Home » Climate Change
Category Archives: Climate Change
Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5 billion metric tons, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency. The increase occurred because of a 2.1% increase in the global amount of energy consumed. Figure 1 shows the trend on energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.
(Click on figure for larger view.)
More than 40% of the increase in energy consumption was driven by China and India. (See Figure 2) The result was an almost 150 million metric ton increase in China’s carbon dioxide emissions from energy. India’s emissions are not broken out, but carbon dioxide emissions from the rest of developing Asia (ex-China) were approximately 125 million metric tons higher than in 2016 (amounts are not precise because they are read from a graph).
Some countries had lower carbon dioxide emissions. The biggest decline came from the USA, where emissions declined 25 million metric tons, or 0.5%. In Mexico, emissions dropped 4%, and in the United Kingdom they dropped 3.8%. Way to go Mexico and United Kingdom! Because those countries consume far less energy than does the USA, the raw number of metric tons reduced was less than in the USA, despite the percentage being higher.
Last December I published a post reporting that worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from energy had held constant for the three years ending in 2016. What happened?
Figure 3 shows the drivers of the change in carbon dioxide emissions. Energy intensity (in yellow) has decreased every year since 2011, meaning that it required less energy to produce a unit of economic output. The rate at which energy intensity improved seemed to grow until 2015, but the rate of improvement seems to have slowed since then. Carbon dioxide intensity also seems to have improved in many of the years (meaning that less carbon dioxide is released per unit of energy produced, most likely from cleaner fuel). On the other hand, economic growth has occurred in every year. It accelerated in 2017, and its effect overwhelmed the effects of the other two drivers.
Figure 4 shows the annual growth in energy consumption by fuel. The chart shows that from 2006-2015, there was an average increase in consumption of all types of energy except nuclear. In 2016, however, there was a significant reduction in demand for energy from burning coal. Readers of this blog know that represents an important achievement, as coal emits more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than do the other fuels. However, in 2017, that achievement reversed itself, and demand for energy from burning coal rose again.
In 2017, the largest increase in energy demand was met by burning natural gas. The second largest increase in energy demand was met by renewable energy.
Overall, the report is not good news. As readers of this blog know, to prevent the worst effects of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions need to peak, and then be significantly reduced. There is no sign that is occurring. To quote the report:
The IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario charts a path towards meeting long-term climate goals. Under this scenario, global emissions need to peak soon and decline steeply to 2020; this decline will now need to be even greater given the increase in emissions in 2017. The share of low-carbon energy sources must increase by 1.1 percentage points every year, more than five-times the growth registered in 2017. In the power sector, specifically, generation from renewable sources must increase by an average 700 TWh annually in that scenario, an 80% increase compared to the 380 TWh increase registered in 2017. (International Energy Agency, 2018, p. 4)
International Energy Agency. 2018. Global Energy & CO2 Status Report, 2017. Downloaded 4/18/2018 from https://www.iea.org/geco.
Arctic sea ice apparently reached its annual maximum extent on March 17, 2018, and it was the second lowest in the record, according to a report from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Each summer the arctic warms, and as it does, the sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean melts, reaching an annual low-point in late summer. Then, each winter the arctic cools, the surface of the ocean freezes, and the area covered by sea ice expands. The sea ice reaches its maximum extent in late winter, this year on March 17.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center tracks the extent of the sea ice using satellite images, as shown in Figure 1. The map is a polar view, with the North Pole in the center, the sea ice in white, and the ocean in blue. The land forms are in gray, with North America at lower left, and Eurasia running from Spain at lower right to the Russian Far East at the top. The magenta line shows the 1981-2010 average extent of the ice for the month of March. It doesn’t look like much on the map, but the anomaly in 2018 amounts to 436,300 square miles less than average.
(Click on figure for larger view.)
Figure 2 shows the trend in Arctic sea ice from 1979-2018. The declining trend is easy to see. (The y-axis does not extend to zero to better show the change.) The National Snow and Ice Data Center applied a linear regression trend line to the data (blue line), and the trend shows an average loss of 16,400 square miles per year.
What about the annual minimum? That has been shrinking, too. Figure 3 shows the Arctic sea ice minimum in 1980, and Figure 4 shows it in 2012. The prevailing winds tend to blow the ice up against Greenland and the far northern islands of Canada, but you can see that in 1980 most of the sea, from the Canadian islands, to Greenland, to the Svalbard Islands, to Severnaya Zemla (anybody remember the Bond movie “GoldenEye?”), to the north of Far Eastern Russia, was covered by ice. In 2012, however, more than half of the Arctic Sea was ice-free, from north of the Svalbard Islands right around to the Canadian Islands. Even the famed Northwest Passage, a channel through the Canadian Islands, was open.
Figure 5 charts the trend in the annual minimum. At its low in 2012, it was less than half of what it was in 1980.
The volume of the polar ice cap also depends on how thick the ice is. Satellites can photograph the entire ice cap, but data on thickness come to us from on-site measurements at a limited number of points. I don’t have a chart to share with you, but the data seem to indicate that compared to the years 1958-1976, in 2003-2007 the thickness had declined about 50% to 64%, depending on where the measurement was taken. (This change is approximate, being read off of a graph by Kwok and Rothrock, 2009.)
Thus, the decline in the arctic ice cap is actually much larger than suggested by the change in its extent.
Why does arctic sea ice matter? First, Arctic sea ice does not form primarily from snowfall, as does the snowcap in the western United States. Arctic sea ice forms because the temperature is low enough to cause the surface of the water to freeze, just as the your local pond or lake freezes if it gets cold enough. Thus, declining Arctic sea ice is a sign that the Arctic is warming. The Arctic seems to be the part of the planet that is warming the most from climate change, and this is a clear and graphic sign of that change.
Oddly, the warming arctic is one reason for the bizarre weather we have had in Missouri this winter. As noted in a post on 1/22/2015, the warming arctic weakens the polar vortex, which allows arctic cold to escape and travel south, impacting us in Missouri. Figure 6 shows the anomaly in Arctic temperatures from December, 2017 through February, 2018, in C. While it was warm over the entire Arctic, as much as 7°C above average (12.6°F), it was 2-3°C cooler than average over North America (3.6-5.4°F).
Second, it matters because ice is white, but the ocean is blue. That means that sunlight hitting ice reflects back towards space, and is not absorbed. Being blue, however, the ocean absorbs the light, and converts the energy to heat. This reflective capacity is called “albedo,” and the albedo of ocean is less than that of ice. Thus, the ice is melting because of global warming, but then, the melting contributes to even more global warming through the change in albedo. People are fond of saying that the earth has buffering mechanisms that tend to inhibit large climate changes, and such mechanisms do exist, but not everywhere in all things. This is one example where the earth shows positive feedback that destabilizes the climate even further.
Melting Arctic ice is not a major factor in the rising sea level. The reason is that the ice is already in the water. When the ice in your glass of iced tea melts, it doesn’t make the glass overflow. In the same way, as this ice melts, it has only a small effect on sea level. On the other hand, the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap are not already in the water, and as they melt, they do affect sea level.
One final word: the data above are not computer models of future events. They are the best data available of what has already been happening, and what is happening now. To deny the reality of climate change is like denying that a river will flood, even as its water already swirls around your knees.
Kwok, R., and D./A. Rothrock. 2009. “Decline in Arctic Sea Ice Thickness from Submarine and ICESat Records: 1958-2008. Beophysical Research Letters 36:L15501. Cited in National Snow & Ice Data Center. State of the Cryosphere. Viewed online 4/12/2018 at http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html.
NASA Global Climate Change. Arctic Sea Ice Minimum. Downloaded 4/12/18 from https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice.
NASA Scientific Visualization Studio. Annual Arsctic Sea Ice Minimum 1979-2015 with Area Graph. Downloaded 4/12/18 from https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4435.
NASA Scientific Visualization Studio. Annual Arsctic Sea Ice Minimum 1979-2015 with Area Graph. Downloaded 4/12/18 from https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4435.
National Snow & Ice Data Center. “2018 Winter Arctic Sea Ice: Bering Down. Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis. 4/4/2018. Downloaded 4/12/2018 from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews.
The western snowpack was seriously below average this year, and it was way below average in the Lower Colorado Region.
It is early April, and that means it is time to check-in with snowpack data in California and the American West. On average, the snowpack reaches its maximum by April 1, after which it begins to shrink as it melts away. California and much of the West have a monsoonal precipitation pattern: the bulk of the yearly precipitation falls during the winter. Because the summer and fall are so dry, many regions depend on melting snow, which they collect into reservoirs. The snowpack serves as a kind of natural reservoir, collecting precipitation during the winter, and releasing it gradually as the snow melts.
Snowpack is measured in inches of water equivalent. To equal an inch of melted water requires between 7 and 20 inches of snow, depending on how slushy or powdery the snow is. To quantify the snowpack, scientists calculate how many inches of snow are on the ground, and how much water it would represent if it were instantaneously melted. The result is called the snow water equivalent. Thus, 1 inch of snow water equivalent means that, no matter how deep the snow is lying on the ground, if you melted it, it would equal 1 inch of water.
Figure 1 shows the snowpack in California for the three major snow regions: North, Central, and South, with the snow water equivalent given along the vertical axis on the left. The dark blue line represents the 2017-2018 winter, and the line ends on March 29. The blue number at the end of each blue line represents the snow water equivalent of this year’s snowpack as a percentage of the historical average for that date. At lower right the three regions are combined into a single number, representing the snow water content of the entire state’s snowpack for 3/29/18. At the bottom left the chart shows the statewide percentage compared to what’s average for April 1.
Through the end of February, this winter was the second driest on record, and the snowpack was something like 20% of average. March was a wet month, however, tripling the snowpack. Even so, that only brought it up to a statewide average of 57%.
California also depends on water from outside of the state, especially water from the Colorado River. Figure 2 shows readings for the entire region upon which California draws. It encompasses much of the southwestern United States. The data for this map come from a different data set than the ones in the previous chart, and thus the data for California are slightly different. (Most of the difference probably arises from using somewhat different reference periods to represent “average.”)
As you can see, the entire region has had a smaller than average snowpack. However, the snowpack in the Lower Colorado Region is particularly worrisome, as it is only 21% of average.
The Mammoth Mountain Ski Resort publishes a detailed history of the snowfall at the resort, and I use it as an example of the snowfall in a given California location. Figure 3 shows the data. The total amount of snow at Mammoth Mountain through March 31 was 248 inches this year, compared to an average of 308 over the period from 1969-2018. The length of the colored bars for 2018 illustrates that more than half of the snow for the whole season fell during March. The chart also shows just how wet a winter it was last year, the second wettest in the record. Bear in mind that Mammoth Mountain is measuring snowfall, not snowpack.
So, measurements of the snowpack indicate that it is seriously below average. What, then, is the status of California’s water supply? The quick answer is that for this year they should be fine.
California’s water supply is impacted this year by an extraordinary circumstance: in February, 2017, the Oroville Dam suffered a failure of the main and emergency spillways, leading to the evacuation of 188,000 people lest the dam fail entirely (see here). It didn’t fail, but since then the reservoir has been partially emptied to facilitate repairs and improvements.
Figure 4 shows the data for the largest California reservoirs. On the chart, the blue bars represent the level of each reservoir on March 30, while the yellow bars represent the maximum capacity. The red line represents the historical average level of each reservoir on March 30. The blue number below the bars represents the amount of water in each reservoir compared to its capacity, while the red number represents the amount of water compared to the historical average for March 30.
As you can see, most of the reservoirs are at or above their average for March 30, and only Lake Oroville is considerably below average. The region around Santa Barbara, however, remains in a serious drought. The two largest reservoirs in Santa Barbara County, the Cachuma and Twitchell Reservoirs, are at 40% and 2% of capacity, respectively (not shown on the chart).
In addition to the California reservoir system, southern California relies heavily on water from the Colorado River. Lake Mead, the largest reservoir on the Colorado River, has been overused for years, and was even forecast to have a strong chance of going dry (see here). Figure 5 plots the water level at Lake Mead over the past year. Each year it fills with the spring snowmelt, and then is drawn down throughout the rest of the year. Beginning just after 2000 Lake Mead has suffered a steady and rather alarming drop. Last year, for the first time in many years, Lake Mead showed a year-to-year increase in its water storage. This year, as of April 1, the water level of Lake Mead is basically unchanged from last year.
Lake Powell, a large reservoir upstream from Lake Mead, is up 16 feet from last year on this date. That is a significant increase, and it comes entirely from the large snowpack last year.
So, what does all this mean? The snowpack this year was seriously below average, and it was way below average in the Lower Colorado drainage region. California’s reservoirs, however, appear to be in good shape except in the region around Santa Barbara. Lake Mead has not lost additional water, and the fact that Lake Powell has gained water means that officials may be able to move water from there to Lake Mead if needed. Thus, the water supply, for this year may be sufficient for California and for those regions that draw on the Colorado River below Lake Mead.
It is worrisome, however, that after having experienced a severe multi-year drought, and then only 1 year of high precipitation, California and the Southwest have returned to below average snowpacks. I have reported previously that climate predictions include a permanent reduction of the snowpack throughout the West (see here) and in California (see here). We will have to keep watching over many years to see how this plays out.
California Department of Water Resources, California Data Exchange Center. Reservoir Conditions, 4/1/2018. Downloaded 4/2/2018 from http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/products/rescond.pdf.
California Department of Water Resources, California Data Exchange Center. California Statewide Water Conditions, Current Year Regional Snow Sensor Water Content Chart (PDF). Downloaded 4/1/2018 from https://cdec.water.ca.gov/water_cond.html.
Mammoth Mountain Ski Resort. Snow Conditions and Weather. Viewed online 4/1/2018 at https://www.mammothmountain.com/winter/mountain-information/mountain-information/snow-conditions-and-weather.
National Resources Conservation Service. Open the Interactive Map. Select “Basins Only.” On the map, select “Percent oNCRS 1981-2010 Average,” “Region,” “Watershed Labels,” and “Parameter.” Downloaded 4/2/2018 from https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/snow_map.html.
Santa Barbara County Flood Control District. Rainfall and Reservoir Summary, 4/1/2018. Viewed online 4/2/2018 at https://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/pwd/Content/Water/Documents/rainfallreport.pdf.
We know that emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere causes climate change. We also know that climate change is causing damage, and that it will cause even greater damage in the future. But how much damage? Can anybody put a dollar sign on the cost?
That is just what a group called the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (IWGSCGG) tries to do. The task is especially difficult because the damage caused by carbon dioxide does not occur when it is first emitted. Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for 80-100 years, and it continues to cause global warming the whole time it is there. The damages from carbon dioxide emitted today will continue to accrue over the entire 80-100 years. As the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise, climate change will accelerate, and the damage it causes will increase. Thus, a metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2050 is expected to cause more damage than a ton emitted in 2010.
First the numbers, then some background on what it means. The IWGSCGG uses several different methods to estimate the future costs of carbon emissions. Then they average the estimates and adjust them for inflation back to 2007 dollars. In calculations of this sort, the assumed inflation rate often has a large effect on the outcome.
In Table 1, the left column represents years in which a ton of CO2 might be emitted. The next three columns each assume a different inflation rate. The column on the far right represents similar information as the 3.0% Discount Average column, except instead of taking the average damage cost estimate, they took the 95th percentile. The idea is that, if inflation is 3.0%, the odds are 95% that the cost of the damage will be no higher than the values in this column.
The 3% discount rate is the one the author’s adopt as their most likely scenario. So, to say this data in plain English:
The most plausible estimate of the damage caused by each metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere in 2010 is $31. The damage caused by each metric ton emitted in 2015 is $36, and for each metric ton emitted in 2020 it will be $42, and for each metric ton emitted 2050 it will be $69.
Compared to estimates made in 2013, the damages are estimated to be 1-2 dollars less per metric ton.
In 2010, the United States emitted an estimated 5,736.4 million metric tons of CO2. At $32 per metric ton, that equates to $183.6 billion. The GDP of the United States in 2010 was $14,958 billion, so the damage is roughly equal to 1.2% of our total economic output.
Why is this estimate important? Policy makers need to analyze the costs and benefits of the programs they mandate. Avoided future damage is a significant benefit, so they need to estimate how much future cost is avoided. The report suggests that the United States could spend up to $183.6 billion per year to reduce CO2 emissions, and be paid back by the damage prevented.
This report is an update of the second IWGSCGG report, issued in 2013. The cost estimates changed between reports because of increased knowledge about climate change and improvements in the computer models used to make the estimates. There is still considerable uncertainty here, but the IWGSCGG estimate may be the best estimate available.
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. 2016. Technical Support Document: – Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis – Under Executive Order 12866. Downloaded 3/20/2018 from https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
For U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: EPA > Climate Change > Emissions > National Data, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.
For U.S. GDP: Bureau of Economic Analysis > National Economic Accounts > Current Dollar and “Real” GDP (Excel Spreadsheet). http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp.
This post will focus on a few articles published recently that highlight effects that climate change is already having around the world. Though the phenomena studied in them occurred far away, they will have important consequences for us here in the USA, and even in Missouri.
Climate Change Causes Migration
Human migration into Europe has become a large political and humanitarian problem. European countries have been struggling to provide the basic services that the migrants need, and to find ways to integrate them into society. The problem of immigration has been one of the forces leading to Brexit, and to the upsurge in right-wing populism around the world (including here in America).
Missirian and Schlenker (2017) studied European asylum applications from 103 source countries, and found that the number of migrants from each country related to the weather in that country. In colder countries, when the temperature decreased, asylum applications increased. Conversely, in hot countries, when the temperature increased, asylum applications increased, and they did so in a non-linear fashion – small increases in temperature could lead to large increases in applications. Far more migrants have come to the EU from hot countries (Africa, the Middle East) than from cold countries, thus the temperature increase is the more important effect.
Holding everything else constant, Figure 1 shows the predicted increase in asylum applications by change in temperature. The red line shows the predicted increase, the shaded areas show the 90% and 99% confidence intervals. The blue line at the top should be read against the right vertical axis, and it represents the probability that asylum applications will increase. The more temperature increases, the more asylum applications are predicted to increase. Under the high emissions scenario, by the end of the century, applications are predicted to increase by 188%.
The study didn’t include migration into the USA from countries south of our border, but I suspect that the basic findings would apply here, as well. In fact, I already reported (here) that in 2014 the CNA Military Advisory Board concluded that climate change would become one of the most significant threats to national security faced by our nation. Climate change would lead to increased migration around the world, which would lead to political instability, which would cause conflicts to break out. Given the difficulty that Europe is having coping with the current problem, and that the problem could nearly triple in size by the end of the century, the Military Advisory Board’s conclusion doesn’t seem too far off. (May, 2014)
The Shrimp Are Gone From Maine
Northern Shrimp are a species of shrimp that require cold water in order to spawn. Maine has been the southern limit of their historical habitat, and they have represented a small but valuable fishery for New England states. Since 2012, the total biomass of shrimp estimated by the Gulf of Maine Summer Shrimp Survey have been the lowest on record. (Figure 2) Managers have closed the waters to shrimp fishing from 2014-2018 in an attempt to prevent shrimp from being completely eliminated from Maine waters. (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2017)
The primary cause of the decline is climate change. Ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Main have increased at a rate of about 0.5°F per year – that is incredibly fast, almost 8 times faster than the global rate. Figure 3 shows the data. The blue lines show the 15-day average water temperature anomaly in the Gulf of Maine from 1980 to 2015. The black dots show the average annual temperature anomaly, and the dashed line shows the trend over the whole time period. The red line shows the trend for the decade from 2005 to 2015.
It is easy to see that the ocean has been warming. The shrimp don’t spawn well in the warmer water, so they are dying out. (Evans-Brown, 2014)
The warmer temperatures have affected more than shrimp. As temperature has increased, cod have also declined, to the point that they are now commercially extinct in the New England fishery. With the cod, a failure to recognize the effect of global warming caused fishery regulators to keep the permitted catch at a high level that could not be sustained, and they were basically fished out out existence. The moratorium on shrimp fishing is an attempt to prevent a similar occurrence. (Pershing et al 2015)
Fishing, especially off New England, was the first colonial industry when Europeans came to America. Over the past century, several species have collapsed and no longer support viable commercial fishing: Atlantic halibut, ocean perch, haddock, and yellowtail flounder. These once fed millions of Americans. No more. Even the venerable Atlantic cod, once so numerous that it was said you could walk from America to England stepping on their backs, are commercially extinct. We are killing the oceans. More below. (NOAA Fisheries Service, 2017)
Global Warming Is Ravaging Coral Reefs
To live, coral requires a symbiotic relationship with certain species of algae. Coral bleaching occurs when stressful conditions cause the algae to be expelled from the coral, which then turns white. If algae don’t reenter the coral quickly enough, the coral will starve to death.
Before global warming, bleaching events were relatively rare, and reefs had enough time to recover between them. Scientists looked at 100 reefs globally and found that the average interval between bleaching events is now less than half of what it was previously. It is now only 6 years, which is not enough time for recovery. Figure 4 shows the findings. Chart A in the figure shows the number of locations experiencing bleaching events in a given year. You can see that the trend increases left to right, and that the worst years have all occurred in the most recent 2 decades. Chart B in the figure shows the cumulative number of locations that have remained free of bleaching over the time period in blue, and the total cumulative number of bleaching events in red. You can see that, over time, none of the locations have escaped bleaching, and that the number of bleaching events has topped 600. Chart C shows the frequency of bleaching events at individual locations. Almost 30 locations have experienced 3 severe bleaching events, and a similar number have experienced 8 or more bleaching events in total. Chart D counts intervals between bleaching events, and how many times each interval occurred. It used to be (1980-1999) that the most common interval was 10-12 years. Recently, however (2000-2016), an interval of 4-6 years was the most common. (Hughes et al 2018, Pols 2017) Thus, the data show that bleaching has spread to the point that none of the locations escaped it altogether, almost 1/3 of them have experienced 8 bleaching events of some kind, almost 1/3 have experienced 3 severe events, and the most common interval between events has shrunk to half of what it was previously.
The main culprit is global warming. Coral survives only in a relatively narrow temperature band, and if the water temperature rises too high, bleaching occurs. Temperatures have, indeed, risen. As noted above in the section on the Gulf of Maine, in some places they have increased incredibly quickly.
Coral reefs are like oases. In the desert, oases are separated by vast distances where life is scarce. Similarly, coral reefs are often separated by vast distances where life is scarce. Reefs, however, support thousands of species in great abundance. Though the reefs occupy less than 0.1% of the ocean’s surface, they support at least 25% of all marine species. (NOAA Fisheries Service 2018)
These phenomena, though occurring far away, are all signs that the basic systems that support life on this planet as we know it are in danger. If we think that they could not collapse, we are seriously kidding ourselves. They may be collapsing already. If we dream that we will somehow escape being affected, we need to wake up.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2017. Northern Shrimp Species Profile. Viewed online 2/6/2018 at http://www.asmfc.org/species/northern-shrimp.
Evans-Brown, Sam. “Gulf of Maine Is Warming Faster Than Most of World’s Oceans.” New Hampshire Public Radio. Viewed online 2/6/2018 at http://nhpr.org/post/gulf-maine-warming-faster-most-worlds-oceans.
Hughes, Terry P., Kristen D. Anderson, Sean R. Connolly, Scott F. Heron, James T. Kerry, Janice M. Lough, Andrew H. Baird, Julia K. Baum, Michael L. Berumen, Tom C. Bridge, Danielle C. Claar, C. Mark Eakin, James P. Gilmour, Nicholas A. J. Graham Hugo Harrison, Jean-Paul A. Hobbs, Andrew S. Hoey, Mia Hoogenboom, Ryan J. Lowe, Malcolm T. McCulloch, John M. Pandolfi, Morgan Pratchett. Verena Schoepf, Gergely Torda, Shaun K. Wilson. 2018. “Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Mass Bleaching of Corals in the Anthropocene. Science 359 (6371), 80-83.
Missirian, Anouch, and Wolfram Schlenker. (2017). “Asylum Applications Respond to Temperature Fluctuations.” Science 358 (6370), 1610-1614.
Pershing, Andrew. Michael Alexander, Christina Hernandez, Lisa Kerr, Arnault Le Bris, Katherine Mills, Janet Nye, Nicholas Record, Hillary Scanell, James Scott, Graham Sherwood, and Andrew Thomas. 2015. “Slow Adaptation in the Face of Rapid Warming Leads to Coillapse of the Gulf of Maine Cod Fishery.” Science, 350 (6262), 809-812.
NOAA Fisheries Service. 2017. Brief History of the Groundfishing Industry of New England. Viewed online 2/6/2018 at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/history/stories/groundfish/grndfsh1.html.
Pols, Mary. 2018. “It’s Maine Shrimp Season, Without the Shrimp.” New York Times, 12/26/2017. Downloaded 2/6/2018 from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/dining/maine-shrimp-fishery-climate-change.html.
2017 was the 19th wettest year on record across the contiguous USA.
So says data from Climate-At-A-Glance, the data portal operated by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Figure 1 shows the data, with the green line representing actual yearly precipitation, and the blue line representing the trend across time. The left vertical scale shows inches of precipitation, while the right shows millimeters of precipitation. In 2017, the average precipitation across the contiguous USA was 32.21 inches, which was the 19th highest amount in the record. Over time, precipitation seems to be increasing at about 0.17 inches per decade. The trend towards more precipitation is present in the Eastern Climate Region (+0.25 inches per decade), the Southern Climate Region (+0.22 inches per decade), and the Central Climate Region (+0.22 inches per decade). It is almost absent in the Western Climate Region, however (+0.03 inches per decade). (Except where noted, data is from the Climate-at-a-Glance data portal.)
(Click on figure for larger view.)
In Missouri, 2017 was the 51st wettest year on record, with 41.22 inches of precipitation. (Figure 2) This puts the year slightly above the long-term average. As expected, the variation from year-to-year is much larger than the change in precipitation over time, but since 1895 Missouri has trended towards about 0.24 inches more precipitation per decade.
The interesting thing about Missouri’s precipitation is that in each of the last 2 years, concentrated storm systems have moved across the state from southwest to northeast, roughly following the route of I-44. They have led to huge amounts of rain over periods of a couple of days, resulting in damaging flooding. (See here and here.) This pattern is the one predicted by climate change models – slightly increased precipitation occurring in heavy precipitation events, with longer, drier spells between. (Drier because increased temperatures will cause the soil to dry out more quickly.)
The Northern Rockies and Plains are where most of the water that flows into the Missouri River originates, and the Missouri River provides water to more Missourians than any other source. This region saw 21.17 inches of precipitation in 2017, some 0.28 inches below average. (Figure 3) As expected, the variation between years is much larger than the change over time, but here, too, precipitation has been increasing, though the change has only been +0.07 inches per decade.
What to watch for in Missouri, then, does not appear to be a decrease in average yearly precipitation, but two other issues. First, demand for water has been increasing. Will it grow to outstrip the supply? Second, climate change is causing precipitation that once fell as snow to fall as rain. This changes the timing of when the Missouri River receives the runoff. Will that affect the ability of the river to supply water to meet the demand for water? So far, these answers are not known. (For a more extended discussion, see here.)
The water situation in California is more serious than it is in the Northern Rockies and Plains, Missouri, or contiguous USA. California has a monsoonal precipitation pattern, and it has regions that receive a great deal of precipitation, while other regions receive little, if any. Consequently, the state relies on snowfall during the winter, which runs off during the spring and early summer, and is collected into reservoirs. This water is then distributed around the state. Thus, the amount of water contained in the snowpack on April 1, which is when it historically started melting in earnest, has been seen to be crucial to California’s water status.
After a severe, multi-year drought, last year was a big water year in California. (Figure 4) They received huge amounts of snow during January and February. For instance, the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area received 408 inches of snow during the 2 months. (Mammoth Mountain 2018) Over the whole year California received 27.63 inches of precipitation. That is the 22nd highest amount in the record, and it is 5.24 inches more than average.
Unfortunately, this winter is not being as kind to California as last year, at least not so far. December, 2017, was the 2nd driest December on record, with only 1989 being dryer. The snowpack measurements suggest that the state has only about 22% of the snowpack that is average for this time of year (Figure 5, data as of 1/22/2018, California Snowpack Survey 2018) This is echoed by data from the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, which reports only 73 inches of snow to date, vs. 349.5 inches through the end of January last year. (As I write, there are a few days left in January, but it still looks like a very serious shortfall to me.)
The snowpack is also below average in the Colorado River Basin above Lake Powell, the other major source for California’s water. As of 1/28/2018, the snowpack is only 65% of the average for this date. (National Resource Conservation Service, 1/28/2018) Now, snow tends to fall during storms, and there is no predicting when the storms will come. February and March could still bring much-needed snow. But California just got out of a terrible multi-year drought, and it would be very disappointing if it went right back into another after only 1 year.
ADDENDUM: A few days after I wrote this article, the New York Times published one on the water crisis in Cape Town, South Africa. That city is only about 3 months from running completely out of water. This blog focuses on statistics and big pictures. If you want a perspective on what such a crisis might actually look like in an urban area, I recommend the Times article.
California Data Exchange Center, Department of Water Resources. Current Year Regional Snow Sensor Water Content Chart (PDF). Downloaded 1/22/2018 from https://cdec.water.ca.gov/water_cond.html.
Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. 2018. Snow Conditions and Weather: Snow History. Viewed online 1/15/2018 at NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: U.S. Time Series, published January 2018, retrieved on January 15, 2018 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag.
Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Upper Colorado River Basin SNOTEL Snowpack Update Report. Viewed online 1/28/2018 at https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/reports/UpdateReport.html?textReport.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: U.S. Time Series, published January 2018, retrieved on January 15, 2018 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag.
2017 was the 2nd warmest year on record globally, and the 3rd warmest for the contiguous USA.
Figure 1 shows the average annual temperature for the Earth from 1880-2017. The chart shows the temperature as an anomaly. That means that they calculated the mean annual temperature for the whole series, and then presented the data as a deviation from that mean. Degrees Celsius are on the left vertical axis, and degrees Fahrenheit are on the right. Because the earth contains very hot regions near the equator and very cold polar regions, the actual mean temperature has relatively little meaning, and Climate-at-a Glance does not include it in their chart. (Except where noted, all data is from NOAA, Climate at a Glance.) 2016 was the highest on record, but 2017 was second. The 4 highest readings have all occurred within the last 4 years. You can see that the Earth appears to have been in a cooling trend until around 1910, then a warming trend until mid-Century, then a cooling period until the late 1960s or early 1970s, and then a warming period since 1970. Over the whole series, the warming trend has been 0.07°C per decade, which equals 0.13°F per decade. Since 1970, however, the warming has accelerated to 0.18°C per decade (0.32°F).
(Click on chart for larger view.)
Figure 2 shows the average yearly temperature for the contiguous United States from 1895 to 2017. In this chart and those that follow, the vertical axes are reversed, with °F on the left vertical axis, and °C on the right. The purple line shows the data, and the blue line shows the trend. 2017 was the 3rd highest in the record at 54.58°F. The 4 highest readings have all come within the last 6 years. Over time, the average temperature has increased 0.15°F per decade. Since 1970, however, the rate has increased to 0.52°F per decade.
Figure 3 shows the average temperature across Missouri for 2017. Across the state, it was the 8th warmest year on record, with an average temperature of 57.1°F. In Missouri, the warming trend from 1930-1950 was more moderate than it was nationally, and the trend has been for a 0.1°F increase in temperature each decade. Since 1970, however, the increase has accelerated to 0.4°F per decade.
Because conditions in the Northern Rockies and Plains affect how much water flows into the Missouri River, which provides more of Missouri’s water supply than any other source, I have also tracked climate statistics for that region. Figure 4 shows the data. Last year was the 11th warmest in the record at 44.9°F. This region has been warming at a rate of 0.2°F per decade over the whole period, but since 1970, the rate has accelerated to 0.5°F per decade.
Because I have been concerned about the water supply in California, I also track the climate statistics for that state. Figure 5 shows the data. Last year was the third warmest year in the record, with an average temperature of 60.3°F. California has been warming at a rate of 0.2°F each decade. Since 1970 the rate of increase has accelerated to 0.5°F per decade.
In all 4 locations the average yearly temperature seems to have increased significantly for several decades, then paused during mid-Century, and then resumed climbing, but at an accelerated rate. There seems to be little doubt that across the country it is warmer than it was. In Missouri, the average yearly temperature has been increasing, but at a rate that is somewhat less than in the other locations I looked at.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: U.S. Time Series, published January 2018, retrieved on January 15, 2018 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag.
We’ve had some cold weather in Missouri recently. St. Louis hit -6°F on New Years Day, while Kansas City hit -11°F. But these are not records. The record low on New Years day is -10°F in St. Louis, and -13°F in Kansas City.
Kansas City’s all-time record low is -23°F, which occurred in December 1989.
Figure 1 shows a chart for each winter (December, January, and February). Blue columns are the number of days with a low temperature at or below 0°F in St. Louis, and they run from 1874 to 2016. Red columns are for Kansas City, and they run from 1888 to 2016. The dashed blue line represents the trend over time for St. Louis, the dashed red line for Kansas City. You can see that the number of days varies widely from year-to-year. Many years have 1 day, or even none. In St. Louis the maximum number of days was 18, and it occurred in the winter that began in December 1935. In Kansas City, the maximum number of days was 19, and it occurred twice: in 1935 and 1978.
The trend lines show that in Kansas City, the number of days has not been changing over time. In St. Louis, however, the number of days has decreased over time.
(Click on figure for larger view.)
One can count the number of winters that had 0 days below 0°F, the number of winters that had 1 day, the number of winters that had 2 days, etc. You can then construct a frequency chart of how many years had each number of days. Figure 2 shows such a frequency chart for St. Louis and Kansas City. There have been 54 winters in St. Louis when there were no days with lows at or below 0°F, there have been 28 such winters in Kansas City, and no other number is represented in more years than that.
The number of extremely cold days varies widely from year-to-year, but in St. Louis the average number is 3, and in Kansas City it is 4. St. Louis has experienced 2 days below 0°F this winter, and Kansas City has experienced 4 (both as of 1/16). For comparison, St. Louis has had more than 2 days below 0°F some 51 times since 1874. Kansas City has had more than 4 days below 0°F some 31 times since 1888.
The severe cold began this year on the morning of New Years Day. What about last year? Was it a hot one, or not so hot? The next post will review average temperatures for all of 2017.
National Weather Service, Kansas City Forecast Office. 2018. WFO Monthly/Daily Climate Data. Data viewed online 1/15/2018 at http://w2.weather.gov/climate/getclimate.php?date=&wfo=eax&sid=MCI&pil=CF6&recent=yes&specdate=2017-12-31+11%3A11%3A11.
National Weather Service, St. Louis Forecast Office. 2018. Ranked Occurrences of Temperature <= 32 and 0 Degrees (1893-Present). Downloaded 1/15/2018 from http://www.weather.gove/lsx/cli_archive. (Actually contains data back to 1874).
Personal communication from Spencer Mell, Climate Focal Point, National Weather Service, Kansas City Forecast Office.
2017 was a record year for disasters, and in contrast to recent years, the disasters were focused on the United States.
Worldwide losses from disasters summed to$330 billion in 2017, of which only $135 billion was insured, according to a report from Munich Re, an international reinsurance company. Only one other year has seen greater losses: 2011, when the Tohoku earthquake in Japan led to the devastating tsunami and the nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Reactor. The 2017 total was almost double the average loss over the previous 10 years, even adjusting for inflation ($170 billion). (Except as noted below, data from Munich Re 2017. This is a press release from an insurance company. I generally regard peer-reviewed scientific studies, and government report to be more reliable sources. However, it will be some time before those sources report on this data. So think of these numbers as preliminary data that may undergo some revision.)
The total number of disasters numbered 710, an increase from the 10-year average of 605. In 2017, approximately 10,000 people lost their lives to disasters, which is considerably lower than the 10-year average of 60,000.
The United States accounted for 50% of the losses, compared to the long-term average of 32%, and taking a wider view, North America accounted for 83% of them. The major disasters striking the USA and North America were weather related in 2017 (in contrast to the Tohoku earthquake, which was not). Think back through the year, and quite a list comes to mind:
- Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas on August 26, and devastated the region. With losses summing to approximately $85 billion, it was the costliest disaster of 2017.
- On September 5, Hurricane Irma, the strongest hurricane ever in the open Atlantic, began blowing a swath of destruction through the Caribbean before crossing the Florida Keys, then traveling south-to-north up the Florida Peninsula. Insured losses were $32 billion, uninsured losses are not yet known.
- Hurricane Maria, the second Category 5 hurricane to clobber the Caribbean in 2 weeks, slammed into Dominica on September 18, before totally devastating Puerto Rico. Total losses have not yet been calculated, but as of this writing, almost 3 months later, more than 1/4 of the island of Puerto Rico remains without electricity. (StatusPR 1/8/2018)
- Terrible wildfires swept across North America in 2017. The National Interagency Fire Center has not yet posted summary statistics for the year. However, InciWeb indicates that the largest were two fires in Oklahoma: the Northwest Oklahoma Complex, at 779,292 acres, and the Starbuck Fire, at 623,000 acres. Eleven other fires consumed over 100,000 acres. Of course, the ones that grabbed the headlines were in California. In October, 250 wildfires ignited across Northern California, burning over 245,000 acres and causing more than $9.4 billion in damage; 44 people were killed and 8,900 structures were destroyed. In December, a new round of fires broke out north of Los Angeles and East of Santa Barbara. More than 230,000 people were forced to evacuate, over 1,300 structures were destroyed, and 307,900 acres were consumed. (Inciweb, Wikipedia, 2018).
- During the Spring, a series of severe thunderstorms with accompanying tornadoes and hail, caused insured losses of over $1 billion. These included record floods across Southern Missouri, as 8-12 inches of rain fell over 48 hours in some areas. (National Weather Service 2017)
- In Asia, some 2,700 people lost their lives due to flooding resulting from an extremely severe monsoon season. In some districts, 3/4 of the territory was under water.
The fires that struck California were unprecedented, and yet, the acres burned by the fires in Oklahoma were more than 5 times larger. The devastation wrought by the hurricanes was beyond imagination – whole islands were virtually destroyed.
As reported many times in this blog, weather conditions play a role in hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding. While my reviews have indicated that damage from weather-related disasters is highly variable from year-to-year, there has also been a clear trend toward more damage. While humans play a role by living in harms way, climate change does, too.
The report from Munich Re includes the following statement: “A key point is that some of the catastrophic events…are giving us a foretaste of what is to come. Because even though individual events cannot be directly traced to climate change, our experts expect such extreme weather to occur more often in the future.” (p.2)
More detailed information on disasters and severe weather events in Missouri and the USA will become available later in the year. The next post will look at 2017 summary weather patterns in Missouri and across the USA.
InciWeb, Incident Information System. This is the portal for an interagency information management system. Data was viewed online 1/8/2018 at https://inciweb.nwcg.gov.
Munich Re. 2018. Natural Catastrophe Review: Series of Hurricanes Makes 2017 Year of Highest Insured Losses Ever. Press release downloaded 1/5/2018 from https://www.munichre.com/en/media-relations/publications/press-releases/2018/2018-01-04-press-release/index.html.
National Weather Service. 2017. Historic Flooding Event — 28-30 April 2017. Viewed online 1/8/2018 at https://www.weather.gov/sgf/28-30AprilHistoricFloodingEvent.
StatusPR. Website viewed online 1/8/2018 at http://status.pr.
Wikipedia. 2018. 2017 California Fires. Downloaded 1/8/2018 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_California_wildfires.
A recent article in the New York Times by Eduardo Porter (here) points out that if one considers only carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) from the combustion of fuels, then worldwide emissions have been flat for 3 years in a row.
The finding comes from a news release issued by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Figure 1 shows the data. Between 1980 and 2014, global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion grew from 17.7 billion metric tons to 32.3 billion metric tons. However, in 2015 they stayed at 32.3 billion metric tons, and in 2016 emissions were 32.1 billion metric tons. (IEA 2017a, 2017b)
Since 2005, CO2 emissions from fuel combustion have declined in the OECD from 12.8 billion metric tons to 11.7 billion metric tons, a decline of 8.6%. In the United States, emissions declined from 6.71 billion metric tons to 5.00 metric tons (a decline of 25%). That’s good work, however it needs to be put in context. Compared to 1990, OECD emissions in 2016 were 6.4% higher, and USA emissions were 4.1% higher. (IEA 2017a)
I don’t have breakouts by country for 2016, but in 2015 the world’s largest emitter of CO2 from fuel combustion was the People’s Republic of China (mainland China), at 7.28 billion metric tons. Even China is reducing its emissions, however, by 1% in both 2015 and 2016. (IEA 2017a)
Emissions from fuel combustion may be the best estimate of worldwide emissions available. They constitute the largest percentage of emissions, and it is virtually impossible to inventory how much methane is being released by every bog or permafrost around the world, or how much nitrogen oxide from farm chemicals, etc.
In August I posted that the American Meteorological Society reported that in 2015 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere averaged above 400 ppm for the first time ever. It was my opinion that this was terrible news: 400 ppm was something akin to a threshold we needed not to cross in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. We crossed it decades before anybody thought we would. Further, the concentration of greenhouse gases was continuing to increase, and the rate of increase seemed, if anything, to be growing over time. Figure 2 repeats the chart showing the trend over time.
How can one reconcile that post with the new findings? Imagine you are on the Titanic, and an hour ago the ship struck an iceberg. The ship’s crew happily reports that the amount of water getting into the ship is no longer increasing minute-by-minute. Well, that’s nice to hear, but water is still pouring into the ship, and unless you can stop the water getting in, the ship will still sink. The CO2 situation is similar, but in reverse. The rate at which the world is putting CO2 into the atmosphere may not be going up, but we are still putting billions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year. It is more than enough to cause climate change. We don’t need emissions to flatten, we need them to decrease to a fraction of what they are today.
So, it is good news that worldwide emissions have not grown over the last 3 years. Perhaps it even tends to validate the efforts we’ve been making: maybe moving away from fossil fuels, especially coal, has helped stabilize emissions. But we have a long way to go before we stop this vessel of ours from sinking.
UPDATE: The Global Carbon Project released a report published 11/13/2017 (after this post was written) that projects 2017 carbon emissions from combustion of fuels will increase 2% from 2016. If their estimates prove correct, then the period of flat emissions will be over, and emissions will have resumed their upward climb. (Global Carbon Project, 2017)
Earth System Research Laboratory. 2017. Full Mauna Loa CO2 Record. Downloaded 2017-06-15 from https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends.
Global Carbon Project. 2017. Global Carbon Budget: Summary Highlights. Viewed online 11/15/2017 at http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/17/highlights.htm.
International Energy Agency. 2017a. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion: Highlights. Downloaded 11/09/2017 from https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2EmissionsfromFuelCombustionHighlights2017.pdf
International Energy Agency. 2017b. IEA Finds CO2 Emissions Flat for Third Straight Year Even as Global Economy Grew in 2016. Downloaded 2017-11-09 from https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.html.