EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
Popular content
Today's Top News
News at 11: How Climate Change Affects You
Our daily weather reports, cheerfully presented with flashy graphics and state-of-the-art animation, appear to relay more and more information.
And yet, no matter how glitzy the presentation, a key fact is invariably omitted. Imagine if, after flashing the words "extreme weather" to grab our attention, the reports flashed "global warming." Then we would know not only to wear lighter clothes or carry an umbrella, but that we have to do something about climate change.
I put the question to Jeff Masters, co-founder and director of meteorology at Weather Underground, an Internet weather information service. Masters writes a popular blog on weather, and doesn't shy away from linking extreme weather to climate change:
"Heat, heat, heat is the name of the game on planet Earth this year," he told me, as the world is beset with extreme weather events that have caused the death of thousands and the displacement of millions.
Wildfires in Russia have blanketed the country with smoke, exacerbating the hottest summer there in 1,000 years. Torrential rains in Asia have caused massive flooding and deadly landslides in Pakistan, Kashmir, Afghanistan and China. An ice shelf in Greenland has broken off, sending an ice island four times the size of Manhattan into the ocean. Droughts threaten Niger and the Sahel.
Masters relates stark statistics:
- 2010 has seen the most national extreme heat records for a single year: 17.
- The past decade was the hottest decade in the historical record.
- The first half of 2010 was the warmest such six-month period in the planet's history.
- The five warmest months in history for the tropical Atlantic have all occurred this year (likely leading to more frequent and severe Atlantic hurricanes).
"We will start seeing more and more years like this year when you get these amazing events that caused tremendous death and destruction," Masters said. "As this extreme weather continues to increase in the coming decades and the population increases, the ability of the international community to respond and provide aid to victims will be stretched to the limit."
And yet the U.N. talks aimed at climate change seem poised for collapse.
When the Copenhagen climate talks last December were derailed, with select industrialized nations, led by the United States, offering a "take it or leave it" accord, many developing nations decided to leave it. The so-called Copenhagen Accord is seen as a tepid, nonbinding document that was forced on the poorer countries as a ploy to allow countries like the U.S., Canada and China to escape the legally binding greenhouse-gas emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol, which is up for renewal.
Bolivia, for example, is pursuing a more aggressive global agreement on emissions. It's calling for strict, legally binding limits on emissions, rather than the voluntary goals set forth in the Copenhagen Accord. When Bolivia refused to sign on to the accord, the U.S. denied it millions in promised aid money. Bolivia's United Nations ambassador, Pablo Solon, told me: "We said: ‘You can keep your money. We're not fighting for a couple of coins. We are fighting for life.'"
While Bolivia did succeed in passing a U.N. resolution last month affirming the right to water and sanitation as a human right, a first for the world body, that doesn't change the fact that as Bolivia's glaciers melt as a result of climate change, its water supply is threatened.
Pacific Island nations like Tuvalu may disappear from the planet entirely if sea levels continue to rise, which is another consequence of global warming.
The U.N. climate conference will convene in Cancun, Mexico, in December, where prospects for global consensus with binding commitments seem increasingly unlikely. Ultimately, policy in the United States, the greatest polluter in human history, must be changed. That will come only from people in the United States making the vital connection between our local weather and global climate change. What better way than through the daily drumbeat of the weather forecasts? Meteorologist Jeff Masters defined for me the crux of the problem:
"A lot of TV meteorologists are very skeptical that human-caused global climate change is real. They've been seduced by the view pushed by the fossil-fuel industry that humans really aren't responsible ... we're fighting a battle against an enemy that's very well-funded, that's intent on providing disinformation about what the real science says."
It just may take a weatherperson to tell which way the wind blows.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


200 Comments so far
Show AllUgggh. Amy Goodman does more harm than good.
How many times do we have to explain that scientists don't have the tools (yet) to link individual weather events to global warming?
Is she trying to discredit global warming science?
And btw, China has overtaken the US as the biggest greenhouse gasser. (Not that it matters, since they are doing so mainly to manufacture products for export to the first world.)
If the editors of CD are reading this, I ask you to please stop running misleading articles by Amy Goodman.
Good point. Climate is not weather. You do not observe climate change by looking out the window on a given day.
And, in accordance with chaos theory it is impossible to _ever_ predict such extreme events - only averages and probabilities of such events.
Climatology is just the body of statistics regarding weather. Climate change = change in the weather. The weather in Pakistan and Russia is unprecedented since record keeping began.
If we cannot use the expected extreme weather events (the ones the climatologists themselves are predicting - in a statistical sense) to acknowledge the actual impects of AGW on humans andsocieties, how DO we acknowledge it??? We already have the global average temperature data - plus statistical predictons of more frequent violent weather.
"Climate change = change in the weather."
No. Climate change is change in weather over time, a period of at least someyears. If it starts to rain, the weather has changed, but the climate has not based on that single event.
Both sides make this mistake. The "denyers" when it's unseasonably cool for a spell, as well as the "true believers" when the opposite is true. Both sides are wrongheaded when they do this.
I think I'm going to sit this one out. I just cooked up a nice big bowl of popcorn to eat as I watch the food fight unfold...
Got any popcorn left? The food fight you predicted is officially on.
Sure, here you go. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2007/0712xx.popcorn.jpg
I'm tired of beating this dead horse of human caused climate change. These debates are akin to a bunch of ants fighting over a scrap of food while the bottom of some guy's size 13 shoe is coming down on the whole lot of them
Well, I'm sorry! What's more important, the bloody climate or me appearing successful and cool riding around in my new "SUV", or, as my husband says, my "living room on wheels"?
By the way, I saw a new billboard yesterday. General Motors (remember, the behemouth corporation Obama deemed to big to fail, thereby purchasing a majority share with your money?)
advertising their new lineup of, you guessed it, giant gas guzzling SUV's!
We are screwed people!!!!!
On CD the other day, a reporter from England told us about a Ford car, the Fiesta, that is currently on the market in Britain, and gets 74 mpg. Next year, when the Fiesta (Ford) goes on sale in the U.S. -- the car will only get about 37 mpg.
Your conclusion -- "We are screwed people!!!!!" -- can only be interpreted as being correct.
Our government and U.S. corporations are NOT in the game to save humanity, or to help humanity. As President Obama is so fond of saying, "Let me be clear." He is clear -- profits above people.
A difference of 37 mpg is very odd. Did the reporter mention anything about the differences in the makeup and features of the Ford Fiesta in Britain vs the US? I would expect mechanical differences to change the mileage some but 74 is oddly high. I don't know how cars are made in the UK compared to the US but 50 mpg would be realistic. I know cars in the US are often designed with frequent road runners and carrying lots of cargo in mind.
You have to be careful, as imperial gallons are used for calculating the MPG in hte UK. But, the difference is not that large. 74 imperial mpg would translate to 61 US mpg.
Europeans have always had access to cars with vastly better fuel economy than US cars - going back to the 1920's when they put progressively stiff taxes on lager displacement engines. They are smaller and have smaller engines that are tuned for fuel economy. 1.2 to 1.4 liter engines are common. I doubt the US version will have anything smaller than 1.6 liter - and will not be tuned for economy. Manual transmissions are also widely used in Europe, and is the only transmission avaiable on the smaller cars. Also, small displacement diesels are common in Europe.
The reason is simple, the marketeers operate on an assumption that USAns are simply not interested in smaller cars with good fuel economy.
For a taste of what just one manufacturer (Hyundai) ofers in the UK but won't offer in the US, go here:
http://www.hyundai.co.uk/newCars/
The very-average-for-Europe 1.2 liter, 5-speed, 4-seat i10, gets 57 mpg highway, and 37 mpg city.
For making comparsons, divide 235 by the liter/100km figure (parenthesis) to get US mpg.
Thanks Sabocat and just to let you know, I only have one motorcycle with which to ride. I don't think I can afford to buy a car until I can get a full time job. I am afraid of driving in cars too small. They have been known to topple over. I don't know about Europe. If they have small cars, how come we never hear about turnover accidents with them?
I use an electric motor scooter (between 50 and 150cc in performance) for most of my local transportation. It gets about 380 energy-equivalent MPG, or 220 carbon-equivalent mpg.
I think you have it backward. It is the larger cars - particularly SUV's - that roll over easier.
It is true that in a crash between a small car and an SUV, the occupants of the SUV will fare better, but this:
1. Discounts the ability of the small car to avoid the crash through its far better handling,
2. An SUV will fare very poorly in a crash with a an Army Humvee, which in turn will fare poorly in a crash with a Mack Truck. So will a soccer-mom soon only feel safe in a Mack Truck? This is an insane uniquely USAn form of madness.
So, obviously, the only logical course is to regulate the size of all personal cars down in size (through fuel taxes, urban congestion fees, carbon emission fees) - as Europe has done.
I don't know how crowded Europe is but most areas of this country aren't. I'm not used to the idea of raising gas taxes or other fees you listed. I have heard of electric motor scooters once but I can't remember where. Can ride them as fast as regular motorcycles? I once heard about the dangers of SUVs turning over when my dad shouted against the news. My dad owns an SUV and he used to laugh at owners of small cars. He used to run into a lot of maintenance costs but he still loves it and won't tolerate any criticism of it. He would never change his tractor either. My mom's comfortable in SUVs too and big cars along with it. She's used to cracking jokes at small car drivers. They had nothing against motorcycles though. By the way, are there any electric tractors on the market? I don't mow any lawns but just curious.
This is a childish article. Amy, you watch news at 11 for local news and weather before you go to bed. Bad weather happens in different places at different times. Why cash in on disaster like that? Geesh !
The trolls jumped on this one early.
Yes, scientists are able to connect weather patterns to global climate change and have been doing so for years. There is absolutely nothing in the article to challenge or discredit this science.
"Climate is not weather." jakenewton
This statement should win an award for its absurdity. Climate is the weather that is characteristic of a geographical area.
Michael Goodhart's comment is incoherent.
The good news about these witless posts is that they make clear the right's hatred of Goodman. She must be doing something "right" (Get it?) for them to keep trying to smear her.
Have you guys given up on the Building Seven foolishness?
q
"Yes, scientists are able to connect weather patterns to global climate change and have been doing so for years. "
Long term patterns, yes. Nightly weather, no.
""Climate is not weather." jakenewton
This statement should win an award for its absurdity."
No he is correct. Please use a dictionary or encylopedia to refresh your memory on the differences.
BTW the left hates Goodman too because she sells them out every chance she gets.
"Nightly weather"
The "nght" has been 3 months long in Russia.
How has Goodman sold out the left - even if she could do so (she runs a news program, not an advocacy center)?
Please give some specific examples?
Go back and look at the campaign coverage in 2008. Listen to the interviews with Obama and McKinney. Then look at the coverage for Obama. Notice anything?
This post is a virtual admission that your only purpose in coming to this site is to disparage Goodman.
q
Your post just now is a virtual admission that you are incapable of reasoning correctly.
Amy Goodman has always been quite critical of Obama, from his election campaign to the present.
Not nearly critical enough. Mostly she would reguritate MSM stories on him, reairing clips of his triumphant march to victory. And the vast majority of in-depth coverage was of McCain/Palin vs. Obama (not necessarily positive but still coverage). Just look at the coverage from September/October 2008. We have stories like:
"Leading Pollster Predicts Obama Wins with 344 Electoral Votes"
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/23/the_spreadsheet_psychic_with_fivethreeeightcom_nate
"Can Dems Reclaim the South? Once Solidly GOP, Virginia and NC Emerging as Battleground States" http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/30/can_dems_re_claim_the_south,
"Jane Mayer on "The Insiders: How John McCain Came to Pick Sarah Palin" http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/29/jane_mayer_on_the_insiders_how,
and how can you forget "Robert Parry: Why Are McCain Backers So Angry?" http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/13/robert_parry_why_are_mccain_backers
------------------------------
On the other hand, she did a hit job on Nader and McKinney.
There was a "debate" where Nader and McKinney were supposed to debate McCain and Obama from afar with questions like:
"AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, your response to Joe the plumber? "
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_third_party
allowing the two parties to set the agenda/topics for the debate, instead of staging an alternative debate, and not really allowing Nader or McKinney to give full responses.
In another interview Nader was asked questions like "AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to be in the Democratic platform? What isn’t there? What is there?"
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/28/ralph_nader_on_the_democrats_corporate
In another interview, every question was in terms of the two parties, for example:
"AMY GOODMAN: What do think of Chuck Hagel as a vice-presidential running mate—yes, the Republican senator—for Barack Obama, one of the names that’s being bandied about?"
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/18/ralph_nader_on_barack_obama_it
Same thing with McKinney:
"AMY GOODMAN: And what do you make of Senator Obama’s trip right now to Iraq and to Afghanistan, where he said the real war on terror was diverted?"
"AMY GOODMAN: Cynthia McKinney, I wanted to ask you about that New Yorker magazine cover, the one that showed Barack Obama in Muslim garb and that showed his wife, Michelle Obama, carrying a machine gun, with a flag burning in the fireplace. Your thoughts? "
"AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about a quote of Amiri Baraka, who was very critical of your run. He said the people who are supporting McKinney must know that this is an empty gesture, but too often such people are so pocked with self-congratulatory idealism that they care little or understand little about politics, i.e. the gaining momentum and use of power, but want only to pronounce to themselves mostly how progressive or radical or even revolutionary they are. Your response, Cynthia McKinney? "
"AMY GOODMAN: Are you concerned about helping McCain beat Obama? "
"AMY GOODMAN: And what kind of response have you gotten, Rosa Clemente, from the hip hop community, now that you’re nominated as a vice-presidential candidate? "
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/21/first_all_women_of_color_presidential
(McKinney got way less coverage than Nader.)
After the election Nader was further humiliated by having to debate an ignorant African studies professor who looked down her Princetonian nose at Nader, http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/5/independent_presidential_candidate_ralph_nader_discusses
Ask yourself if Amy Goodman was treating either McKinney or Nader like they were real candidates?
Are you kidding?
This is your evidence?
News coverage of Democratic party candidates constitutes bias and support?
Regarding Nader and Mckilley, her questions are all perfectly reasonable questions for a journalist to to ask a political candidate to me.
"Please use a dictionary or encylopedia to refresh your memory on the differences."
Instead, I'll use a dictionary to show how silly you are.
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate
"cli·mate (klmt)
n.
1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
2. A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions: lives in a cold climate.
3. A prevailing condition or set of attitudes in human affairs: a climate of unrest."
I guess that your next response will be to claim that "meteorological conditions" do not constitute weather or that "temperature, precipitation, and wind" are likewise unrelated.
q
There will be no next response because your willful misunderstanding is obtuse.
. . . and your English usage is horrible.
q
I have studied English only 2 years. What is your excuse?
You need to study it longer.
q
" guess that your next response will be to claim that "meteorological conditions" do not constitute weather or that "temperature, precipitation, and wind" are likewise unrelated."
You missed the "characteristically prevail in a particular region." part. It is "related" to weather in a much more specific and qualified sense. The terms you quoted could apply to either a small span of time such as "today" *or* to a period of thousands of years. The objections to the article involve specific weather events. That is certainly *not* climate.
"The objections to the article involve specific weather events. That is certainly *not* climate (sic)."
But if, as you stated elsewhere, climate is weather over of period of time then climate would simply be a series of "specific weather events."
q
" climate would simply be a series of "specific weather events." "
Yes, which is a much more narrow and qualified sense of the word "weather". Read the article I posted a link to, new post. Climate is weather over relatively long spans of time. Climate is *not* simply "weather".
"Climate is *not* simply 'weather' (sic)."
But climate IS weather. You are quibbling about modifiers.
q
"(sic)"
Gesundheit.
"But climate IS weather. You are quibbling about modifiers."
Climate is weather *over time*. It is *not* "quibbling" to point out that you don't support your side of the climate change argument by pointing outside the window. Goes for *both* sides.
QUICK: Please notice that these posters are tasked with posting together... that means at minimum TWO salaries per hour. Why? Because they almost never publish posts that can stand on their own merits (this quality being lacking); so it is necessary to send in back-up. What a farce!
If I sound impatient, perhaps it's because these embeds are seeking to erode the very ground that might allow for human survival.
Attention Embeds/trolls/goons: YOUR ignorance is public ENEMY #!! Now look in the mirror and consider firing!
And I just noticed how these knee-JERKS being first to talk about fighting for "our freedom" just had 3 or more of my posts flagged. What cowards! What they can't win on merit, they'll deviously seek to undermine through covert means.
It's a common strategy to accuse your opponent of what you yourself are doing. However, I think in this case you are just confused, since we are actually on the same side. Please take some quiet time to consider ubrew12's video.
Sioux Rose, you are absolutely on target.
Just thought I'd mention that.
Frankly, it's going to get a lot worse in the troll department going forward. As the directly observable becomes more difficult to obfuscate, I mean.
Hang in there.
NO NAME: There are between 10 and 20 persons from commondreams who correspond with me on a fairly regular basis. A few of them have mentioned that the "troll thing" has gotten out of control. I've even considered setting up a petition and sending it to the site-owners to see if anything can be done. Meanwhile, I appreciate your affirmative vote. I am not always in the mood to get into the frays that take place here. As a feminist, anti-military, green mystic... I have my share of natural detractors; but those that wish to assassinate my character in order to silence me, and impair the delivery of specific messages, well, that's a whole OTHER matter. Fortunately, for a woman, I was born with more balls than most men. Of course, the soul experiences life in both genders. Apparently I have managed to retain my warrior portion to use as needed... in this case, to stand up for Truth, justice, and lifting the veil from humanity's eyes to relate esoteric messages that have long been held in darkness. This "forbidden knowledge" has played a role in keeping so many in bondage to ideas that truly limit what is possible for the human race.
The weather has finally cleared, so it's time to bike! That's when I tap into messages... the forest, which has often served as Meditation Temple to great thinkers like Thoreau, calls each night at sundown. I may return with a message of relevance to this thread.
JAKE: Although a nit-picker, you do possess a bit of unstated, covert charm. I'd take a crow-bar to your locked mind if I thought it could let a wider arc of light in. Thank you for being kind. I don't think I've ever seen you lose your cool.
First you say you're anti-military and then you threaten Jake with a crow-bar??? Is this how you talk in public? Lose your silly paranoia and then be a real woman if you are a woman that is. You remind me of my last ex-girlfriend who acted exactly like that. Too much anger and emotions for a "progressive". Geesh !
"First you say you're anti-military and then you threaten Jake with a crow-bar???"
Settle down, she says she wants to open my mind.
Ok my bad. I must have taken this too literally.
Don't feel threatened by her inflated talk. She's been doing this for 2-3 years here. Look her up in the archives. You might want to listen to what Jake Newton says too. Despite his own biases, he has talked about confirmation bias in the past. He admits it too. Study it and then you'll learn why she can get away with hate talk while anyone else would get banned.
Ok Martian but nothing personal. I'm sure she's much better educated but she could do something more constructive with education and experience instead of using her credentials to bonk and bully some of us on this forum. I saw her site. Yeah, she's lucky to have a 1970s education that I will never know what it looked like. My education came from the 90s and the 2000s. Still, big deal. I just learn from others who aren't too uppity about things. If she has anything personal against me, no biggie. I've run into people like that. She'll get over it I presume. If not, no biggie. She's just one of many in this virtual world.
"This statement should win an award for its absurdity. Climate is the weather that is characteristic of a geographical area."
Your statement is mostly correct, but it is not at all the statement that I made. I stand by it. Climate is not wesather.
"Have you guys given up on the Building Seven foolishness?"
Fell at freefall speeds into it's on footprint. :-)
"Michael Goodhart's comment is incoherent."
It's perfectly coherent, I have no idea why you don't understand such a clearly written statement. The question is whether it is correct or not.
If you read the comments to the last three posts on global warming here on CD, you'll find that Michael has been repeatedly corrected on his understanding of global warming, yet persists in saying roughly the same inaccurate and inflammatory things. I thought I would refer people to previous comments, in case they felt the need to correct him yet again.
"If you read the comments to the last three posts on global warming here on CD,"
Maybe, but the complaint was directed towards *one specific* comment, which is clearly written and unambiguous.
Hold it man. I made it clear where I agree and where I disagree. Corrections are one thing but forcing people to agree to one way only is wrong. I don't believe the extreme scare talk on global warming and I still am not convinced that the extreme talkers want to solve the problem. Where were you when I was discussing steam engines? Yeah, you, quickstepper, and Johnshade never thought of replacing the internal combustion engine with the steam engine because it would have put global warming to rest. Who do you think you're fooling?
Your romance with steam is quite fascinating. It seems that steam power is to you what the great God Jehovah is to many fundamentalists--the total answer to all problems. Where do you plan to get the heat source to make the steam? Wood or fossil fuels, both kick carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If you use solar thermal then it's as limited as any other solar scheme.