Weather…or climate?
I’d been thinking about a blogpost yesterday and got distracted, but with more weather disaster news day by day, here it is. It’s actually a post to provide a link to an opinion piece, A link between climate change and Joplin tornadoes? Never! in the Washington Post yesterday by environmentalist and writer, Bill McKibben, our friend from Vermont and the Adirondacks, founder of the climate change campaign 350.org.
He wrote about the weather “events” of the last few days, tying in droughts and crop failures and weather elsewhere around the world…
But do not wonder if they’re somehow connected.
If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder about whether this year’s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest — resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi — could somehow be related. And then 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.
I don’t know about you, but being a curious person, I’m always connecting dots like these. I do understand that weather is not climate, but, holy cow, there’s been a lot of disastrous weather in a lot of places. And just this morning, there’s news of tornadoes in Oklahoma overnight. The sirens sounded in Joplin again last night too. And there’s flooding in Montana now that the snow is melting…not to mention the Mississippi, still, or our own off the charts flooding. Better not to make those connections, McKibben writes,
Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just come through its second hundred-year drought in the past five years, or that the pine forests across the western part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in the past decade — well, you might have to ask other questions. Such as: Should President Obama really just have opened a huge swath of Wyoming to new coal mining? Should Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sign a permit this summer allowing a huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta? You might also have to ask yourself: Do we have a bigger problem than $4-a-gallon gasoline?
Tags: environment
I wonder about people who spend all their time wondering and worrying.
The price of gas is not a problem. The price of heating oil can be a problem.
Oh these weather events are connected all right, they are connected to May 21 and the beginning of the end, still on for October.
If you bring the water to a boil slowly enough, the frog will never jump out.
Dale, NCPR
So, the climate is changing. Always does. When did the climate not change?
Are the changes man-made? No.
What can man do about it? Chevy Volt.
We’re doomed.
and how do you know that, jdm? when in fact the scientific consensus is exactly the opposite, that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change?
Weather or climate? It doesn’t really matter. None of this is about science, about which there is a pretty strong consensus (not to be confused with unanimity). It’s about politics and ideology.
hermit thrush:
Are the changes man-made? No. how do you know?
Because there ain’t a dernthing you or Obama or Al Gore can do to fix it. If the Chevy Volt and some rotting windmills are supposed to fix the problem, it ain’t gonna happen.
Maybe we can collectively hold our breath for a year or two.
Come on. You can’t stop a tornado. What makes you think you can change the climate?
Brian MOFYC got it right.
It’s about politics and ideology, not science.
I can’t help but throw in the fact that Al Gore got “D” in Natural Science at Hamilton College.
Some savior he turned out to be.
The Man Who Peed In His Well.
Once there was a man who dug a very big and very deep well. The water was very cold and very sweet. He lived alone and had very few neighbors.
Every night he would go out and pee in his well. It was much easier than digging a latrine pit and he already had a perfectly good hole in the ground.
One day a neighbor (probably Al Gore) saw him pee in his well.
“You shouldn’t pee in your well,” said Al “it will contaminate your good water.”
“It’s my well and I’ll do whatever I want. Besides, there is so much water in my well a cupful of pee wont hurt it. It still tastes good. Try some.”
“No thanks,” said Al
The years passed and the man met a nice woman who also like to pee in the well. They were married and raised a dozen children who all enjoyed peeing in the well. “Still tastes fine to me,” thought the man.
One day the youngest child came home from school and told his family about a guest speaker who had come to school that day, Al Gore.
“Mr. Gore said people shouldn’t pee in their well”
“That Al Gore is an idiot,” said the Man “I bet he’s started a septic business.”
The next week the Man held a town meeting. He denounced Al Gore with scorn and ridicule. Then he convinced most of his neighbors that peeing in their wells was fine.
“There,” said the Man, “that shows Al Gore what’s-what.”
“I’m going to live with Mr. Gore,” said the youngest child.
“Traitor,” said the Man.
The End
So what’s the point?
Kind of brings up an odd comparison to Michael Jackson.
jdm,
this is really… strange. what’s driving climate change is a big increase in the amount of greenhouse gases like co2 and methane in the atmosphere. that increase is greatly due to human activity. the way to fix the problem is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we’re emitting. that sounds to me like a “dern thing” we could do about it.
I don’t know if everything going on is man made. I do know that in the past climatic changes, some just as severe as we’re getting now and some far, far worse than anything we’ve seen, couldn’t possibly have been caused by man. I do know that it’s possible that we have an unhappy confluence of events occurring at about the same time that could be the biggest cause, or might not be the cause at all. Most of all I know that a tremendous amount of power and money will rest in the hands of the winners of this debate. That means that everything, from both sides, should be suspect. Yes, IMO that includes the scientists who say it’s real and those who say it’s not. Those guys are on someones payroll, they get paid to have an opinion, that makes then suspect.
In the end, for me at least, it seems we’re given 2 choices. One choice says we need to radically alter our world, our culture, our economy, our way of life and it’s going to cost us pretty much all we have. We’ll need to give our money to people who have, in the past, called for the destruction of the western way of life, capitalism, etc. The other choice is to do nothing, to consume, consume, consume! Just leave the power/money structure as it is and trust Big Brother. Well, I don’t much care for either option. I think I’ll just stick with mistrust of both sides, especially the one that says out loud it wants me to give up everything I’ve worked for.
Self centered? Yup. Short sighted? Maybe. The best choice available to me at the moment? Far as I can see, yes.
“One choice says we need to radically alter our world, our culture, our economy, our way of life and it’s going to cost us pretty much all we have.”
Bret, replacing your light bulbs, choosing a higher fuel economy vehicle the next time you replace your car, choosing more efficient appliances when you buy new ones, thinking seriously about reducing _unneccessary_ uses of fossil fuel– those things fall far short of “radically altering your world, your culture, your economy, your way of life and costing you pretty much all you have.”
You pretend otherwise so that you can believe it is rational to do nothing. It isn’t.
walker is right, bret is setting up a totally false dichotomy. here’s krugman from a couple years ago:
sorry, formatting bug: the last sentence of my previous comment is me talking again, not something quoted by krugman.
I think Bret is on the side of peeing in the well.
JDM said: “I can’t help but throw in the fact that Al Gore got “D” in Natural Science at Hamilton College.”
I can’t help but throw in the fact that the D he earned was at Harvard, which means JDM gets an F in Journalism 101. Gore never attended Hamilton. He did give the commencement address there this week, though.
hermit thrush:
“what’s driving climate change is a big increase in the amount of greenhouse gases”
Wait a minute. The climate has always changed. Holy cow. You mean you just discovered a relationship between greenhouse gases and climate change?
Always has been. Same thing on Mars.
The sun comes up in the morning, too. You know what causes that? The earth’s rotation. Should we fix that, too?
And obviously JDM is for peeing in his well.
Maybe we could drive our Chevy Volts west to east and the earth will slow down.
The Aztecs thought they could appease the volcano gods with their human sacrifices. Turns out, they didn’t understand the science.
Oh, I’m sure there were many Aztecian professors publishing papers on how human activity angered the volcano gods. They were just trying to make a living, same as now.
You can jump up and down, hold your breath, or lay hundreds of thousands of innocents on the alter and cut out their hearts. But you can’t stop the climate from changing.
But how is it broken down? How much do we have to change and by when? If we can actually reverse or really mitigate global climate change by personal choices that are pretty small things like better fuel economy cars, better light bulbs (I will pass on the mercury type thank you), recycling etc. than hey lets go for it. But I don’t think anyone really believes that, those are nice things to do, good things to do and they save us a little money, but how exactly do they impact global climate change?
Gas mileage on vehicles has been increasing for decades, has that made a difference?
it hasn’t made a difference because it’s not true. i didn’t spend a lot of time looking on the google, but here’s a nice link showing the trend in fuel efficiency from 1975-2006. efficiency peaked in 1987-88 and actually declined since then (but maybe it’s gone back up somewhat since 2006).
but more generally, you’re right, pure personal virtue will be far from sufficient to combat climate change. this is a problem that only government can solve.
Okay point taken on the mileage (I just remember driving a car that got 6.5 miles per gallon in 1979 and loving every minute of it) so I was speaking from personal not scientific experience.
But I don’t see a plan for what is needed beyond people saying we need to emit less or at some point something might happen. That is not good enough for the massive changes that seem to be called for.
i’m not sure what you mean by you don’t see a plan, mervel. there’s been lots of talk about cap and trade and carbon taxes and the like recently, and by “talk” i mean “detailed legislative proposals.” and i really don’t think it’s a question of “massive change” we’re talking about here. this is krugman’s point. the costs of combating climate are definitely nontrivial, but they’re also manageable.
as for jdm… oh brother. i guess the nicest thing i can say is that i’m honestly not sure what point he’s trying to make. but yes, the current rapid rise in average global temperatures is being driven by greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere by human activity. that’s the scientific consensus. of course the earth’s climate has changed throughout its history and has always been changing at least a little bit. the point is that the evidence suggests it would be changing much much much less right now were it not for human activity. that’s what it means to say that humans are driving the change. take away the greenhouse gases, and presto, you take away an awful lot of that change (at least, as long as we haven’t yet reached a point of no return). so this claim that “you can’t stop the climate from changing” is basically totally wrong.
hermit thrush:
“so this claim that “you can’t stop the climate from changing” is basically totally wrong.”
1) the dire predictions about climate change are already proving false. Beach front cities aren’t going to be underwater in the next 50 years, let alone the next five years.
2) the climate will change again, on its own, and we will not see global warming, rather, global cooling, and we will have done nothing to make that happen.
3) producing “electric” cars that run on coal shows you what great ideas man comes up to deal with the issue.
We had better hope it is not up to mankind to fix the problem, or we really are doomed.
Hermit: “pure personal virtue will be far from sufficient to combat climate change.”
I disagree. Without personal virtue there is no momentum to affect political change. There must be a groundswell of people who take the first step on their own and find out that it really isn’t so bad to be good.
Dale Hobson, are you calling me a frog?
hermit thrush:
“that’s the scientific consensus.”
No, that’s the opinion of a certain segment of the scientific community. There’s an equally large segment that finds no man-made connection with the current condition of climate change.
You can’t claim the high ground when there are two sides to the issue, which is why it is more of a political issue that scientific. Each side is trying to convince the other of their position.
You have your scientific consensus, but it is by no means universal.
I just love the fact after Katrina these same people were saying more and stronger Hurricanes. We’ve had less and weaker. If we don’t get snow it’s because of global warming if we get snow it’s global warming. If it;s warm global warming cold global warming very few tornado’s global warming many tornado’s global warming. How can anyone believe these people.
Hermit what I mean is how much carbon do we need to reduce by when and how will this impact climate change. How will it impact climate change and who has to do it to make it effective? I don’t think we know enough for massive action.
For me I would be in favor of reducing overall pollution; things like trading carbon credits make sense so would a tax that properly priced oil and gas as would removing the subsidies for oil and gas exploration. I would be in favor of those things because they would reduce pollution. I think recycling is kind of bogus along with trying to get people to buy these very expensive green technologies before they are ready and competitive. Green technology has to compete directly with carbon based technology, part of that is indeed getting carbon based technology priced right, but part of it is also not subsidizing green technology. It should stand on its own in the market.
But anyway I am not convinced any of that will really impact climate change, I think we should do it for other reasons though. Climate change kind of seems like this boogy man that will never go away and people will always point to it when something goes wrong.
Really emotionally how much different is it to claim Katrina was directly caused by man made climate change and those who claimed it was a punishment by God for the wickedness of mankind or the wickedness of New Orleans in particular.
Every time there is a violent storm both of these camps seem to come out and say the same things.
It used to be that the man-made climate change people labeled the non-man-made climate change people as “climate change deniers”
That is no longer the case.
I don’t deny that the climate is changing. Always has.
I would take issue with anyone who denies that the climate is changing.
Man didn’t cause it, and man certain cannot stop it.
Walker, HT, KHL- #1, I don’t pee in wells of my own or anyone elses. #2- The kinds of things I had in mind for radical alteration of our economy/lifestyle/culture were things like those spoken of in this article- http://www.prisonplanet.com/kerry-%E2%80%93-lieberman-corrupt-climate-science-used-to-destroy-us-economy.html
As I’ve said before, I have no issue at all with responsible stewardship. I do have a problem with using suspect data from a suspect organization (http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/28181/Latest_IPCC_Scandal_Exaggerated_Sea_Level_Claims.html) to promote political goals.
If you do the same search I did recently regarding climate change you keep coming across the same phrase, “There’s nothing we can do to prevent it.” The climate will change, or not, regardless of what we do. We simply can’t control the oceans temperature or weather patterns. Yes, we can be good stewards and reduce pollution, reduce consumption, reduce emissions. The problem I keep seeing is the only people expected to actually DO anything about this is the west, the US and other developed nations. No one is admonishing China and India to stop building coal fired plants using 1960’s tech. No one is saying developing countries should be limited in their growth. No one is calling for China to stop dumping toxic chemicals in the water. It’s politics again.
You know it’s pretty sad when a guy that farms with horses, uses renewable fuel sources, is doing everything he can to limit fossil fuel and electrical use is accused of being some sort of anti-environment fiend. So let me ask you guys- what are you all personally doing to be good stewards? I’m seriously interested in knowing what, if anything, other people are doing, besides paying lip service to vague concepts I mean.
I can’t help but throw in the fact that the D he earned was at Harvard, which means JDM gets an F in Journalism 101.
Let’s cut JDM some slack here. Hamilton and Harvard both begin with the same two letters. I’d give JDM a D+, but then, I’m a generous grader.
When it is colder than average, it’s called weather. When it’s warmer than average, it’s called climate change.
I don’t claim to know but I do know these two things.
One – reducing pollution is the smart thing to do, climate change or no climate change in any direction.
Two – the least expensive way to reduce pollution is to lower the population. More and more people equals more and more pollution.
If we don’t get snow it’s because of global warming if we get snow it’s global warming. If it;s warm global warming cold global warming very few tornado’s global warming many tornado’s global warming.
That’s why they stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change. Because some people couldn’t wrap their minds around the fact that global warming is causing the climate to change. It will be wetter and snowier in some areas and drier in other areas. No one ever claimed that global warming was going to turn the entire Earth into the tropics.
Wow NCPR. I guess you allow insults and attacks on other posters if those slinging share your “unbiased” opinion.
Personally I find it strange that Bill McKibben often makes this spurious connection between local weather events and global climate change. I saw him do it recently at a talk that he gave here. The global climate is changing, it appears that man has a hand in some of those changes. That is pretty much indisputable. But as far as I know there is no (repeat no) scientific evidence to support a link between global climate change and local weather events. Please give me some references if you have them. If Bill continues to make these connections in the face of no scientific evidence he will continue to lose credibility. We should focus on what science has taught us about climate change (continue to study what we don’t understand) and start to make some big changes to the way we line now. These topics make for good blog fodder but that is about it.
JDM 5/26 7:09 am says:
“No, that’s the opinion of a certain segment of the scientific community. There’s an equally large segment that finds no man-made connection with the current condition of climate change.”
Here’s some of what a Google search on “Scientific community, consensus on climate change” turns up:
“No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion (on human causation in recent climate change); the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
“The article (by Naomi Oreskes in Science Magazine):
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.short
examined 11 years of peer-reviewed studies in the world’s major scientific journals containing the phrase “global climate change” as keywords. Oreskes found that 75% of the 928 articles with those key words in their citations agreed with the consensus position stated by the UN’s panel on climate change, that the observed global warming over the past 50 years has been caused by human activity. The other 25% of the papers took no position, and none of the papers disagreed with the consensus view. While the study is not a perfect measure of the scientific uncertainty in the published literature, the study does show that an overwhelming majority of published scientific research supports the idea that human activity is significantly modifying Earth’s climate.”
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp
While consensus of opinion, even among scientists, is not a proof of scientific fact, is does contradict the assertion that “There’s an equally large segment that finds no man-made connection.”
Dale Hobson,
NCPR
Dale, I agree 100%. I also think that when a smart guy like Bill makes claims that are not supported by science he tends to weaken his other positions.
JDM said: “1) the dire predictions about climate change are already proving false. Beach front cities aren’t going to be underwater in the next 50 years, let alone the next five years.”
Read this article in National Geographic. There are several million Bangladeshis who disagree. They’re underwater right now. How many times can you be wrong in a single thread?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/bangladesh/belt-text
Dale:
This is also on Wikipedia:
This article lists living and deceased scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream assessment of global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
oa and hermit:
Bangladesh will not be underwater in 2050 as the article touts. “So imagine Bangladesh in the year 2050, when its population will likely have zoomed to 220 million, and a good chunk of its current landmass could be permanently underwater.”
But, let’s imagine that your scientists are correct. What can we do to stop it?
If you say, “use less fossil fuel”, then how do we do that?
We are using more carbon fuels every day, every year, and we continue to do so.
Cap and tax. No. That is a means to continue using the carbon, only we pay the government to do so. No solution there, either.
So, how do we save ourselves?
JDM, you seriously don’t know to use less fossil fuel?
no jdm, dale is right and you’re dead wrong.
indeed there are some scientists who dissent from the view that the earth is rapidly warming, and that warming is driven by human activity. but such scientists form a clear minority. as dale persuasively showed, the consensus view is that the earth is rapidly warming, and that warming is driven by human activity. the number of scientists finding no man-made connection is not zero, but it’s nowhere near an equal number, as you erroneously claimed. brian mofyc used exactly the correct words: there’s consensus, but not unanimity, behind human-driven warming.
no, cap and trade or a carbon tax is exactly what to do. making carbon more expensive will encourage less of its use and promote the development of alternative energy sources.
khl,
i disagree with your 6:37 post. don’t get me wrong, i think personal virtue is great — i mean, i walk to work every day and i don’t even own a car. but my point is that just relying on people to do the right thing out of a sense of communal goodwill, or a sense of duty to adjust consumption patterns to protect the environment, or whatever have you, none of it is going to be sufficient to solve the problem. there just aren’t enough saints among us (i’ll happily hold myself up as exhibit a for this). you need to give people incentives to do the right thing. and i think the best way to do that is to make greenhouse gases more expensive to use. i don’t think it matters whether there is a groundswell of people who take the first step on their own or not.
For the other side of the story, you might want to check out ICECAP at http://www.icecap.us/
There they have an interesting article called “Bill ‘Chicken Little’ McKibben.”
I also notice how often NCPR continues to promote “Climate Change in the Adirondacks.” Why is this? Is this free advertising or what?
As I have said before and will say again and again, I am not opposed to lessening pollution. I am opposed to using fear to do it. It shows a total lack of respect for the average person’s intelligence. Maybe, just maybe, this is why fear is used?
hermit thrush:
“no, cap and trade or a carbon tax is exactly what to do.”
Oh great. We’re doomed.
What about China, India, Japan, Russia, Brazil?
We represent 6% of the earth’s population. Cap and tax is likely to fail in our own government, and this is the hope for saving the world?
Even if it passed, Brazil is drilling more oil than ever, China is putting coal plants on overtime, and most of the rest of the world is throwing trash out the window.
We’re doomed.
Bangladeshians better start learning the breaststroke.
and why is cap and trade or a carbon tax likely to fail in the u.s., jdm?
it’s not like this is an idea from outer space. readers of this blog should especially know all about acid rain — a problem that has basically been solved by… cap and trade. ozone depletion is another problem that has been successfully addressed by government regulation (or more precisely, ozone levels are now on track to make a full recovery).
as for the rest of the world, i think the u.s. and europe could prove very influential by imposing a system of carbon tariffs. places like china are totally dependent on being able to export their products to the developed world.
hermit thrush:
“and why is cap and trade or a carbon tax likely to fail in the u.s”
Two things.
1) I’d hate to think that the fate of the world hangs in the balance with only a vote in our Congress to save mankind.
2) It could be worse. The TSA could be in charge of cap and tax.
This is a joke. The US government thought the Chevy Volt would save the world. They sold 981 or so.
We’re doomed.