Drastic Climate Changes Forecast

From: Jayne Musumba (jayne@sidsnet.org)
Date: Mon Jun 12 2000 - 13:29:24 EDT

  • Next message: Anna Elaise: "PACIFIC: Linking Science and Policy"

    Drastic Climate Changes Forecast

    By Curt Suplee
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, June 12, 2000; Page A03

    Global warming in the 21st century will likely cause drastic
    changes in the climate of the United States, including
    potentially severe droughts, increased risk of flood, mass
    migrations of species, substantial shifts in agriculture and
    widespread erosion of coastal zones, a new federal report says.

    Yet "for the nation as a whole, direct economic impacts are
    likely to be modest," concludes the report, which is based on
    computer models and historical data, and "American society would
    likely be able to adapt to most of the impacts," although
    "particular strategies and costs [are] not known."

    "Climate Change Impacts on the United States," scheduled for
    public release today after four years of preparation, has an
    ample array of ominous projections:

    • Average temperatures will probably rise 5 to 10 degrees
    Fahrenheit – nearly twice the projected warming for the planet as
    a whole – prompting more summer urban heat waves and gentler
    winters across the nation.

    • Agricultural production will likely surge, and forests will
    probably flourish, thanks to the fertilizing effect of more
    carbon dioxide in the air. But many long-suffering ecosystems,
    such as alpine meadows, coral reefs, coastal wetlands and Alaskan
    permafrost, will likely deteriorate further. Some may disappear
    altogether.

    • Snowpack will probably diminish by 50 percent on average, while
    winter rains are likely to increase, bringing 60 to 100 percent
    more showers to much of Southern California and the parched
    Southwest.

    • Total precipitation nationwide, which rose 5 to 10 percent
    during the 20th century, will probably increase another 10
    percent by 2100, chiefly in the form of extreme storms,
    exacerbating runoff pollution in the Chesapeake Bay and other
    sensitive areas.

    Paradoxically, however, the threat of drought – especially in the
    western Kansas-eastern Colorado breadbasket – will rise because
    hotter conditions enhance evaporation. For the same reason, water
    levels could drop as much as five feet in the Great Lakes.

    As for health effects, the report projects doubling or tripling
    of heat-related deaths in Minneapolis, Chicago and other cities
    that rarely experience extreme high temperatures. The July heat
    index is likely to rise by 10 to 20 degrees in the mid-Atlantic
    region.

    Warming may also cause substantial shifts in the habitats of
    disease-bearing mosquitoes and other animal sources of disease.
    But the authors conclude that "not enough is known about our
    adaptive capabilities to say whether or not climate changes will
    make us more vulnerable to health problems."

    The report, known as the "national assessment," was ordered by
    Congress in 1990 and assembled by the U.S. Global Change Research
    Program, an executive branch initiative incorporating projects in
    nine federal agencies and the Smithsonian Institution. The first
    such comprehensive effort by any country, it will be available
    for public review at http://www.usgcrp.gov and elsewhere as part
    of a long-term effort to understand and plan for the effects of
    climate change.

    "We're not making a specific prediction about what the future
    will be like. It would be farcical to try to do that," said
    Anthony Janetos of the World Resources Institute, co-chairman of
    the 14-member panel that wrote the 145-page overview. (An
    additional 700-page "foundation document" provides scientific
    details.) Instead, "given our current understanding, these are
    reasonable scenarios of how the future might play out."

    The report employs conventional assumptions, such as an annual
    increase of 1 percent in the amount of greenhouse gases in the
    atmosphere. It assumes that sea levels – which have risen four to
    eight inches globally over the past century – will rise an
    additional five to 35 inches by 2100. A 20-inch rise, the authors
    say, would eliminate about 4,000 square miles of coastal wetlands
    in addition to the nearly 2,000 square miles lost in the past
    half-century.

    The analysis is based largely on two computer simulations of
    future climate (from the Canadian Meteorological Centre and the
    Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom) that often produce very
    different or even antithetical results.

    For example, climate-change skeptic S. Fred Singer of the Science
    & Environmental Policy Project in Fairfax said, "look at North
    Dakota. One [model] turns it into a desert, the other into a
    swamp. Neither will probably happen." Central Kansas shows an
    increase in soil moisture of 25 percent in one projection; in the
    other, it loses 50 percent. North and South Carolina have
    dramatic rainfall increases in one model, and decreases of up to
    10 percent in the other.

    Such discrepancies are common among sophisticated computer
    climate models, each of which represents the interactions among
    heat, air, water, cloud and land somewhat differently. The
    smaller the geographic scale, the larger the disparities can be.

    "But we can't just say, 'Well, this is hard. Therefore we can't
    say anything,' " Janetos said. "There are a lot of local and
    regional decisions that have to be made now – not just federal
    policies – and people have to start thinking hard about what they
    might want to do."

    The model contradictions are enough to "make you tear your hair
    out," said Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric
    Research, who was not involved in the report. "At the regional
    level, there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty." Nonetheless,
    he said, even "model results that are radically different" serve
    to notify residents that "there's a good chance that we're in for
    a big change in the future, but we don't know what direction it's
    in."

    Several environmental groups hailed the report as a timely
    warning. "America's alarm bells should go off today," said
    Jennifer Morgan of the World Wildlife Fund.

    But numerous skeptics contend that the language is strongly
    biased toward negative conclusions. That was also the initial
    reaction of some staff and external reviewers.

    "I think we have fixed most of that problem," Janetos said.
    "We've made an enormous effort to be balanced."

    Not everyone will agree. For example, in the forestry section,
    the analysis indicates that even in the Southeast, where the
    likelihood of drought stress during the next century is
    considered fairly high, timber stands will increase by 8 percent
    to 25 percent depending on species. Yet the strong emphasis in
    the text is on the threat of reduced producer profits as more
    trees bring prices down.

    Similarly, the section on agriculture projects 15 to 50 percent
    yield increases for nearly all commercial crops, including wheat,
    rice, barley, oats, potatoes and most vegetables. That would
    entail the use of 5 to 20 percent more pesticides, the report
    suggests, and would raise the threat of more nitrogen-fertilizer
    runoff into bays and estuaries. But the net effect would be
    extraordinary.

    Moreover, the analysis suggests that a warmer, accelerated
    growing season and increased rainfall nationally will probably
    reduce the need for crop irrigation 30 to 40 percent by the end
    of the 21st century. That would be a huge change in a nation
    where more than 80 percent of all fresh water now goes to
    agricultural uses.

    Yet the text notes laconically that climate change probably "will
    not imperil the ability of the U.S. to feed its population and to
    export foodstuffs."

    Janetos is looking forward to hearing all comments. "This is a
    serious issue. It's not ideological," he said. "There is a wide
    range of changes coming around the country, and we have to start
    thinking about that. My hope is that [millions of Americans] will
    take a look at this assessment. I'd love for this Web site to set
    new records."

    SOURCE: The Washington Post

    ****************************************************************
    To post a submission by email at climate-newswire@sidsnet.org
    To unsubscribe, email to majordomo@sidsnet.org with the message:
    unsubscribe climate-newswire
    To receive updates via email, send an email to majordomo@sidsnet.org with the message:
    subscribe climate-newswire
    No SUBJECTS required either case.

    Brought to you on the SMALL Island Developing States Network: http://www.sidsnet.org



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 12 2000 - 14:43:26 EDT