Climate Case Studies – The 2010 Russian Heat Wave: Risks (2)
Climate Case Studies – The 2010 Russian Heat Wave: Risks (2)
In the last article I wrote about the March 11, 2011 earthquake in Tohoku, Japan. There are two points I want to bring forward from that entry. The first is to reiterate that our world exists in many systems with fragile balance. The second is that all of these systems are connected. In the last entry I followed one thread of global consequences and risks, including climate risks, following from an earthquake that is localized on the coast of a single island in Japan.
In the past couple of years nature has provided us many examples of case studies to appreciate the risks associated with climate and weather. In this entry, I want to revisit the 2010 Russian heat wave. The heat wave was at its peak in early August 2010. The direct impact of this historic heat wave and drought was many thousands of deaths and massive fires.
Even as early as July 16, 2010 many millions of acres of crops in Russia had been destroyed. By August 16, 2010 the cost of the drought and heat was estimated at 15,000 lives and 15 billion dollars. By August 3, 2010 wheat prices had increased dramatically and were on their way to doubling. In August 2010 Russia imposed a ban on wheat exports.
There has been significant analysis of this series of events. In June 2011 Oxfam produced a report (author George Welton) that looked directly at the consequences of Russia’s grain export ban. Intuition is that the export ban would be to protect the grain supply and cost within Russia. In an absolute sense, this was not realized, and prices of both grain and bread increased in Russia. Because of disproportionate impact on the poor, the rate of poverty increased. Internationally, wheat prices were pushed up. Two of the countries that buy much grain from Russia are Egypt and Pakistan. Within Egypt there was great stress on government, and the government committed to subsidies to try to maintain the low cost of bread. In Pakistan the cost of bread increased on the order of 15%.
The conclusion of the Oxfam report is that the cost of wheat and the damage of the drought and the heat wave both in Russia and outside of Russia would have been less if there had been no ban on exports. At least as early as August 19, 2010 an article in the Financial Times was stating that the markets responded more strongly to historical market behavior than it responded to the reality of the grain supplies. In the Financial Times article it is maintained, for example, that Egypt started buying up wheat early in August, driving up prices, in anticipation of a Russian export ban – consistent with previous behavior. (From the point of view of wheat farmers in, say, Colorado in 2010, impact of the Russian drought and embargo … June Low to August High)
What strikes me is that in the short term, a large impact of weather extremes is on markets. This impact is not directly related to the actual amount of grain deficiency caused by the weather extreme. Rather it is related to humans trying to find advantage or avoid perceived risk in the market. People are anticipating changes in not only wheat supply, but also changes in behavior. They are betting. This stands in contrast to the idea that because a quantity such as wheat operates in a global market that wheat would be relatively immune to such climate extremes. That is deficiencies in one place would be offset by surpluses in other places with the cost minimized by market forces. Perhaps this is true in the longer term, but damage has already occurred to those who are vulnerable.
Let’s continue: The winter of 2010 and the spring of 2011 were characterized by very high food prices. An essay by Sarah Johnstone and Jeffrey Mazo entitled, Global Warming and Arab Spring, draws a convincing line that the pressure on food prices was a contributor to the start of the revolutions of the Arab Spring – the tumultuous uprising against many Arab governments. (also here) To diffuse the arguments that are sure to follow – this was a contributor, along with many other factors that came together to fuel a movement. This is the idea of climate extremes as a threat multiplier.
When we talk about climate change and global warming, we often talk of it in the future. We talk about droughts and floods. But the consequence of droughts and floods include damage to crops and damage to cities. The impacts are local and direct, for some, but beyond the immediate, local impacts are the impacts through markets, budgets, and political systems. As these impacts tumble across the world, the results are unpredictable.
The reality of global warming is that events such as the Russian heat wave occur more frequently. The markets connect events globally. They connect parts of the world with agricultural excesses and deficiencies – but, if droughts and floods are more frequent and more extreme, then markets connect deficiencies with deficiencies. The impact of climate change is more disruption, more instability – a threat multiplier.
r
Figure 1: A woman sits surrounded by the remains of her home in the Russian village of Mokhovoye on July 31, 2010. (From Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty)
Some other interesting references.
Food Security and Russia’s 2010 Drought
Internal Political Ramifications of 2010 Drought and Heat Wave
Changes in Russian Views on Global Warming?
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
Birthmark, he really isn't interested in what kind of winter we are going to have. The link is to advertisements for drugs. ... We've been spammed! ...... The shame of it all! How have we come to this!? - added - imagine the voice of John Lithgow on 3rd rock from the Sun.
Drugs... hmmm...
Spam... hmmm...
Just this week:
Ireland
Italy floods
Link
Central America floods
Link
Thailand floods
LinkLinkLink
Link
Duh? This is the subject of Dr. Rood's blog. Did you read it? Pay attention or you will have to sit in the corner.
Yes, this has been brought to my attention. Do you mind if I take a nap while I am sitting in the corner? I could sure use the rest. Just throw something at me, should I begin to snore. Uhhh, throw something soft. Like another pillow. - The sad part is, I actually read Professor Rood's topic. .... sigh
Hey, truthfully. Couple of things:
1) The term "consensus" doesn't mean "total agreement"; it means "the conclusion or judgement arrived at by most of those concerned"--and that's certainly where the issue of GW/CC stands.
2) You state, "The evidence is neither overwhelming...as they claim...nor indisputable". I suppose some may not be overwhelmed, and some may think the evidence is disputable. But that majority--or consensus, if you will--of climate (not weather) experts is increasingly convinced because of the increasingly overwhelming and indisputable evidence.
3) You wrote, "...the data that was used by the university in Great Britain was found to be doctored so as to give the 'consensus' crowd more ammunition". That statement is, of course, untrue through and through. In fact, a number of independent and thorough investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of climatologists involved in the manufactured "climategate" scandal-that-wasn't.
4) You wrote, "To be labeled a 'skeptic' just because I doubt the claims of the 'weather experts' borders on ridiculous as well" The term "skeptic" is the preferred term, actually, though many non-believers aren't true skeptics in the scientific sense of the word--that is, people who remain unconvinced, but can be swayed with enough evidence. No, most of those who think most climate scientists disagree with AGWT--and those who ridicule "experts", and those who continue to claim in the face of all evidence that climate scientists at the Hadley Climate Research Unit were engaged in hanky-panky, and those who believe there is some evil motivation behind those who'd rather save the world for future generations--aren't skeptics at all, but simply deniers, people who have taken up an ideological position and steadfastly refuse to budge no matter what they read, here, see, or experience.
I didn't click on the link. I frequently don't if I think it's a dicey link. To check, I'll right click on the link, click "copy link location" and run a google search to see what comes up.
In this case, though, I didn't even do that since I know what NSAIDs are...and that they have nothing to do with weather or climate.
(You're talking to one of the few who was never Rick-rolled.)
And that is how you do that, Ladies and Gentlemen! :)
Remove the monetary factor and I highly doubt any "consensus" would exist. It's all about the money.
What you doubt or what you believe "it's all about" is, no offense, your personal problem.
However, if you come across some verifiable and pertinent information, do let me know. (Difficulty: No six-degrees-of-separation nonsense.)
However, your time would be better spent studying the actual science involved rather than what people say about the science. That much is obvious.
Faith...in what? The thousands (or tens of thousands) of scientific papers, along with observations in the real world and basic physics that have produced a robust theory --is that what requires faith IYO?
Rather, it takes a good deal of faith to dismiss all the science, all the observations, and require a re-write of physics. That is especially true with so very, very little science to back up that position.
2:36 AM GMT en Octubre 27, 2011
I think that climate change in combination with population stress etc. will lead to more, large disruptive events, and that will contribution to government instability. Since climate change is about the most predictable of these stresses, it makes sense to me to start to reduce vulnerabilities and to build resilience. To ignore climate change and, in general, to not use the knowledge that we gain in all aspects of research, increases risks and places us at disadvantage to those who do.
What are the long term consequences if we choose to ignore the only quick fix to our warming problem?
Also the Nile basin. What if Ethiopia decides to dam the Blue Nile in contravention to its treaty to help themselves during the next drought? Or South Sudan damming the White Nile?
Back in the 90s Turkey built new dams on the Tigris and Euphrates. That gave Syria and Iraq conniptions.
China is proposing and building several dams on rivers from the east side of the Tibetan plateau. The Irrawaddy, Salween, Mekong. Thailand, Kampuchea and even Myanmar are not liking that.
I think you're right. It won't be pretty.
My apologies to you, iceageisacoming. You were right on topic and I was someplace in the 5th dimension.
I woke up with a couple of extra pillows - Anyone???
Thank you, for your reply, Professor Rood. I, however, am afraid that you only reinforce my concerns for the future stability of civilization.
A hotter, drier climate and rapidly rising populations are not a good combination. The Arabian peninsula and the Fertile Crescent countries (Iraq and Syria, southwards) have more than 120 million people. Pushing 200 million people by 2050.
The situation will be ugly.
And Afghanistan is forecast to have more than 80 million people by 2050 given current fertility trends. No way there is enough arable land or water there to support 80 million people. I've been there, I'm going back. I've seen it. I don't see how anything other than a Malthusian resolution is possible. And Afghanistan's troubles probably won't be contained within its borders.
You can read the report and look at the pictures of the actual climate monitoring stations at: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05 /surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
Here are the concluding remarks of that report:
"The stakes in the debate over global warming are high. If human activities are causing a
major warming of the earth’s atmosphere, then actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
costing hundreds of billions of dollars would be necessary.
But how do we know if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the temperature record?
This report, by meteorologist Anthony Watts, presents the results of the first-ever comprehensive review of the quality of data coming from the National Weather Service’s network
of temperature stations. Watts and a team of volunteers visually inspected and took pictures
of more than 850 of these stations. What they found will shock you:
'We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units,
surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and
near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail
to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations
must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating
or reflecting source.'
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the
U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is
likely similarly compromised and unreliable."
This report also documents the biased temperature "adjustments" made by NOAA and NASA to seemingly "homogenize" the temperature data collected. And wouldn't you know...the "adjustments" are always warmer...Hmmmmmmmm...wonder why?
Now you know why there are many of us "skeptics"...oh sorry...."deniers".
I think we could agree on one thing: Our understanding of the weather and the climate should be based on unbiased and reliable data collection. In others words we should demand the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when it pertains to the raw temperature data. And I don't think we are getting it.
Truthfully, you may be unaware that Anthony Watts' Surface Station project has been rendered completely bogus by the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) project, which just last week released its long-awaited results. One of the elements analyzed by the BEST team is temperature records from only the very "best" sites as classified by Watts' project contrasted against sites Watts classified as "poorer". You can read the detailed results of that analysis here, but here's a snippet from the conclusion: "Based on both slope analysis and on temperature record reconstruction for the contiguous United States, using the temperature evaluations of Fall et al. [2009], we conclude that poor station quality in the United States does not unduly bias estimates of land surface average monthly temperature trends"
On a side note: while it's certainly true that non-scientists have made valuable contributions in the past, it may temper your enthusiasm for Watts a bit to learn that he holds no degrees at all, including any in the fields of meteorology or climatology. He was once a small-market TV and radio weather reader, but left that to base an entirely new career around tearing down the science careers of others. (He's also proven himself to be a liar and a hypocrite, but we can get into that later if you want.)
Neapolitan, did you even go back and look at the actual pictures of the climate monitoring stations in the Watts report? Do you want to base your opinion and conclusions on a temperature gauge that is 6 feet away from an air conditioning unit or is planted on a slab of concrete or asphalt?
The most important point regarding the BEST study is one that Muller dismissively mentions at the end of his WSJ article: "How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that." But, he pontificates, "Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate."
Dr. Muller's comments in the WSJ article are deceptive. Few scientists deny global warming, and most are very glad Earth has thawed from the Little Ice Age of the early 19th century. What they deny is anthropogenic global warming — the idea that human activities are driving catastrophic climate change. Since Muller admits his team "made no independent assessment of that," it seems his case against global warming skepticism has gone cold.
And your comments about the Watts Report are typical of Climate Change Zealots: If you can't discredit the message, shoot the messenger. Why do you need a Doctor's degree to question data collection...someone with a 8th grade education can look at the pictures of the sampling stations and wonder why they put them where they did. I am still...as ever...a "skeptic denier".
See, now you're inching into denialist territory. Careful; 'tis a slippery slope with
littleno good footing. ;-)--The BEST project looked at all the stations Watts and his team deemed "best". That is, those stations which Watts himself said were good to go were compared with all the stations he himself said were poorly-sited or inadequate for one reason or another. And the results are more than conclusive: the temperatures at the "bad" stations haven't been unduly biased. In other words, the planet is warming.
--The purpose of the BEST project was not to determine the cause or the effects of the current warming, but simply to verify that it was (or was not) taking place. It's a specious argument, then, to claim that Muller's refusal to speculate on those somehow invalidates the study.
--You wrote, "Few scientists deny global warming, and most are very glad Earth has thawed from the Little Ice Age of the early 19th century. What they deny is anthropogenic global warming." If it's true that "few scientists" deny that the planet is warming--and it is, indeed, true--why the arguments about the BEST project? As to whether "most are glad," do you have proof of that? I've yet to hear of a single credible climate scientist who says, "Ah, this'll be great! I can't wait!". And very few actual climate scientists dispute the anthropogenic cause or exacerbation of climate change; in fact, 97% are more or less convinced of it.
--You accuse me of "shooting the messenger" by noting Watts' lack of credentials. But let me ask you: if you were going into a hospital for open-heart surgery, would you want the guy with years of credible education and experience cutting you open? Or would you be okay with the third-floor janitor with a fourth-grade education doing it while taking a break from cleaning the restrooms? And more importantly, would it be "shooting the messenger" if one of the nurses pointed that out to you before you were put under?
Take care...
complaining on the internet.
Ahhhh, if only that were true. I wish we could solve all of the problems in such a manner.
The internet and the "complaining" does keep the subject on the radar screen and deters the "head in the sand" mentality but, yes, we seem to be complaining about the wrong thing. We should be complaining why no serious efforts are being put forth to help assure the survivability of our future generations.
complaining on the internet.
How do you think all those poorly sited weather stations affect the satellite temperature readings, which, btw, show the same warming trend (within the MoE) as those thermometers on Earth? Shouldn't there be a drastic difference between the two? If not, why? If so, then the Watts' weather station whining is without merit, no?
You use a handle promoting illegal drug use PurpleDrank.
WhatsUpWithThat?
MOSCOW (Reuters) -
Nearly 56,000 more people died nationwide this summer than in the same period last year, said a monthly Economic Development Ministry report on Russia’s economy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/25/us-russ ia-heat-deaths-idUSTRE69O4LB20101025
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/thank-god-best-p roject-rescues-us-from-thousands-of-lying-global-t hermometers/
On Wednesday night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart picked up on a story that rocked the science world in 2009: the email hacking that exposed hundreds of exchanges between global warming scientists known as Climategate.
If you remember, the emails weren't a big deal because they proved anything, but because they suggested irregularities in data which in turn encouraged climate change skeptics to continue to deny global warming. As Stewart reminisced with a series of clips, Fox News pundits and conservative analysts on all the 24-hour news networks had a field day proclaiming that these emails proved global warming was a fraud. And it worked, too. As Stewart pointed out, studies show the amount of people who acknowledge global warming dropped nearly 20% since the emails were leaked.
Given the media circus that was Climategate, Stewart was shocked to learn that a study done by a noted climate change skeptic AND funded by Tea Party oil tycoons the Koch brothers which intended to disprove global warming recently reaffirmed the science behind it. What shocked him even more? How little coverage the findings, printed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, received compared to that of McDonald's "McRib."
Watch the full segment above (or click here to watch on "The Daily Show" website) and be sure to watch Senior Correspondent Aasif Mandvi's follow-up report below.
Yeah, I saw that. Funny stuff. I'm not surprised that Fox wouldn't cover the BEST project; in fact, I'd be floored if they had. But I'm disheartened that few real and credible news outlets have discussed it.
Nope. The temperature continues to rise. However, it doesn't rise every day or every year --it would be surprising and shocking if it did. But on scales relevant to climate the temperature continues to increase.
Anyone who tell you any different is playing games. Challenge them for the evidence and invariably they don't have any or they do produce "evidence" that isn't relevant or significant.
Your link is a good example.
If that's what you think my handle suggests to you, hey sorry. When I grew up, Purple Drank was just that cheap artificial grape juice at Winn Dixie. But, today we can use the internet and just simply search a name or phrase and whatever the top search item says is gospel.
What if I grasped your name to mean pete the watcher of women waxing their legs. Would you be promoting sexual fetish behavior with a handle like that?
Of course not. So let's be adults for once in cyber space.
As far as the recreational livation you mentioned goes;
Referenced in multi-platinum rap artists' music.
But that doesn't stop MTV, BET or the radio stations from broadcasting it to any and all audiences, young or old.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I promote nothing except complaining on the internet about anything and everything.
Because complaining on the internet is easy and it solves problems.
I should have Occupied Oil Shares
oh well, a riot in Oakland will make it all better..
What do you do? Do you just sit back and watch the rest of the world go by? Or do you just complain on the internet? Fine. That is OK, for some people. I am not an activist but, I also do not just sit back and let others do the work that I can assist in.
The European debt situation had nothing to to with ExxonMobil's obscene profits; that's due to crude prices soaring. Now, think about that for a minute: more than $10,000,000,000 profit for the third consecutive quarter. That's $4.58 million in profit every hour. $76,312 profit every minute. $1,271.87 profit every second of every day. And that's just for that one single company.
Yet some would try to convince us that Big Oil has absolutely no reason to lie about how their product is altering the environment.
Right.
No, I think a bunch of militaristic, jack-booted LEOs using explosive ordnance and tear gas to cave in the skulls of legally-gathering, unemployed, unarmed, and peaceful military veterans will make it all better.
you know what causes industrial profits to soar?
complaining on the internet.
LOL. Well, at least you are consistent. I will give you that. You do know, however, that all you are doing is complaining on the internet about all of the complaining on the internet. ... Someone needs to complain on the internet about that. That should fix it. ;-)
Nope. The truth to stopping all of the lies, by big oil, is to understand the science that they publicly denounce but, also, use this very science to make investments for the conditions of a warming climate.
:)
You're on to me..
haha
A lot of Green
Quoting iceagecoming:
You only hear the extreme cold from a very few sources.
It is taboo in climate circles to espouse such treason.
Evidence?
http://www.wunderground.com/US/NH/011.html#REC
Record ReportStatement as of 05:43 PM EDT on October 27, 2011
... Record daily maximum snowfall set at Hartford CT...
a record snowfall of trace inch(es) was set at Hartford CT today.
This ties the old record of trace set in 1962. Due to ongoing wintry
precipitation... it is expected that Hartford may see more snow
accumulation. Check back after the early morning climate for the
total snowfall for today.
Yea, usually don't see much solid precip till Dec.
must be AGW of course!%@#?
Empirical always bits you on the backside.
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index