August 12, 2010 12:09 PM

Scientists: Summer Catastrophes Fit Predictions

(AP)  Floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat: From smoke-choked Moscow to water-soaked Pakistan and the High Arctic, the planet seems to be having a midsummer breakdown. It's not just a portent of things to come, scientists say, but a sign of troubling climate change already under way.

The weather-related cataclysms of July and August fit patterns predicted by climate scientists, the Geneva-based World Meteorological Organization says - although those scientists always shy from tying individual disasters directly to global warming.

The experts now see an urgent need for better ways to forecast extreme events like Russia's heat wave and wildfires and the record deluge devastating Pakistan. They'll discuss such tools in meetings this month and next in Europe and America, under United Nations, U.S. and British government sponsorship.

"There is no time to waste," because societies must be equipped to deal with global warming, says British government climatologist Peter Stott.

He said modelers of climate systems are "very keen" to develop supercomputer modeling that would enable more detailed linking of cause and effect as a warming world shifts jet streams and other atmospheric currents. Those changes can wreak weather havoc.

The U.N.'s network of climate scientists - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - has long predicted that rising global temperatures would produce more frequent and intense heat waves, and more intense rainfalls. In its latest assessment, in 2007, the Nobel Prize-winning panel went beyond that. It said these trends "have already been observed," in an increase in heat waves since 1950, for example.

Still, climatologists generally refrain from blaming warming for this drought or that flood, since so many other factors also affect the day's weather.

Stott and NASA's Gavin Schmidt at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, said it's better to think in terms of odds: Warming might double the chances for a heat wave, for example. "That is exactly what's happening," Schmidt said, "a lot more warm extremes and less cold extremes."

The WMO did point out, however, that this summer's events fit the international scientists' projections of "more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming."

In fact, in key cases they're a perfect fit:

Russia

It's been the hottest summer ever recorded in Russia with Moscow temperatures topping 100 degrees Fahrenheit for the first time. The drought there has sparked hundreds of wildfires in forests and dried peat bogs, blanketing western Russia with a toxic smog. Moscow's death rate has doubled to 700 people a day. The drought reduced the wheat harvest by more than one-third.

The 2007 IPCC report predicted a doubling of disastrous droughts in Russia this century and cited studies foreseeing catastrophic fires during dry years. It also said Russia would suffer large crop losses.

Amid Smog, Moscow Deaths Double to 700 a Day
Smog in Moscow Worsens as Russian Fires Burn
Russia Besieged by Fires
Photos: Russian Wildfires
Moscow Smog Worsens, Crippling Air Travel

Pakistan

The heaviest monsoon rains on record - 12 inches in one 36-hour period - have sent rivers rampaging over huge swaths of countryside. It's left 14 million Pakistanis homeless or otherwise affected, and killed 1,500. The government calls it the worst natural disaster in the nation's history.

Pakistani Taliban: Reject Foreign Flood Aid
Pakistan Floods
Pakistanis Trapped by Deadly Floods

A warmer atmosphere can hold - and discharge - more water. The 2007 IPCC report said rains have grown heavier for 40 years over north Pakistan and predicted greater flooding this century in south Asia's monsoon region.

China

China is witnessing its worst floods in decades, the WMO says, particularly in the northwest province of Gansu. There, floods and landslides last weekend killed at least 1,117 people and left more than 600 missing, feared swept away or buried beneath mud and debris.

The IPCC reported in 2007 that rains had increased in northwest China by up to 33 percent since 1961, and floods nationwide had increased sevenfold since the 1950s. It predicted still more frequent flooding this century.

Man Trapped 50 Hours by China Landslide Rescued
1,100 Missing in China Amid Sweeping Asia Floods
Asia Flooding Is Now Massive Humanitarian Crisis

Arctic

Researchers last week spotted a 100-square-mile chunk of ice calved off from the great Petermann Glacier in Greenland's far northwest. It was the most massive ice island to break away in the Arctic in a half-century of observation.

The huge iceberg appeared just five months after an international scientific team published a report saying ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet is expanding up its northwest coast from the south.

Monster Ice Island Could Drift Into Ship Lanes

Changes in the ice sheet "are happening fast, and we are definitely losing more ice mass than we had anticipated," said one of the scientists, NASA's Isabella Velicogna.

In the Arctic Ocean itself, the summer melt of the vast ice cap has reached unprecedented proportions. Satellite data show the ocean area covered by ice last month was the second-lowest ever recorded for July.

The melting of land ice into the oceans is causing about 60 percent of the accelerating rise in sea levels worldwide, with thermal expansion from warming waters causing the rest. The WMO'S World Climate Research Program says seas are rising by 1.34 inches per decade, about twice the 20th century's average.

Worldwide temperature readings, meanwhile, show that this January-June was the hottest first half of a year in 150 years of global climate record keeping. Meteorologists say 17 nations have recorded all-time-high temperatures in 2010, more than in any other year.

Scientists blame the warming on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases pouring into the atmosphere from power plants, cars and trucks, furnaces and other fossil fuel-burning industrial and residential sources.

Experts are growing ever more vocal in urging sharp cutbacks in emissions, to protect the climate that has nurtured modern civilization.

"Reducing emissions is something everyone is capable of," Nanjing-based climatologist Tao Li told an academic journal in China, now the world's No. 1 emitter, ahead of the U.S.

But not everyone is willing to act.

The U.S. remains the only major industrialized nation not to have legislated caps on carbon emissions, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week withdrew climate legislation in the face of resistance from Republicans and some Democrats.

The U.S. inaction, dating back to the 1990s, is a key reason global talks have bogged down for a pact to succeed the expiring Kyoto Protocol. That is the relatively weak accord on emissions cuts adhered to by all other industrialized states.

Governments around the world, especially in poorer nations that will be hard-hit, are scrambling to find ways and money to adapt to shifts in climate and rising seas.

The meetings of climatologists in the coming weeks in Paris, Britain and Colorado will be one step toward adaptation, seeking ways to identify trends in extreme events and better means of forecasting them.

A U.N. specialist in natural disasters says much more needs to be done.

Salvano Briceno of the U.N.'s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction pointed to aggravating factors in the latest climate catastrophes: China's failure to stem deforestation, contributing to its deadly mudslides; Russia's poor forest management, feeding fires; and the settling of poor Pakistanis on flood plains and dry riverbeds in the densely populated country, squatters' turf that suddenly turned into torrents.

"The IPCC has already identified the influence of climate change in these disasters. That's clear," Briceno said. "But the main trend we need to look at is increasing vulnerability, the fact we have more people living in the wrong places, doing the wrong things."

© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 34 Comments
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 11:02 PM EDT
by louiville12 August 12, 2010 9:29 PM EDT
Oh and BTW your saying "Engineers typically don't understand science" who told you that? You REALLY need to get out.



No one told me that, I observed it over a twenty plus year career working as a geologist at several large consulting firms. The engineers were great if you wanted something calculated on paper, but almost always worthless in the field. No offense, but your comments make me think you would fall into this category :)

The problem with engineers is that the inherent uncertainty in science baffles them. They think everything can be calculated down to the gnats ass ... the natural world does not work that way. Scientists study and collect data, analyze the data, and come up with reasonable explanations that fit that data. But none of it will ever be "certain" down to the last decimal place.


As Rob Watson likes to say:

"Mother Nature is just chemistry, biology and physics. That's all she is. You cannot sweet-talk her. You cannot spin her. You cannot tell her that the oil companies say climate change is a hoax. No, Mother Nature is going to do whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate, and Mother Nature always bats last, and she always bats 1.000."
Reply to this comment
by louiville35 August 13, 2010 8:18 AM EDT
Hmmmm Spoken like a true Hydro-Geologist. I've noticed over the last 25 years many seem to always have that overbearing trying to butch up attitude. Where they like to demean others, with a patronizing holier then thou attitude. You seem to fit that mold, since you don't know me have you idea what I've done over the last 40 years your very quick in denouncing me? Now why is that? A real scientist would have asked for example how many research papers have I written or were part of. Or asked how many lectures I have given....

But no with a dismissive attitude Trout with the massive brain sees all.

Oh and BTW I have helped write papers and I have given lectures. Most to do with modeling underground plumes which included writing computer model algorithms. I've had my 15 minutes of fame years ago and that was enough for me and since my accident, where I was hit by a car eight years ago, have shunned the public eye.

Where warmers lose me can be found in your own very dismissive attitude shared by everyone it seems in the warmer camp. The childish name calling ad hoc dismissive excuses they come up to throw out data when faced with "FACTS" that don't support the "narrative" of it's ALL mans fault, is why I'm a skeptic.
by louiville35 August 13, 2010 12:05 PM EDT
Yawn
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 7:50 PM EDT
by louiville12 August 12, 2010 7:11 PM EDT
I'll post as many as you do, you first since you made the claim of "There are stacks of scientific papers". That I guess prove beyond a shadow of a doubt man is responsible?




Waiting on your list of 1,800 papers ...
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 7:58 PM EDT
Yeah, ideology does not hold up well under facts.
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 7:47 PM EDT
louiville12

Bibliography of climate change papers - over 1,800. Now if you would only read them, LOL.


http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/bibliography/
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 7:54 PM EDT
Try reading a few and find out.
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 7:04 PM EDT
by louiville12 August 12, 2010 7:01 PM EDT
You need to get out.




translation:
There are NOT thousands of papers that support my denialist position.
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 6:57 PM EDT
by louiville12 August 12, 2010 6:46 PM EDT
Such a brilliant post!!!

Well since you probably live off the public dole I'd guess your safe eh?





I do not agree with your position, therefore I "live off the public dole?" You are pathetic.
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 6:55 PM EDT
by louiville12 August 12, 2010 6:45 PM EDT
Hmmmm and there are thousands of scientific papers that show mans influence is insignificant. That AGW only exists in computer models that cannot predict past know data.






Guess I will call you on that BS. I will be satisfied if you post 100.
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 6:14 PM EDT
by louiville12 August 12, 2010 4:33 PM EDT
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 3:06 PM EDT
Why are you cons so anti-science?
-------------------------------------------------------

Why do you take on blind faith information that time and time again has been shown to be false?

No one named as a source for this article has any objectivity and only cling to the "Narrative". And it's really interesting how these people blow up fantastic theories when we are only talking about a total rise of 1 deg F over the last 100 years.






There are stacks of scientific papers on the subject that overwhelmingly point to the same conclusion. If you want to call that "blind faith", then so be it. My condolences to your brain.
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 6:12 PM EDT
by louiville12 August 12, 2010 4:33 PM EDT
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 3:06 PM EDT
Why are you cons so anti-science?
-------------------------------------------------------

Why do you take on blind faith information that time and time again has been shown to be false?

No one named as a source for this article has any objectivity and only cling to the "Narrative". And it's really interesting how these people blow up fantastic theories when we are only talking about a total rise of 1 deg F over the last 100 years.






There are stacks of scientific papers on the subject that overwhelmingly point to the same conclusion. If you want to call that "blind faith", then so be it. My condolences to your brain.
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 6:12 PM EDT
by louiville12 August 12, 2010 4:33 PM EDT
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 3:06 PM EDT
Why are you cons so anti-science?
-------------------------------------------------------

Why do you take on blind faith information that time and time again has been shown to be false?

No one named as a source for this article has any objectivity and only cling to the "Narrative". And it's really interesting how these people blow up fantastic theories when we are only talking about a total rise of 1 deg F over the last 100 years.



There are stacks of scientific papers on the subject that overwhelmingly point to the same conclusion. If you want to call that "blind faith", then so be it. My condolences to your brain.
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 6:11 PM EDT
by louiville12 August 12, 2010 4:33 PM EDT
by troutfishyman August 12, 2010 3:06 PM EDT
Why are you cons so anti-science?
-------------------------------------------------------

Why do you take on blind faith information that time and time again has been shown to be false?

No one named as a source for this article has any objectivity and only cling to the "Narrative". And it's really interesting how these people blow up fantastic theories when we are only talking about a total rise of 1 deg F over the last 100 years.



There are stacks of scientific papers on the subject that overwhelmingly point to the same conclusion. If you want to call that "blind faith", then so be it. My condolences to your brain.
Reply to this comment
See all 34 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook