Watching Our Water Ways

Because of the holidays, I did not get an immediate response from several climate experts I contacted following Nels Sultan’s comments about sea level rise in a blog post regarding “king tides.”

Earth at the winter solstice, Dec. 22, 2011 / NOAA photo

If you recall, Nels was making the point that the sea level in Seattle has been rising at a steady rate of .68 feet, or about 8 inches, per century since 1898, as reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

His post included this statement:

“There is no real basis for the claims that sea levels will rise by 2.6 feet or 7 feet, or more. Globally, sea level rise has NOT accelerated. As found and reported by many researchers who specialize in this, including the eminent professor Bob Dean and other coastal experts.”

As a reporter, I’m not inclined to shoot back a response. I’d rather discuss the issue with experts in the field. That is what I did, and I think I have a better handle on the issue.

What I’m hearing is that the original estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a rise of between 7 inches and 2 feet by the end of the century — remain reasonable, but conservative given that they did not account for increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet. See this explanation by Stefan Rahmstorf soon after the release of the 2007 IPCC report. By the way, the range above accounts for the minimum and maximum across six climate-change scenarios.

Ever since, researchers have been trying to find ways to account for the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, but the uncertainties remain high. A widely cited paper by W.T. Pfeffer, J.T. Harper and S. O’Neel suggests that “most likely” starting point for further refinement is .8 meter, or 31 inches, of sea level rise by 2100.

In some ways, the authors of the Pfeffer paper were trying to limit some of the extremes being reported by others, so they concluded that sea level rise could not be more than 6 feet by 2100. Some folks have reported 6 feet as the top of the range, as unlikely as that extreme may be. Check out this explanation posed by Real Climate and this response by Pfeffer and his collaborators.

As for the Houston-Dean paper that Nels Sultan mentioned, those authors created “various problems” in their assumptions, according to Eric Steig, professor of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington. One major problem was the starting date of 1930, as explained by Stefan Rahmstorf in Real Climate:

“Other start dates either before or after this minimum show positive acceleration. Picking 1930 for this analysis is thus a classic cherry-pick, and according to the authors that is no accident. They write in the paper: ‘Since the worldwide data of Church and White (2006)…appear to have a linear rise since around 1930, we analyzed the period 1930 to 2010.’ The interval was thus hand-picked to show a linear rise rather than acceleration.

“Houston & Dean use their result to question the future acceleration of sea level rise predicted by Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009) for the 21st Century as a consequence of global warming. They argue that the 1930s acceleration minimum calls into question the semi-empirical link between global temperature and global sea level proposed by us in that paper. However, it is clear they never bothered to check this, because quite the opposite is the case: our semi-empirical formula predicts this acceleration minimum, as the graph above shows. As it turns out, this is an expected outcome of the mid-20th-Century plateau in global temperature.”

I also discussed this issue of sea level rise with Lara Whitely Binder, outreach specialist for the UW’s Climate Impacts Group. While sea level rise means one thing on the world scale, she told me, the local impacts can be quite different.

If you live in Neah Bay on the Olympic Peninsula, for example, you are not likely to see any sea level rise until at least 2080. That’s because the entire land mass is uplifting as a result of movement along the tectonic plates, and the uplift is predicted to be faster than sea level rise until late in the century.

On the other hand, Central and South Puget Sound may not be uplifting at all and could be sinking, which would intensify the effects of sea level rise. Areas built on fill, including portions of Olympia, also could be sinking as the fill settles, Lara said.

In addition to global rise in sea level and local tectonic shifts, factors affecting regional sea level rise include thermal expansion of ocean waters and changes in onshore and offshore wind patterns.

During El Niño events, sea level can rise as much as 12 inches for several months at a time. The Climate Impacts Group analyzed more than 30 scenarios from global climate models and concluded that the change in wind patterns as a result of climate change could decrease sea level by as much as 1 inch or possibly increase it by as much as 6 inches. Review the white paper “Sea Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State” (PDF 2.4 mb) for more details.

How much an individual property is affected by sea level rise depends on the slope of the beach. Given the same rate of rise, water will affect a house sooner when it is built on a gradually sloping beach as opposed to a steep slope. In any case, tides and weather will always play a major role in water levels.

Lara told me that a group of West Coast researchers is working on a new report about sea level for publication later this year by the National Academy of Sciences. I’ll try to review that paper when it comes out.

I wish to thank Eric Steig, Lara Whitely Binder, Cliff Mass, David Montgomery and Nate Mantua for responding to my inquiry.

Share on Facebook

If the world’s leaders were to learn that all civilizations on Earth were going to be attacked by alien beings from outer space, and if they knew they had only a few years to respond, what do you think they would do?

Would they search for evidence to show that aliens could not possibly exist, declare the idea a hoax and insist that any defense of our planet would not be worth the cost? Or would they study ALL the evidence, analyze the risks and look for the best way to address the uncertain crisis?

I keep thinking about this hypothetical alien scenario when I hear certain members of Congress ignoring climate change and essentially spitting in the face of climate scientists by calling their best research a “hoax.”

Greenhouse warming may seem like an alien concept to some people, but here’s my point: If you run and hide until the aliens have landed, you face a much greater peril than if you face the problem in a practical way.

Now I’m all for discussing the many uncertainties — such as how high ocean waters may rise under various assumptions. But please don’t tell me that some basement scientist has disproved the idea that temperatures are rising or has shown that humans could not possibly affect the Earth’s climate.

Here’s what I’m wondering: Would those who turn their backs on climate change act the same way if the entire Earth were under attack from a common enemy? Maybe our nation’s leaders would be better able to deal with a direct attack, uncomplicated by the uncertainties of science.

That’s more than I wanted to say about people who choose to ignore climate change. What I really wanted to write about is the U.S. Navy’s serious approach to the topic, which can provide an example for the rest of us.

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Global temperatures continue on a rising trend, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The implications of this trend are quite serious, and I’ll discuss some new studies after reviewing the temperature data for 2010.

The worldwide average surface temperature for the past year tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, a record that goes back to 1880. And the year 2010 was the 34th consecutive year in which temperatures were above the 20th century average, according to a preliminary analysis by NCDC.

The decade of 2001–2010 was the warmest ever recorded for the surface of the Earth during that 130-year time period. It was some 1.01 degree F. above the 20th century average. The previous record for a full decade was also recent, 1991-2000, when the temperature was .65 degrees F. above the average.
(more…)

Share on Facebook

This week, I’d like to show you some animations from space, demonstrating an interesting way to present satellite imagery and data that change over the surface of the Earth.

While these animations are in no way humorous, I am fascinated by the ability to play around with these images for a closer look at global climate change, effects of El Nino, recovery of Mount St. Helens, water-level changes in Arizona’s Lake Powell, Amazon deforestation in Western Brazil and many other time series. There’s even one showing the surface of the sun.

The decade of 1880-89 was cooler than the baseline period of 1951-1980. This is the first slide in an animation you can find in World of Change. Click to enlarge

Go to NASA’s Earth Observatory for World of Change and check out the left column, where you will see a list of 20 animations that you can run. Some give you the option of viewing the sequence from Google Earth, although some do not work well in that format. Notice that you can click on “play” in the lower right corner to observe the animation or click on any of the time periods to advance at your own pace.

Also, the narrative beneath the images explains why certain changes appear as they do. I think it is a great way to learn about these natural and made-made alterations to our environment.

As the year comes to a close, I thought this would be a good time to feature these animations. We are about to learn whether 2010 will be the warmest year on record. Preliminary results from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center should be out in January.

The decade 2000-09 was warmer than the baseline period of 1951-1980. This is the last slide in the animation in World of Change. Click to enlarge

As Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin reported in her blog, “Post Carbon,” this year is likely to be the warmest we have ever measured, barring some temperature anomaly. Despite near-blizzard conditions on the East Coast at the moment, I don’t believe the temperature will create a dent in the average temperature worldwide.

The warmest year on record is currently 2005, according to analyses by NCDC and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which produced the animations. But 1998 was close and is considered the record-holder by a collaborative group in Great Britain. Check out Tom Yulsman’s informative article in Climate Central about how these data are interpreted.

Meanwhile, don’t forget to take a look at the changes over time in Mount St. Helens, the recovery of fire-scarred Yellowstone National Park and any of the animations in World of Change that catch your interest.

Share on Facebook

Here’s a quick reminder that Earth Hour is tonight from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m.

During this hour, when people throughout the world switch off their lights in a simple symbolic act, millions are showing their support for actions addressing climate change.

As I said last year in Water Ways, this may seem like a small thing, even a waste of time, but all important movements start with small actions. Participants often say they feel united with people around the world.

This year, the third year of the event, Earth Hour is sanctioned in 3,100 cities in 121 countries, according to the “My Earth Hour” Web site, sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund.
(more…)

Share on Facebook

I hate to say it, but on rare occasions it is difficult to figure out where science ends and politics begins. I have always believed there is a clear distinction between scientific findings and public policy. But a few members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change blurred the line, whether we like it or not.

I just finished reading a 12-part series about Climategate published in The Guardian, a British publication. The series includes annotated comments written by those close to the issue.

If you care about climate change, you probably should pay attention to politics surrounding this issue. That means you probably should know about the controversy surrounding the stolen e-mails of a few key climate scientists.

This series, by reporter Fred Pearce, offers context that one cannot get by reading the e-mails alone. I was impressed by the balance that Pearce brings to the issue, neither defending nor attacking the scientists for their apparent failings. But he does comment on the personalities of the scientists as well as the skeptics who constantly stirred the pot.
(more…)

Share on Facebook

I was planning to put together a list of sources to help readers follow the Copenhagen climate change summit.

But there is really no point of me doing the work, given the comprehensive Web site, called CopenBlog, put together by folks at the Society of Environmental Journalists. While I am a member of that organization, I had nothing to do with this project, though I wish I could say I helped.

What does the CopenBlog site contain?

Well, first of all, there is the daily coverage of the conference by numerous news organizations and official sources for Monday, yesterday and today, with more days to follow.

All the coverage is categorized by topic for easy searching.
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Elizabeth Kolbert, who has been reporting on climate change for “The New Yorker” magazine, says our political, scientific and economic system may not be designed to deal with “slow-moving catastrophes” like global warming.

In a question-and-answer interview published today by “Yale Environment 360,” Kolbert makes some important points about why governmental officials, news reporters, scientists and average citizens are failing to address the crisis adequately. I’ve pulled out some key quotes, but I recommend that you read the entire interview.

Kolbert quoted Sen. John McCain, who had this to say on the subject: “It’s very unclear whether our political system can deal with a problem like this because usually we wait for a crisis and then we deal with the crisis, and that’s just not the way climate change works. You can’t deal with it once the crisis hits.”

Because the Bush administration failed, for the most part, to take climate change seriously, it is easier for many people to ignore the problem, Kolbert says.

On the news media’s role, she said, “I think that the media has contributed to the general sense of it not being an urgent problem because it’s not the lead story of the paper every day. It’s a very hard issue for the media to deal with precisely because the news business is about news — it’s about something that happened yesterday. And global warming is just happening all around us all the time, and it’s going to continue to happen and it doesn’t present itself as news very often.”

On the question of why scientists don’t spend more time convincing the public about climate change: “They have some of the same problems that journalists have, which is that scientists are interested in introducing something new in their work. They want new results, new information. They want to break new ground. They need to do that to get funding, really. And global warming, the fact that global warming is happening, that is really old news in scientific circles. It’s just a settled question in scientific circles. So scientists moved on to other issues having to do with climate change…”

On the idea of turning the debate over to economists and politicians: “I think that’s a big mistake because when you read a lot of economic analyses of climate change, you are struck with a very worrisome sense that the economists don’t understand the science, don’t appreciate the gravity of the situation. And they don’t seem to be factoring in the notion of we’re not talking here about small, inconvenient changes that are not worth changing our lifestyle to avoid. We’re talking about a desolate planet, not really in that long a time, okay?”

And on the role of individual Americans: “It gets back to this issue of whether the public believes in science, which, to be honest, we do not. You can still find a lot of people who don’t believe in evolution, okay? So we’re talking about a country that has a very lax relationship to science. And what you need in order to grapple meaningfully with global warming is to believe that this is not a speculative thing. This is the way geophysics work, and we have established that very clearly both in a laboratory setting and on the ground — and we need to take very seriously these predictions.”

—————

On a related topic, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin says climate skeptics at the second International Conference on Climate Change this week in New York are not as unified in their thinking as they were at the first conference last year.

Share on Facebook

Washington state’s Climate Impacts Group, based at the University of Washington, paints a pretty bleak picture in its latest assessment released today.

Donna Gordon Blankinship of the Associated Press summarizes the regional trends outlined in the report:

— An increase in annual temperatures of 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2040s, and 5.9 degrees by the 2080s.
— April 1 snowpack decreased by nearly 30 percent across the state by the 2020s, 40 percent by the 2040s and 65 percent by the 2080s.
— The Yakima Basin reservoir system less likely to supply water to all its users, especially those with junior water rights.
— Rising stream temperatures, which will hurt salmon.
— Forest fires burning twice the total area by the 2040s and three times as much by the 2080s.
— Increases in incidents of extreme high precipitation over the next half-century, particularly in the Puget Sound area.
— Energy demand for cooling is expected to increase 400 percent by 2040.
— More heat- and air pollution-related deaths throughout the century. Researchers project that by 2025 there could be 101 more deaths among people 45 and older because of heat waves.

About a year ago, I mentioned in Water Ways that I was troubled about how it seemed that climate scientists expected people to have faith that climate change was happening. I thought there had to be ways to make the science accessible to non-experts.

Since then, I have been pleased to cite an excellent 24-page booklet by the National Academies of Sciences called “Understanding and Responding to Climate Change.”

If that booklet could be considered Climate Change 101, I think you’ll find the new report by the Climate Impacts Group to be on the level of Climate Change 201. Climate change is so important that I urge you to download and read the executive summary. If you wish to dig deeper, tackle the entire report, one chapter at a time. You will find everything laid out on a Web page called The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment.

Frankly, I still have a lot of reading to do, but I no longer feel that the average person is left out in the wilderness.

Now, before anyone asks indignantly how we can talk seriously about climate change while experiencing one of the snowiest winters in recent years, let me quote from the report:
(more…)

Share on Facebook

There is nothing like a weekly news magazine to explore the breadth and depth of an issue, as U.S. News and World Report has done in a story titled “Global Warming Triggers an International Race for the Arctic.”

The magazine piece, written by Thomas Omestad, discusses a treasure of oil and minerals, scientific discoveries, commercial potential and possible geopolitical clashes. I recommend it to anyone interested in the confluence of global warming and international intrigue.

A map of this remote area shows how the legendary Northwest Passage could become an important route between the East and West coasts.

After describing some strategic flurries in the Arctic by Russia and Canada, Omestad offers this observation:

The United States, for its part, has not acted with the same urgency. “We are behind when it comes to what is happening with our other Arctic neighbors,” says Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

The lagging begins with the Law of the Sea convention. Despite Bush administration support, Senate ratification of the 1982 treaty remains blocked by conservative Republicans fearful that the treaty will give away American sovereignty. The other four Arctic coastal states have adopted the convention and are eligible to file their claims for economic control.

The Pentagon has also appeared slow to focus on the region. The U.S. Coast Guard maintains just two working icebreakers, with another docked until repairs are authorized. The question of expanding the icebreaker force has been left unanswered, while a broader, interagency review of Arctic policy has continued for nearly two years….

I recently cited some sketchy stories about this subject on Watching Our Water Ways. Now this U.S. News article has placed the issue into the appropriate context. If the prescribed dominoes begin to fall, international tensions will no doubt rise in this remote part of the Earth.

Share on Facebook