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

Realizing this, many Bangladeshis are already fast becoming “climate refugees,” fleeing to nearby India. But even India may not be an extreme-weather safe haven—it is plagued by monsoons. “The scientists there have seen that over the last 50 years, their strength and duration have grown,” explains Asrar. And there’s every reason to believe this trend will persist to be “a major problem.”

Of course, these projections are just that: early estimations that scientists are still developing. The big riddle is exactly what that 2° F average global increase will mean for different parts of the world. So far, indications suggest that the high latitudes will be more affected than mid or lower latitudes. How much more? Asrar points to colour-coded maps by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies that project that places such as Canada to Russia and the pole regions may see double the amount of warming, or even triple. One thing is certain: no place is immune to extreme weather. As these events become more evident around the world, Cullen believes that we will realize the importance of figuring out how to deal with them—before they occur. Because right now, she says, “we are not prepared for the curveballs that Mother Nature throws our way.”

The obvious question facing communities today is how to adjust to extreme weather in ways that will cause the least amount of destruction to people, property and possessions. It’s a daunting challenge, but a number of communities have, in recent years, launched action plans to investigate their vulnerabilities and to brainstorm solutions. “Every community has its own Achilles heel,” says Cullen.

After New York City learned last year that it would be prone to more heat waves, rain and flooding in the future, Rockaway waste water treatment plant in Queens decided it wouldn’t wait for disaster to arrive.

Instead, working in conjunction with the local department of environmental protection, the plant’s electrical equipment, including breakers and pump motors, were moved—from 25 feet below sea level to 14 feet above sea level.

Cities such as Vancouver have a combined sewer system that manages both sanitary waste and stormwater. A 2008 report by Ouranos and Engineers Canada found that by 2020, the Greater Vancouver sewage infrastructure will be vulnerable to increased rainfall, rising sea levels, floods, extreme winds and gusts. The report warned of the “public health risks from contamination arising from overflows . . . into spaces such as streets and basements.” Now, the city is planning to move to a sewer system that will allow different types of waste water flowing in separate pipes by 2050—to the tune of $2.75 billion over the next 10 years.

Where people live in flood-prone zones, governments are mobilizing to relocate residents. Manitoba, Minnesota and North Dakota, for instance, have buyouts in place for people who live along the banks of the Red River. In the past, Manitoba has paid pre-flood market value for 42 cottages in Breezy Point, and the prices were shared between the three levels of government. Other cities such as Calgary are implementing better heating and air conditioning in places that are susceptible to extreme temperatures, such as streetcars.

In Halifax, the government spent $250,000 to map its harbour and the surrounding area with a plane-mounted light imaging technology called LIDAR. The data is used to predict rising sea levels and will help developers manage their risk due to flooding and hurricanes over the next century. Meanwhile, in Toronto, $34 million has been allotted toward tree-planting and green roofs—which provide shade and absorb greenhouse gases. There are also “man-made trees” in development, which look like futuristic football goalposts that suck greenhouse gases out of the air.

The unfortunate reality is that “even if we stopped emitting [greenhouse gases] cold turkey, we’d still see warming because they remain in the environment for a long time,” says Cullen. What’s more, most of these improvements are expensive—for those countries that can afford them in the first place—and will take years to fully implement. After that, they might still be no match for what Phillips of Environment Canada calls “the awesome power of Mother Nature” unleashed.

In a lot of ways, until now Canada has been fortunate. For starters, because we have four seasons, we are accustomed to adapting to the ever-changing weather and temperatures, says Phillips. We also have a small population and low density, “so the fact is, nature can’t find you” the way it might pick on people in Bangladesh. “Of all the disasters we’ve had every year, every one of them could have been worse.

What continues to surprise me is why there are not more deaths due to weather in Canada,” he says.
But the longer people insist on living in places where they shouldn’t—think Louisiana or even some small coastal communities in Canada—and the more we delay improving infrastructure and mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases, the more danger is lurking. This means that the cost of extreme weather is going to go up, in terms of material damage—and loss of life. “It’s what I fear the most,” says Phillips. “We are going to be in nature’s way.” As more extreme weather arrives here, “Our luck is going to change.”

For now, Canadians and just about everyone outside of Pakistan and Russia are getting schooled second-hand in the drama and trauma that could affect them next. “We will all feel the impact,” says Cullen. “The world is very interconnected.”

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