Professor says global warming could trigger monsoons here

[icymist]

Tuesday, April 5, 2005

Professor says global warming could trigger monsoons here

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

EUGENE, Ore. -- New research by a University of Oregon professor says global warming could lead to monsoons in the Pacific Northwest.

That's what happened during another global warming event 55 million years ago.

That was triggered by a sudden release of methane stored in permafrost and ice beneath the seabed. Average temperatures shot up six degrees and seasonal rainfall rose by an estimated 50 percent in North America and South America.

(more)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/218819_monsoons05.html

[HereSince1628]

1. I thought monsoons were caused by the intertropical convergence

Which shifts its relative position north and south with the seasons.

Is any period of heavy rain a monsoon?

[petronius]

39. You're right

A monsoon is a seasonal shift in wind direction, which is usually associated with a pronounced wet season/dry season precipitation pattern. Although, the word is often used to refer to the wet season associated with such a circulation pattern. At the end of the article, the professor mentions an increased seasonality in precipitation during warm times, which could indicate a monsoonal circulation, but he doesn't actually say so...

[kineneb]

40. "monsoon" is a relative term on the west coast

As a native-born Californio, I can attest that when it rains here, it doesn't come down in any old fine mist, it pours. Also, we have a wet season and a dry season; rain here in the summer is almost unheard of. We get these storms that come in and drop an inch or so at a time. My area of Lake Co. gets an average of 25"/year and Redding gets around 36"/year. And we get it all between November and May. (And we spend all summer watering the garden.)

So perhaps what is ment is even bigger, wetter storms than we now get. ...oh, f-ing goody...more rain in the winter...

[petronius]

42. Right - that could be (probably is) what they meant,

but if it is they used the wrong word. A monsoon is definitely not a 'big rainstorm'. And while monsoonal wind patterns often come with a defined wet/dry season pattern, not all wet season/dry season regimes are monsoon-related - California is a great example of a region with a distinct rainy season that is not due to monsoonal circulation.

[truthisfreedom]

2. umm... the Earth farted?

we gave it gas?

[unhappycamper]

3. we won't need to wait for the melt - the new policy is to drill for

methane. one spill should do the trick.

[LdyGuique]

17. There are vast amounts of methane locked in the permafrost

vegetation. This is one of the biggest fears of the global warming trends affecting the Arctic regions. As the thawing period last longer, the thawing will go deeper into the permafrost, which will release vast quantities of methane gas (rotting vegetation produces methane) -- which will cause an extreme amount of greenhouse gas to be released, which will cause further warming and more methane release.

It's a very serious issue as the Arctic is already showing signs of global warming far in advance of the more southern extremities.

A couple of links:

Global Warming: Methane Could Be Far Worse Than Carbon Dioxide

Runaway Methane Global Warming

[Boomer]

21. And then there are the ocean deposits

If the global temperature increases enough, then the frozen methane from ocean deposits will start to melt.

Don't have the precise figures to hand, but I seem to remember that something like a 5 degree rise in global temp could unleash the ocean methane, which in turn could trigger an additional 5 degree increase.

Sum total of 10 degree rise would effectively end life as we know it.

[Toots]

4. Well we know that can't be true..The Earth is only six thousand years old

:shrug: doesn't anybody read the bible anymore sheesh?

[thinkingwoman]

10. LOL

good point. Nothing to see here. We can move right along but we should carry an umbrella.

[donsu]

5. seems like our So. East is getting more rain then usual too

every time I look at the weather map it's raining somewhere in the S.E. or all over the S.E.

[vonSchloegel]

6. I thought global warming

was supposed to cause drought?

[prodigal_green]

8. it will, in previously fertile areas

it isn't as simple as the temperature going up evenly across the planet. A little physics is needed, but some areas will experience extreme drought and others will experience flooding. It is already happening in societies not prepared for them either way. We're not nomadic anymore...

What happens when the US breadbasket (our midwest), moves north into Canada? Huge geopolitical shifts will occur.

[vonSchloegel]

11. Only in fertile areas?

Why won't the drought happen in areas currently plagued with flooding and monsoons? And why won't the monsoons happen in the desert and famine stricken areas

[prodigal_green]

19. No, it may make currently drought-stricken areas worse

and wet areas wetter. Weather, as we can already see, is moving to the extremes everywhere.

One of the biggest problems is not change itself, but the RATE of climate change; ecosystems will not have enough time to adapt--societies less so. We still have a system of government based on a predominantly agricultural society, which we haven't been for at least 50 years (Most of us could do our jobs just about anywhere and can have more common economic/social/religious interests with people halfway around world than with our next-door neighbor, so why is representation still based on geography?)

[vonSchloegel]

23. I agree

that geographical representation is antiquated, and perhaps the Constitution should be amended to allow virtual Congressional districts, that citizens can move to of their own volition. It would eliminate gerrymandering, and assure that the House of Representatives actually represented the true political demographics of the Nation. I'd also like to see the size of the House expanded to the Constitutional maximum of one representative for every thirty-thousand citizens, but we're getting way off topic here. (Perhaps a new thread?).

Perhaps I just don't see the urgency. Most climate models I've seen only indicate a rise in temperature of several degrees over the next hundred years. One hundred years ago, Las Vegas and Los Angeles were uninhabitable deserts, now they are population centers. Large human migrations over a century are commonplace, and quite undramatic.

[neverforget]

24. I'd rather keep the weather systems as they are now than gamble on

putting more energy into the system.

[vonSchloegel]

26. Yes,

but if we limit our ability to migrate, by restricting cheap fuels and large vehicles; we might condemn ourselves to suffer an irreversible climate change already underway.

I'd rather put my money on the "don't come" line.

[neverforget]

28. God forbid we can't buy cheap fuel for our gas guzzling monster

vehicles. How about more fuel efficient vehicles? Or will that also restrict our "migration"?

[vonSchloegel]

30. How did you make your last move?

I doubt it was on a motorcycle or in a Honda Insight.

Although the corporate corruption of California Agriculture caused misery for the dustbowl migrants, I suspect many more would have starved had they not had access to cheap transportation.

[neverforget]

31. So do we all need a big vehicles because we move from place to

place or can we get by with a Honda Insight or motorcycle? I'm talking commuting, not transporting goods.

[vonSchloegel]

32. If all the commuter vehicles

were banned from the road, it would curb our CO2 output by less than 50%. Mandating higher fuel efficiency is only going to put a dent in the problem. Most people who side with the alarmists never really look at what a life-changing ordeal it would be to actually attempt a conversion.

[neverforget]

33. soSo we shouldn't do anything because it would be hard? What is

your solution to the problem?

[vonSchloegel]

34. It's beyond "hard."

It's quite likely impossible. Even if we could get everyone to give up their cars, vacations, central heat, and air conditioning; turn off the Internet, and convince industry to switch to non energy dependent manufacturing, could we convince every nation on earth to follow suit? And do we really want to suffer through the resulting economic recession that would follow?

My solution is to hope the alarmists are wrong, and take solace in the fact that it's something the next generation will have to deal with, rather than ourselves.

[neverforget]

35. If people like you were working on the space program in the 50's

and 60's, we'd still wouldn't be in space because it's too hard. Humans have brains and we are quite capable of problem solving.

So your view is fuck it, it's the next generations problem? how lazy, selfish, self-centered and arrogant can you get? Are you for real? I'm not saying we need to stop using fuels. I'm saying we need to find new renewable alternative sources of energy. You make it sound it like it would happen overnight and we'd wake up with no energy. But following your view, we would run out of energy because it's too hard.

Want to talk about suffering? The extreme weather that will result from global warming will cause much suffering due to drought, floods, etc. How about the cost of that? Not to mention that the fuels we are using now are not renewable and will someday run out or be to expensive to extract because of where the fuel is located.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. Do you have any children? If so, why would you wish this on them?

[vonSchloegel]

50. No kids,

but that's not really an issue, since the welfare of all children is a shared burden of society.

I don't live in the same rust-belt bedroom community my parents grew up in, as the changes the auto industry went through in my youth made employment more difficult for my generation. I moved to greener pastures. I have faith that the next generations will be equally adept at moving. As I stated before, we're only talking about a several degree change over the next 100 years; the population center of the United States has moved that far south over the past 100 years, they can certainly move that far north again, and further inland if necessary. I really don't see it as an issue.

Anyway, from what I'm told, there won't be any more oil in another century, so the problem will most likely fix itself within the next few generations.

[CAcyclist]

55. Reducing C02 output by 50% sounds good to me

Cars do a lot more damage to the environment than just guzzle gas or just emit CO2.

Howver, just from a practical stand-point if we reduced trips by 50%, we would have accomplished the same ends as "banning" 50% of cars and achieve a 25% reduction in CO@ emissions. Other countries don't need SUVs and drive-throughs and other conveniences that threaten everyone's existence. We'd also save some of the 40,000 lives killed on the road every year.

[vonSchloegel]

57. Easy for you to say

Since you live in California, bicycling to work is pleasant. Try it in North Dakota in the middle of February. I also doubt that you will still enjoy it 20 - 30 years from now.

We could actually gain a similar advantage in CO2 emissions by insuring that all the electricity taken from the grid is replaced with renewable energy. By paying roughly 20% more for your electricity, you can prove to everybody that you are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to curb global warming.

https://www.greentagsusa.org/GreenTags/index.cfm

Since most people are unwilling to make even that small personal sacrifice, I stand by my conclusion that it's quite likely impossible to stop Global Warming.

[Thor_MN]

46. Farmers will need passports to plow?

All the farmland is going to end up belonging to a couple corporations, but it sure is going to be a pain in the ass when you have to stop to show your passport every time you head down the next row...

[Boomer]

13. Drought, monsoons, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding

Depends on where you live, of course. There's no one-to-one formula that is going to predict all deserts will turn into rain forests or vice versa. Different areas will be hit in different ways, and it may take decades to see the new patterns emerging.

The most basic effect is going to be extreme, volatile weather of one kind or another. Colder winters, hotter summers, longer droughts, heavier rains, more tornadoes, large hurricanes, etc etc.

If you're a weather junkie, you won't be bored.

[vonSchloegel]

16. Why

Is it all bad things? Couldn't it also cause milder winters, cooler summers, less storms? Isn't it possible that the desert will bloom, the Northern prairie will become a subtropical paradise and rain soaked malaria infested third world countries will become dry and balmy? If the Gulfstream changes course because of the melting ice in Greenland, won't that redirect the hurricanes away from the US coast?

[Viking12]

18. What if your rosey scenario fails to manifest?

There is no turning back. You're suggesting an irreversable experiment the results of which would be best unknown.

If you're really interested (your history at DU suggests you're not) read Chapter 9 of the 2001 IPCC Assessment, it should clarify the science, i.e. the increased likelihood of increased heat index, mid-continental evaporation (drought), and intense precipitation events.

[Boomer]

20. Not in this reality

>> milder winters, cooler summers, less storms <<

You're describing the temperate climate we had and are now losing. Some spots may "improve," but increased volatility and extremes of temperature are already in evidence all across the world, and the reports are not reassuring.

Examples: Last year's devastating hurricane season, record numbers of tornadoes in North America, record heat waves in Europe, record high winds in Europe, deepening drought in the NorthWest.

Even if humans don't mind the volatile climate, it tends to wreak havoc with crops. Agricultural yields will decrease as plants struggle to cope with extremes beyond their range of current adaptibility.


Why does this happen?

Short answer: Climate is an energy system -- pour more heat/energy into the system and it runs faster.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. The final effect is not the issue...

The period of rapid change is the issue. We may be able to adjust to the climate changes, because of our abilities to adapt: however, the plants and animals will not be able to keep up. As their numbers decline, so will ours.

My SO is in favor of starting to build his own dome. I think he's serious!

[vonSchloegel]

25. I'm not uninterested,

Just skeptical of apocalyptic rhetoric. If a fundie were talking about floods and drought to punish homosexuality and feminism, we would mock him mercilessly (and have). But most environmentalists get away with the same kind of talk, threatening everything short of a plague of locusts and a rain of frogs. (I take that back, I HAVE heard the plague of locusts scenario).

[Boomer]

27. Slight critical difference...

Scientists can actually describe the mechanisms which drive these events and predict their occurrence. They can also verify the accuracy of their theories with observational evidence. All of which tends to more strongly support causality than a fundie's expression of general god-like wrath smiting the infidels.

Increased volatility of weather was one of the predictions made by global warming theorists, as was the melting of glaciers, ice caps, etc.

These things have come to pass. So hang on to your hats, folks, 'cause it's going to be rough ride. Whether or not you believe in it, reality will bite you in the ass every time.

[vonSchloegel]

29. Not true

Much like the mediums who claim to talk to the dead by performing a cold read on somebody, most apocalyptic climatologists trumpet their accurate predictions, and dismiss their mistakes.

Things like global cooling (popular theory in the seventies) that have not come to pass have been swept under the rug. Meanwhile, climate models are updated almost annually to insure that the historic predictions coincide with the actual observations.

Meanwhile the faithful, who are certain that man will be punished for burning fossil fuels see every anecdotal meteorological event as more proof of the theory.

Nobody has explained to me why with all the sophistication and accuracy of climate models, a weather forecast is rarely accurate beyond three days out.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vonSchloegel]

41. link

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm#S3

" Science reporters were especially impressed by a 1972 warning from the oceanographer Cesare Emiliani. His ground-breaking research on past climate cycles had persuaded him that in the natural course of events the present "amiable climate" should give way, within the next few thousand years, to a new ice age."

" A leader in stirring public anxiety was the respected climate expert Reid Bryson. Scarcely any popular article on climate in the 1970s lacked a Bryson quote or at least a mention of his ideas. His big worry was the increase in smoke and dust, not only from industry but also from lands laid waste by deforestation and slash-and-burn agriculture. Already in the late 1960s, he had gone to the public to warn that such pollution was probably bringing on global cooling."


" a 1974 study by leading figures, convened by the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that "there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." The shift, moreover, could be "rather sudden."

"The respected oceanographer James Hays, for example, told the elite Saturday Review audience that within centuries "it may very well get cold enough to allow great glaciers thousands of feet thick to cover North America as far south as Long Island."

"In early 1978 the New York Times reported that a poll of climate scientists found them evenly divided on whether there would be warming, cooling, or no particular change"

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vonSchloegel]

44. I understand

that the article I cited covered the history of global warming theory, and the section I highlighted dealt more with the debate between the camps, rather than supporting "Global Cooling."

However, I only sought to support my initial premise that "Global Cooling" was a popular theory in the seventies. (I will acquiesce that "very" was perhaps a misleading modifier.) My intent was not to deceive.

I trust that those interested enough will read the entire article for themselves, and see that my selected quotes were not representative of the article.

-edited for clarity

[Dogmudgeon]

54. Read Wally Broecker's work on climate

The "Cooling vs. Heating" controversy was solved years ago. In fact, it wasn't even a controversy very long. Broecker's group at Lamont Doherty (at Columbia U) explained it as increased fluctuations in climatic variability that took place before an ice age. His theory has stood up, and most of the data that have been found or developed over the last 30 years backs this up.

Climate change would be apocalyptic, but not dramatic, mainly because of a great reduction in favorable food-cultivation areas during the changeover period. The "apocalypse", as such, would take several decades to play out, but a series of major famines would kill people just as well as a three-month plague, a week-long nuclear war, or a comet strike.

You're right to demand better evidence before accepting explanations of gloom-n-doom. But we're entering a very unstable age in terms of Earth science, not just society. Vigilence, education, and preparation make up the antidote to disaster.

--p!

[neverforget]

37. Scientists know nothing about science, politicians do and the

conservative think tanks with an agenda do.

[CAcyclist]

56. You bore me. Putting you on ignore.nt

[Kool Kitty]

48. These turn into bad things. Milder winters,

cooler summers, less storms effect more than just one's ability to barbeque on Thanksgiving weekend. It effects the growing season, bird migration, fish habitat, etc. Shorter growing season due to cooler summers, less things growing because of draught where there was once necessary rainfall, etc.-these changes effect everything. If the ice ON Greenland melts, it would direct a hell of a lot more than hurricanes away from the North American Atlantic coastline. It would move the coastline a helluva lot further inland. And what of New York City, Boston, Baltimore, Miami and all the places in between? Not to mention the effect on the European Atlantic coastal areas.

As it gets wetter in places, the malaria just moves on and sets up shop in areas that are more hospitable to the skeeters. See why these are bad things?

[vonSchloegel]

51. Captain John Smith

founder of Jamestown Virginia died of Malaria. It seems strange to realize that something we now refer to as a "tropical" disease actually existed that far North.

We drained the swamps and invented DDT, and by the time I was born, Malaria was eradicated in the United States. Since my youth, we banned DDT, renamed the swamps, "Wetlands," and rebuilt them. Since then, Malaria has made a resurgence.

First of all, I don't think it's Global Warming causing the malaria resurgence; secondly, I don't think it's anything that can't be remedied with a little swamp draining and a couple shakes of DDT.

[Kool Kitty]

52. Malaria may be the least of our worries.

[catzies]

14. Think of it more as climatological extremism.

It's not as simple as just cause & effect.

It's more that weather condidtions will become more pronounced for an area -- if it's wet, it could be wetter, conversely for dry. If an area gets storms, it could get stronger storms, and more frequent.

[Fovea]

47. Google

Hadley climate model

[triguy46]

7. What global warning?

According the repugs, there is no such thing. Why should we care
about something that has been declared to not exist by the fine minds in the white house?

[gorgan]

9. Methane release could be cataclysmic

An interesting letter to the editor in New Scientist a few weeks ago (March 5-11) discussed the possibility of these methane deposits releasing in a violent manner, triggering tsunamis of immense size, capable of inundating Western Europe.

Apparently these 'burps' have occurred in the past, 3 times in the last 30,000 years. The author of the letter estimates a similar event could cause a death toll 2 orders of magnitude higher than the recent Indian Ocean disaster.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Two Orders of Magnitude

The Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami killed about 300,000 people.

Two orders of magntude is two zeros' worth.

30,000,000 people.

However, I don't think those "super burps" are likely to cause tsunamis, since they would not be released all at once. But several hundred smaller "burps" over a 1-10 year-long period would cause repeated flooding, probably with a fairly substantial loss of life -- and increased atmospheric warming, of course.

--p!

[slackmaster]

15. We already have them in much of the western USA

They don't often come west of the coastal mountains here on the west coast.

[martymar64]

38. Alot of things will happen from Global Warming, mostly bad

First off, from my readings on Peak Oil, we've already crossed the Rubicon. Any attempts at switching to alternative energy on a large scale will be too little, too late. The biggest threat in this regard will be the depletion of petro-based fertilizer. Without that, large scale corporate agribusiness won't be able to keep up with the food demand. Watch for food riots and eventual famine worldwide.

The demands for other resources like water are going to have massive effects. The strain is already being felt here in the West. The Colorado River no longer reaches the Sea of Cortez because of the strains put on it by the cities of Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and San Diego and Phoenix. As the water supply diminishes, watch these cities become depopulated.
In Texas, the Ogalalla aquifer is becoming depleted due to intensive irrigation. Watch the Texas Panhandle revert to the wasteland it once was, and goodbye Amarillo and Lubbock. I fear the same will happen to places like Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming and Utah. Any raise in the temperature could cause flooding and encroachiment by the sea for places like New Orleans, Galveston, Houston, Mobile, Miami (or all of Florida for that matter) DC, New York, Boston, etc.

For those that say it can't happen, remember that the Sahara used to have forests.

BTW, I hope I'm dead wrong. But I don't think I am.

[deadparrot]

49. There's no such thing as global warming!

It's them feminazi, atheist, liberal scum that's lying to you!

[Megahurtz]

53. Then I wonder what would happen

down in California?

[icymist]

58. I'm looking forward to a rainy season and a dry season.

Things might be more simple then.