Morning Read: “The weather has changed”
Is this what climate change looks like?
Sometimes the debate over climate change can seem pretty academic, pretty abstract.
This morning, Jon Alexander in the Glens Falls Post Star is reporting on the clean-up efforts now underway in the Adirondack town of Thurman, where flash floods wiped out dozens of roads and bridges.
The people commenting in his story aren’t environmentalists or policy wonks or journalists. They are nuts-and-bolts guys, the folks who have to make hard-headed decisions about the world we live in.
Usually, I don’t excerpt such long sections of a story, but this passage from the Post Star warrants being read in full context.
While the town is taking the initial steps toward repairing its 34 damaged roads, county officials are now assessing how climate change is changing the way they do business.
“The books we’ve always used to design culverts, you can throw them all out,” said Dave Wick, district manager of the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District. “Global warming is changing everything.”
The state Department of Transportation considers any storm that produces 4 inches of rain in an hour to be a 100-year event, but the May 28 storm saw 6 inches of rain fall in less than an hour.
The size of a culvert required at a particular site is determined by a combination of hydrological analysis and a century of historical precipitation data compiled by DOT and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
And it’s that data that may no longer be relevant, officials said.
“The snowfall and rainfall models we use are no longer correct,” said Warren County engineer Todd Beadnell. “The weather has changed.”
I’m seeing more and more of this kind of language, from business leaders, from engineers, from people like Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin, who say it’s time to stop debating the “ifs” and start talking about what practical steps we need to take now that climate change is here.
A regular reader of the In Box also sent me this link from Elizabeth Kolbert, environmental writer for the New Yorker, who makes much the same point.
So what do you think? Does it raise new alarms that we’re hearing about global warming not from greenies and tree-huggers, but from the guys wearing hard hats?
I was thinking about this issue and why people react so strongly? I mean it is science; the scientific consensus is that we have global climate change and lets face it anyone who has lived up here for the past decades can see it for ourselves. Look at the ice fishing and how fast ice melts or consider the “real”winters we used to have where we would get 20-30 below for an extended period.
I think people react to the blaming. Its a big leap between yes climate change exists to it’s all you hoggish American’s fault.
Whatever you think or want to believe about climate changes, natural climate cycles, melting glaciers, heavy rainfalls, drought, and anything else of the sort – whatever you now know or believe or disbelieve – I highly recommend Curt Stager’s new book “Deep Future”. He explains a lot of science in an accessible way, he looks at natural climate cycles, he studies both the distant and recent past, and he examines various likely and less likely scenarios based on these. If you want to be better-informed when making your own evaluations, it’s an excellent source.
Knuck, re your 7:57 post- Look, if we want to take a real gander at this whole climate change caused by man thing then we have to start with a better grasp of all the little things involved. I have no doubt that these engineers, etc are reporting the facts as they see them. But step back for a second and think about the way we do things and the effects they have that add to the troubles, things that may have NOTHING to do with climate change. We pave EVERYTHING, we funnel all water to the nearest storm drain or ditch and then to the nearest drainage. Do a perk test on your schools athletic fields and walkways. Do a perk test on the average lawn! We gather information to base our stats on from airports and other weather monitoring stations. airports that were grass strips 50 years ago and are now nothing but giant solar collectors layered in BLACKtop. And then on top of that, we have temp recorders placed in the exhaust of AC units, etc! http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm
We can’t have any snow on the roads and load them with salts that kill roadside vegetation and rust our brides and corrode our concrete. And we can’t have a parking lot for a convenience store that won’t hold 800 cars (even they are Prius’s) and we can’t have any swamps around (West Nile). So things like this add up to more troubles with runoff and culverts and bridges.
Climate CHANGE- yes. Weather patterns changing- yes. Is it as simple as man, and mostly American man at that, put too much CO2 in the air and that’s the whole cause of it? Not hardly. Shoot, we still can’t get the scientists to agree if CO2 rise precedes or follows heat rise! http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Okay Mervel, so why do you (and others) react negatively when I suggest some very simple things that people can do that will both reduce pollution and save people money?
I’m not asking Americans to completely change their way of life. I’m saying let’s get everyone to do one small thing. One small thing times 300 million may or may not make a difference, but it can’t hurt. And when people have done one thing and it didn’t hurt too much they might consider doing another.
I know many of the voices here on the other side are already doing many of those things. They may not be doing them to try to save the world; they’re probably doing them because they are sensible things to do. So why not say “what the heck, maybe I’m helping the Earth and all of God’s creatures too.”
I don’t know Bret but from what he posts here I suspect he’s doing a darn good job of helping to save the world. Why can’t he say “hey, I don’t believe in man-made climate change but I’m doing the right thing anyway”?
And the fact is that America is the biggest user of energy in the world by far. That is just simply a fact — I’m not saying people are intentionally evil — it is just a fluke of history that we have had enormous resources to use. But if you want to look after the long term national security interests of our nation the fact is that we need to consider reducing consumption of our natural resources.
That does not mean we need to “give up” and allow China and India to surpass us. It means exactly the opposite. If we want to remain the Super Power that we are we need to husband our resources, set a better example for other countries with rapidly expanding economies, and to rely more on our greatest resource — ingenuity.
We did not become a great nation because we chose to deny reality.
Bret, you’re a smart guy, think for yourself. Figure out how much coal and oil and wood is burned every year world-wide — just roughly speaking. Does it seem impossible that burning hundreds of millions of tons (and I don’t have even a guess what the real number is) of stuff would change the atmosphere?
Let’s say I’m living in my own closed system. I have a well with 1 million gallons of water. Every day I drink a gallon and then pee back 1 gallon into the well.
After 1 year my well is 365 gallons pee and 999,735 gallons water. In another 10 years it is 4,015 gallons pee and 996,085 gallons water.
Now I could keep drinking out of that well for a long time and the water would probably taste just fine but at some point I would have to assume that I just wouldn’t want to drink out of that well any longer and I really doubt my kids would be happy about inheriting that well.
You might say “your kids wouldn’t know the difference, when they got the well the taste of it would be just the current ‘normal'”. But others might say “hey, you ought to stop peeing in your well.”
Man made climate change? I guess that lets women off the hook.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Fact is, everyone and everything has an effect on everyone and every thing. The question is: how much?
Obviously, or it should be obvious, that the two biggest players in climate are the Sun and the oceans. We can have some effect on oceans but have no effect upon the Sun.
Oh, one other major player. The Earth its self. It’s orbit around the Sun gives us the seasons. Volcanic eruptions can always be counted upon to throw a wrench into weather patterns.
My only point is that we are way down on the list. We humans have a bad habit of thinking everything is all about us. Some people even go so far as to believe that God created the entire Universe just so humans (not cats or dogs nor any other creature) could take part in a morality play to see who gets to go to Heaven or Hell.
I would much rather look at approaches which take into account the problems in our energy pricing structure. When the prices more accurately reflects the true cost of energy then people will respond accordingly.
I guess what I am really against is the idea of telling people how they should live. If gas is $10.00 per gallon and someone loves big giant trucks so much they still want to drive one that gets 15mpg that would be their choice or if someone likes to keep the thermostat at 80 all winter and is willing to pay the higher price that is fine.
All of this is really hard to do though in the middle of a depression.
John Warren, I agree with most of your comments. What should be at the heart of this discussion is what should be done. Should we base our decisions on short term weather changes we have seen or should we focus on decisions (and finances) related to curbing emissions and making changes to infrastructure that are focuses on data we have of slower larger changes to the environment? These are tough choices and should be based on the science. And there are very real practical consequences. If we spend our money on local infrastructure changes then maybe we can’t spend our money on changes related to emissions reductions? Maybe a guy can’t buy a hybrid and will need to keep his old beater that is belching out crap if we need a larger culvert down the road and need to raise his local taxes to cover that. These are very tough choices. I think that currently science tells us to focus on emission reductions and infrastructure that maybe is needed to address things like sea level rise. If we lived in utopia we could do everything but no such luck.
Let’s hope, that when we get down to the last 100 gallons of gas on earth, you guys get together and have a little demolition derby to settle these differences.
So actually a person using a whole bunch of gas would be hastening the day when we can move to alternative energy.
Paul, you’re right it is very complicated and nobody has all the answers. The trouble now and for the last decade couple of decades is getting people to admit there is a problem. We have the same types of people paying the same types of scientists to muddy the intellectual waters with junk science just as they did with cigarettes, and PCB’s.
We are the ME generation after all and if Ford advertises an F-450 as a family vehicle — which they have done! — then there are going to be some number of people who will be convinced to buy an f-450. An F-450!!!! And they will think they are cool riding around in it because advertising works. Look at all the Hummers that were sold.
It is very hard to think rationally when your perception of reality is so heavily influenced by TV and advertising. Look at the wedding industry if you want evidence of people being convinced to spend far more money than is in their best interest because some ordinary girl from a PlayDough Pumper development wants to think she is a Disney Princess for a day.
Knuck, when I look at this issue and the “answers” to the problem of CO2 emissions (which may or may not be the culprit) what I see is answers that simply suck. And then, I see that the US is the prime target of any costs and change. So the US and maybe Canada and a couple European countries need to change, but the rest of the world is also supposed to have a shot at becoming more like the US and Canada as far as standard of living goes. To me this sounds like a recipe for disaster- you tell the #1 economy that it needs to stop consuming and needs to slow it’s growth ( that’s the basic message) and just what happens to those nations that depend on the US for their income? Aren’t they going to suffer, like the Mexicans when the corn prices shot up? And if we want the standard of living to come up in country X, aren’t they going to be consuming more and more and emitting more and more?
And then there are the pesky realities to deal with. I could get along just fine with a 4 cyl 4 wd 1/2 ton PU with a small, efficient diesel. I’m pretty sure a lot of people that use trucks could too. The nasty reality is that that option isn’t offered, those little diesels aren’t legal in the US. A lot of people were making use of Lister type diesels in agriculture and off the grid systems. Not legal to import them anymore no matter how efficient they were or that they could run nicely on bio-fuels. Here’s my point- for every good idea someone has to fight CO2 or pollution or costs or to move to alternatives, there seems to be a law or regulation or industry already in place to fight that idea tooth and nail. Look at GM and the Volt- they want a $1.00 a gallon additional Federal tax added to fuel prices to make the Volt appeal to more people! How do you square that?
I’m willing to do “what’s right”, but the option has to be reasonable and affordable. It’s real hard for me to worry about my personal carbon footprint from my wood furnace when I see China building 60’s tech coal power plants at the rate of one a week, or Al Gore jetting around the world from his mega-mansion, or any of the other “do as we say, not as we do” type of BS that is spewing from the mouths of activists and politically correct thinkers around the world. You get the heebie jeebies over some Repub that preaches family values while paying some hooker to spank him every night. I get the same thing with the Climate Change Industry, PETA, AL Gore, etc. Give me honest answers and a workable, reasonable, affordable solution and I’ll be a lot more apt to listen.
There are “common sense” >solutions that could be started right now to slow climate change by reducing the emission of green house gases (which the vast majority of scientists say is currently warming our planet). Unfortunately, in the current political climate none of these can even be discussed let alone be acted upon.
Bret, nobody said it would be easy, but in the big picture your wood boiler is better than burning fuel oil or coal. See, you’re making progress. Keep it up, brother!
bret, you just don’t seem to take in very good information about this. no one is calling for a u.s.-only emissions policy. indeed china is already the world’s singest biggest carbon emitter, so you’re not going to solve the worldwide carbon problem without solving the chinese carbon problem. but the key fact here is that u.s. + e.u. = most of the developed world. which means that the u.s. and the e.u. have tremendous leverage over developing countries like china and india. my understanding is that china has shown basically zero inclination to start controlling its emissions on its own. but i suspect putting some carbon tariffs in place may get it to sing a different tune entirely.
Our leverage over the world and China in particular is not very large because of our huge deficit and dire fiscal problems we have. The days of the US telling other countries what to do is coming to an end and I think that is a good thing.
On this issue I just don’t think advertising is a problem. The me generation spends just as much on a new hybrid as they do a new truck. But as far as the current political climate being bad for making a change I guess you are saying that having President Obama and the Democrats in control is bad for making these changes?
The Republicans lost man, I don’t get it if this is a “bad” political environment for battling greenhouse gas production what would be a good political environment?
i really disagree, mervel. we have enormous leverage over china. despite china’s rapid growth, it’s still quite a poor country. they’re totally dependent on being able to export to rich countries like ours and in europe. so a carbon tariff would have real teeth.
as for the political environment, of course it’s a terrible political environment for tackling climate change. yes the republicans lost in 2008, but they won big-time in 2010 and now control the house and that right there is all you need to know. the climate for taking action was much better in 2009-2010, but even then it wasn’t great because of the terrible economic problems.
I would just be happy with stopping the subsidies to oil and gas companies.
couldn’t agree with you more there, mervel.
Our leverage over China is huge. What would happen to China if we defaulted on the debt we owe them? China can’t afford for the USA to have a crappy economy.
I am just saying that there is no stomach in this government to challenge China. We are both tied to each other no doubt about it, but that means we need them and they need us; it means we won’t be telling them what to do, we will might ask them for a favor.
HT- I’m basing my US/Canada/a couple Eruo countries on the statements of the ICCP/activist press releases. You showed the issue in your post and the follow ups- China/India are growing and have no inclination to abide by standards or treaties in this area, China doens’t abide by ANY treaty or agreement that doesn’t benefit China. How do you deal with that? Who has the authority to mandate tariffs on China and who is going to monitor/enforce them? Any costs to China will simply be passed on to the US consumer.
I don’t think the US has anywhere near the pull with China you guys think we do. That’s old fashioned thinking. They own us, but they need us too. That’s our only pull. If we stop buying they lose, but if they play hard ball it’s just more of an incentive for us to buy cheap Chinese goods because that’s all we can afford. Look into the trade/price supports imbalances that benefit China or other developing nations and hurt the US consumer. We print more and more money to fund ridiculous programs and bailout failing concerns and to pay our debt and they laugh all the way to the bank. No easy solutions on that end. You can not borrow your way out of long term debt.
If you guys want the US and Canada to latch on to the whole climate change fix idea then you have to make it fair and affordable. Until you do that no matter what hype the climate change industry puts out you’ll get a solid backlash from people who aren’t going to roll over and offer their throats.
“The trouble now and for the last decade couple of decades is getting people to admit there is a problem.” knuck, that is just part of the problem. I think that Brian’s piece is hinting that many folks are coming around. What I was alluding to is that we need to use the information we have to decide where we should focus our efforts to address “the problem”. We can’t do everything at once.
This is much more complicated than anyone wants to imagine. Any response to climate change could have far greater consequences than any climate change, real or perceived.
I’m thinking primarily about the economic consequences. What are the costs of doing nothing vs doing something. Does anyone really know?
I do know $10 gallon gas would be devastating, especially here in the Adirondacks. Who could live here with that kind of price, especially when the price of heating oil would even be higher. Unless, of course, we had summer all year round. Then it would be air conditioning. But who would vacation here if it wasn’t cooler here than in god awful places like Florida?
This whole climate change thing is beginning to sound like an atheistic substitution for an end times scenario. It’s part of the new religion. right up there along side with anti-smoking efforts.
Do not think for a moment China will get on the global warming band wagon. It doesn’t care what Al Gore, Bill McKibben or Kurt Stager think. China is focused on its economy and, I might add, does, unlike us, view unrestricted population growth as a big problem.
Put up your windmills, put up your solar panels and convert the corn starving people need to eat into ethanol but you still won’t make a dent in what the climate is or isn’t going to do.
I guess, at least you will feel you are doing something when you aren’t really doing much of anything.
Yeah, Pete, you’re right– the situation is just totally impossible, and the only smart thing to do is to stick our heads in the sand and concentrate real hard on doing nothing because it might be bad for the economy.
Meanwhile, China is getting wealthy working on building green technologies, while the handful of us who are getting wealthy are doing it by inventing ever more toxic complicated financial “products”.
“Meanwhile, China is getting wealthy working on building green technologies” I wish this were the case. Walker have you ever been to China?
Walker, it is estimated that by 2030 China’s emissions will equal that of the entire planet. Currently they are putting 2 new power plants online each week! Some estimate that China is already the worlds largest polluter. One thing that China is doing is producing 95% of the worlds rare earth elements (required for many “green”technologies). In the process they are producing huge amounts of carbon emissions.
The only hope for China is that living in their own filth will become so bad and so unhealthy that it will impact their productivity through increased health care costs, sicknesses, and they will get a growing middle class who actually want a decent quality of life; at that point they will likely act.
China leads in green technology.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/business/energy-environment/09clean.html