Advice from Bill McKibben in yesterday’s Washington Post regarding the extreme weather events over the last year or so:
you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.
It’s far smarter to repeat to yourself the comforting mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and floods — that’s the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don’t let yourself wonder why all these record-breaking events are happening in such proximity
If you aren’t picking up on Mr. McKibben’s sarcasm, read the whole article. In it he lists some of the extreme events we’ve seen lately:
- Tornado outbreaks in the midwest and (in April) the south
- Wildfires in Texas
- Drought in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and the Amazon
- Record snow and rain in midwest
- Record floods in Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan
- Drastic Arctic ice melt
- Pine forests disappearing in the western US
And regarding this year’s tornado outbreak:
Q. How bad has this year’s tornado season been, relative to other years?
A. Extraordinarily bad, even by historical standards. The death toll, now at more than 480, is the highest since 1953, when an outbreak of twisters across the Midwest and Northeast claimed 519 lives. The high death toll so far this year is all the more remarkable considering that early warning systems are in place throughout tornado country, made possible by the advent of Doppler radar. Many tornado experts believed that the advances in technology had greatly diminished the risk of mass tornado fatalities.
“We never thought there’d be another year of deaths like this, with all our warning systems,” said Thomas P. Grazulis, a tornado historian.
Since 1875, there have been just 15 years with more than 360 tornado deaths, and none since 1975. The single deadliest tornado year in the United States was 1925, with 794 fatalities. This year now ranks eighth on the list of deadliest tornado years.
The tornado that struck Joplin, Mo., on Sunday, with its death toll now standing at 122, is also the single deadliest storm in recorded history.
Added emphasis mine.
I have family just south of El Reno in OK, and they’re fine. Only reason the death toll doesn’t rival Joplin there is that it’s so spread out. One twister in Norman went FIFTY miles without ‘hoppong’ off the ground – left a big red line behind it of dirt kicked up, but only a few houses destroyed.
I won’t wonder about this, but if I did, then can I also wonder if the next quiet hurricane season, or normal winter, or a period of non-drought in places that had a drought is evidence against?
It seems like when we have unremarkable weather, or contrary weather (cold snap) and people comment on it relative to global warming (Inevitable headline: Global Warming Seminar Cancelled Due to Snow) we hear about how “climate is not weather” and the contrary weather proves nothing.
But, an active hurricane season, an active tornado season, a summertime drought, or heaven be praised, a heat wave, and presto: All Caused by Global Warming.
This is another example of Global Warming Is Likely Real and Caused by Mankind, but People Who Are Very Concerned About It Seem to Do Their Level Best to Not Convince Us.
of people who would, on the whole, rather not feel concern about climate change seem to do their level best to dismiss the entire concept when they are presented with any event–like the occurrence of a cold snap–that appears to contradict it (since it is much more pleasant not to be scientific).
If eight or more incidents of crime were reported in a neighborhood, would you point to the people who weren’t robbed or assaulted to demonstrate that it was too early to regard it as a crime wave or to think of remedial measures?
When the water in Woburn was polluted and giving some people cancer, would CentralMassDad have waited until ALL of the people had cancer, saying the people who had not gotten sick were proof the water was OK?
Global warming is a threat, in terms of more extreme weather (leading to things like more ozone at the surface and more asthma attacks for children).
We need a carbon-tax or a cap-and-trade system as soon as possible to keep the climate change from getting worse.
I sympathize with CMD’s point. It does seem like folks who believe climate change needs to be dealt with do quickly assert that a singular event is weather and not climate, but then point to these extreme events.
Thing is, CMD’s examples aren’t singular events. An active hurricane season isn’t a singular weather event — it’s a series of events. Same goes for an active tornado season, a drought, or even a heat wave (with accompanying wildfires). These aren’t a day or two of mild temperatures.
Are extreme events happening with more frequency or magnitude? I have no idea — but I’m sure somebody does. I’m also sure that climate change foot draggers wouldn’t be convinced by that, either.
The irony, of course, is that the first major steps in dealing with climate change both save money and reduce lots of other problems related to health, balance of trade, American unemployment, and so forth. Yet because the GOP demonized Al Gore*, we can’t even move forward on those items.
* the GOP is good for dragging one Dem through the mud every two years. Consider: Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and so forth.
Daily temperature/precip is weather, and is of course a very noisy data set, and probably demonstrates nothing.
Average temps/precip over the course of years is less noisy, more likely to show effect of climate.
Average temp/precip over the course of a season: more noisy than annual, less noisy than daily weather, and demonstrates… something in the middle.
It strikes me, however, that this seems to function as a one-way ratchet: big tornado? AGW! When this year’s Atlantic hurricane season is unusually quiet (if that happens), or if next year’s tornado season in the Alley is at the opposite extreme from this years: noisy data, evidence of nothing, blah blah blah. Big Category 5 hits the Carolinas next July? AGW!! And the same with drought: Well, the plains are in a drought because of AGW; North American agriculture is doomed. Wait, did the drought end in 2013? They got more rain because the warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, so the unusually wet season is caused by AGW.
I don’t view this as a scientific problem, but a political one. Environmentalists have long employed the tactic of dramatizing, shall we say, the events of the day in order to galvanize support for political action, on this issue since the hot summer of 1988. The uncertainty involved in something as complex as climate– and the way that the science and current events are deployed in political advocacy– makes climate science seem a bit like popular nutrition science. (Drinking red wine causes cancer; no it doesn’t, it prevents cancer. No, neither, it is white wine. No, beer, but non-alcoholic beer. Well, we know for sure that consuming malt-liquor beverages makes you a dweeb. Using butter is horrible; no, wait, its better than the trans fats in margarine.)
Ultimately, if you are going to use something like an active tornado season, or the hot summer of 1988 as evidence for, then you will inevitably be undermined when a cool summer like 2009 comes along and upsets your applecart.
The answer about how bad the tornado season was given in terms of death, which makes sense as that is what we feel the most. But, there are other reasons such as population density that contribute to the fatality rate.
To answer the question in this post, we’d have to compare number and intensity of tornadoes, not fatalities.
OK, but in the last couple of hundred years, humanity has invented this marvelous discipline called statistics that allows us to find meaningful patterns and trends in the data. And this is necessary because the human mind has a nasty tendency to find “patterns” where there aren’t any. (Thus the source of nearly every conspiracy theory since the world was young.)
So, no, damn straight we cannot tie any individual weather event to climate change. But I think we can use violent seasons even if the next year is not active. There will, after all, still be fluctuations year-to-year. We should expect it, and not say that a downturn in tornado activity disproves climate change. That sort of behaviour is the exact same thing you are complaining about, but in reverse.
It’s about trends. It’s about the statistics. It’s about the data. That, ultimately, is what it comes down to. Not a tornado in Joplin, but how that tornado fits in to the grand scheme of things. And we know what the consequences will be: more events like Joplin and Katrina. Which is not to say that either of them are due to climate change. But statistically speaking… we better build more tornado shelters and better levies.
So, to make sure we have it straight: unusually bad weather is evidence that global warming is a grave crisis; a lack of unusually bad weather is basic statistical noise from randomness and is evidence of nothing.
Of course that is the same thing I am complaining about it, in reverse; it is horse___t in either direction.
BS “don’t think about it” articles like that above conveniently forget the statistical noise/randomness issue; noise and randomness will be conveniently remembered, with a vengeance, the next time we have three weeks straight of 2 degree weather in January. The obvious whipsaw spinning is counter-productive, if one views progress on carbon emission reduction to be productive.
You’re a pretty straight-shooting centrist most of the time, CMD, which is why I can’t figure out why you’re reading comprehension on this comment thread is so abysmal.
I never said, “unusually bad weather is evidence that global warming is a grave crisis; a lack of unusually bad weather is basic statistical noise”. I’m saying that fluctuations are natural. We’d have bad tornado years and bad hurricane seasons with or without climate change. We have to do statistical analysis to determine whether climate change exists and is a factor.
And the statistics are telling us that climate change is real. And what that means is more events like Joplin and Katrina.
Got it? Neither Joplin nor Katrina means that climate change is real. It’s exactly the reverse: Climate change’s reality means we should expect more Joplins and Katrinas, statistically speaking.
Indeed, I just re-read that McKibben editorial to find the spot where expresses the inherent uncertainty of statistics. I’m still looking.
In my view, the converse of a bullshit argument remains a bullshit argument, even if made by someone with whom I would like to agree.
I think it has a double http in it.
some kinda spam-filter annoying thing. I hate it.
My first post! Just thought I’d add that Bob Massie’s Senate campaign has been endorsed by Bill McKibben. I don’t know who I’ll be supporting in 2012 yet, but I figured the environmentalists among us would like to know about this.
I note with interest and irony that my super-duper “REGISTERED DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED” special registered survey from the DNC — signed by Patrick Gaspard himself — makes no mention of AGW.
That’s right — two and half pages of questions, about “Republicans”, “President Obama’s Performance”, “National Priorities”, and “Democratic Party Priorities”, and not one reference to AGW.
AGW is arguably the most threatening issue of our time. It is having and will have far more immediate and personal negative impact on me and my family than “Dealing with Iran”, “Turning Governing Responsibilty Over to the Iraqi People”, “Immigration”, or “America’s Image in the World Community” (!). All those (and more) are listed in the fifteen “National Priorities” I am asked to rank, and AGW is not even listed.
The DNC and RNC are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. At the moment, I doubt that I’ll even vote in 2012, never mind work for any candidate or party. This abysmal document makes no mention AGW and no mention of public transportation. The “survey” offers several opportunities for me to ask the DNC to “protect” health care reform — and NO WAY to say that it doesn’t go nearly far enough and that we desperately need government-sponsored single-payer health care. NO WAY to say that significantly raising taxes on the very wealthy (the top 1% of the wealth distribution) is far and away the most important thing we must do for our economy.
I’m disappointed by President Obama, and positively nauseated by the unfolding Democratic party.
It’s over for the progressive vision, folks — at least through peaceful democratic means. The fat lady is singing.
What are you going to do Tom?
If they think the GOP is insufficiently pragmatic. Stage an intraparty revolt, and, if successful, move the party toward their preferred ideological alignment; if unsuccessful, give up for a cycle or two, and then come back refreshed once the other party holds serve again.
I pray that a truely disturbed individual never googles across this thread.
I can’t believe the moderators on this site are blowing this off.
Find a candidate or two or ten who do campaign on working hard to slow/stop/reverse AGW. Don’t worry if those candidates have a D, R, TP, S, G, or any other letter(s) next to their names.
Wracking my brain – can’t come up with what that is supposed to stand for.
The “A” means “caused by human activity” and I’m not sure why it matters.
…because if we’re causing it we should take responsibility and correct our behavior in order to reverse it or at least slow it down. If it were entirely natural, then it wouldn’t be worth worrying about because there would be nothing we could do about it. I of course subscribe to the former, as do most scientists.
it’s a problem we have to deal with the effects of and try to stop from getting worse. We’d have to take the same measures either way, right? I think blaming man makes people self-defensive. Remember how excited everyone was to send Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck out into space to intercept that asteroid that was hurtling toward Earth? Yet we don’t see them making any movies about solving man-made problems. We respond better when we aren’t also being blamed at the same time.
Adaptation, such as planting different trees and building infrastructure appropriate for a different (warmer, wetter, etc.) climate, needs to be done no matter what the cause. See this article I referenced earlier.
Mitigation only makes sense when the problem is caused or exacerbated by human activity: Conservation, baking off fossil fuels, clean energy, etc.
Make that backing off fossil fuels. Some of already bake off them.
We should conserve and back off fossil fuels because we are running out of fossil fuels. Clean energy is the only choice besides fossil fuels and nuclear (or is nuke considered “clean”? It isn’t. If we are running out of fossil fuels, which we certainly are, we need to conserve what’s left for the future, regardless of global warming.
When I try to edit any of my comments, I get a complaint that says “Oops, no comment with this ID. Go back!” (where “Go back” is a link).
It’s over for the progressive vision, folks — at least through peaceful democratic means. The fat lady is singing.
Are you getting ready for a revolution?
There are two items from the McKibbin list that, at least for me, are scarier and make a more potent argument than the others. They are the arctic ice melt and the destruction of pine forests by a beetle that previously could not survive the winters where it now thrives. These are not cases of “some years it happens, some it doesn’t.” The arctic ice disappearing may be the nail in the coffin that tells us we can no longer prevent drastic climate change from happening – we can only try not to exacerbate the situation any further. Our focus may have to change to adaptation, as they have done in Chicago.
My mind was blown, a few years back, when I learned that “Jingle Bells” and “Over The River And Through The Woods” were both penned in or about Medford.
And both celebrate sleighing on Thanksgiving, in 1857 and 1844 respectively.
I can’t remember the last time we had enough snow in the metro Boston area on Thanksgiving for a sleigh-ride, can you? This, to me, screams long-term climate change, in much the same way the two items you cite do. In the mid-19th century that quantity of snow at Thanksgiving was common enough to warrant multiple popular songs… and now it’s pretty much unheard of.
“Jingle Bells” and “Over The River And Through The Woods” seriously dcsohl? I tried using your talking point with my buddies and they came back with the “I’m dreaming of a White Christmas” defense.
Can anyone please tell me the origins of “White Christmas” written by Irving Berlin?
The story there is that Berlin was staying in Phoenix over the holidays and was wistful, missing snowy holidays from up North.
What does that have to do with anything? Is it really hard for you to consider that snowy Thanksgivings used to be commonplace enough to warrant popular songs, and now they aren’t? That’s surely a sign of something.
And how long after it is far too late to do anything do we have to wait for those who denied global warming and those who refused to act to admit that the destroyed the environment for centuries?
Is it possible for the future to sue the past (us)?
aren’t as dangerous to people as the disaster at the Fukushima reactor
nt
CMD, are you being sarcastic or are you really serious with that comment?
.
At least the global warming that we are causing would not be as dangerous as a direct hit between the earth and a large asteroid.