Did the Pacific Northwest Pass the Global Warming Stress Test?

Is the Pacific Northwest ready to take on the impacts of global warming?

And amazingly because of the freakish conditions this summer, we know the answer.

Last summer, the Pacific Northwest experienced environmental conditions that are very similar to those human-forced global warming may well produce around 2070, based on the latest climate simulations.

Specifically, we endured substantially (2-4C) warmer than normal conditions, record low snowpacks in our mountains, record low streamflows, and slightly below normal precipitation--very much like anthropogenic global warming will probably produce in our region during typical summers in 60-70 years.  Keep in mind that the best science indicates that the CAUSE of the warming this year was not from increasing greenhouse gases but from natural variability, variability that produced a high amplitude, persistent ridge of high pressure over the eastern Pacific.  But the net effects are similar and thus we have a valid test.  A climate stress test.

So, with virtually no preparation, how did our State and region make out during this unexpected climate stress test?

Being well into autumn, the results are in.    And I will give a detailed scorecard for you to consider.

Here are the scores by major test areas:

Agricultural productivity and robustness:  B

Water supplies for urban populations:   A-
Energy supplies:  A-

Air quality:  C

Wildfires and forests:  D-

OVERALL Grade:  Passed with a B-, but there are major issues we need to deal with.

Let's analyze this grades more carefully.

Agriculture

Washington State agriculture last year (2014)  provided an income of about 10.5 billion dollars.  A few months ago, the WA State Dept of Agriculture estimated a drought loss of 1.2 billion dollars in 2015, or about a ten percent loss.  Think about it.   The warmest summer on record with the lowest streamflows and snowpack on record and our State Ag folks believe that our agriculture was 90% of expected.  Amazing.   They may have even been too pessimistic.  Why do I say that?

The apple crop was the third largest and prices are up.

The pear crop was the fifth largest on record.

The hops harvest was up 13 percent!

The wine grape harvest is excellent.

And the marijuana harvest is off the charts.

 For those looking to do some hunting to put game on the table, the herds are huge because of the mild weather

There were some agriculture interests that have been hurt, such as the dryland wheat farmers (poor spring wheat crop) and the ranchers in NE Washington (the effects of the wildfires).  But much of the irrigated farmland east of the Cascade crest survived as a result of careful management of reservoirs (like the five in the Yakima system), conservation and trading of water, use of wells, and other approaches.   Furthermore, the Columbia River had decent flows this summer, providing sufficient water for  the substantial irrigated acreage dependent on that river. The WA State Dept of Ecology worked hard to foster the best use of limited water supplies.

So a solid B seems in order:  no major agriculture disaster for our state, with continued large output of major crops.   Can you imagine you well WA agriculture could do with proper preparations, such as increasing use of drip irrigation, planting less water intensive crops, fixing the leaky distribution system, and adding more reservoir capacity?   Or replacing the crazy system of senior and junior rights, with the former guaranteed their full amounts and often not using it wisely?  With some smart decisions WA State agriculture could be ready for 2070!

Water supplies for urban populations

No major urban area has had a significant water problem during summer 2015 mainly because precipitation this year was just slightly below normal (this is what we expect in 2070). A lot of wise decisions were made when it became clear that the snowpack would be low, like Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) storing extra water last winter and spring (see graphic).  Letting lawns go dormant became an accepted societal norm.

There was adequate water supplier for Spokane, which draws its water from an aquifer.

And there were completely adequate supplies for Bellingham, Tacoma, the Tri-Cities, Vancouver, and Olympia. Even cities on the drought-stricken Olympic Peninsula (e.g., Port Townsend, Sequim, Port Angeles, Forks) had sufficient water, although some put voluntary restrictions in place.

There are some folks with wells in vulnerable areas that have had problems and some of the local municipalities may have waited a bit too long to ask for voluntary restrictions, but overall the drinking water supply was quite robust.   An A- seems reasonable.  Of course, population will increase in 2070, but there is much more we can do, from increased water efficiency for showers and toilets, more reservoir capacity, and encouraging folks to let their lawns go brown during the summer (or replacing the lawns with drought-tolerant plants).  And if all else fails, there is plenty of potential for more wells in the west.

Energy Supplies

The main source of electricity in our state is from hydropower, and the news was good in that arena, mainly because the Columbia River flows were decent this year (as we would expect in the future).  To quote from an official from Bonneville Power Administration:

"December-early April generation was quite a bit above the median, while not surprisingly, well below median from late April through late August (we’re back to near normal now).  That all averaged out to slightly below median generation for the water year."

Not too shabby for such an extraordinarily warm, record low snowpack year!  City Light was 

similarly affected, making more money in the winter and less during summer, resulted in a modest loss compared to a normal years.   But not enough to influence rates. In addition,  City Light lost several million dollars as a result of turning off power generation at their Skagit facility when a wildfire threatened the power lines.

On the other hand, it was a banner year for solar energy generation, probably the best in 50 years, and wind energy was modestly below normal due to lowered wind speed associated with persistent high pressure in the west, which is something that is not expected under global warming.  On the other hand, warm temperatures last winter resulted in lower-than normal heating costs.

Overall, no serious energy issues and an A- seems appropriate.

Air Quality

There have been a number of groups suggesting that global warming would bring poor air quality to our region.  Some proposed that warmer temperatures would enhance the probability of ozone and smog, since the associated chemical reactions are sped up by higher temps. Others talk about smoke from wildfires.  There are really two distinct stories here, as illustrated by the air quality charts from May 15 through Sept 15 shown below.

The ozone values in Seattle , even with consistently warm temperatures, were quite low (hourly values in parts per billion, ppb, are shown, with values needed to get to 80 ppb for 8h in row to trigger alarms).    Why no problem?  Ozone and smog pollution require high values of nitrogen oxides, but values are dropping due to cleaner gas cars and increased use of hybrids and electric vehicles.   Ozone is also enhanced by volatile organic chemicals, but those are being reduced as well (you can thank local and state agencies, such as Puget Sound Clean Air Agency for this).

But the story is not as good for small particulates (PM2.5, particles less than 2.5 microns in size).  As shown by the plot in Seattle, for most of the summer the levels were low, but there were some big spikes (to 80 micrograms per cubic meter, which is unhealthy for vulnerable populations).   These smoky periods were caused by smoke from some of the eastern WA fires being wafted over the Cascades.

But if you want a real air quality problem, consider the situation in eastern WA.  At Spokane, the early summer was generally ok, but when the big fires broke out in August, the PM2.5 levels jumped to nearly 300.  We are talking about Beijing air quality.  And things were even worse in areas of the Okanogan region of NE Washington.

So, we had a situation with air quality being decent during much of the early summer on both sides of the Cascades, but then some real smoke issues during several weeks in August. And then major improvements in September.  A serious, but limited, problem.   A solid C seems appropriate.

Wildfires and forests

During the spring, there was all kinds of talk about an early start to the wildfire season, with the suggestion that low snowpack would lead to early infernos.  That did not occur for several reasons, including relatively moist conditions of forests and range lands after near normal precipitation and the suppression of lightning by the persistent high pressure over the region (which caused the warmth in the first place).   With very warm temperatures during the summer, grasslands and forests dried out, and when serious lightning hit during August, the wildfires exploded.   In a short period, we went from a much lower than normal wildfire season to one of the most extensive (see graphic from the National Interagency Coordination Center of cumulative acres burned over the Northwest).

Over a million acres burned, several people were killed (including 3 firefighters), hundreds of buildings were lost, and substantial economic damage was done, mainly over NE Washington.

Clearly, the massive fires over our rangelands and eastern-side forests showed that this region was not well prepared for a warm summer, the kind of summer that will be typical in 2070.  And much of the blame can be laid on poor forest management.   As noted by a number of forest experts, our state has allowed the eastern slope forests to degrade terribly.   For thousands of years, eastern WA forests were characterized by relatively widely spaced Ponderosa pines with native grasses between them.  Fires occurred frequently, helping to maintain this ecology.   But during the early part of the 20th century, forest managers, following regionally inappropriate European practices, began suppressing the fires.  The result was a dense forest, with understory trees that helped fires reach the crowns of big trees.  Dense fuel loads enhanced by slash of occasional timber harvests.  Forests ready to explode.   Unhealthy forests that encouraged the spread of bark beetles.

Those managing these forests have not been responsible stewards of the land.  It it well known what needs to be done:  thinning the forest, removing the debris, and initiating controlled burns to bring things back to a natural state.  In such a state, the forests burn far less intensely and with less smoke. But, as noted in a recent article in the Seattle Times, our state government, and particularly the Dept of Natural Resources (headed by Peter Goldmark) have dragged their heals on this, irresponsibly delaying forest restoration.   

If our forests are to be ready for 2070, the investment must be made by the state and the Federal government to restore the eastern slope forests to a more natural, healthy condition.   Furthermore, steps must be taken to discourage people from building homes in areas that have historically burned frequently.  We are spending billions of dollars a year on fighting fires when we should be solving the problem by restoring the forests with this money.  Not smart.  This is not mainly a global warming problem; it is a forest and range management problem.  Some state officials love to talk about the influence of global warming on our forests; it is ironic how little they are doing to restore our forests so that they can deal with current conditions and warming conditions later in this century.

Consider last year's fires and what they reveal about the poor state of eastern Washington forests, a grade of D for this portion of the stress test is probably generous.  An F might be more appropriate.

.......................

So, our summer global warming stress test for Washington State is complete.   one major failure mode has been revealed:  the deplorable state of our east-side forests that are ready to explode under sustained warm temperatures.    The other test areas were encouraging, with our agriculture, water and energy supplies, and air quality holding up quite well under 2070 conditions.  So an overall grade of B- is not unreasonable.  I did not talk about the salmon fishery, which is economically very small.   And besides, our society has already made the decision to savage our salmon runs when we put in the hydro dams.

There is much we can do to get ready for 2070, and if we plan carefully and make the necessary investments, our region can be prepared to weather the substantially warmer climate of the latter part of this century.

 Keep in mind this was mainly a summer global warming stress test.  Winter brings other challenges, mainly heavier rains during atmospheric rivers.  But that is a story for another blog.

Added section:  Salmon

The salmon returns have NOT been a disaster this year, with many runs being good or excellent.  Some examples:

________________________

I support the Carbon Tax initiative and I hope you will as well.  CarbonWashington need signatures for the initiative and financial support.