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
Arthur Laffer has been proven wrong in every case.
In 1982 tax collections went down and by 1983 we had a record deficit.
In 2001 Bush passed and enacted tax cuts when we had a surplus. Two years later we had record deficits and unemployment had almost doubled.
How bout 1993 when Clinton raised taxes? The economy had its greatest boom in a generation.
Deniers believe all kinds of crazy, false nonsense.
Must be all the PurpleDrank they drink. The dude with the drug pusher handle is back.
Certainly we can find something to debate? Are we able to debate if these debates are getting anywhere? LOL
Take care, overwash12. I am pleased to see that you are still here! And, no. That is not debatable. ;-)
The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration. This is a fact.
He was probably thinking, "What took you so long to figure that out?! We have been telling you .... for how long now???". Or, something along those lines.
Some much touch the glowing, red iron to determine that it really is hot. .... Some would just say, "So! Has it not been hot before?". ...sigh
Mike Mann’s Thank You Letter to Supporters
They had a surplus, in the sense that the government was taking in more than it was spending. G.W. Bush even campaigned on this in 2000. He said the surplus is your money - meaning the tax payers - and not theirs - meaning the government. He said that the surplus should go back to the people that know better how to spend their own money. ... Ah, yes. Those were the days. The people had jobs and the government operated on a surplus!
That happened around 65,000,000,000 years ago and believed to have been a major contributor to the last mass extinction. This also led to the demise of the dinosaurs. ... Still, that does not rule out that a massive tsunami could not have laid a small layer of marine life along the interior of the east coast. Overwash12 did not say if it was a deep or shallow layered zone of marine shells. He just stated that the shells were found 25 feet below grade. You would have to date this layer to see if coincided with the timing of the meteor strike. Just my thoughts.
The Congress spends the money. The Congress managed a surplus in the latter years of the Clinton administration, after the Republicans took control of Congress and the purse strings, and that's a fact , also.
True enough that this happened when the Republicans controlled Congress. This was done under The Balanced Budget Act and guess who signed the act into law. You cannot claim that it was done as a political move to be re-elected. He was already in his second term, at the time.
Guess which administration ended it. ... Facts!
<>img src="">
Yes that’s right. The Global Warming Foundation is in disagreement with Curry. The graph is from Global Warming Policy Foundation and David Whitehouse article.
This is true; it will continue to get warmer, and warmer, and warmer, just as it's been doing for decades.
It's true that there are many natural cycles that induce variation. However, the introduction of massive quantities of CO2 is allowing warming to override those natural variations, which is why heating has been more or less steady for decades.
This may be true--but none of those who have done so are climate scientists. I'm sure "some have figured out that 'cancer' is a hoax"--but I sure wouldn't want them operating on my brain.
If they're Fox viewers, they're very likely unaware of the direct correlation between a warming atmosphere and its ability to hold more precipitable moisture.
As above. AGW increases precipitation of all kinds--inlcuding, yes, snow.
That's like saying, "The economy will be bad in a few years."
Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. But scientists aren't looking forward to it. Neither is anyone else who's kept abreast of the science. It's going to be bad.
SkS about the Hide the Incline graph from Global Warming Policy Foundation:
..."While the March 2010 anomaly was based on 14,488 stations, April and May were based on only 47 stations, all in the Antarctic"...
The more Curry talks, the more she loses the credibility she once had.
There has been plenty of moisture over the years in October. But it has always been rain. The difference is not the amount of moisture, but the temperature. Even a scientist can figure out that it needs to be colder to snow.
The fact is, it has been colder than average on the US east coast over the last 2 winters. The summers have been warmer than average. But I'm not about to say that what has happened on the US east coast or any one area should be classified as "global."
Globally, it is becoming more and more urban, and you will always have a bump in temperature in urban areas. The more urban sprawl we get, the higher the average temperature will be. You can use "science" and "statistics" to prove absolutely anything you want. Elephants can dangle from a cliff by their tail.
I actually do believe that some day in the future, we will have a dramatic change in our climate which will, indeed cause a worldwide crisis. I've seen no evidence of that occurring yet. All I've seen is a lot of people with a short memory and a flare for drama.
BTW, while I agree that cancer is real, the "cure" truly is a hoax. Doctors seem to kill people off with Chemo quicker than they'd die naturally. But that's an entirely different subject.
I believe that Richard Muller had determined that the data shows the rural warming was on par with the urban warming. This was stated in the BEST report. The warming of the "urban island effect" was found to be happening in the rural areas as well. Please, correct me, if I am wrong.
As I noted yesterday, in the entire three-day duration of the Great October Snowstorm of 2011, there were nearly 300 snowfall records broken--and only one single cold record. Which is to say, whatever was the driver behind this weekend's crazy snowfall, it obviously wasn't unprecedented cold.
The entire BEST project has validated yet again that the Urban Heat Island effect has had only a negligible--and practically undetectable--effect on overall temperatures. Which is to say, it's getting warmer year by year, and it's not because of cities.
We are experiencing "a dramatic change in our climate which will, indeed cause a worldwide crisis". In all the fossil record going back as far as humans can see, the planet's overall temperature has never changed as drastically as it is right now without major and severe disruptions to the biosphere. Never. Some past extinction-level events have seen temps rise at a rate 10 to 20 times slower than they are right now, yet extinction-level events they were.
Bottom line: the planet is getting warmer, and that's mostly--if not entirely--due to increasing concentrations of CO2 from our unimpeded burning of fossil fuels. Some may debate that previous sentence on political or ideological or financial or religious grounds, but an overwhleming (and increasing) majority of scientists are convinced of its correctness.
Joe Romm has written an easy to read/understand post about it.
Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Deep Oceans - Accelerated Warming May Be On Its Way
Thank you for the article. I just found one myself from National Geographic. Really interesting article that brought up points I never thought of. I guess we should not just concentrate on temperatures readings. It appears to be a much more complicated situation. This is a very good article, too! I bet even Neapolitan might find it of interest.
Link
I'd already read that NG article, and many others on the same subject. And of course there is much more than temperature readings; I've written many blog posts and comments about ocean acidification, about the migration and extinction of species, about changing precipitation patterns, about the effect all of this will have on societies, and so on. It's just that temperature records are one very visible and easy-to-understand indicator, so I do spend time on them here on WU.
It's been my belief, and still is, that the worst problem humanity faces is the rapidly warming climate. There may be nations involved in wars or political infighting that face more immediate individual threats, but for the world as a whole, this is bad. Very bad.
Posted by: JeffMasters, 9:26 AM CDT on November 03, 2011
There is at least a 2-in-3 probability that climate extremes have already worsened because of human-caused releases of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, and some types of extreme weather events will increase in the coming decades as huge cost, says a preliminary draft of an international climate report leaked to the Associated Press (AP) this week.
The Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues reports on the state of the scientific knowledge of climate change every six years, with the next full report due out in 2013. However, the IPCC is working on a special report detailing the evidence that extreme weather events may be increasing due to climate change, and how we might best prepare for the coming increase in these costly and dangerous events. The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters (SREX) is due to be released later this month, after a meeting in Uganda, where diplomats will recommend changes to the preliminary document leaked to AP.
The IPCC requires that all countries agree unanimously on the content of the official reports, so the language of the leaked report may undergo considerable change. In the AP article, University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who was not among the authors, is quoted as saying that the report was written to be %u201Cso bland%u201D that it may not matter to world leaders. With the diplomats free to make changes to the report, I think it is likely that the already bland SREX report will be further watered down.
Despite all the objections one hears about the extreme and dire predictions of the IPCC, the science in these reports is actually very conservative and watered down, due to the requirement that the language must be approved by every country (including oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia.) So, it should grab our attention that the preliminary draft of the SREX report predicts that some regions of the world might suffer extremes so severe as to leave them "increasingly marginal places to live", heat waves could peak at 5 F hotter by 2050 and 9 F hotter by 2100, and intense single-day rainstorms that happen only once every twenty years now will happen up to once every five years by 2100. I'll have more on the SREX report after its official release.
Jeff Masters
"Rapid" warming, in a geological sense. No one is talking about "rapid" in the sense of a generation. When climate changes faster than species are able to adapt, you will see the extinction of many species. Let us say it would compare to the lobster in a slowly warming pot of water. You do not know you are cooking until, well, you are cooked. ..... Roll that famous lobster boiling footage, cyclonebuster! I believe it is time to do so again.
That is correct. Very close, indeed. This is only slightly outside of our moon's orbit.
Are we batting for a 1000?
New blog.
Viewing: 251 - 288
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index