« EarthFirst and Orion Enter Joint Venture for Scrap Tire Recycling Facility | Main | DOE to Provide up to $21.5 Million for Research to Improve Fuel Efficiency of Light-Duty Vehicle Engines »
WMO Reports on Extreme Weather and Climate Events in 2007; FAO Chief Says Climate Change Likely to Increase Risk of Hunger
7 August 2007
Many regions of the world experienced record extremes in weather and climate since the beginning of this year, according to an initial report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). WMO will provide more comprehensive information on weather and climate anomalies observed in 2007 towards the end of the year.
Separately, the Director-General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said that climate change is likely to undermine food production in the developing world, with a country such as India potentially losing up to 18% of its cereal production.
January and April 2007 saw the warmest global land surface temperatures since records began in 1880—1.89°C warmer than average for January and 1.37°C warmer than average for April—according to the data gathered by the WMO. Several regions have experienced extremely heavy precipitation, leading to severe floods.
The Fourth Assessment Report of the WMO /UNEP Intergovernmental Group on Climate Change (IPCC) notes an increasing trend in extreme events observed during the last 50 years. (Earlier post.) IPCC further projects it to be very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.
WMO and the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services of its 188 Members are working with other UN Agencies and partners towards the establishment of a multi-hazard early warning system. Furthermore, they are putting in place sustainable observation systems needed for monitoring and assessing the impacts of climate change and determining the adaptation priorities for the most vulnerable countries.
Heavy rainfall, cyclones and wind storms. During the first half (June-July) of the Indian summer monsoon season, four monsoon depressions (double the normal frequency) caused heavy rainfall and floods in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Many stations reported 24-hr rainfall exceeding 350 mm. These monsoon extremes and incessant rains caused large-scale flooding all over South Asia, a situation that continues even now, resulting in more than 500 deaths, displacement of more than 10 million people and destruction of vast areas of croplands, livestock and property.
Cyclone Gonu, the first documented cyclone in the Arabian Sea, made landfall in Oman on 6 June with maximum sustained winds near 148 km/h. (Earlier post.) Gonu moved through the Persian Gulf making a second landfall in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In Oman, the cyclone affected more than 20,000 people and was responsible for more than 50 fatalities.
Heavy rains during 6-10 June ravaged areas across southern China. Flooding affected more than 13.5 million people with more than 120 fatalities due to floods and landslides.
In England and Wales the period May to July in 2007 was the wettest (406 mm) since records began in 1766, breaking the previous record of 349 mm in 1789. The extreme rainfall in June, with 103.1 mm of rain recorded in 24 hours during 24-25 June in northeast England, was followed by a similar event with 120.8 mm of rain on 20 July in central England. Both events resulted in extensive flooding across parts of England and Wales. At least nine people have died and damage is estimated at more than US$6.00 billion.
With 126 mm (normal for 1961-1990: 71 mm), Germany experienced its wettest May since country-wide observations started in 1901. In sharp contrast, the previous month was the driest April since 1901 with an average of 4 mm (7% of the 1961-1990 normal).
A powerful storm system affected much of northern Europe during 17-18 January 2007 with torrential rains and winds gusting up to 170 km/h. There were at least 47 deaths across the region, with disruptions in electric supply affecting tens of thousands during the storm. Initial estimates of losses were reported as €3-5 billion.
The worst flooding event in 6 years hit Mozambique in February. An estimated 30 people were killed and 120,000 evacuated from the central Zambezi basin. Additional flooding and loss of life was attributed to the landfall of tropical cyclone Favio on 22nd February.
Abnormally heavy and early rainfall in Sudan since the end of June has caused the Nile River and other seasonal rivers to overflow, resulting in extensive flooding and damaging more than 16,000 houses.
In May a series of large swell waves (estimated at 3-4.5 meters) swamped some 68 islands in 16 atolls in the Maldives causing serious flooding and extensive damages.
In early May, Uruguay was hit by the worst flooding since 1959. Heavy rainfall in portions of Uruguay produced floods that affected more than 110,000 people and severely damaged crops and buildings.
Heat Waves. Two extreme heat waves affected south-eastern Europe in June and July, breaking the previous records with temperatures exceeding 40°C. Dozens of people died and fire-fighters worked around the clock fighting blazes devastating thousands of hectares of land. On 23 July, temperatures hit 45°C in Bulgaria, setting a new record.
In May a heat wave affected areas across western and central Russia breaking several temperature records. In Moscow, temperatures on 28 May reached 32.9°C, the highest temperature recorded in May since 1891.
In many European countries, April was the warmest ever recorded with the temperatures reaching more than 4°C over and above the long-term mean in some areas.
In India, a heat wave during mid-May produced temperatures as high as 45-50°C (113-122°F)
Recognizing the severe health impacts of heat waves, the WMO and the World Health Organization (WHO), are at an advanced stage of preparing Guidance on the implementation of Heat Health early Warning Systems (HHWS).
Climate Change and Extremes. According to the most recent climate change scientific assessment reports of the joint WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature. The 100-year trend (1906-2005) is 0.74°C. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.
Paleoclimatic studies suggest that the average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in the past 1,300 years.
IPCC further notes that there has been an increasing trend in the extreme events observed during the last 50 years, particularly heavy precipitation events, hot days, hot nights and heat waves.
Climate change projections indicate it to be very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.
Additional events. An unusual cold winter season brought winds, blizzards and rare snowfall to various provinces in South America with temperatures reaching as low as -22°C in Argentina and -18°C in Chile in the beginning of July.
On 27 June a winter weather front moved across South Africa bringing the country’s first significant snowfall since 1981 (25 cm of snow in parts of the country).
Many European countries had their warmest January on record. January temperatures in The Netherlands were the highest since measurements were first taken in 1706, averaging about 7.1°C (2.8°C above 1961-1990 average) while in Germany the temperatures were 4.6°C above the 1961-1990 average.
An increase in intense tropical cyclone activities in the North Atlantic since about 1970 has been observed.
This information is based on inputs received from several WMO Members and with the collaboration of the NOAA National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC), USA, Germany's National Meteorological Service, the Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD) and the Met Office, UK. It includes an indicative but not exhaustive coverage of the observed weather and climate extremes.
Climate Change Impact on Agriculture
In a speech at the M.S. Swaminathan Foundation Conference in Chennai, India, FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf said that even small levels of warming are likely to affect crop yield in the lower latitudes.
Crop yield potential is likely to increase at higher latitudes for global average temperature increases of up to 1 to 3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that. On the contrary, at lower latitudes, especially in the seasonally dry tropics, crop yield potential is likely to decline for even small global temperature rises, which would increase the risk of hunger.
—Director-General Diouf
Greater frequency of droughts and floods would affect local production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes, Dr. Diouf added.
Rainfed agriculture in marginal areas in semi-arid and sub-humid regions is mostly at risk. India could lose 125 million tons of its rainfed cereal production—equivalent to 18 percent of its total production.
The impacts of climate change on forests and on forest dependent people are already evident in increased incidents of forest fires and outbreaks of forest pests and diseases. Climate change adaptation will be needed in a variety of ecosystems, including agro-ecosystems (crops, livestock and grasslands) forests and woodlands, inland waters and coastal and marine ecosystems, according to Diouf.
Science and technology must spearhead agricultural production in the next 30 years at a pace faster than the Green Revolution did during the past three decades, Dr. Diouf asserted.
But, he cautioned, most genetically modified (GM) crops being cultivated today were developed to be herbicide tolerant and resistant to pests. Development of GM crops with traits valuable for poor farmers, especially within the context of climate change—such as resistance to drought, extreme temperatures, soil acidity and salinity—is not yet a reality.
I cannot sufficiently underline the need to also address the needs of resource poor farmers in rainfed areas and on marginal lands. Ensuring that new biotechnologies help achieve this goal, in full awareness of biosafety, socio-economic and ethical concerns associated with the use of some of these technologies remains a challenge for the entire scientific community.
August 7, 2007 in Climate Change | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/20660206
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WMO Reports on Extreme Weather and Climate Events in 2007; FAO Chief Says Climate Change Likely to Increase Risk of Hunger:
Comments
Doesn't Get It:
Director General Diouf doesn't understand the climate crisis. There is no way to manage our way out of catastrphe if we don't stop contaminating our atmosphere with CO2. As CO2 levels rise, climate simply won't move to another stabilstate that can be accomodated with different crop varieties: Its just going to get hoter and hotter and hotter. As evaporation exceeds precipitaiton forests will die and lakes will evaporate. In Wisconsin, most of our seepage lakes have lost about 15-20% of their water in the past five years. Climate is changing so qucikly that its a moving target that adaptation is not possible.
What Director General Diouf should say is that as long as we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere we will simply set the stage for global ecolological collapse and massive starvation. First in the tropics and then in the previously temperate regions.
In other words, burning fossil fuels is equal to starvation.
For those of you who think we can just move agriculture further north as it gets hotter and hotter have not spent much time in Canada or the tundra. Glaciation has removed most of the topsoil and deposited it as galcial overburden in places like Wisconsin and Michigan. There simply isn't enough soil to grow crops in northen regions as compared to the former prairie and woodland soils of the temperate regions.
Posted by: NoDenial | Aug 7, 2007 3:59:53 PM
Only the rich and strong will survive, even though climate change is caused mostly by the rich. In 100 years every one is going to be FUCKED!
Posted by: lane | Aug 7, 2007 5:17:55 PM
At this point, not burning fossil fuels is equal to starvation. This is the proverbial rock and a hard place. Farming is a very energy intensive activity and I'd prefer to make the energy transition without causing a famine.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 7, 2007 5:21:04 PM
Cervus, I don't think the choice is whether to burn fossil fuels or not, its how much do we burn. Calling for reductions doesn't necessarily mean calling for recession and depression. As you have said yourself previously, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. ie lets start somewhere - some kind of policy that will result in at least a slowing of emissions. I don't think it will break us.
Posted by: marcus | Aug 7, 2007 11:23:18 PM
Marcus:
I'd love to start somewhere. I've gone from being a skeptic to being a climate change worrier in record time, but the sheer magnitude of the task is absolutely overwhelming. Some people like the first poster think the battle is already lost even if we make some very radical changes in a very short amount of time.
The proverbial rock and a hard place. I really don't know what to do any more. If Hansen and his colleagues are right, we have less than ten years to make major changes. There just don't seem to be any good options.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 8, 2007 12:30:58 AM
read in the " Observer " last weekend ,that in austrailia´s once great
Murrey river has been reduced to a trickle that does not reach the sea
any more, and they are having to draw up contingency plans to evacuate
the city of Adalaide if the problem does not improve !
Here in northern Italy our normal summer cycle of hot humid days
with large thunder storms at night , seems to have gone now for the third
year running , rainfall is very low ,not nearly enough to support the forests
and lush vegetation .
Posted by: andrichrose | Aug 8, 2007 12:51:09 AM
@ NoDenial -
what you are describing is a runaway greenhouse effect such as has already occurred on the planet Venus. From what I've read so far, that is not considered a likely scenario, if only because if and when climate change actually does result in significant costs, there will be a (belated) response.
Sadly, public support for proactive solutions is typically low as long as risk is all there is, because Joe Average has a hard time dealing rationally with risk. Usually, something tragic has to actually occur (i.e. people have to die, strategic resources have to be lost, economies have to go into recession, etc.) before the self-preservation instinct of the affected population kicks in.
This mass psychology dynamic applies not just to extremely complex supranational issues such as climate change. They also apply to nuclear power (everyone was ra-ra in the '50s, definitely not so since Chernobyl) and even nuts-and-bolts infrastructure (steam pipes in NY, bridges in MN etc.)
Complicating the picture is that even though we've had the UN and supranational organizations such as the EU for decades, global accountability remains very much a voluntary process. The poorest of the poor in the Third World will suffer most as a result of climate change caused primarily by the West, yet they will receive little or no compensation for it.
The logical consequence is mass migration, some of it to the West - illegally if need be. This applies equally to the US and Europe. Both are already facing what they consider serious illegal immigration issues, expect these to become much worse. Theoretically, Russia, Canada and Scandinavia should all benefit to some extent from climate change, creating a safety valve for migration. In practice, however, those countries can and will do only so much to alleviate the problem.
All of which will lead almost inevitably to armed conflict in the world's poorest countries for control of their dwindling domestic land and water resources. The weapons will be provided by the usual suspects. Plus ca change...
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Aug 8, 2007 1:45:13 AM
As over 75% of the current CO2 (in USA and Canada) is produced by transportation vehicles + coal fired power plants, it should not be that difficult to change the equation.
The current 7.5+ tonnes of CO2 produced per American/Canadian every year could be reduced to about 1.85 tonnes within 15 to 20 year with a massive program to:
1) capture and sequester CO2 from existing coal power plants and/or
2) replace all existing coal power plants with a combination of Solar, Wind, Waves, Geothermal, Hydro, NG, and up-to-date Nuclear units.
3) replace all existing ICE vehicles with a combination of lighter more efficient PHEVs, BEVs and Fuel Cell units.
A better way would be to reduce our energy per capita consumption by 50% (or more)" This is not only POSSIBLE but very EASY to do.
There are 1001 ways to consume less energy starting with more energy efficient housing, triple pane insulated windows and doors, geothermal HVAC, programmable 10-steps thermostats, Solid state lights, energy saving appliances, SEER 23+ A/C instead of the old SEER 10, electric lawn mowers, electric boats, electric bikes/scooters instead of the gas version etc.
We reduced the energy consumption in our all electric home from 65+ Kwh/dy to about 25 Kwh/dy without lowering (actually increasing) our living comfort. If we all do it, many existing coal power plants could be phased out.
Of course, we all know that PHEVs and BEVs could eventually reduce the current CO2 (about 37% of total) to almost zero. Even at $12K+ per vehicle for batteries (a mere $1k/year) we should have enough common sense to do it.
The extra electrical energy required could easily be produced from a combination of Solar, Wind, Waves, Hydro, Geothermal and Nuclear.
The technologies are all there or will be around very shorthly. Why do we have to wait till the sky falls on our heads? Let's order our Toyota PHEV Prius now and change it for a Prius BEV 5 or 6 years latter.
Posted by: | Aug 8, 2007 12:39:42 PM
Here, here what ever your name is!!
Posted by: marcus | Aug 8, 2007 4:58:31 PM
I'm curious, anon, how much money did you spend to achieve that kind of increased efficiency? The cost of new, more efficient appliances represents an investment of many thousands of dollars. That's certainly not an option for a great many people.
It isn't about common sense. It's about hard economics. An extra $12k per vehicle for a PHEV is not an insignificant increase.
I hear a lot of "It's to easy!" from some people. Frankly, it reeks of armchair quarterbacking. Kudos to your own efforts. I'm happy for you. But don't assume that everybody can copy you. "It should not be that difficult".
Well, I hate to say it. But it is that difficult.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 8, 2007 5:47:09 PM
Seems like Brooklyn just had its first tornado. Perhaps, contrary to popular opinion, there were a few unexpected truths in "The Day After" after all....
Cervus, I just don't beleive in sitting there saying we are helpless. Look what was achieved during WWII. It just takes political will. Better to try at least some suggestions such as anon is proposing or similar. Its doesn't help anyone to always shoot such ideas down.
Posted by: marcus | Aug 8, 2007 7:42:45 PM
Marcus:
I have a whole laundry list of technologies I'd like to see succeed: Algae-based biofuels, PHEVs, BEVs, geothermal energy, agri/biochar, etc.. But I don't know what is ultimately going to win because the economics are so uncertain.
We see progress on a daily basis on this site. But the the technologies that succeed first will be the ones that make economic sense. By "economic sense" I mean what people are willing to pay (Look at Tesla). Clearly, anon can somehow afford to replace that old A/C unit. But until we see a $20k PHEV, I doubt we're going to see as much change as we'd like.
I admit I've grown rather cynical lately. I just don't see progress happening at the pace I'd like. I have financial and practical limitations to how efficient I can actually be. New appliances aren't cheap. I can't go buy a new 'fridge on a whim. I can't afford to live closer to work. Fortunately I live where I don't need A/C, as there are only a few very hot days. I've replaced bulbs with CFLs. I hibernate my computer when I'm not at home. I ride my scooter to work several days per week.
And I get irritated when I feel like I'm being lectured by someone who can't even leave his/her name.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 8, 2007 8:26:07 PM
Now this is an interesting new technology:
Smaller, Cheaper Biofuel Reactors
BTL tech to make syngas reactors much smaller. Drawback: it uses rhodium as a catalyst.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 8, 2007 9:41:35 PM
The cost of new, more efficient appliances represents an investment of many thousands of dollars. That's certainly not an option for a great many people.
Sure, it is. They squander borrowed money (at credit card rates, no less) on all sorts of frivolities. Please don't be an insincere populist.
Posted by: jack | Aug 8, 2007 11:36:53 PM
