned up, for instance. Experts insist that a far more realistic and deadly threat is the toxic smog that has blanketed Russia in a sepia haze ever since daily temperatures surged to 40° C and higher—hotter than it’s been there since the 11th century, the Russian weather service chief said. Government officials have warned that breathing the polluted air is like smoking multiple packs of cigarettes a day, so Russians have taken to wearing those face masks ubiquitous to disasters, most recently the H1N1 scare. They’ve also retreated to the lakes to cool off, but even this activity has been lethal: swilling too much vodka before swimming led to more than 1,000 drownings in June alone, when the heat wave began.

Before then, “Russians would have laughed if you had asked them if this would happen,” says Ghassem R. Asrar, director of the World Climate Research Programme at the UN’s World Meteorological Organization.

Normal summer temperatures there hover in the low 20s in the hottest parts. Imagining the “Great Russian heat wave of 2010,” as this hot spell has been dubbed, would have been preposterous. “They’d have said it’s like being in Saudi Arabia,” Asrar told Maclean’s.

Except that even Saudi Arabia’s weather has been extraordinary this summer, with temperatures reaching above 47° C. In fact, record heat has occurred in 17 countries, including Pakistan, where on May 26, the mercury hit 53.5° C—suffocating four people to death. Since then, the heat has given way to the unthinkable: catastrophic floods, which have killed at least 1,600 Pakistanis and ruined the homes and livelihoods of more than 20 million others. There are concerns of a cholera outbreak, and the country is now facing a shortage of drinking water. The UN, which has appealed for $460 million in immediate international aid, has called this the greatest humanitarian crisis in history—more devastating than the 2004 Southeast Asia tsunami, the 2005 Pakistan earthquake and the Haiti earthquake combined. The funds have been slow in coming, though, and some worry that the Taliban will step in instead. Worse still, there is no end in sight: forecasters warn more floods are coming, and urge “all the concerned authorities . . . to take necessary precautionary measures to avoid/minimize loss of lives and infrastructure.”

On the spectrum of extreme weather, Pakistan and Russia are obviously the worst effected. But new data shows that the whole world is experiencing unprecedented levels of radical weather. In June, the global land and ocean average surface temperature was the hottest it’s been since 1880, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States began keeping records. And July was the 305th consecutive month that the global temperature was above average, meaning the last time the mercury dipped unusually low was in February 1985.

Even Canada’s distinction as a moderate country hasn’t safeguarded us from outrageous weather patterns: heat waves in Ontario and Quebec have caused power outages this summer and sent a record 158 people to one Ottawa ER in a single day. Hundreds of wildfires are engulfing portions of British Columbia. And after severe droughts in the spring, the Prairies have been flooded.

If this strange and severe weather was once hard to imagine, it’s now hard to ignore. “Extreme events are becoming more common,” says Heidi Cullen, a climatologist based in Princeton, N.J., and author of the new book, The Weather of the Future. What is happening in Russia and Pakistan may not feel like a real threat to North America, but she says “it should feel real.” As the Earth continues to heat up, “who is to say that couldn’t happen in Canada or the United States?” Cullen asks. “It will happen eventually.” Asrar agrees. “We will see more extremes, and they’ll last longer and be very strong.” In other words, he says, in the future “anything is possible.”

To understand how extreme weather is becoming more common, scientists start by looking back. Over the last 100 years, the global average temperature has steadily increased by a little more than 1° F. That doesn’t seem like much. But if a typical day is going to be warmer, then the heat waves will be as well. This also affects storm activity: the hotter it gets, the more heat the oceans absorb. The heat evaporates into the atmosphere as water vapour. Warm air can hold more water vapour than cold air, so once the atmosphere is saturated, it dumps exceptional amounts of rain.

Using computer models, scientists from 20 climate centres around the world have forecast that by the end of the century, the Earth’s temperature will increase by at least 2° F. “When you add it up over the entire planet, that’s a huge amount of heat,” says Asrar. It’s also an average, he emphasizes. “This warming is not going to be uniform globally, and the problems that we’re going to experience are going to [vary] by region.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Phil_King

    "…it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years… so for the majority of that time… temperature and CO2 rose together.

    The current understanding… is that changes in orbital parameters (the Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is a small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north, which changed the albedo. This change… led to further warmth, in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise, which amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism…"

  • Phil_King

    "…So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely contributed to them — and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.

    This raises a warning for the future: we may well see additional natural CO2 come out of the woodwork as whatever process took place repeatedly over the last 650K years begins to play out again. The likely candidates are out-gassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils, and methane from melting permafrost…"
    http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-l…

  • Holly Stick

    Says a non-scientist who doesn't know what he is talking about. Oh, that's reassuring.

  • herwth2010

    Try, dear Macleans, try to do a little research before spilling ink on "extreme weather" and climate change.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/

    It's weather people. Not very nice weather, but weather.

    And, given the reversal of the the PDO and the La Nina rapidly forming, you can bet we are in for a cold Northern Hemisphere winter just as there has just been a cold Southern Hemisphere winter.

    If, Macleans, you must cover weather fine; but if you are going to cover climate you are going to have to get current. The surface temperature record is almost certainly inaccurate. The oceans are cooling. World ice is increasing (Arctic fairly stable, Antarctic ice increasing significantly.) If you insist on parroting the Gorian line you will simply look further and further out of touch…sort of like the Globe and Mail.

    • Holly Stick

      Did you actually read all of your own link?

      "…As we learn from our 2010 experience what a sustained heat wave of +5°C to+10°C implies for human health, water resources, and agricultural productivity, a more meaningful appreciation for the potential consequences of the projected climate changes will emerge. It is clear that the random occurrence of a summertime block in the presence of the projected changes in future surface temperature would produce heat waves materially more severe than the 2010 event…"

      As for the rest of your bilge: Suface temperature record inaccurate… Myth #6, Oceans cooling Myth #28, ice increaseing Myths #10, 22, 44, 61 & 85 etc., etc., ad nauseum.

      • Holly Stick

        Links for all the myths above are at this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      • herwth2010

        Keep testifying Holly…

        The surface record is so good, so accurate, so uncontaminated that the Met Office is redoing the whole thing:
        http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/home

        And you other myths routine is about as accurate.

        • Holly Stick

          Again you failed to read your own link:

          "…This current exercise should not be interpreted as a fundamental questioning of these previous efforts. But these pre-existing datasets cannot answer all the questions that society is now quite rightly asking…"

          • herwth2010

            Given the investment the Met has in the pre-existing surface temperature record I hardly expected them to announce that the "pre-existing datasets" are rubbish and Phil Jones wouldn't know an Urban Heat Effect if he fell over one. But the fact remains that the Met office is doing a complete do over – not something one would expect if they thought the earlier dataset was sound.

  • lawrencd

    If this debate is to be carried on in an adult fashion let's try to get a few things out of the way:
    1. Give up the putdowns against Gore and Suzuki
    - Gore has more wins than any of us, namely an academy award, a Nobel prize and the popular vote during the 2000 US presidential election and it's a pretty fair bet that he would have been smart enough to stay out of Iraq
    - Suzuki has a PhD in zoology which gives him a few more letters after his name than me or I dare say anyone else who's commenting here. That makes him very smart and well educated and it's usually a good idea to listen to such people. I'll listen to my doctor for that reason.
    2. Let's keep the ideological rants out of this. President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel are leaders of right of centre/conservative governments in France and Germany and are making considerable progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their countries because they take the issue seriously. The Australian Labour Party (aka socialist) is obviously in bed with Big Coal and China, a Communist dictatership is now the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

  • lawrencd

    To those who claim that scientists referred to in the Macleans cover story are just following the money, consider: University level researchers are not warning of the dangers of global warming because they get such enormous grants and handsome salaries. Most of them aren't earning much more than a high school science teacher. The big money is in private industry.

  • http://hro001.wordpress.com hro001

    How unfortunate that Gulli and Henheffer – rather than banging that tired old alarmism drum – neglected to take into consideration some very sound advice offered by Macleans editors (Aug. 2):

    "You can't beat the heat. So why not enjoy it?" Not much consolation to those affected by the fires and smog, etc., I agree. But, consider (as did the editors) the words of 1998's Nobel physicist, Robert B. Laughlin:

    " Climate change, by contrast, is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself. The earth doesn’t include the potentially catastrophic effects on civilization in its planning." [cont'd in next post]

  • http://hro001.wordpress.com hro001

    [As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by an undefined max word count ...Laughlin concludes:]

    Far from being responsible for damaging the earth’s climate, civilization might not be able to forestall any of these terrible changes once the earth has decided to make them. Were the earth determined to freeze Canada again, for example, it’s difficult to imagine doing anything except selling your real estate in Canada. If it decides to melt Greenland, it might be best to unload your property in Bangladesh. The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control."
    http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-…

    Certainly makes far more sense than anything that has emanated from the keyboard of Dr. Michael E<ven when he's wrong he's right> Mann and his coterie of post-normal CRU cohorts.

    • Thwim

      Standard fallacy: It was natural every time it happened before, therefore it's natural now.

      It's like concluding that since every dog you've seen today has been black, all dogs are black.

      The problem is that basically every natural driver of climate that we know of, with the exception of CO2, indicates that global temperatures should be remaining stable or even cooling off right now. They're not. And if it is caused by our activities, then our activities can make a difference, or at least, they could have until we started to set off the natural tipping points the earth itself has, such as the release of methane gas from the arctic.

      • http://hro001.wordpress.com hro001

        Hmmmm … Too bad you didn't read the article to which I had linked – rather than jumping onto the "computer models tell us this, therefore it must be true" bandwagon. I am far more inclined to give credence to the conclusions of a pre-post-modernist physicist than to the unsupported assertions of a pseudonymous poster.

        But if you want to count yourself amongst those who choose to put all their eggs in the carbon basket, by all means be my guest!

        • Holly Stick

          All he's saying is that earth will abide these changes. However, human beings are more fragile, and none of us will be around in a million years.

          So what exactly is your point? That you don't care if almost all species of life on earth die because in a few million years there will be lots of oil again? Or what?

          • http://hro001.wordpress.com hro001

            It wasn't *my* point, but rather that of Dr. Laughlin: in essence he was saying that it is beyond our power to "change" the earth's climate. So the alarmists and doomsayers (such as Heidi Cullen, whose utterances Gulli and Henheffer fail to examine with any measure of critical thinking) would be better off giving consideration to that which we do have the power to change.

            But if you've decided to make the leap of faith required by the tenets of CAGW, i.e. that the only path to salvation of the planet and our species lies in drastic reductions of our C02 (because the computer models say so), far be it from me to interfere with your delusions.

          • Holly Stick

            So you carefully pick out a throwaway line from someone whose field of study does not include the causes and effects of climate change, and you're going to base your plans for the future on that? You think he's the final authority? Why?

          • Holly Stick

            Heidi Cullen is a climatologistmwho has been studying climatology ocean-atmosphere dynamics for years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Cullen

            Robert B. McLaughlin is a physicist who won a Nobel prize for his research in theoretical physics, not in the field of climatology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Laughlin

            Note that earlier in his article, Laughlin contradicts his final sentence by saying that what we do does affect climate: "…Carbon dioxide from the human burning of fossil fuel is building up in the atmosphere at a frightening pace, enough to double the present concentration in a century. This buildup has the potential to raise average temperatures on the earth several degrees centigrade, enough to modify the weather and accelerate melting of the polar ice sheets…"

        • Thwim

          So.. rather than believe the thousands of climate scientists who've been studying these phenomena for years, you choose to believe a scientist from an unrelated field.

          Let me guess.. you get your medical advise from Miss Cleo as well? After all.. what the hell can all those doctors know if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions, right?

  • Holly Stick

    You'll get no response because they cannot find one.

    • lawrencd

      I know. Sad isn't it? You ask for logical, scientific debate and you get silence. But I think my point has been made.

  • OMAR

    i strongle believe that climate change is happening as we speak. The world has been change so much and end of the world is close. I'm not talking about 2012 or end of earth. I'm talking about humans life. I have this strange feelings about everything is happening. Don't you people have this kind of feelings when it comes to what will happen next in our lives. In the past few years living in Toronto, I felt something is different in weather. We used to have cold winters with lots of snow. As to now, we had only warm winters. I think something big is our way. God safe us all.

  • Phil_King

    Perhaps this explains the resistance of some people to scientific consensus?

    "… Monbiot goes on to echo recent discussions on behavioural psychology from George Lakoff and others: ‘Those who see themselves as individualists and those who respect authority, “tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry, activities they admire”. Those with more egalitarian values are “more inclined to believe that such activities pose unacceptable risks and should be restricted”.

    These divisions, researchers have found, are better at explaining different responses to information than any other factor. Our ideological filters encourage us to interpret new evidence in ways that reinforce our beliefs. “As a result, groups with opposing values often become more polarised, not less, when exposed to scientifically sound information.”’
    http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?m=201003

  • alfanerd

    Such amateur psychiatric evaluation of your ideological opponents should be avoided when possible. It's the most pathetic of all arguments. "You dont just disagree with me, you're psychologically ill".

    I could just as well argue that lefties are closet authoritarians who simply look for any excuse to impose strict regulations on everyone else, and that's why they behave like that when exposed to scientifically invalid information which predicts some imminent disaster. But I wont, because that's not the issue. The issue is what is the evidence for the catastrophic scenarios we've been fed for the last 10 years. There is none.

  • Phil_King

    You're obviously applying your own schema here. The quote does not say anyone is "psychologically ill" only that our personal interests and adopted views colour our perception of facts.

  • alfanerd

    You cite Monbiot, the shrillest of the shrill environmental ecofascists. He has argued that his opponents just suffer from psychological disorders and that is why they do not see his infinite wisdom. What a pathetic buffoon!

    Of course I dont deny suffering from confirmation bias. I suspect most everybody does. But I find discussions are much more constructive if they focus on the facts, not on the psychological profile of your opponents.

    So what makes you believe the catastrophic scenarios of the IPCC? Any particular piece of empirical evidence or just the 'authority' of the 'scientists'?

  • Phil_King

    I'm personally in favour of what is called the "oblique approach".

    Perhaps you would like to take a look and offer your opinion?
    http://www.economist.com/node/16099521?story_id=1…

  • alfanerd

    i would but there's a pay wall

  • Phil_King

    Damn, that's a new thing, as I haven't accessed it recently and it was available at the time.

    Figures though, it was something everyone should read! LOL

  • alfanerd

    i cant believe the economist is behind a paywall. i thought such atrocities were a thing of the past, like dial-up connections, napster, and AOL.

  • Phil_King

    LOL

    Welcome to the age of the information highway, replete with virtual toll booths and endless construction detours.

  • http://hubpages.com/hub/Drawing-Palm-Trees-On-Handmade-Cards Bearie

    I have lived through droughts, which are not fun.

From Macleans