National Research Council Report: Climate Change Will Have a Significant Impact on US Transportation Infrastructure and Operations
11 March 2008
While every mode of transportation in the US will be affected as the climate changes, potentially the greatest impact on transportation systems will be flooding of roads, railways, transit systems, and airport runways in coastal areas because of rising sea levels and surges brought on by more intense storms, according to a new report from the National Research Council.
Although the impacts of climate change will vary by region, it is certain they will be widespread and costly in human and economic terms, and will require significant changes in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems, according to the report, The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on US Transportation.
The National Research Council (NRC) functions under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). The four organizations are collectively referred to as the National Academies.
The US transportation system was designed and built for local weather and climate conditions, predicated on historical temperature and precipitation data. However, the report finds that climate predictions used by transportation planners and engineers may no longer be reliable in the face of new weather and climate extremes. Infrastructure pushed beyond the range for which it was designed can become stressed and fail, as seen with loss of the US 90 Bridge in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
The time has come for transportation professionals to acknowledge and confront the challenges posed by climate change, and to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge into the planning of transportation systems. It is now possible to project climate changes for large subcontinental regions, such as the Eastern United States, a scale better suited for considering regional and local transportation infrastructure.
—Henry Schwartz Jr., past president and chairman of Sverdrup/Jacobs Civil Inc., and chair of the committee that wrote the report
The committee identified five climate changes of particular importance to US transportation:
Increases in very hot days and heat waves. It is highly likely (greater than 90% probability of occurrence) that heat extremes and heat waves will continue to become more intense, longer lasting, and more frequent in most regions during the twenty-first century. In 2007, for example, the probability of having five summer days at or above 43.3° C (110° F) in Dallas is about 2%. In 25 years, this probability increases to 5%; in 50 years, to 25%; and by 2099, to 90%.
Increases in Arctic temperatures. Arctic warming is virtually certain (greater than 99% probability of occurrence), as temperature increases are expected to be greatest over land and at most high northern latitudes. As much as 90% of the upper layer of permafrost could thaw under more pessimistic emission scenarios. The greatest temperature increases in North America are projected to occur in the winter in northern parts of Alaska and Canada as a result of feedback effects of shortened periods of snow cover. By the end of the twenty-first century, projected warming could range from as much as 10.0°C (18.0° F) in the winter to as little as 2.0° C (3.6° F) in the summer in the northernmost areas. On an annual mean temperature basis for the rest of North America, projected warming ranges from 3.0° to 5.0°C (5.4° C to 9.0° F), with smaller values near the coasts.
Rising sea levels. It is virtually certain (greater than 99% probability of occurrence) that sea levels will continue to rise in the twenty-first century as a result of thermal expansion and loss of mass from ice sheets. The projected global range in sea level rise is from 0.18 m (7.1 in) to 0.59 m (23.2 in) by 2099, but the rise will not be geographically uniform. The Atlantic and Gulf Coasts should experience a rise near the global mean, the West Coast a slightly lower rise, and the Arctic Coast a rise of only 0.1 m (3.9 in). These estimates do not include subsidence in the Gulf and uplift along the New England Coast. Nor do the global projections include the full effects of increased melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice masses because current understanding of these effects is too limited to permit projection of an upper bound on sea level rise.
Increases in intense precipitation events. It is highly likely (greater than 90% probability of occurrence) that intense precipitation events will continue to become more frequent in widespread areas of the United States.
Increases in hurricane intensity. Increased tropical storm intensities, with larger peak wind speeds and more intense precipitation, are projected as likely (greater than 66% probability of occurrence). No robust projections concerning the annual global number of tropical storms has yet emerged from modeling studies, but more detailed analyses focused on the Atlantic Ocean suggest no significant increases in the annual number of Atlantic tropical storms.
In addition to climate changes, there are a number of contributing factors that will likely lead to vulnerabilities in coastal-area transportation systems. Population is projected to grow in coastal areas, which will boost demand for transportation infrastructure and increase the number of people and businesses potentially in harm's way; erosion and loss of wetlands have removed crucial buffer zones that once protected infrastructure; and an estimated 60,000 miles of coastal highways are already exposed to periodic storm flooding. Transportation providers will need to focus on evacuation planning and work more closely with weather forecasters and emergency planners.
Infrastructure vulnerabilities will extend beyond coastal areas as the climate continues to change. In the Midwest, for instance, increased intense precipitation could augment the severity of flooding, as occurred in 1993 when farmland, towns, and transportation routes were severely damaged from flooding along 500 miles of the Mississippi and Missouri river systems. On the other hand, drier conditions are likely to prevail in the watersheds supplying the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes as well as the Upper Midwest river system. Lower water levels would reduce vessel shipping capacity, seriously impairing freight movements in the region, such as occurred during the drought of 1988, which stranded barge traffic on the Mississippi River. And in California, heat waves may increase wildfires that can destroy transportation infrastructure.
Not all climate changes will be negative, however, the report concludes. Marine transportation could benefit from more open seas in the Arctic, creating new and shorter shipping routes and reducing transport time and costs. In cold regions, rising temperatures could reduce the costs of snow and ice control and would make travel conditions safer for passenger vehicles and freight.
Preparing for projected climate changes will be costly. Transportation decision makers continually make short- and long-term investment decisions that affect how the infrastructure will respond to climate change. Response measures range from rehabilitating and retrofitting infrastructure to making major additions to constructing entirely new infrastructure. The committee noted the need for “a more strategic, risk-based approach to investment decisions that trades off the costs of making the infrastructure more robust against the economic costs of failure.”
In the future, climate changes in some areas may necessitate permanent alterations. For example, roads, rail lines, and airport runways in low-lying coastal areas may become casualties of sea-level rise, requiring relocations or expensive protective measures, such as sea walls and levees.
The committee finds compelling scientific evidence that climate change is occurring, and that it will trigger new, extreme weather events and could possibly lead to surprises, such as more rapid than expected rises in sea levels or temperature changes. Every mode of transportation will be affected as climate change poses new and often unfamiliar challenges to infrastructure providers. The committee urges that the transportation community start now to confront these challenges.
The report calls for the federal government to have a strong role in implementing many of its recommendations that require broad-based action or regulation, such as:
The creation of a clearinghouse for information on transportation and climate change;
The establishment of a research program to re-evaluate existing design standards and develop new standards for addressing climate change;
Creation of an interagency working group on adaptation;
Changes in federal regulations regarding long-range planning guidelines and infrastructure rehabilitation requirements; and
Re-evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program and updating flood insurance rate maps with climate change in mind.
Many of the committee’s recommendations need not wait for federal action. Local governments and private infrastructure providers can begin to identify critical infrastructure that is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Professional organizations can single out examples of best practices, and transportation planners and climate scientists can begin collaboration on the development of regional scenarios for likely climate-related changes and the data needed to analyze their impacts. Focusing on the challenges now could help avoid costly transportation investments and disruptions to operations in the future.
This report is a collaborative effort between the Transportation Research Board and the Division on Earth and Life Studies of the National Research Council. The sponsors of this report are the Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, US Department of Transportation, Transit Cooperative Research Program, US Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Resources
Flamewar on''
And Nostridamous was 99% sure the world would end in 93.
The IT Guru's were 99% that it was the end at the stroke of midnight 00.
The Myans were 99% sure it's 2012.
How come I don't remember the model that said North America would have record setting snowfall this winter????
Posted by: Joseph | 11 March 2008 at 02:48 PM
In California most design is done on the basis of 100 year flood levels. I wonder if this report suggests a new criteria?
Is there now a climate model that can accurately predict specific weather patterns in specific regions years or decades in the future? If so it would be of value to all types of planners: farmers, construction, military, water districts, etc.
Posted by: Ed | 11 March 2008 at 05:43 PM
And Nostridamous was 99% sure the world would end in 93.
Nostradamous didn't put anything like that down. Thats the nature of traditional prophecy, it's vague. And yes I've looked at the giberish in the original latin, have you? And yes, I actually know latin.
The IT Guru's were 99% that it was the end at the stroke of midnight 00.
No, they didn't. They pointed out problems that were well addressed by the end of 99 and they tested out the upgraded systems. By the time y2k rolled on by, they corrected the affected systems.
The Mayans, well I have no idea but the when the Aztecs believed the end was near, it would be diverted by Cortez. They welcomed him with open arms and paid for it.
How come I don't remember the model that said North America would have record setting snowfall this winter????
Well maybe you don't remeber even seeing it, but I certainly do. In July/August of last year, I remeber reading the weather forcasters definitely prediting that due to la Nina that there would be increased precipatation along the NE corridor due to changes in the gulf stream. So did this year's snowfall surprise me? No, it didn't. I like many other wish it didn't come true but it did.
AGW is not a myth but based on well documented scientific reasoning. No international or national scientific organization does not recognize it's validaty including the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which was the last to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate with a statement in 2007 and admit the validity of AGW. Gee, wonder why they were the last hold out?
People can deal with it intelligently by being proactive or they can have their collective rears roasted. The main problem with being proactive is that it grates against the ideologies of the right with their total belief in non-government and laissez-faire approaches. Something that seems more and more unlikely to effectively deal with the evolving situation.
Posted by: aym | 11 March 2008 at 06:17 PM
While global warming isn't a vehicle for socialism like New Urbanism is in the development world, it's very shaky science with very politically driven motives by the environmentalist wackos. With real science, experiments can verify hypotheses - the freezing point of water, force of gravity, etc. But, that obviously cannot be done with global warming.....ie. X amount of CO2 pumped in the air will always have a Y result. So we now have a bunch of "scientists" who took all the data they could find (a tiny snapshot of the history of the world) and are jumping to conclusions after extrapolating it.....we need to be very, very careful with statistically driven findings. After all, one of the things that was taught in my statistics class was that "anyone can lie with statistics".
What's more important is energy independence NOW with clean energy for America (along with a virtually impermeable border and health care reform) - and we'll figure out if global warming is real later....this unfortunately is what most people across our great country are missing.
Posted by: ejj | 11 March 2008 at 06:19 PM
Global warming is a theory which deals with the hows and why of how the natural world works. It isn't a law of global warming with mathematical precision. There are various theories of how gravity works from bending space/time, etc which have consequences from the stated hypothesis ie the idea of black holes. That is much different from the law of newtonian gravity.
AGW is not the work or wackos or of wacko science. All national and international recognized scientific institutions recognize it as the main operational climate theory. That should say it all.
Posted by: aym | 11 March 2008 at 07:46 PM
"How come I don't remember the model that said North America would have record setting snowfall this winter????"
Because models dealing with global CLIMATE change don't deal with local and regional WEATHER. Climate and weather are different things, and deal with very different phenomena on very different scales. Record setting snowfall is interannual variation in local weather, earlier spring is interdecadal variation in local climate. Get the picture yet?
I think you're suffering some misconceptions as to what's weather and what's climate. Rectify them before you make a fool of yourself again.
Posted by: Charlie | 11 March 2008 at 08:35 PM
Climate is average of weather, usually for 30 years period. Climate models could not predict weather for more than 5 days, so models has nothing to average. This is the main reason why GCM climate models never were able to predict anything right.
Posted by: Andrey | 11 March 2008 at 10:06 PM
ejj,
The three industries that have most corrupted the scientific process are:
pharmaceuticals
tobacco
fossil fuels
The current US administration is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. This administration has intentionally corrupted, distorted and suppressed applicable government sponsored science.
You decry global warming as being poor science. Have you bothered to read the IPCC technical summary? http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
Bill
Posted by: Bill Young | 12 March 2008 at 05:12 AM
"All national and international recognized scientific institutions recognize it as the main operational climate theory. That should say it all"
The main operational THEORY in medieval times, by all the national and international institutions of the day, was that the world was flat, and it was PROVEN to be false. AGW is NOT PROVEN, and highly speculative. Also look at the IPCC data & models: statistics, and more statistics for a snapshot of data with speculation based on extrapolation.
Skepticism is needed here for AGW. My view is that we should treat AGW with a Pacal's Wager perspective: better to change our lifestyle with the belief that it is true than to do nothing and suffer the consequences if it is true. Let's have an apollo project for 100% energy independence for America with 100% clean technologies, but lets not get into carbon credits & taxes until there's more evidence.
Posted by: | 12 March 2008 at 07:25 AM
"All national and international recognized scientific institutions recognize it as the main operational climate theory. That should say it all"
The main operational THEORY in medieval times, by all the national and international institutions of the day, was that the world was flat, and it was PROVEN to be false. AGW is NOT PROVEN, NOT TRUTH and highly speculative. Also look at the IPCC data & models: statistics, and more statistics for a snapshot of data with speculation based on extrapolation.
Skepticism is needed here for AGW. My view is that we should treat AGW with a Pacal's Wager perspective: better to change our lifestyle with the BELIEF that it may be true than to do nothing and suffer the consequences if it is true. Let's have an apollo project for 100% energy independence for America with 100% clean technologies, but lets not get into carbon credits & taxes until there's more evidence.
Posted by: ejj | 12 March 2008 at 07:27 AM
Pascal's Wager
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22pascal%27s+wager%22
Posted by: ejj | 12 March 2008 at 07:29 AM
The idea of energy independence is flawed as well. There is a world of difference between reliance on hostile countries and "energy independence." We need to stop thinking in sound bites.
Posted by: Mike | 12 March 2008 at 07:52 AM
In Eisenhower's farewell address, in which he warned of the military industrial complex, he also said this:
"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Eternal Vigilance | 12 March 2008 at 08:31 AM
In medieval times, the institutions didn't believe the world was flat. That is how much history you actually know. It was well know since the days of ptolemy in egypt from greek mathematical study of shadows that the world was round. Even before then Plato and Aristotle believed the world was round. The west believed in these models of the earth. When Columbus sailed, he believed in a smaller, round earth. It is a populist belief that in medieval times people believed the world was flat.
A theory is not something that is proved correct in any fashion. It is an operational idea of how the system works. As such it has consequences.
In modern gravitational theory, black holes were postulated to exist from the basis of the theory. You cannot have guessed this from gravitational law. The postulated bodies had theorized secondary effects which were looked for and it strengthened the case that the theory was correct when they were found. This does not mean that a different theory could not take its place. But it must be able to incorporate the data in a unbiased fashion.
Long before genetics, the theory of evolution was postulated. It did not have a operational mechanism. It cannot be proved mathematically. It has shown itself to be the theory of how life developed from the evidential findings.
There is a huge difference between what is called a theory and law in science and what it means to the layman. I suggest you look it up especially since you seem to believe that a scientific theory means it is based on speculative reasoning and not evidence and it has to be proved like an equation. That is not the case.
AGW is the main theory on how today's climate presently works. It's consequences are already being felt. Shorter winters. Longer summers. Heat waves. Increased melting at the poles. There is no competing theory that incorporates this evidence. Denial isn't a theory.
The evidence points to AGW actually happening. Some of the more obvious effects are the ones in this article, others to the trillions of dollars worth of consequences. It would be remise and negligent to ignore it especially since the major objections to it seem to be based on political/social ideology and not actual science.
Posted by: aym | 12 March 2008 at 08:56 AM
In addition to believing the world was flat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth), institutions (ie. Roman Catholic Church, various governments of the day) of the middle ages believed in, and funded expeditions for, the fountain of youth
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_of_Youth). They also tortured and killed protestants that didn't go along with catholic orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition).
And another thing - adding words like "operational" to "theory" does not make it any more legitimate. Remember - Global Warming is based on drawing conclusions based on a (small) sample of data. We can say that smoking INCREASES your RISK of cancer - we can't say that you WILL get cancer if you smoke. We have no knowledge from other planets like earth that have pumped C02 into the air, that global warming has occurred, and we CANNOT say with certainty that pumping CO2 into the air WILL result in Global Warming.
We need 100% energy independence for our children and grandchildren - and it should be 100% clean in case global warming turns out to be true. We DON'T need a new generation of elitist kooks & quacks who slander & "shout down" opinions that are contrary to their own....unfortunately, I think that is where our great country is headed and people are going to get hurt.
Posted by: ejj | 12 March 2008 at 09:31 AM
There is a total difference between comparing modern scientific institutions, whose ideas are based on the scientific method to ones based on medieval religious and governmental institutions, who ideas are based on susperstition and popular belief of it's time.
The obvious tactic of comparing the modern scientific belief in a modern theory to a medieval superstitious belief is beyond contempt. You don't even have to go that far back in time but the baiting is obvious. Comparing it in such a fashion is outrageous. You may not believe in it and you may personally think of it that way but once you put it in a public forum in such a fashion be prepared to defend your position. How you present it and it's fashion tells alot of how a person thinks and why.
As for being elitist kooks & quaks, whose the one who keeps captilizing his words and is comparing a modern scientific theory to a medieval belief based on superstition. If it is elitist to use my intellilect to the best of my ability then to not do so would be denying myself. More people should use their intellects and be more introspective in the examination of their own beliefs and ideologies. I do not believe in the "tyranny of the majority" to silence myself. I do not believe in AGW as some religion and I find it offensive when it is compared thusly to some religious belief by those that deny its scientific validity.
As for slander, I am correcting misconceptions and misinformation. You may wish to take it as a personal insult but it isn't. If you wish to spread popular misconceptions be prepared to get corrected.
Your example aren't not quite true. Venus for example has a runaway greenhouse effect. The temperature doesn't match the energy it receives without it. CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas and this has been known for over a century. Check out Fourier and Arrhenius. We do experience global warming. CO2 has helped to keep this planet temperate and livable in a homeostatic relationship between life and geology and CO2 levels. It is not unreasonable to postulate that additional CO2 would produce undesirable effects. Downgrading that to mere speculation is not reasonable.
Posted by: aym | 12 March 2008 at 10:33 AM
"The idea of energy independence is flawed as well." Really? How hard is it to envision 100% AMERICAN MADE energy? Please.
Posted by: | 12 March 2008 at 10:52 AM
"How hard is it to envision 100% AMERICAN MADE energy?"
I'm sure it is easy for you to imagine the words, but who do you think is going to do it? How do you envision this happening? How long do you think it would take? What exactly is the benefit? Is there something special about the trade of energy as opposed to other things we need? Don't a lot of the things we need for the energy infrastructure get imported? Don't the other countries want to trade with us? I suggest you start with the NPC report "Facing Hard Truths."
Posted by: Mike | 12 March 2008 at 12:10 PM
"There is a total difference between comparing modern scientific institutions, whose ideas are based on the scientific method to ones based on medieval religious and governmental institutions, who ideas are based on susperstition and popular belief of it's time"
Your right; there is a difference of several hundred years.
Posted by: | 12 March 2008 at 12:12 PM
on CO2....fact is in periods of past global warming before the written word discovered via ice core samples if the plain fact that when the sun gets hotter....CO2 is emmitted from the Earth....without the help of man....
Posted by: TomBadger | 13 March 2008 at 06:03 AM
That's a great quote from Ike, Mike. Modern economists would probably say Ike was talking about "regulatory capture."
Jefferson also stated the case very well as follows:
Mankind soon learns to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume. The public money and public liberty...will soon be discovered to be sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them; distinguished, too, by this tempting circumstance, that they are the instrument, as well as the object of acquisition. With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money. Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.
Posted by: Mark | 14 March 2008 at 10:23 AM
Be very careful with global warming - it's shaky science.
Posted by: ejj | 14 March 2008 at 06:00 PM
there are those nameless knockers of knowledge and ejj uses anti intellectual ridicule to support claims.
It adds nothing to display your ignorance, Its all been said before.
To think that maybe everyones missed the point is strongly rebutted on the previous comments, you should pay particular attention to the replies as they are first class, as you would know if you knew your subject. If that doesn't suit whats the difficulty in going with the program? - you could reserve your comment till you had informed yourself in understanding the aims limitations and objectives of science, climate science, incl weather, Implications of AGW and greenhouse enhanced and runaway.
The only problem with this effort is that you will lose the option to claim ignorance as an excuse.
Posted by: Arnold | 14 March 2008 at 06:04 PM