EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The High Cost of Climate Change Denial
Oh, Yes, Keep Turbocharging the Climate -- It's So Cheap Compared to Getting Off Carbon
Not since 1927 has the Mississippi River crested so high for so long. This year has seen more tornadoes than ever before in U.S. history; not since 1925 have so many people died from twisters. The fires last month in Texas were the worst in 90 years, the drought the worst in a century. Ironically, most of the states afflicted by recent weather extremes voted last November to shrink the federal government and drown it in a bathtub -- the extreme weather is hammering Tea Party country. The response was predictable. Texas Governor Rick Perry stopped talking about secession and started asking for federal help, governors in the tornado belt called for Obama to declare them eligible for more aid, and along the Mississippi, the big complaint was that the Corps of Engineers hadn't built enough dikes high enough. States' rights, anyone?
The states facing this fury of hyper-weather are also, for the most part, represented in Congress by die-hards who advocate continuing climate disruption by choking the atmosphere with greenhouse pollution. While some of these folks claim that the whole idea of global warming is a hoax, what they really believe is that while the climate is warming, we should let the future worry about it, because adjusting to new weather patterns is cheaper than giving up our addiction to coal, oil, and carbon waste.
The climate disasters of the past two years alone ought to put that argument to bed for good. Last year we had floods the size of England in Pakistan, drought and heat that burned more than 300,000 acres and destroyed the entire wheat crop in Russia. Observers called it "the Year of Extreme Weather." Now, in the spring of 2011, it's America's turn. The odds that we are having three different "once-in-a-century" weather disasters in the same region in the same month would be incredibly small -- unless, as climate scientists have been warning, these extremes are no longer "once-in-a-century."
The U.S. weather system has now been bulked up by climate pollution like an athlete on steroids, so that it can unleash what were previously very rare hyper-weather events on a regular basis. A warmer climate does not just raise the thermometer; it also stores more energy, which kicks up extreme winds and carries more water vapor to power bigger storms. Just as a pot of sauce gets violent when it boils, we are seeing the weather do the same.
We won't know the full bill for this year's hyper-weather for a while. It's only May, and the rising Mississippi floods themselves may well have far more painful surprises in store as the rains pelt down and the waters move south down the river towards New Orleans. No one knows what this summer will bring.
It's important to note that mismanaging our carbon budget is not the only folly we are paying for. The Mississippi River needs more floodplains, wetlands, and floodways. Its levees should be built further back, not higher. The river is suffering from congested arteries as well as heavy rains. There shouldn't be 300 people in harm's way in the New Madrid floodway; then the Corps could have opened it up earlier, sparing Cairo, Illinois. We need to be smarter about planning for hyper-weather while we also stop encouraging it.
The glib and absurd notion that we can somehow "adapt" easily to climate disruption refuses to die. Climate action cynics like Bjorn Lomborg and the Fox network continue to claim that since any one episode of hyper-weather may not be linked to carbon pollution, we can ignore the overall reality -- a warmer climate means more extreme weather. As you watch the flood waters rise along the Mississippi, remind yourself: extreme weather is not something you should try at home.
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...
23 Comments so far
Show AllWell, yeah, but when I think of the several pounds' worth of Sierra Club solicitations I've received over the years (including nonrecyclable plastic computer keyboard calendars, car decals, etc. etc.), I imagine that the Sierra Club isn't terribly interested in its own carbon footprint.
If a "theory of climate" existed (analogous to the theory of relativity), predictions could be made to test it, an approach that would convince most people with backgrounds in science.
The problem is that no such theory exists - the climate is too complicated, and anthropogenic inputs complicate it even more. It is possible that an application of extreme value statistics would provide some insight about the likelihood of the unusual weather events we are experiencing, but economists and right-wing pundits would not understand such an approach (and would not want to understand it, for fear that they might have to admit that they are wrong).
I read some of what Milankovitch wrote (in translation) and was impressed, but to the best of my knowledge, few climate scientists cite his work. He was interested in explaining the origin of glacial cycles, and the data do not support his mechanism for them.
The problem with a "theory of climate" is that there are too many feedback loops to be certain that we really understand what is going on. It is easy to say that a large volcanic eruption will cause cooling for a while. But it is not possible to say unequivocally that the flooding in the Midwest is due to global warming. Too many "sub-grid scale" processes occur to be able to be sure that A is causing B, even if it makes sense that A should cause B.
Warming is certainly occurring, and many of the screwy things that are happening may well be due indirectly to it. But even Hansen is not saying that any specific local event can definitely be attributed to warming.
If there is any claptrap it is what you are writing. As I said above, I have read Milankovitch's book, not the Wikipedia version.
If you go back to my posting, you will see that I was speaking in general terms. A theory is a hypothesis which has been verified sufficiently that we can have confidence in it on some scale - like Newton's theory of gravity. But planetary motions are simple compared to what goes on in the atmosphere, so there is no comparable theory of climate (in the sense of one of planetary motion). That does not mean we do not understand what is happening; just that we cannot make the kinds of precise predictions that planetary scientists can make.
Your last sentence, about tornados indcates that you do not understand how difficult it is to "model" sub-grid scale processes. You should read the climate modeling literature. Those who publish in those journals are not as confident as you seem to be that they understand what everything that is going on.
You should also read the reference you mentioned - especially the section on what it means to do science.
Beats me. I read it at least 20 years ago, obtained via interlibrary loan. I suspect it was a translation of the 1941 edition. The one Amazon is selling now ("Canon of Insolation...") covers the same topics, so the title may have been changed when it was republished.
I did not have access to the kind of data Imbrie et al. used to evaluate his work. I was just interested in how he set the dynamics problem up.
Give it a rest sheepherder. You've lost the debate to the scribe. Take a break. And take a look at the Wikipedia reference on glaciation, or better yet the ref under "Ice Age". Look in the subsection under "glacial and interglacial" and the chart titled "Ice Ages Temperature Changes", at the current glacial cycle relative to the last five that have occurred over last half million years. We are at the high temperature of this one. That little squiggle on the top right looks very different than all the other peaks. Not a lot has been made of it, but no one has contested the data it describes.
I don't understand your post. I am not a climate denier. Before I retired, I used to read the climate science literature, from Milankovitch to Imbrie. I know a reasonable amount about the subject, and have no doubts that "warming" is occurring. And I have no doubts that nothing will be done about it. But I will not be around when the crunch comes.
I was just commenting on one of the problems climate scientists face - the complexity of the subject. Not that they are wrong, just that they cannot make the kind of precise predictions that those in other areas of science often can make.
But you are correct, that it is time to give this dead horse a break.
"we should let the future worry about it, because adjusting to new weather patterns is cheaper than giving up our addiction to coal, oil, and carbon waste."
On the extreme right are elites who have enslaved the masses. Obviously the elites don't want to give up their slaves. And the slaves have nothing to live for without the petro-opiates they receive in return for their labors. If Carl Pope called a spade a spade, then that might resonate with the messages conveyed by we on the far left, so we could have a synergy that leads to action. The action we must take is educating the people, via the school curriculum and other channels, about the alternative hopes/dreams, i.e. the default/natural hopes/dreams that people have to seek out sustainable, self-determined lives for themselves, after sloughing the elite parasites off their backs.
It could be that Carl Pope isn't too interested in the class problem, i.e. the rule of elite greed that leads to all ills such as rampant over-development that destroys the environment, because the Sierra Club is a club mostly for those who are highly engaged in... DAS KAPITAL!!!, but like to offset that engagement with a "giving back to the community", i.e. protect the environment so that we fine capitalists may have beautiful hiking trails on the days we are not capitalizing on the labors of our fellow human beings.
On the far left we see that everything is connected. Universal equity/justice means equity/justice for all the people, and all life, and preservation of the elements that we grow on. We need a holistic philosophy, a philosophy of connectivity, and it's about time our "fellows on the left" unite around one.
If I were a southern preacher, I would be preaching against the non-believers. In truth, I do not believe in god, but I do believe Mother Nature is trying to tell us something, and we are not listening!
JaneM, you are right.
Yes, Mother Nature WAS trying to tell us something-a long time ago. She's tired from shouting to no avail, and she's done talkin'. The results you are now seeing around you.
The Sierra Club sends out too many pamphlets, so they can't be worth listening to? Al Gore has a big house, so he's full of it? My Greenpeace friend flies to climate conferences, so he's clearly a hypocrite? Quibble quibble.
To quote Monty Python in Life of Brian, "Brother's! We should be struggling together." Man in headlock, "We ARE struggling together!"
The Sierra Club has sold out like the d party and, yes, Gore is full of it; however
I'd love to meet your friend, as Greenpeace has true grit.
This is so unfortunate. Pope's diatribe is unscientific and ill informed.
Tornadoes, grass fires and floods are not climate, not even hyper-climate, whatever that is. These natural phenomena are the result of weather variation, not man-made climate change. Floods in Pakistan, and fires in Russia had nothing to do with climate change, as has been repeatedly pointed out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, apparently unread by Carl Pope.
Tornadoes result from the interaction of warm air fronts and cool air fronts. Tornadoes are most frequent during periods of cooling, such as our current La Niña ocean conditions, not during periods of warming. Tornado frequency has nothing to do with "Global Warming."
Weather doesn't care who the state's representatives are or how they vote. Weather occurs as it does and there's nothing humans can do about it. Even contributing money to the Sierra Club will do nothing to affect weather and climate variation.
There is no evidence in any peer-reviewed scientific literature to support the vague and undefined claim that "a warmer climate means more extreme weather." This is an absurd scare tactic used by Big Green organizations to increase donations, by "green" industry to increase profits and by the international "sustainable development" community to transfer moneys to small, less developed countries so they can be global consumers just like us.
The glib and absurd notion that we can somehow "stop" climate change refuses to die. There's nothing humans can do about climate change except adapt to it.
Get over it, get started now and avoid the rush.
Great debating style. Deny everything the other side says. When did you drop into this crowd? One statement you made is correct. "Tornadoes, grass fires and floods are not climate, not even hyper-climate..". They are symptoms of sickness, as James Lovelock would say. Your comments have no substance.
As I suggested per the real "scribe/sheepherder" debate above:
Give it a rest sheepherder. You've lost the debate to the scribe. Take a break. And take a look at the Wikipedia reference on glaciation, or better yet the ref under "Ice Age". Look in the subsection under "glacial and interglacial" and the chart titled "Ice Ages Temperature Changes", at the current glacial cycle relative to the last five that have occurred over last half million years. We are at the high temperature of this one. That little squiggle on the top right looks very different than all the other peaks. Not a lot has been made of it, but no one has contested the data it describes.
"The glib and absurd notion that we can somehow "adapt" easily to climate disruption refuses to die. Climate action cynics like Bjorn Lomborg and the Fox network continue to claim that since any one episode of hyper-weather may not be linked to carbon pollution, we can ignore the overall reality -- a warmer climate means more extreme weather. As you watch the flood waters rise along the Mississippi, remind yourself: extreme weather is not something you should try at home."
Notice the links in this paragraph: the first links to the NOAA article demonstrating that tornadoes are not associated with climate change. The second link, supposedly supporting the connection between "global warming" and extreme weather goes to a video of Lumborg explaining the realities of climate variation.
Were these links supplied by Pope? Freudian slip, eh, Carl?
HAYDUKE: You are a jack-ass.
I notice that several of the posts in this thread are trying to undermine the reputation of Mr. Pope or otherwise attempting to diminish the importance of his words. I have had people try the same tactics on me when I related the central point that Mr. Pope just made... that wild climate events ARE speeding up. The once-in-a century event is now once every several months. If some of you want to look for validation on computer models ,it's reminiscent of how government elites utilize delay tactics such as setting up official study groups. No study is necessary, and computer models are only correct until the next tipping point throws off the calculus. Any computer model is fed data based on PAST performances; while what is happening is escalating so rapidly as to make the models themselves effete. Those of you in this forum who salute the status quo, either due to a lack of imagnation, limited sentience, OR what a paycheck requires of you... do others an INJUSTICE.
OBVIOUSLY how humanity is living--from the fossil fuel burned to the decimation of coral reefs, forests, aquifers, naturally interlocating ecosystems, added to the extinction of thousands of species... all this takes a substantial TOLL on the earth. It's also a lousy way to treat PachaMama (or Earth Mother).
Just as the producer of ONE toxic product gets to hide behind a community of trespassers (as so many toxic products currently remain free to impact public health, along with the quality of our air, soil, water, and food) , the fact that there are several key contributing factors to climate changes hardly means that due to this plurality principle, we should: 1. sit back and do nothing 2. pretend the massive climate change events are not happening 3. Keep burning fossil fuel 4. attack the messengers.
There's nothing more pathetic than some narrow-minded thinker trying to isolate one weather phenomenon, and by using some limited cause and effect allegedly scientific construct... suggest that its anomalous performance has nothing to do with climate change. Then, this singular example is deployed as a means for discrediting the greater truth that is so EVIDENTLY TAKING PLACE!
I wonder what another member of your club, Saturnalia, makes of Carl Pope pointing out exactly what I did a few days ago in terms of the FREQUENCY (of wild events) aspect. I get the feeling that persons like you both who are INURED to human suffering, or perhaps WANT to see an end to humanity, You obviously have NO respect for the truth. In my mind, that's a sin against humanity. Perhaps the only way you shills will wake up is when it's YOUR real estate, or your apartment that's facing fire, flood, tornado, earthquake, hurricane, or volcano.
I prefer data and evidence to empty personal attack.
Please cite the literature that supports the claim of increased storm frequency and force.
Hayduke, you really are a jackass.
Hayduke, are you serious or trolling for reactions ?~!
Hey Hey Duke, your so scientific that I see you duking it out with your bathroom mirror, hit it again and see if those creaks go away. Duke it some more and all those storms, droughts and tornadoes will be vaporized just like the human race as climate erases your face. Why don't you go burn a candle and repent.