Making sense of the latest National Climate Assessment

 

Earlier this month, I traveled to northern Washington for a friend’s wedding. Weary from wandering the drought-racked farmlands in California’s Central Valley, I was kindly given permission by my wife to stay an extra day and revel in the green lushness of the Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas.

I set out early from my hotel in Bremerton, across Puget Sound from Seattle, and into lashing rain. Sinuous contours of coastline and rocky promontories topped with the scribbles of pines faded in and out of the fog.

The rain continued to mount as I rounded the southern horn of the Kitsap. My windshield wipers soon proved useless, so I pulled off the side of the road, near the town of Hoodsport, and stared out across the gray waters. Thinking the rain could not possibly continue at this biblical clip, I drove ahead to a nearby grocery store to buy lunch. With sandwich in hand, I told the cashier about my plans for a hike near Lake Cushman, on the southern end of Olympic National Park. She shook her head. “Bad year so far for walking,” she said. “But good for growing mushrooms!”

Though the heavy downpour seemed the meteorological inverse of the California drought, it made me wonder about the extreme weather on the rise across the West. Of course, this was a single storm. And as we are often reminded, one weather event in isolation cannot be definitively linked to a changing climate.

TEMPERATURE INCREASES: Maps show projected changes in average, as compared to 1971-1999. Top row shows projections assuming heat-trapping gas emissions continue to rise (A2). Bottom row shows projections assuming substantial reductions in emissions (B1). (Figure source: adapted from Kunkel et al. 20131).

But the storm I was caught in was clearly part of a larger pattern. A month earlier, in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains, northwest of Seattle, soaking rains fell at twice the average rate over a month-and-a-half. The relentless rain loosened a hillside above the small town of Oso, triggering a massive landslide that engulfed 49 homes, killing 41 residents and leaving another two missing. As I learned when I finally retreated to my hotel room, Seattle had shattered previous rainfall records for February through April, more than doubling the totals for the previous rainiest March on record.

In the new climate of the 21st century, there is no escape from extreme weather – be it drought or deluge.

That is just one of the many findings of the National Climate Assessment report, released last week by the White House. Combining the work of more than 200 climate scientists, the report comprehensively documents stark changes in climate in the U.S. over the last decade. “Climate change is not a distant threat,” said John Holdren, the White House’s science advisor, in a video linked to the report. “It is affecting the American people already. On the whole, summers are longer and hotter with longer periods of extended heat. Wildfires start earlier in the spring and continue later into the fall. Rain comes down in heavier downpours... And climate disruptions to water resources and agriculture have been increasing.”

The report cites a long list of indicators of climate change in the U.S., including an increase in average temperature between 1.3 and 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895; an increase in the length of the frost-free growing season over the last three decades; and a marked rise in the number of extreme precipitation events, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast.

Many of the report’s most dire pronouncements are reserved for the Western U.S.: dwindling snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains; pest outbreaks and tree die-offs in the forests of the Pacific Northwest; ocean acidification along the Pacific Coast; reduced crop yields in the farms of the Central and Imperial Valleys; and more frequent and intense droughts, floods and wildfires across the region.

The report does not simply enumerate the harms but links them with rising temperatures due to increasing manmade carbon emissions.  “Many lines of independent evidence demonstrate that the rapid warming of the past half-century is due primarily to human activities,” reads the report. My own desire to languish in the Pacific Northwest’s wetter climes, of course, was made possible at almost every turn by fossil fuel, burned at frightening pace in the jet engine of an airplane, and in the power plant supplying electricity to my hotel room, and in the tank of my Kia Optima. Which is to say, in this fearsome storm, I was reaping what I had helped to sow.

In the Climate Action Plan of 2013, the Obama Administration laid out a wide-ranging plan announcing higher fuel efficiency standards, and incentives to increase renewable energy generation capacity, among other initiatives. But many in the environmental community saw the plan as self-defeating in its pledge “to drive American leadership in clean energy technologies, such as efficient natural gas, nuclear . . . and clean coal.”

Environmentalists have expressed hope that the climate assessment report signals a shift in the administration to a more hawkish stance on reducing carbon emissions. The Center for Biological Diversity took the opportunity to once again urge President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline – slated to carry crude oil from the massive tar sands of Alberta to refineries in the Midwestern and Southern U.S. – and to roll out initiatives to further reduce carbon emissions nationwide.

Predictably, the assessment brought a deluge of criticism from conservatives including Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who speculated that the president would use the plan to “renew his call for a national energy tax.” “And I’m sure he’ll get loud cheers from liberal elites,” McConnell said. “The kind of people who leave a giant carbon footprint and then lecture everybody else about low-flow toilets.”

As the NCA report makes clear, addressing the climate challenges of the 21st century will not only require reducing our individual carbon footprints, but also new models of governance.

Jeremy Miller is a contributing editor to High Country News.

Jack Harvey
Jack Harvey Subscriber
May 14, 2014 08:50 AM
Looking at your chart I see we have predictions for the temperatures up to the year 2099. Of course you know, or guess you don't', that the 90 some models predicting global climate change have not proven out. You might want to study this chart. http://thefederalist.com/[…]/

Of course there is also the common sense notion that I occasionally have that how is it the guys telling me how hot the earth will be in 50-100 years cannot tell me with much certainty if it will rain this weekend?
Ryan Henry
Ryan Henry
May 15, 2014 12:03 AM
Hey Jack, of course you know or I guess you don't that the scientists who forecast weather are called meteorologists and those that forecast climate are called climatologists. These are two related albeit separate scientific disciplines that study different things. Also you might want to study up on the different kinds of earth sciences before you go around the internet parading your knowledge of earth sciences like a condescending know it all.
Ryan Henry
Ryan Henry
May 15, 2014 12:22 AM
Wow Jack I just read that article you posted and totally understand where you are coming from!!! Little to no understanding of not only climate science but how science works in general. Let me clue you in... Climate as with many things on this planet are just too complex and interconnected to be adequately modeled. Our Climate is one of those things... And with all science these models only give us best guesses. In my BS studies of earth science in the early 2000's I remember my air force meteorology teacher explaining that our biggest supercomputers of the time did not have the power to accurately model everything that contributes to forming climate. 10 years later and it looks like we are in the same boat which leads to your misunderstanding that if the Climate Models are inaccurately predicting the future then climate change must not be happening. The atmospheric CO2 levels are at the highest they have been in 5 millions years and this meteoric rise coincides with 200 years of pumping millions of tons of extra gases into the atmosphere... Models be damned it doesn't take a genius to look around the nation and world and find a trend of increasingly extreme weather, temperatures, droughts and other weather related events that over time add up to show a trend of an increasingly unstable climate... Which is the 30 year Sum of weather.
Ryan Henry
Ryan Henry
May 15, 2014 12:29 AM
401ppm of CO2 and ever rising for the last 200 years. We went from 35 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases last year to 36 Billion tons of greenhouse gases this year. Ever rising never stopping. I am not sure how the climate skeptics cannot seem to put these two FACTS together???
Leslie Graham
Leslie Graham
May 15, 2014 03:41 AM
Jack - really shocking ignorance of even basic schoolboy science.
And that chart. really? It's an infamous fake. Not that it would make any difference if it wasn't.
The parrotted memes of the Denial Industry's dupes were always ridiculous but, now that climate change is simply an obvious everyday reality all over the world you just sound insane.
Jack - we just don't have any time for this level of nonsense.
If you really can't bring yourself to admit that events have long ago proved you wrong and lend a hand then at least have the common decency to STFU and keep out of the way while the grown-ups do their best to clean up your **** for you.

Jack Harvey
Jack Harvey Subscriber
May 15, 2014 08:35 AM
Ryan. You make some good points. I would like to clarify my comment about the meteorologist having issues with short term predictions. Actually more of a tongue in cheek comment that was not recognized as such. I do know the difference between the weather girl on TV and global climatology. Modeling storm tracks is complex for upcoming weather events, but modeling global climate decades into the future is infinitely more complex and multifactorial to say the least. Not surprising the models do not pan out.

I also appreciate the different views on climate change and see pretty smart people on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately the politics gets in the way of science and we get stupid statements like "the science is settled" from politicians that have no science education. Such is not helpful in pursuit of answers (nor are petty personal attracts and profanity). Climate Change Reconsidered II is a treatise using thousands of scientific papers to make their points, just as the other side does to prove it. Their summary is here http://heartland.org/[…]/One-page-summary-of-CCR-II.pdf As you probably know you can find data on both sides of the argument and construct your thesis from there. I guess my point in starting this is to be concerned that every time we experience a short term weather event like a couple of days of heavy rain we don't have a knee jerk reaction and ascribe it to climate change.

Appreciate your comments and like much of science, more to come.
Jack Harvey
Jack Harvey Subscriber
May 15, 2014 01:33 PM
Ryan, A comment on your observation that CO2 levels are the highest in 500 million years at about 400ppm, which is correct. However if you look back another 50 million years to the Cambrian period CO 2 levels were close to 20 times greater than what we have today with no apparent ill effects in the fossil records. http://www.geocraft.com/[…]/Carboniferous_climate.html

I hope we both agree this is a complex topic with more than one interpretation of data, and is far from settled science.