US Drought Conditions early-July 2012: 77% in West, 68% in Southeast

The record warmth of the past seven months in the US was more than just a set of numbers or a temporary interesting headline.  Along with the heat, precipitation for most of the southern half of the country has been below average during the same time period.  The result is that drought conditions exists today across most of the Western US, with almost all of the Southwest (CO, NM, AZ, NV, UT, CA) experiencing Severe drought:

Figure 1. Drought conditions over the West US for the week ending 3 July 2012.

As you can probably tell from Figure 1, the Pacific Northwest had below average temperatures and above average precipitation during the same time period, thus the relative lack of drought in OR, WA, ID & MT.  Drought has increased into Wyoming and recently to a lesser extent into Montana.

Interestingly, the areas experiencing the most severe level of drought are also those with the largest wildfires: New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana have all had very large wildfires in the past month.  The effects of the drought so far in this region is extensive: early snowpack runoff, failing crops, reduced river levels, and livestock stress.

The seasonal monsoon kicked off some widespread and at times heavy precipitation across the southwest in the days since the Drought Monitor created this map.  In the same way that a tropical system affected site-specific drought conditions over Florida last month, some short-term drought conditions might be alleviated in the West, which the Monitor should reflect in the next issued analysis.

The Southeast finally got some relief last month due to Tropical Storm Debby, which left behind record rainfall (and flooding) throughout Florida.  Meanwhile, extremely warm and dry conditions spread north.  The result is clear in the table below: the percent area experiencing some level of drought dropped significantly through last week, from over 75% three months ago to 56% last week, before rebounding back to 68%.  Unfortunately, the areas with the worst drought conditions didn’t get their long-term drought busted, especially Georgia.  This area typically receives some relief from drought during the Atlantic tropical storm season.  Aside from Debby in Florida, the Atlantic basin hasn’t produced much in the way of help so far this year.  The Southeast will have to wait a bit longer for additional relief.

Figure 2. Drought conditions over the Southwest US for the week ending 3 July 2012.

Drought has been present across GA for over one year now.  The area affected by drought expanded to neighboring states during the end of the winter and beginning of spring, then shifted in the last month both north and west.

There’s no widespread crisis to speak of yet, but inhabitants as well as policymakers should monitor conditions as the year progresses.  These conditions are not a result of climate change in any direct way.  They are simply a result of a chain of events, some of which (e.g. Arctic ice loss in recent years) are more directly related to climate change than others.  Drought is a complex phenomenon that has widespread effects, as people across the US are experiencing again this summer.

New Reports: Climate Inaction More Expensive Than Action

For those of you who have followed this topic to a reasonable degree, you probably already knew what the lede had to say.  For those of you who don’t pay quite as much attention to this topic, this post is especially important.  The dirty energy worshippers have screamed about the costs of doing what’s required to keep our climate livable for some time now.  Left unsaid during that whole period (thanks for that, corporate media) is the alternative: what would doing nothing and hoping our climate remains livable cost?

Some basic studies have been performed to ask that second question in recent years.  They mainly deal with large-scale (national) economies and make a ton of generalizations and assumptions.  Part of the problem is too little fundamental research has been performed examining what kinds of benefits we enjoy in a livable climate and what they should be worth to us.

On top of that, I have spent a lot of time and effort detailing a lot of the disadvantages of the assumptions made and processes left out of climate research to date.  Keep that in mind: everything discussed here remains based off of data that contains too many unrealistic assumptions and therefore likely underestimates the problem at hand.  Unfortunately, that’s all we have to work with right now.  Some of those gaps will continue to be filled in the future, enabling more detailed and accurate cost analyses to be performed.

The American Security Project has released analyses for all 50 U.S. states’ costs as a result of doing nothing to stop our climate forcing.  The report for my state, Colorado (pdf), has some interesting results.

I will begin with an enormously important note underlying their entire analysis: the calculations performed do not include snowfall and icepack melts, which the study itself notes “Coloradans depend on for much of the water supply and recreation”.  That seems to me to be a critically important piece of information when judging what costs to society global warming will bring about: will we have water to drink or not?  It goes to basic survivability.  Nevertheless, the rest of the results have to be viewed through the lack of snowfall and icepack melt lens.

Temperatures are expected to rise 4-10ºF by the end of the century.

Water shortages could become a regular occurrence throughout the state.

Corn and wheat yields are projected to decrease by 8-33% as a result of water shortages.

Warmer temperatures and drier summers will lead to more fires throughout the state.

Colorado’s $1.9 billion ski industry—which employs 31,000 people – may become unprofitable as decreasing snowpacks will shorten the winter sports season by an estimated 30 days.

When global warming scenarios that are based on our current emissions path are considered, some notable differences appear.

Temperatures could rise by 13-18ºF by 2060.  That’s only 50 years from now, not 90.  So much hotter, much sooner.

Droughts could occur by 2060 that would make the Dust Bowl look moist by comparison.  We’re in line to witness weather extremes that nobody in our species’ existence has faced.

With those kinds of higher temperatures and extreme droughts, agriculture and ranching would be impossible to conduct in most areas where they take place today (an increase of only 3-4ºF would likely be enough to force ranchers to move herds out of the state; where they would go instead is an interesting question left unconsidered), wildfires could burn at least twice as much area per fire year (May-October) as they do today.  Of course, this year’s wildfire season started months early, thanks to the medium-term drought we’ve been in.  If  more snow falls as rain in the future, the ski industry will definitely become unprofitable by mid-century.

Some good news was also identified in the report:

Colorado has the potential to generate more than 35% of its electricity needs from geothermal energy. Its wind energy potential is even greater; the state could generate 1,100% of its current electricity use by employing this renewable source.

The state could also generate over 1000% of its current electricity use by leveraging solar energy potential.

Will it cost money to switch from dirty to clean energy sources?  Absolutely – nobody has ever seriously advocated otherwise.

But would the costs of not making that switch be even higher?  Yes.  According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing serious action on global warming. This would be on top of the $10.5 trillion investment needed from 2010 to 2030 to boost renewable energy development and improve energy efficiency.  And that’s just added costs to switching our energy infrastructure.  That analysis didn’t look at rising sea levels, rising temperatures, more severe droughts, acidified oceans, or geopolitical unrest as millions more climate refugees start moving around, etc.

Suddenly, the costs of switching to renewable energies and living more efficiently looks pretty cheap.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

News Items That Have Caught My Eye

Companies are sitting on $1 Trillion in cash.  The economy could be doing quite a bit better; millions of Americans could be employed, all if companies would spend the cash they already have.  They don’t need more tax breaks or incentives.  They don’t need to keep outsourcing American jobs to overseas workers.  They need to participate in good faith.

The Western U.S. will go up in flames if global warming deniers keep having their way.  The median annual area burned by wildfires is projected to jump 300% to 600% over much of Colorado by mid-century.  Oh, and Aspen could feel like Amarillo does today in the same time period.  By all means, keep denying though!

Green buildings, on average, only cost 1-2% more than non-green buildings.  Most of the public believes the number is closer to 17%.

Oldie but important: from a New York Times editorial this summer -

Last summer, pilots working with the United States Forest Service and the Natural Resources Defense Council made low-level flights over 25 million acres of forest, trying to gauge how much damage has been done. The results, released this month, are devastating. Just over half the white bark pine forests are dead; one-fourth have medium to high mortality; few forests have escaped some damage.

Forests continue to die in the face of global warming.  The effects on ecosystems haven’t been devastating yet, but it’s only a matter of time.  Time is non-renewable resource those forest ecosystems don’t have.

As I’ve stated in many of this year’s State of the Poles posts, the Arctic has likely entered a new climatological regime.  Saying it ain’t so with religious zeal isn’t changing things.

“New calculations show that the amount of melting inland ice in Greenland is 25-50% higher in 2010 than normally, reports professional journal Ingeniøren (The Engineer).”

The denialists had great fun pointing out what they said were ethical shortcomings of scientists last year after one of them illegally hacked government email servers.  Isn’t it interesting that not a peep has been issues this year as a prominent global warming critic is being investigated for plagiarism and outright fabrication of data in his now infamous Wegman Report.  Honestly, this is pretty unsurprising.  People who spend most of their time criticizing others for various “shortcomings” quite often are shown to engage in the exact behavior they accuse others of.  Deniers don’t have science backing them up and we’re sure to find that few of them have ethics backing them up either.  Silence from the denialists on this serious breach of conduct is deafening.

Wildfire Burn Areas Expected To Increase By Up To 175% By The 2050s

One of the natural disasters that affects the Western U.S. is, of course, wildfires.  I hope most readers know by now that our 20th century forest management policies had negative impacts on overall forest health.  Today’s forests are too overgrown – an unhealthy condition for the focus of this post: climate change.

I further hope that most readers know that climate change has already had some deleterious effects on Western forests, among them massive die-offspine beetle infestations.  Those effects aren’t likely to slow down any time soon.  Indeed, a recent paper, “Impacts of climate change from 2000 to 2050 on wildfire activity and carbonaceous aerosol concentrations in the western United States” finds an amazing increase in wildfire activity Western U.S. by 2050 under a moderate warming scenario:

We show that increases in temperature cause annual mean area burned in the western United States to increase by 54% by the 2050s relative to the present-day … with the forests of the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains experiencing the greatest increases of 78% and 175% respectively. Increased area burned results in near doubling of wildfire carbonaceous aerosol emissions by mid-century.

Fellow Coloradans: that 175% increase is going to happen in our backyard.

I’m going to highlight what I consider to be the most important point of this result: these results arise from a moderate warming scenario.  By that, I mean this forecast is associated with the IPCC’s A1B scenario, which includes CO2 concentrations at 552ppm in 2050, and which predicts “mean July temperatures to increase by 1.8°C from 2000 to 2050.”  Since the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report was issued in 2007, observations have confirmed that we are currently on the worst-case emissions path, known as A1F1 (see the Wiki link for more information).  Unfortunately, a lot of research is being conducted on the A1B scenario and not the A1F1 scenario.  Being on the worst-case scenario track cannot mean anything good for the Rocky Mountain forests, that much is certain.

This study confirms that another positive-feedback loop could be establishing itself.  Climate change is warming up and drying out the region.  This increases the chances that forests will experience more frequent and longer burning fires.  Those fires release additional huge amounts of carbon dioxide, which ensures that the already warmed climate will stay warmer longer as well as increasing warming.  The acceleration of climate change that stoked longer-lived and more frequent wildfires is accelerated even further.

Since I try to combine science with politics in my posts, this is the place to point out that Rep. John Salazar, whose district covers a lot of the area cited in the study, voted against ACES in June.  The same John Salazar who is working against health care reform because “it costs too much” and isn’t “deficit-neutral” voted to subject the Western U.S. to burn areas 5 times as large as they are today.  Where will the money come from to fight those fires and protect people in the future, Rep. Salazar?   Since you’re so anti-investment, what program would you propose we cut to pay for firefighting efforts in 2050 when 35,000,000 acres burn every year instead of 7,000,000?

The good news is the House passed H.R. 2454 and is awaiting Senate approval of their version.  Climate change mitigation at this point in time pays for itself.  That might not always be the case.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

America Post-2050 With Climate Change

The good news is slightly more attention is being paid to the issue of climate change in the media. The bad news is the dates being used don’t reflect the latest research to the degree they should. Since we have to take the bad with the good, I’m going to take a quick look at how the issue was handled recently. This Lifestyle article at MSN was about America post-2100. But since the overwhelming majority of climate change metrics are currently worse (as measured by observations) than they were forecasted to be for the 2007 IPCC Report, and since additional research since the Report was issued has moved up timelines for climate change effects, the article should relay to readers that the conditions within more accurately reflect post-2050 America than post-2100 America. But without further ado, let’s look at exactly what effects were discussed.

Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska
What we could see in 2100 post-2050: Heavier rains, dramatic warming over higher latitudes and sea-level rise.  According to recent research, Alaska has already experienced a 3.6 degree Fahrenheit increase since 1951, much more than the rest of America. The Northwest will also be affected by the forecasted two to three feet (or as much as 3-7 feet, according to more recent research) of sea level rise.

Rocky Mountains: Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Montana
What we could see in 2100 post-2050: Shorter snow season, early snow-melt, longer and more intense drought, wildfire and water issues.

Northeast: Virginia to Maine
What we could see in 2100 post-2050: More severe storms in the winter and summer, extreme sea level rise and flooding. Indeed, a couple of recent journal articles I’ve read point out that if the land-based West Antarctica ice sheets melt this century, sea levels won’t rise by the same amount all over the globe. Sea levels off the U.S. Northeast coast will rise a couple of meters more than other places. Unfortunately, that region is also one of the most densely populated by people.

Southeast: The Gulf Coast states, up to Carolina
What we could see in 2100 post-2050: Hurricanes, wind damage, storm surges, flooding, extra sea level rise. Lots of people, lots of infrastructure. That means lots of money to either protect everything and everybody or move them inland.

The Northern Plains, Midwest and Great Lakes
What we could see in 2100 post-2050: Stronger storms (i.e. tornadoes, heavy rain events) occurring throughout the year as well as warmer winters. More intense storm systems mean increased chances of flash flooding across the region.

Southwest: Arizona, New Mexico, California and Nevada
What we could see in 2100 post-2050: Drought and water shortages, heat waves and wildfire.

By not choosing to pay to address these potential effects now, we choose to pay more for them later. Protection along the coasts, more flood defense systems, dropping water tables higher rates of disease associated with warmer conditions, among others, will all have an adverse financial effect. Larger clean-up and rescue efforts will cost more. Building insurance rates will skyrocket – forcing more and more people to go without or move inland whether the coasts are protected or not. What will loss of part of population centers mean for businesses and urban cores?

These changes will more likely occur sooner rather than later.  More people in the U.S. need to understand that potential so that more realistic policies can be set.

2008 Pine Beetle Kill: 400,000 acres in CO

The mountain pine beetles continued to spread through Colorado forests in 2008. The numbers are bleak: 400,000 acres succumbed to the beetles last year. That adds to the 1.5 million acres affected by the beetles in the past 10 years or so. Most of those acres were attacked by the beetles in the past few years as a medium-term drought and warmer winter nights have made their influence felt over the state and region.

The area where the beetles moved through in 2008 shifted from years past to the Front Range.  Their effects will be more visible to larger number of Coloradans.  I’ve seen the dead trees they leave behind from roads through the Rocky Mountains and from the air, thanks to a flight set up by the Wilderness Society during the DNC in August 2008.  It is widespread and it continues to grow.  Colorado, after all, is only one state affected by differing species of beetles.  The remainder of the Rocky Mountains also suffer from the beetle epidemic, from Mexico through Canada.  The RMN article doesn’t include numbers from other states or provinces.  Once I locate them, I’ll make note of them.

Two pellet mills are now operating in Kremmling and Walden.  They buy trees that can’t be otherwise salvaged.  Lumber from dead trees is also showing up for sale in a growing number of places (thanks to efforts by people like Sen. Dan Gibbs).  The Forest Service and local municipalities are trying to educate the public about the dangers of the millions of acres of dead trees.  Gov. Ritter formed his Forest Health Council almost a year ago, as he works to keep up to date with the issue.  His efforts led to the introduction of the Healthy Forests/Vibrant Communities Act of 2009.

Colorado hasn’t seen a bad wildfire season in a number of years, which is both good and bad.  It’s good because it has allowed for the removal of a large number of trees around human populated areas.  It’s bad because the extent of dead trees continues to grow – setting the stage for potentially catastrophic wildfires in the future.  If there is a series of dry thunderstorms one summer, a lot of acres are going to burn.

$13 million in federal funds is expected to find its way to Colorado this year.  That’s more than the $8 million made available last year.  It’s less than the $20 million needed by agencies to help alleviate some of the threat.  I will note that there were a couple of bills in the U.S Congress last year that were written to help deal with maintaining our forests’ health.  Neither of them moved out of committee, despite being written by Dem. Rep. Mark Udall in a Democratic-led Congress.  I realize there are plenty of things on Congress’ plate, but this is simply an issue that can’t be shuttled to the side for very long.  Tomorrow’s costs due to today’s inaction grow exponentially with each passing year (wildfire and climate change both apply).

Climate change is already changing the planet.  The beetle epidemic is but one manifestation of it.  Unfortunately, the infestation is one of the things that climatologists couldn’t predict on their own.  Coordination between climatologists, biologists and many other kinds of specialists is needed to communicate the eventual effects climate change will have on the planet.  As we move forward, those efforts need to be made so that their cost to our society can be appropriately tallied and dealt with.

What’s In The News: 9/18/08

Bush breaks yet another record.  George Bush’s disapproval rating is the highest of any President.  Ever.

Palin can’t answer questions.

Pine beetles are also eating at Utah’s forests.  Part of a Utah newspaper story: the complex relationship between climate change, pine beetles and wildfires.

File this in a desperate campaign’s attempt to garner attention.  Republican Bob Schaffer is telling audiences that Rep. Mark Udall won’t debate him.  Despite the fact that they’ve debated six times already and have eight more scheduled in the next 47 days, or one per week.  Udall’s spokesman said it best, “I have two concerns here. One is that Bob Schaffer can’t count. The other is that he is dishonest.”  Hey Bob, there’s a reason your campaign is down by double digits.  Telling lies won’t close that gap – it will just make you look like an ass when you lose.

Random Pieces 7/29/08

Gov. Ritter’s Energy Office is offering a suite of programs and financial support to tornado affected residential properties in Windsor. The GEO has announced four opportunities for support for those impacted by the tornado that touched down in Weld County in May 2008. GEO will help homeowners, renters, and builders save money and save energy as they rebuild their community through the following programs:

ENERGY STAR New Homes
Insulate Colorado
Energy $aving Partners
Solar Domestic Hot Water

*****

Dr. Reese Halter at AlterNet assesses our readiness for climate change: we’re not ready for it. The latest evidence supporting this view: the California wildfires that continue to burn out of control.

*****

A CNN article tries to look at the “reality” of bringing wind power to our electricity portfolio.  It contrasts some opposing view-points (which follows the corporate stenographers’ lazy methodology of he-said/she-said type reporting) but doesn’t go very deep into the subject.  It spends more time looking at government regulations, which will be necessary to fully flesh out the technology, than the technology itself.  In another typical fashion, it examines wind energy by itself under a microscope.  No mention of solar or geothermal power is made.  There is no examination of the big picture.  Thankfully, there are scientists and even some policy makers whose job is to look at the big picture.  Our portfolio must expand quickly from fossil fuels.  It can be done.  Will it?

Community Response to Wildfire Potential

A group of volunteers in Allenspark, CO have helped develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Common sense precautionary measures such as cutting down trees and shrubs to create fire breaks are being heavily encouraged. For those that don’t enact recommended measures, being placed near the end of the list to receive help is a distinct possibility. The volunteers are hoping to educate local residents as well as search for funds to pay for fire protection projects.

The area has been affected by the destructive outbreak of the mountain pine beetle. Locals are not only reported to keep an eye out for infested trees, but also isolate and dispose of them, limiting the beetles’ spread in a small fashion. The group cannot of course halt warmer winters, which create ideal conditions for rapid beetle spread, by themselves.

Final plans are scheduled to be turned into approval agencies one month after resident input has been incorporated. The article notes that funds for projects are anticipated, but not guaranteed.

Beetle Killed Trees May Be Allowed to Burn

If any fires that burn in beetle ravaged forests get bad enough, the U.S. Forest Service will consider giving up acreage and hopefully keep firefighters safe. Here are some of the problems fire crews could face:

Thick beds of pine needles, fallen timber and weakened trees create great risks, officials say. Fallen timber makes getting in and out of an area difficult. Hotter fires can spread quickly among tree crowns. And falling trees pose a risk.

Importantly:

Decisions on how to fight fires are always made on a case-by-case basis depending on factors such as weather and the fires’ proximity to developed areas, fire officials said.

The reason I highlighted part of that sentence is that some of the responses to the article on the Post’s site unfairly attack liberals and the Forest Service. It’s not surprising those comments are there. After all, conservatives make a habit of criticizing without offering their own solutions. Now on to the meatier side of this issue.

First off, you can find a map of affected areas at Colorado State University’s Forest Service website. Areas affected primarily by mountain pine beetles are displayed by themselves on the second map.

A spokesperson for the Forest Service’s pine bark beetle incident management team duly notes that the beetles took 10 years to affect one million acres. In the 11th year, half that number was affected. That is a sign that the system shifted in a radical, meaningful way. As a nonlinear system, these kinds of quick shifts are to be expected, and more shifts like them are likely in store for it in the future. We continue to force the climate system and the system is showing sign after sign that the forcing is having an effect. Add in a century of less-than-optimal forest management, and it’s obvious that the West of the 21st century has been dealt a bad hand that must be dealt with responsibly.