Greetings all. With so much going on these past several months, middle-east uprisings, the tragedies in Japan, and the now overt class warfare by corporations/oligarchy on working people in the U.S., we haven't talked about one of our most familiar subjects, for some time. Climate change. But following is a long article we have written over the last few months, with solid scientific, peer-reviewed citations, containing the state-of-the-science findings on the status of the Earth's warming climate, with respect to wildfire seasons. After that, we'll give you an update on the Fukushima nuclear situation.
ALASKA WILDFIRE SEASONS – A Background, What is Happening, and What Can We Expect?
Background: Most of mainland Alaska south of the Brooks Range, and inland from the Bering and Chukchi Seas lies fully in the Boreal Forest ecosystem. This least-disturbed of the Earth’s major forest systems is estimated to cover about 17 percent of the land area on the planet, and is comprised of only limited numbers of species of conifers and deciduous hardwoods - spruce, pine, larch, fir, birch, aspen, and balsam poplar. [3]
The high latitudes of the Arctic region over the past 30 years have seen greater warming from fossil-fuel combustion emissions of CO2, and Methane (emitted mainly from/by land-use changes, increased livestock production, and permafrost melting) than any other place on Earth, with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula. [2]
A recent research article in the journal of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science, puts it very succinctly:
“The Arctic is responding more rapidly to global warming than most other areas on our planet. Northward-flowing Atlantic Water is the major means of heat advection toward the Arctic and strongly affects the sea ice distribution. Records of its natural variability are critical for the understanding of feedback mechanisms and the future of the Arctic climate system, but continuous historical records reach back only ~150 years. Here, we present a multidecadal-scale record of ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years, derived from marine sediments off Western Svalbard (79°N). We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.” [1]
The warmer Atlantic Ocean waters flowing into the Arctic Ocean are now thought to be causing the increasingly colder, stormier winter weather patterns in the eastern U.S. and western Europe, seen in the last two winters especially:
“The warming Arctic and melting sea ice is a planetary-scale change since the Arctic Ocean covers 14 million sq km, an area almost as big as Russia. The Arctic and Antarctic polar regions are key drivers of Earth's weather and climate. The rapid defrosting of the Arctic has already altered the climate system, researchers now agree.
IPS previously broke the story revealing that the snow and cold in the eastern United States and Europe during the winter of 2009-10 was likely the result of the loss of Arctic sea ice. The same thing has happened this year.
As more and more sea ice melts, there is more open water to absorb the summer sun's heat. A day of 24-hour summer sun in the Arctic puts more heat on the surface of the ocean than a day in the tropics, James Overland of the NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in the United States told IPS.
That extra heat in the ocean is gradually released into the lower atmosphere from October to January as the region slowly re-freezes months later than normal. This is a fundamental change - a large part of the Arctic Ocean is radiating heat instead of being cold and ice-covered. That has disrupted wind circulation patterns in the northern hemisphere, reported Overland and other researchers at the International Polar Year Oslo Science Conference in Norway last June.
The result: the Arctic stays warm and mid-latitude regions become colder and receive more snow for much of the winter. Last December was the coldest south Florida has experienced in more than a century of record-keeping.
Most of Britain suffered through its coldest December ever. Up in the Arctic, Coral Harbour on the northwest corner of Hudson Bay was above zero degrees C for two days in early January for the first time in history. Much of the eastern Arctic centred around Baffin Island averaged +21C above normal between Dec. 17 and Jan. 15 this year.” [4]
Interior Alaska Observed Climate Change: In the Alaska interior, scientists at the Alaska Climate Research Center, part of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, recently released their latest findings documenting climate change over the last century there. They concluded:
“The climate of Fairbanks was analyzed for a century, ending in 2006. The temperature has increased by 1.4C, almost twice the global increase, which is expected as a result of the polar amplification in temperature change. While the overall trend is positive, as expected from increasing greenhouse gases, the temperature increase is non-linear, with multi-decadal variations. Auto-correlation analyses showed a weak, non-significant cycle of 11 years (sunspot cycle). Furthermore, there was a sudden temperature increase observed in 1976, which could be related to circulation patterns as expressed in the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] index. The strengthening of the Aleutian Low in winter has led to more advection of warm air and a decrease in atmospheric pressure for Fairbanks [due to southerly “or Chinook” flow ahead of it, pushing maritime air inland, north across/through the Alaska Range, M.Richmond].
Over the century, the growing season increased in length by 45% [!], a substantial value and highly important for agriculture and forestry. The 11% decrease in precipitation (data available since 1916), together with increasing temperatures, makes the occurrence of droughts and wildfires more likely.” [7]
Western U.S. and Canada: Before delving into Alaska wildfire patterns and trends, it will be helpful to see what has been happening to the south, in the Western U.S., and Canada. Because what seems to be happening in Alaska, as the climate warms, is that weather patterns are shifting north, as well. This is exactly what happened during the record-breaking 2004 Alaska fire season, in which 6.72 million acres (2.72 million hectares) burned. [5]
Climate researcher A.L. Westerling, at the time working at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a leading global oceanographic and climatological research facility in San Diego, and his colleagues, published in 2006 research results describing observed changes in Western U.S. and Canada fire season length and severity. The results agree well, with what your lead editor has seen, just in my relatively short span of 24 years as an operational meteorologist throughout the Western U.S. and Alaska:
“Western United States forest wildfire activity is widely thought of have increased in recent decades, yet neither the extent of recent changes, nor the degree to which climate may be driving regional changes in wildfire has been systematically documented. Much of the public and scientific discussion of changes in Western United States wildfire has focused instead on the effects of 19th and 20th century land-use history. We compiled a comprehensive database of large wildfires in Western United States forests since 1970 and compared it with hydroclimatic and land-surface data. Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly, and markedly in the mid 1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt” [9]
Alaska Fire Seasons: A short description of what drives the severity and duration of Alaska wildfire seasons is needed before proceeding further. Unlike the coniferous forests in the Western U.S. and Canada, the mixed spruce/deciduous species Boreal forest in Interior Alaska, is not as dependant on spring snowpack melting to provide the moisture for summer vegetative growth. This is because, historically speaking, over interior Alaska, precipitation increases during the period from late May, through the summer. Peaking between mid-July to mid August, depending on the location. Dry, warm spells, caused by intermittent high pressure ridging, usually only persist for one to two weeks, separated by the passage of weak low pressure disturbances in the less distinct summer polar jet-stream, which bring both stratiform (steady, light, longer-lasting) rains, as well as quicker, sometimes heavier, and more scattered convective showers and thunderstorms.
So the Boreal Forest species, have been usually able to obtain the moisture they need for growth, during the overall course of the summer. This is easily seen by the fact that in elevated terrain in the interior, with no permafrost drainage-related issues, root systems of all the forest species are still quite shallow, generally under four to five feet, instead, spreading out laterally just a few feet under the surface. Unfortunately for these species, this also leaves them quite vulnerable to acute moisture stress, during extended dry spells caused by more persistent high-pressure ridging episodes. Something seen dramatically in 2004, 2005, and 2009; trees on Alaska Interior upland sites became parched and withered, when three week and longer, warm, dry spells occurred. This dramatically increases wildland fire behavior, to the point that in late July and August 2004, the hardwood birch, aspen, and balsam poplar species, which normally don’t burn nearly to the extent that the more flammable black spruce do, were becoming fully involved in crown fire episodes. [5]
So the Boreal Forest species, have been usually able to obtain the moisture they need for growth, during the overall course of the summer. This is easily seen by the fact that in elevated terrain in the interior, with no permafrost drainage-related issues, root systems of all the forest species are still quite shallow, generally under four to five feet, instead, spreading out laterally just a few feet under the surface. Unfortunately for these species, this also leaves them quite vulnerable to acute moisture stress, during extended dry spells caused by more persistent high-pressure ridging episodes. Something seen dramatically in 2004, 2005, and 2009; trees on Alaska Interior upland sites became parched and withered, when three week and longer, warm, dry spells occurred. This dramatically increases wildland fire behavior, to the point that in late July and August 2004, the hardwood birch, aspen, and balsam poplar species, which normally don’t burn nearly to the extent that the more flammable black spruce do, were becoming fully involved in crown fire episodes. [5]
Large Alaska Interior wildfires, unlike those in the Western Lower 48 states, are usually naturally ignited by lightning. Because of the vast size of the sparsely-populated Interior, only fires in pre-defined areas that could threaten towns, villages, or significant natural resources, receive focused suppression actions. Otherwise, they can grow to tremendously large sizes, sometimes to 500,000 acres or more.
Drought-stressed aspen, willow, and balsam poplar trees on Chena Ridge, near Fairbanks, Alaska, late July 2009. M.Richmond
The plot above, of Alaska seasonal wildfire acreages since 1955 (when accurate measurement began), combined with may-august average temperatures in Fairbanks, is very illustrative. In general, both show and increasing trend. And, as would be expected, there is at least some correlation between the average growing season temperature, and the corresponding season’s wildfire acreage (some large fire years may only have one or two very warm, dry summer months, during which most of the acreage is burned). The inter-annual variability is quite large, but this is reflective of the fact that in the higher latitudes, so is seasonal weather. Because the weak summer jet stream moves north during Northern Hemisphere summers to these latitudes; any subtle shifts in average strengths, locations, and durations of the transient high and low pressure systems in it, produce large effects. A simple mathematical mean of the wildfire acreages during the period of record, 1955-2010, is around 910,000, while the median (the most frequently occurring), is about 450,000. There seems to be a pattern shift around 1987, concurrent with the one Westerling, et al, observed in the Western U.S. Before this time, the low acreage years were more frequent, and of lower value, than after 1987. The higher acreage years occur more frequently. And, just since 2004, the first (2004), third (2005), and sixth (2009) highest acreage years have occurred.
Unfortunately, the period of record of automated sensor-derived lightning strike accumulations across Alaska is only about 25 years long. And, sensor additions and improvements over the past ten years have resulted in better detection and depiction of them. So there hasn’t been any detailed, quantitative assessment of lightning strike trends in Alaska. Speaking subjectively however, several veteran Alaska operational meteorologists have commented that they feel lightning strike density has been increasing over the state, and especially the interior, over the past 15 years or so. And, days of extreme high-frequency lightning strike accumulation, seem to have increased over the past 10 years, during which 9,000 to 12,000 or more strikes have been observed. Such a trend is to be expected with the overall warming that Alaska has experienced, and should continue, and possibly even accelerate. Because summer-time high pressure ridging episodes in Alaska bring about the warm, dry spells that drive wildfire season duration and severity.
The weather pattern preceding the amplification of a high pressure ridge over Alaska is often one that is conducive to thunderstorm development. Especially when there is a low pressure system to the south, in the Gulf of Alaska, and an east to southeast low to mid level flow (up to 20,000 feet) around it, over the Interior. Moisture and instability from the remains of old frontal systems from the Gulf of Alaska circulates over the region in that flow, and under the right circumstances, can cause the massive lightning outbreaks that can ignite hundreds of fires. Which in the ensuing warm, dry pattern underneath a high pressure ridge, can then rapidly spread. A high pressure ridge is just a mass of warm, dry air, caused by the subsidence (sinking) motions in it. Around the periphery of these, where the subsidence is not as strong, “air-mass” thunderstorms, generated from local instability, also arise. As the high pressure ridges become stronger, the depth of the troposphere, the lower, active atmospheric layer in which our sensible weather occurs, becomes deeper. This in turn, allows deeper convection, and hence, stronger thunderstorms to occur, capable of generating higher lightning strike densities, and igniting more fires. [5]
These are the trends we have seen in Alaska, since 1955. So what does the latest research suggest for the future trends/occurrences of Alaska wildfire seasons? Before we get into that, let’s look at two extreme events that have recently occurred elsewhere, as they provide stark warnings for the rest of the World. Australia, in February, 2009, and last summer, 2010, in Russia.
AUSTRALIA FEBRUARY 2009
Australia is essentially a desert continent, just looking at it from space, that is quite apparent. Because it lies in the latitudes between 15 degrees and 39 degrees south of the Equator, the tropics and subtropics. Globally speaking, deserts occur on all the continents in these general latitudes.
The only areas of Australia that receive more than 15 inches (38 cm) of precipitation are on the coastal margins in the southwest, far northern, and eastern and southeastern portions of the continent. Yet because of the presence of the large, hot, dry desert interior, even these moister continental margins can occasionally experience extreme heat waves when the desert air is pushed east and south by the right weather pattern.
The states of Victoria and New South Wales, in the far southeast, are particularly vulnerable to these extreme heat waves. Because of their latitudes further from the Equator, they normally have a more temperate climate, with average summer high temperatures of 74-86F (24-30C). In addition, within 50-100 miles (80-160 km) of the coastlines, annual precipitation is enough, 25-45 inches (50-115 cm), or more, in the highest terrain, to support varied, dense, closed-canopy forests of mainly different Eucalyptus species.
Eucalyptus species trees have resins and oils in their leaves and wood that makes them burn very intensely. The combination of this, with the high fuel loading that occurs in the moister areas of Victoria and New South Wales, and the occasional extreme summer desert heat-waves, gives these areas the dubious distinction of having the greatest potential fire danger in the entire World.
Fire danger is measured and forecast in Australia by using actual and predicted maximum temperatures, minimum relative humidities, and wind speed/direction during the time of the max. temp., for all the different districts of each state (Victoria, New South Wales, etc..), combined with different drought and antecedent soil and vegetative moisture factors. From these, a rating is derived, a number with ranges broken into categories, 0-10 is Low, 11-20 Moderate, 21-34 High, 35-49 Very High, and 50 or more, Extreme. If a value of 50 or more is calculated for the next day's Fire Danger Rating, a Fire WeatherWarning is issued, since the Fire Danger will be Extreme, as well as a Total Fire Ban, restricting any outdoor burning.
You might remember now, two years ago, hearing or reading about the "bushfires" (the Australian term for wildfires) of February 2009 in the state of Victoria. The worst natural disaster ever to have befallen the country since it's founding. 173 fatalaties, thousands of homes and other structures, and even entire small towns, burned over. In excess of 365,000 hectares (900,000 acres) burned on the two worst days, 07 and 08 February. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Victorian_bushfires
Why did this happen, and what can be learned from this tragedy?
You might remember now, two years ago, hearing or reading about the "bushfires" (the Australian term for wildfires) of February 2009 in the state of Victoria. The worst natural disaster ever to have befallen the country since it's founding. 173 fatalaties, thousands of homes and other structures, and even entire small towns, burned over. In excess of 365,000 hectares (900,000 acres) burned on the two worst days, 07 and 08 February. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Victorian_bushfires
Why did this happen, and what can be learned from this tragedy?
Drought conditions had been widespread in Southeast Australia for more than a decade. This is thought to be one of the manifestations of global warming. Because Australia is predominantly desert, with only small temperate margins on the southern fringes, these fringe areas are highly vulnerable. Climatic warming in summer is manifesting, and will continue to, as an increase of these heat waves in summer, with longer periods between cloudy and cooler weather caused by the passage of low pressure systems in the southern jet stream in the 40-60 degrees south latitude band. So, large areas of the Eucalypt forests had been moisture-stressed for many years.
Added to this then, an exceptional heat wave occurred in late January and February 2009. All-time maximum temperature records were broken in many areas across the states of Victoria and Tasmania during this time, including the in second largest Australian city of Melbourne, which reached 116F (46.4C) on 07 Feb. The period of record there is 154 years.
These graphics show the departure from average of maximum temperatures during the two stages of the heat wave. 27-31 January, and, the hottest day ever recorded at many sites in Victoria, 07 February, 2009.
The image, left, is from the Melbourne doppler weather radar, showing two of the large fire plumes on 07 February, 2009. On this day, the largest fire plume extended up to 18 KM, or 59,000 feet! Into the stratosphere. And it generated dozens of lightning strikes, which started more fires. The moisture release from the combustion of the vegetation, combined with the extremely strong updrafts in fire plumes, creates a "pyrocumulus" cloud, over larger fires. These are essentially thunderstorms in the stronger cases, and so may even produce hail and rain, besides lightning.
Following is the lead page from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's weather factors report of the tragedy:
"Victoria experienced extreme fire weather conditions on Saturday 7 February that led to the tragic losses. A region of extremely hot air had persisted over inland South-eastern Australia since the last week of January and had resulted in several temperature records being exceeded.
The presence of a slow-moving high pressure system in the Tasman Sea, combined with an active monsoon trough, provided the conditions for dry hot air of tropical origin to be directed over the southern parts of the continent. On Saturday strong northerly winds, ahead of an approaching cooler south-westerly change, brought this hot air to southern Victoria. The combination of strong and gusty winds, low humidity and record high temperatures led to extreme fire conditions ahead of the change, while the change in wind direction exacerbated the dangers in fire behaviour.
The day was mostly sunny throughout Victoria, although some mid-level cloud did affect the southwest coast. The most extreme weather conditions were observed in the afternoon shortly ahead of the wind change. Maximum temperatures were up to 23 degrees (Celsius!) above the February average, and for many centres it was the hottest day on record. Melbourne city recorded 46.4°C, its highest maximum temperature since records began. Other places in the Port Phillip region recorded even higher temperatures including Avalon, which recorded 47.9°C. Victoria’s highest official recorded temperature on Saturday was 48.8°C (120 F) at Hopetoun in the Mallee region.
Wind gusts to 115 km/h were reported at Mt William and Mt Gellibrand, while gusts over 90 km/h were recorded at a number of sites including Port Fairy, Aireys Inlet, Kilmore Gap, Dunns Hill and Mt Hotham. After the change wind speeds in excess of 50 km/h continued to be observed for some hours."
As mentioned earlier, daily fire danger ratings of 50 or more, are considered extreme. On 07 February, 2009, with temperatures of 38-47C (100-117F), relative humidities of 3-8 %, and winds of 36-60 kph (20-40 mph) or more, unprecedented values occurred. Fire danger ratings of 120 to 300 were recorded!
This created incredible fire behavior. This image above shows the remains of melted car wheels. To melt these aluminum alloy rims took temperatures of 900C (1650F) or higher. I saw the same thing when I worked at the South Canyon fire in Colorado in 1994, when 14 firefighters were killed. Ten of them were overtaken by a fire with temperatures like that, and where they fell was marked by the melted remains of their pulaski shovels. Many of the fatalities on 07 February, 2009 occurred when people in their autos were overtaken on windy, narrow forested roads, by the fast-moving fires. Unimaginably terrifying and horrific occurrences of people being incinerated in their autos while bystanders/rescuers watched, but couldn't make it in time to their rescue, were reported.
So, to sum up what happened in February, 2009 in Victoria, ten years of drought conditions, combined with an unprecedented heat wave, led to Australia's worst ever natural disaster, in terms of fatalities.
Unfortunately, climate change researchers using the most powerful computing facilities and most detailed global weather/climate modeling systems, are now saying that heat waves this severe, instead of occurring every few decades, will, within 30 years, be occurring every summer in Australia. A 2007 CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia’s equivalent to our National Science Foundation) study said there could be up to 65 percent more "extreme" fire-danger days compared with 1990, and that by 2050 — under the most severe warming scenarios — there could be a 300 percent increase in fire danger. http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2137
RUSSIA JULY-AUGUST 2010:
Alaska’s slightly above-average 2010 wildfire season of 1.12 million acres paled in comparison and effect to that which occurred in Russia last July and August.
“Russian authorities estimate that at least 700 people per day have been dying due to the heat and poor air quality. This event may eventually rival the 2003 European heat wave, which contributed to the deaths of an estimated 40,000 people. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, heat and poor air quality pose significant health risks to the elderly, persons with respiratory ailments, and other segments of the population.” http://www.climatecentral.org/blog/unique-view-of-russian-wildfires/
Russia endured it's worst-ever measured drought/summer heat wave in summer 2010. Which accelerated wildfire outbreaks west of the Urals in it's more heavily populated European section, including even near Moscow. The normal mortality rate in Moscow more than doubled then, due to the heat, and dangerously unhealthy air quality.
The Russian wheat harvest sustained a loss of at least one-third, because of this. And for this reason, their government suspended wheat exports, so that there will be an adequate supply for their own population. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/06-7
The price of wheat rose 88 percent on the international grain market after that, as a result, since Russia is the globe's fourth largest exporter of it.
What caused the severe drought/heat wave/wildfire outbreaks in Russia in July and August 2010? The same thing that causes them here in Alaska. Anomalously strong and persistent high pressure ridging, which pushes very warm air northward from the tropics and subtropics, to the high latitudes. This is the pattern that in the middle and high latitudes that has been increasing over the past few decades with global warming, as more heat is pushed northward, in order to try and maintain a global heat balance. We found this image to be very illustrative, from 01 August, 2010. This is a 500 millibar analysis (the height at which the pressure equals 500 mb, which is a function of the airmass temperature, usually between 5500 and 5800 meters in summer) overlain with the temperature at the 850 mb level (roughly 1500 meters).
This very strong high pressure ridge (on the far right portion of the image), extending well north beyond 65 degrees north (Moscow is at about 56 degrees N latitude), has 850 mb temperatures exceeding 20C north to just past 60 deg. N. The highest-ever measured 850 mb temperature in Interior Alaska has been 20C (68F). This is why surface high temperatures in European Russia reached 30-40C (86-104F) for several weeks this past summer, 8-15C above average (the average high temperature in July in Moscow is a comfortable 24C, or 75F), and why there has been very little rainfall, as this pattern was in place for almost all of July, and through the first half of August, 2010. It is estimated that Moscow’ July 2010 temperatures were the warmest ever measured during the past 130 years of record. Statistically speaking, using standardized standard deviations of the average temperatures, they were four time greater than the expected variability of July’s historical fluctuations about their long-term mean. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/19/
ALASKA: SUMMER 2004...AND BEYOND
Let's take a quick look at what happened here in Alaska during the summer of 2004. The may-august average temperature was 16.2C (61.2F), about 3.2C (6F)above average. It was also the 3rd driest ever over most of the Alaska interior, the month of August, normally the wettest, was nearly rainless. Extreme drought stress occurred in the boreal forest species, black and white spruce, and birch/aspen/balsam poplar. So much so, that even the deciduous hardwood trees exhibited fire behaviour approaching that of the normally flammable black spruce (referred to by Alaska wildland firefighters as "gasoline on a stick"). [8]
When forecasting weather, meteorologists assess temperatures, humidities, and winds at different standard levels of the atmosphere, which are measured twice-daily world-wide by radiosonde balloons. This data is input to the Numerical Weather Prediction models, which model the atmosphere through hundreds of quantitative descriptors of physical processes, using trillions of calculations per second, on supercomputers. These models generate forecast charts out to ten days of various levels in the atmosphere (though only the first 3-5 days are usually very accurate). One of these standard levels that is assessed is 850 millibars (mb). The main parameter assessed is the height at which the pressure equals 850 mb, which usually around 1450-1550 metres (4600-5100 feet) here in Alaska, in summer.
This plot, above, is of 850 mb temperatures from March 2008 to March 2009, measured by radiosonde balloons released from Fairbanks, along with means, records, and standard deviations, for each day. The period of record for those is from 1948-present. One thing that stands out, is how variable these are, due to our large inter-annual and seasonal variability. The warmest measured 850 mb temperature over Fairbanks was 19C (66F), in June 1969, on a day when the surface temperature in Fairbanks reached 35.5C (96F).
The most active several days during the record-breaking 2004 Alaska fire season were during a northeast-wind event in late June and early July. 850 mb temperatures at this time were around 16C (61F). [5] Remember, this is at 1500 metres. When air is forced to descend, as it does during high-pressure ridging episodes like the northeast wind-event of late June/early July 2004, it warms at 10 degrees C per 1000 metres. Thus, if the 16C air at 1500 metres descends to near sea level (much of the Alaska interior is at elevations of only 60-250 metres msl), it would theoretically warm to 31C (88F). Factor in solar heating of the ground, and you can add a degree or two. Temperatures weren't quite that warm on those days in 2004, because thick smoke blown out ahead of the fires shaded the region, and kept temperatures 3-6C cooler.
The most active several days during the record-breaking 2004 Alaska fire season were during a northeast-wind event in late June and early July. 850 mb temperatures at this time were around 16C (61F). [5] Remember, this is at 1500 metres. When air is forced to descend, as it does during high-pressure ridging episodes like the northeast wind-event of late June/early July 2004, it warms at 10 degrees C per 1000 metres. Thus, if the 16C air at 1500 metres descends to near sea level (much of the Alaska interior is at elevations of only 60-250 metres msl), it would theoretically warm to 31C (88F). Factor in solar heating of the ground, and you can add a degree or two. Temperatures weren't quite that warm on those days in 2004, because thick smoke blown out ahead of the fires shaded the region, and kept temperatures 3-6C cooler.
This chart, above, is from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. This report was an internationally collaborative study of climate change that has already occurred in the Arctic, combined with climate change modeling depictions of future changes.
Many of the researchers involved work in Fairbanks at the University of Alaska. [2]
What this is showing, is that by 2050, the average of the different climate change models predicts a 2.5 degrees C or so (4.5 degrees F) average warming over the Arctic region, based on current fossil-fuel emissions scenarios, and expected positive climatic feedbacks (such as globally increased wildfire acreages releasing more CO2, contributing to more warming, etc..) .
What does this mean for interior Alaska? Well, if we currently could experience a 19C temperature at 850 mb during an extreme warm spell/high pressure ridging episode, in 2050, that would likely be 22C, or more, in a similar event. That would translate to lower-elevation temperatures in the mid 30s to low 40s C (95-105F)! In addition, if the average may-august summer temperatures around Fairbanks warm from the current 13.5C or so (57F), to 16C (61F), the health of the spruce forests will be compromised.
White and black spruce in the Alaska boreal forests shut down their growth when average growing-season temperatures reach 16C, and become vulnerable to insect predation and disease mortality.[2] So, with temperatures in the 30s to low 40s C (95-105F), and large swaths of dead and dying spruce trees, in another 2004-like drought year, I think it would be safe to say that unprecedented fire behavior would occur in Alaska.
It's not a matter of if, but when this will occur. We’ve seen the trend in our wildfire acreages, 2004 is still an outlier, statistically speaking, but in a few decades, it will not be. Eventually though, there will be less flammable acreage capable of burning, as more of the fire-prone black and white spruce species are replaced by more drought/heat tolerant deciduous species like aspen and balsam poplar, and even grass and sagebrush, on warmer, drier, low-elevation south and west-facing slopes.
References:
1.
1. RF Spielhagen, K Werner, SA Sørensen, S Aagaard, K Zamelczyk, E Kandiano, G Budeus, K Husum, TM Marchitto, and M Hald. Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water. Science 331, 6016: 450-453 (2010).
2. ACIA; 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, 1042p.
http://www.acia.uaf.edu
1. RF Spielhagen, K Werner, SA Sørensen, S Aagaard, K Zamelczyk, E Kandiano, G Budeus, K Husum, TM Marchitto, and M Hald. Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water. Science 331, 6016: 450-453 (2010).
2. ACIA; 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, 1042p.
http://www.acia.uaf.edu
3. 3. Juday, G.P., Boreal Forests and Climate Change. Changes in Climate Parameters and Some Responses.
www.libraryindex.com/pages/3196
4. Leahy, S., Arctic Defrost Dumping Snow and Ice on U.S. and Europe. IPS-Inter Press Service. 1/28/2011, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/01/28-7
5. Richmond, M., Shy, T., (2005) An Extraordinary Summer in the Interior of Alaska. Proc. 85th AMS Annual Meeting, P3.24, San Diego, CA, 9-13 January 2005
6. Turetsky, R.M., et al., Recent Acceleration of Biomass Burning and Carbon Losses
in Alaskan Forests and Peatlands. Nature Geoscience, DOI:10.1038/NGEO1027 (2010).
www.libraryindex.com/pages/3196
4. Leahy, S., Arctic Defrost Dumping Snow and Ice on U.S. and Europe. IPS-Inter Press Service. 1/28/2011, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/01/28-7
5. Richmond, M., Shy, T., (2005) An Extraordinary Summer in the Interior of Alaska. Proc. 85th AMS Annual Meeting, P3.24, San Diego, CA, 9-13 January 2005
6. Turetsky, R.M., et al., Recent Acceleration of Biomass Burning and Carbon Losses
in Alaskan Forests and Peatlands. Nature Geoscience, DOI:10.1038/NGEO1027 (2010).
7. Wendler, G., and Shulski, M. A Century of Climate Change for Fairbanks, Alaska. Arctic,
Vol.62, No.3 (September 2009) P.295-300
8. Wendler, G., et al. Climatology of Alaskan Wildfires With Special Emphasis on the Extreme
Year of 2004. Theoretical Applied Climatology, DOI 10.1007/s00704-010-0357-9
9. Westerling, A.L., et al., Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire
Activity. Science 313, 1126: 940-943 (2006)
So there you have it, we always greatly anticipate each new fire season here in Alaska,because
they are all so different. So what is our prediction for the 2011 season? Well, we are predicting
between 1.0 and 1.22 million hectares (2.5 and 3.0 million acres) this year. How did we come
up with this? Well, let's just wait and see what transpires, and then after the season is over, we'll let you know.
FUKUSHIMA UPDATE
Japan To Raise Nuke Accident Severity Level to Highest 7 from 5 Only 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe ever rated 7
UPDATE: Japan has now decided to raise the severity level of the accident at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to 7, the highest on an international scale, from the current 5, government sources said Tuesday.
The current provisional evaluation of 5 is at the same level as the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979.
The Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan released a preliminary calculation Monday saying that the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had been releasing up to 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials per hour at some point after a massive quake and tsunami hit northeastern Japan on March 11.
The disclosure prompted the government to consider raising the accident's severity level to 7, the worst on an international scale, from the current 5, government sources said. The level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale has only been applied to the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe.
The current provisional evaluation of 5 is at the same level as the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979.
According to an evaluation by the INES, level 7 accidents correspond with a release into the external environment radioactive materials equal to more than tens of thousands terabecquerels of radioactive iodine 131. One terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels.
Haruki Madarame, chairman of the commission, which is a government panel, said it has estimated that the release of 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials per hour continued for several hours.
The commission says the release has since come down to under 1 terabecquerel per hour and said that it is still examining the total amount of radioactive materials released.
The commission also released a preliminary calculation for the cumulative amount of external exposure to radiation, saying it exceeded the yearly limit of 1 millisieverts in areas extending more than 60 kilometers to the northwest of the plant and about 40 km to the south-southwest of the plant.
It encompasses the cities of Fukushima, Date, Soma, Minamisoma, and Iwaki, which are all in Fukushima Prefecture, and some areas including the town of Hirono in the prefecture.
Within a 20-km exclusion zone set by the government, the amount varied from under 1 millisieverts to 100 millisieverts or more, and in the 20-30 km radius ring where residents are asked to stay indoors, it came to under 50 millisieverts.
The commission used the System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information to calculate the spread of radiation. http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/11-12
It's clear from this deliberately obfuscatory story that things are not going well at the Fukushima nuclear reactor complex. We think it would be best now, to assume the worst, which is to say that at least one of the reactors, if not more, have actually melted down, and/or the spent fuel pools above them have caught fire and melted. And that this mess has/is working through the containment buildings, and out into the environment.
And, as the above article shows, some of this radioactive fallout is being measured in the U.S., fortunately, at very low levels. Which is still not good, but it could be worse. For real, useful information about the hazards this can pose, and why we aren't being told the truth, again, we have to go the Physicians for Social Responsibility for accurate information. Dr. Helen Caldicott is one of the founding members of this important group, and she just wrote this, which, naturally, you will not find in any U.S. corporate media.
Published on Monday, April 11, 2011 by The Guardian/UK
How Nuclear Apologists Mislead the World Over Radiation
Soon after the Fukushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.
Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process.
To wit:
1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation
Let me educate him.
The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]
Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.
The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.
2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.
3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.
Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.
Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."
4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case.
In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."
After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."
Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health."
[1] See, for example, WJ Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (New York: Wiley-Lis, 1995) and DE Thompson, K Mabuchi, E Ron, M Soda, M Tokunaga, S Ochikubo, S Sugimoto, T Ikeda, M Terasaki, S Izumi et al. "Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, Part I: Solid tumors, 1958-1987" in Radiat Res 137:S17-S67 (1994).
[2] This process is called bioaccumulation and comes in two subtypes as well, bioconcentration and biomagnification. For more information see: J.U. Clark and V.A. McFarland, Assessing Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Contaminated Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-2 (1991), Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and H.A. Vanderplog, D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye, Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002 (1975), Environmental Sciences Division Publication, Number 783, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2011
We do wish to remind you, that when our geiger counter arrives, we'll be measuring all of our food purchases at stores, and restaurants, as well as taking ambient air readings, to see if there is any measurable fallout here in south-central Alaska. Welcome to the 21st century. Cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment