View topic - Chronic drought to become common place

Canadian Canoe Routes
https://myccr.com/phpbbforum/

Chronic drought to become common place
https://myccr.com/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=40244
Page 1 of 1

Author:  jedi jeffi [ July 30th, 2012, 5:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Chronic drought to become common place

So you thought that the forest fires and drought where fun this year check this out
http://news.sympatico.ctvnews.ca/home/c ... &date=true

Share the info PM Harper has scrapped our eco laws and protection and sci programs... Seems the facade of short term economy is a smoke screen to hide from a disaster that is lurking around the corner, and the excuse will be pretty lame that "who knew"
"We went with the information we had..." :evil:
And they say this will be the wet end of the drought..
Quote:
"Even worse, projections suggest that this drought will become the wet end of a drier hydroclimate period."

Share the info, because these sci guys need the help to get the word out.
Jeff :(

Author:  frozentripper [ July 30th, 2012, 6:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chronic drought to become common place

JJ, this paper by David Schindler, the well-known Experimental Lakes Area scientist, reached similar conclusions... IIRC, they used materials in lake sediments as indicators of drought.

Quote:
Western Prairies Face Impending Water Crisis

ScienceDaily (Apr. 4, 2006) — The Canadian prairies are facing an unprecedented water crisis due to a combination of climate warming, increase in human activity and historic drought, says new research by the University of Alberta's Dr. David Schindler, one of the world's leading environmental scientists.

...

Little research has been done on the cumulative effects of climate warming, drought and human activity on water shortages. Schindler and Donahue found that the biggest threat was a combined one, made up of several ingredients. First, there is now considerable evidence that the 20th century, when settlers arrived, was the wettest century for at least a couple of millenia. What we think of as normal was not normal in the long-term. "Most earlier centuries had one or more prolonged droughts, some of 10-40 years," said Schindler. "So we should probably not expect a second wet century in a row."

Climate warming is a second factor that will exacerbate any droughts. This new research shows that there is already a decline in glaciers that supply water to our rivers, snowpacks are dwindling and there is higher precipitation evaporation. The western prairies have already warmed by two to four degrees and this is expected to double by mid-century, the researchers argue in the paper.

Our rapidly growing population also means we are using more water for industry and agriculture, both of which are increasing as well. Some rivers--the Bow and Oldman in southern Alberta--are already oversubscribed, says Schindler.

Making it worse, we are destroying the features of our watersheds that protect these rivers, he said. "We drain or fill wetlands and destroy our riparian forests--all of the features that could help our landscape to retain the water it does get."

...



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 090133.htm

Author:  ice-breaker [ August 1st, 2012, 2:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chronic drought to become common place

Quote:
A group of 10 scientists from the University of British Columbia as well as several American universities write in Nature GeoScience that they believe the bone-dry conditions seen between 2000 and 2004 could become the "new normal" in the region.


Don't know whether the dry conditions of the early 2000's are the "new normal". What I do know is that this July was quite wet and we saw more than twice the normal monthly rainfall. Wet and dry cycles have always happened and I am sure that they will continue to do so in the future. I always take the dire predictions of our meteorolgists with a "wait and see" approach. A hundred years from now, the new era of climate scientists will look back on this time period and laugh about how little they really knew back in the old days.

Author:  jedi jeffi [ August 1st, 2012, 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chronic drought to become common place

March, april, May, June and July where very dry in the east here. T.O. got more rain than normal in July.... because of he storms in he last week, but it did no hit all areas.
I have less and less river runs as the years progress.
I use to be able to paddle the Credit river all year, and use to teach beginners all summer on it, that stopped in the late 80's.
the trent severn has water, but they have to keep the locks running for the big rec boat bus.
And the forest fires in the last couple of years......
I also believe that those 100 years from now will consider those in power that did nothing are no better than the other despots that have been a pox on the human race.

Author:  cheryl [ August 1st, 2012, 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chronic drought to become common place

I can see it here out east. Every river we crossed except the St. John in NB (including all in QC) have been dry, dry, dry

Author:  frozentripper [ August 3rd, 2012, 8:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chronic drought to become common place

Icebreaker,

Quote:
A hundred years from now, the new era of climate scientists will look back on this time period and laugh about how little they really knew back in the old days.


Something that's laughable right now (and pathetic at the same time), and probably downright bizarre a hundred years from now, is how the environmental issues are taken by the public.... eg. here's David Letterman's take on fracking from several days ago, he begins by saying that he doesn't understand it, then goes on to say he knows that half a dozen states have been ruined by it.



This glop is more likely to reach the average Joe watching TV, than science-based news releases needing more than the average short attention span brought on by popular media.

This will be as weird as watching sixties ads claiming that 9 out of ten doctors prefer to smoke Chesterfields.

<cough>

Author:  frozentripper [ August 5th, 2012, 8:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chronic drought to become common place

The reporting of the numbers in the 3rd paragraph may be in error here... odds are closer to 1 in 10 can't be right.

In other news, Saudis are burning over a million barrels of oil a day on electricity generation, much of that going towards air conditioning.



Quote:
Heat waves blamed on climate change


Global warming is now fact, not theory, scientist says after statistical-based study


By Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press
August 5, 2012

The relentless heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare that it cannot be anything but man-made global warming, according to an analysis by a top U.S. government scientist.

The research says that the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s through the 1980s was rarer than 1 in 300.

Now, the odds are closer to 1 in 10, according to the study by National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientist James Hansen.

He says that, statistically, what is happening is not random or normal, but pure and simple climate change.

"This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact," Hansen told The Associated Press in an interview.

Hansen is a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University. He is also a strident activist who has called for government action to curb greenhouse gases for years. While his study was published online Saturday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, it is unlikely to sway opinion among remaining skeptics.

However, several climate scientists praised the new work.

In a blunt departure from most climate research, Hansen's study - based on statistics, not the more typical climate modelling - blames these three heat waves purely on global warming:

- Last year's devastating Texas-Oklahoma drought.

- The 2010 heat waves in Russia and the Middle East, which led to thousands of deaths.

- The 2003 European heat wave blamed for tens of thousands of deaths, especially among the elderly in France.

The analysis was written before the current drought and record-breaking temperatures that have seared much of the United States this year. But Hansen believes this too is another prime example of global warming at its worst.

The new research makes the case for the severity of global warming in a different way than most scientific studies and uses simple math instead of relying on complex climate models or an understanding of atmospheric physics. It also does not bother with the usual caveats about individual weather events having numerous causes.

The increase in the chance of extreme heat, drought and heavy downpours in certain regions is so huge that scientists should stop hemming and hawing, Hansen said. "This is happening often enough, over a big enough area that people can see it happening," he said.

Scientists have generally responded that it is impossible to say whether single events are caused by global warming because of the influence of natural weather variability.

However, that position has shifted in recent months, as other studies too have concluded climate change is happening right before our eyes.

Hansen hopes his new study will shift people's thinking about climate change and goad governments into action.

The science in Hansen's study is excellent "and reframes the question," said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria, who was a member of the Nobel Prize-winning international panel of climate scientists that issued a series of reports on global warming.

"Rather than say, 'Is this because of climate change?' That's the wrong question. What you can say is, 'How likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming?' It's so extraordinarily unlikely that it has to be due to global warming," Weaver said.

For years, scientists have run complex computer models using combinations of various factors to see how likely a weather event would happen with and without global warming.

About 25 different aspects of climate change have been formally attributed to man-made greenhouse gases in dozens of formal studies. But these are generally broad and non-specific, such as more heat waves in some regions and heavy rainfall in others.

Another upcoming study by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, links the 2010 Russian heat wave to global warming by looking at the underlying weather that caused the heat wave. He called Hansen's paper an important one that helps to communicate the problem.

However, previous studies had been unable to link the two, and one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that the Russian drought, which also led to devastating wildfires, was not related to global warming.


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology ... story.html

Author:  frozentripper [ August 7th, 2012, 8:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chronic drought to become common place

Former climate change skeptic reverses position (skeptic, not denier, as some politically motivated types will be).

Some good comments on the need for skepticism in science, esp relevant here wrt the debates going on years ago. We move forward, one step at a time.


Quote:
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012

Berkeley, Calif.



CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

...

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.


Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... wanted=all

Author:  frozentripper [ August 10th, 2012, 8:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chronic drought to become common place

In the news this morning, no nuclear power permits will be issued in America until waste disposal safety is ensured... this will kill any hope of having nukes reduce GHG emissions since waste disposal has been hot news for a long time now.

In the bigger picture, no big deal wrt climate warming (the gory details are out there) since coal is still the mainstay of power generation around the world and coal use is still increasing. More localized air quality problems and environmental problems from strip mining should be reduced with the recent shift away from coal to nat gas.

With the election due a few months from now, this is starting to look like something the coal industry lobby might have done to increase demand in return for some votes... naw, can't be, Obama's EPA hates coal.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/