Wild weather in recent years — from Hurricane Sandy and deadly tornado outbreaks to extremes of drought and floods — likely can be traced, in part, to climate change, the National Weather Service director says.
The onslaught of wild weather that has battered the USA in recent years — from Hurricane Sandy and deadly tornado outbreaks to extremes of drought and floods — looks to be part of a “new normal” for weather patterns in the U.S., new National Weather Service Director Louis Uccellini said Wednesday.
In comments to the USA TODAY Editorial Board, Uccellini also cited the “likely” contribution of global warming to the extreme weather.
Global warming is “making it more likely that the storms are more intense and produce heavier precipitation,” he said, but Uccellini cautioned that he doesn’t think there are enough cases of extreme weather yet to prove the hypothesis. “I think the evidence is leaning that way,” he said, adding that we’ve loaded the dice to produce more extreme weather such as Sandy. Uccellini said that Sandy’s damage was due in part to sea level rise from global warming.
The extreme weather, surprisingly, may even include winter storms, such as the ones that have hammered the Northeast Coast this winter.
“We have observed more snowstorms and heavy rain events that have been extreme,” he said, due to the fact that a warming atmosphere can “hold more water vapor that can increase the intensity of storms.”
One study, recently published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reports that the lack of Arctic summer ice has altered weather patterns down here in North America and could potentially lead to stormier winters.
Interestingly enough, extreme tornadoes are not connected to climate change, according to this report. Also, Uccellini uses words like “likely” rather than absolutes. He doesn’t think there are enough cases of extreme weather to prove definitively that climate change is the cause. However, he does feel that the evidence is leaning towards climate change being the guilty party.
The effects of climate change and even climate change itself has become a political issue. That is just wrong. Obviously we are in the learning stage of this fairly new phenomena and we need to keep an open mind. Certainly not every storm is climate change. Not every cold day in the spring is climate change. Not every F5 tornado is climate change. Climate change storms seem to be confined to atmospheric moisture. We can’t afford to dismiss climate change as bogus either. Most importantly, we don’t need those political opinions setting policy. We need policy set with proven science as a component.
Warning: The initials AGW sets me off and will land your comment in moderation. Try another angle.
Sea level rise is climate change. Ocean temperature rise and coral bleaching is climate change. Animal habitat changes (water and land) are due to climate change. Crop viability area changes are due to climate change. 99% of actual climate scientists (not meterologists or engineers in other fields) agree that human activity is contributing to climate change.
At least some extreme weather is likely also due to climate change, but shouldn’t the above be reason enough to begin to address it?
I would think so, Middleman. And put another way, can we really afford to be wrong? Can those who scoff at climate change afford to be wrong? They worry about the impact of debt on their children. How about not being able to breathe? How about killer weather?
Middleman, you are suggesting an adult mentality to climate change is the solution. As we have seen, far too many ideological politicians are slaves to the fear of government intervention. These are the same people that would have allowed corporations to dump toxic waste in drinking water until their own family member was adversely effected. It’s so frustrating.
@middleman
Sure those things are due to climate change, but the question is how MUCH of the climate change is due to human activity. I freely acknowledge that human activity is a contributing factor, but evidence is accumulating that the human contribution is much smaller than natural variability. Temperature today is about where it was during the Medieval Warm Period and the temperature trend now falls BELOW the 95% confidence level for the IPCC. Climate predictions and confidence levels are being revised downward.
No one has shown that the human influence is a dominant or even significant influence. Until that happens, government intervention should not be allowed.
@kelly_3406
Also, when Kyoto was being debated, to reduce temperature rise, it was determined that if ALL of that treaty was implemented….driving energy use to the same as it was for the early 90’s, the temp may…MAY drop 1 degree.
Again, the folks who are actually climate scientists in are more in agreement every day about human contribution. If you trace the funding sources and affiliations of the others who promote dissent you will find big oil, the Koch brothers and similar associations.
Look, I’m no angel and I’m not preaching. I drive a truck that gets 12mpg (on a good day) and a Mustang GT that has 420 horsepower (but does get 24mpg on the highway, even at 75mph). My carbon footprint is still fairly low because I only drive 12 miles per day.
I’m saying we can get the low-hanging fruit that will save us money AND reduce CO2. Better windows and insulation, solar roofs and windows, wind farms off-shore, green roofs, and on and on. Low CO2 can help the economy AND the environment- IF we can break the big oil/big coal stranglehold.
Agreement among climate scientists is not all that relevant. I do not really care what a relatively closed group of climate scientists believe; I care what they can prove to the larger science community. Climate science borrows heavily from math and statistics, meteorology, and physics. Climate science should therefore be able to withstand scrutiny from statisticians, meteorologists, and physics scientists, but sometimes does not. For instance, the statistical methods used to derive the hockey stick temperature history were heavily criticized. If the case for human influence on climate change were truly compelling, the wider science community would embrace it. Instead, it is based on “consensus” and opponents are labeled as “deniers”. This is a way to stifle debate rather than focus on the merit of opponents’ arguments.
What you call “agreement” among climate scientists is actually called the scientific method, and is used thru-out the scientific community to arrive at truths. The “agreement” is reached after exhaustive study by scientific professionals who have spent their lives in that particular field, in this case climate science. One scientist or group of scientists propose and publish a theory regarding a problem or situation, and others attempt to reproduce it and/or tear it apart. If it holds up under scrutiny, it becomes accepted.
Currently accepted climate change theory has been around for over 30 years, and has only been reinforced as time has passed. The “hockey stick” temperatures were criticized, those criticisms were studied and were found erroneous. Saying that climate science should be able to withstand “scrutiny” by those who are not experts in the field is like saying that before you have the heart surgery recommended by your cardiologist, you should get “agreement” from your dentist on the diagnosis. They’re both professionals, but only one has the depth of knowledge in the specialty necessary to make the decision.
There has always been resistance to new scientific developments by those with a vested interest in the existing scenario, and the bigger the interest, the harder they fight. Reference persecution of Galileo by the church, persecution/resistance from the flat earth crowd up to 400 years ago, cigarette companies fighting evidence that smoking causes cancer, and on and on. We can keep wasting time and letting big oil/coal divert us, or get moving now. Easy decision for me…
Very well put, Middleman. Good analogies there. There will always be a need for oil and gasoline for the next hundred years. The Koch brothers should stop worrying and invest their money in world hunger.
Climate science is a multi-discipline field. People that work in climate have PhDs in different fields: meteorology (Trenberth, Emanuel), physics (Mann, Hansen), geophysical sciences (Curry), fluid dynamics (Pierrehumbert). The chair of the IPCC (Pachauri) is an economist. So there is no single expertise required to contribute to the study of climate.
You are right about how the scientific method works. You are wrong that the only people that can contribute are specialized climate scientists. Anyone with expertise that can get a paper published can contribute.
In order to get a large climate change, there have to be large, positive feedbacks in the water cycle (clouds and water vapor). It has been very difficult to quantify these feedbacks with observations, which leaves us with models that have proven to be notoriously inaccurate. Other than in models, the SIGN of the feedbacks has not even been proven. So it is still very reasonable to question the magnitude of human influence on climate.
I can’t imagine that man hasn’t had some impact on the atmosphere. As to the magnitude, who knows.
I think most of us can see that things are definitely warming up. The older you get, the more obviousl it becomes.
Kelly, according to your last paragraph, it appears that we agree on human influence but that you question the magnitude, which I think is indeed reasonable to do.
It is also unimportant. As stated earlier, we can get started on the low-hanging fruit that will begin to address CO2 production and also provide an economic benefit. There’s a lot we can do now, such as tighter windows, insulation, solar windows and roof panels, green roofs, using lighter colors on roofs, and on and on. These don’t cost much and have a huge benefit. Studies show that a carbon cap and trade system would work well, and we have a model with the sulfur dioxide and acid rain cap and trade system, which was a huge success.
Of course, no matter what we do in the US, a lot depends on China and India. If we can’t get them on board to address the problem it won’t much matter what we do. For that reason alone, I think it is important that we set a world example, because that’s who we are- we’re supposed to set the standard for the world. If we don’t, who will?
We are at half time during the NCAA tourney, so it is a good time to offer my rebuttal.
As you say, my last paragraph acknowledges human influence on climate, as does my first post on this thread. Unlike you, however, I believe it is extremely important to determine the magnitude of human influence on climate. If it is relatively small, then reduced carbon emissions would likely have no affect on climate change, and so there is no justification for the government to regulate carbon emissions.
Whether potential legislation to cut carbon emissions is aimed at low-hanging fruit or not, I will fight to prevent it. Regulation will drive up costs for heating our homes and reduce the competitiveness of American industry when unemployment is already high. Even more distressing is that it would be a further intrusion of the federal government into our personal lives. Until the evidence is stronger that human influence on climate dominates over natural variability, I will fight any effort to implement anything resembling cap and trade.
I have no problem with voluntary measures, perhaps to include tax breaks. I have already done some of the things mentioned, such as install energy-efficient windows and thicker insulation. I even own a hybrid car. So I am already doing my part, but a carbon mandate would be an unjustified power grab that would lead to greater distrust of the federal government.
Again, agreement! If more people would follow your lead as detailed in your last paragraph we would be well on our way to less CO2 in the atmosphere.
One thing that I think prevents people from accepting that humans can have a significant effect on the climate is the vastness of the atmosphere above us and the relatively limited amount of time we’ve been pumping stuff into it. I know I struggled with this aspect of the phenomenon and still do.
Three things changed my mind and made this more feasible to me:
1. Sulfur dioxide/acid rain
2. CFC’s and the ozone hole
3. Overfishing of the oceans
Overfishing of the oceans is a great example of how much of an effect human activity can have. When I was a kid, anyone who suggested that we could catch all the fish in the sea would have been laughed off the boat. Now, due in part to the domino effect of the chain of life in the oceans, it is a real possibility. Stocks are dropping precipitously for many fisheries.
The hole in the ozone layer and acid rain were almost totally due to human activity, and were addressed through regulation and cooperation between governments. Great economic harm and job loss were predicted when these issues were addressed by the government, but in fact new opportunities were opened up for alternate products and technologies to deal with the pollutants.
There were counter-opinions on the science for those issues too, mostly funded by the companies involved in the existing technology, just as it is today. The major difference between the situation then with those pollutants and today with CO2 is that the lobby is much more powerful for CO2.
The connection among CFCs, polar stratospheric clouds, and extremely cold temperatures of the wintertime Antarctic stratosphere was estabished with truly outstanding scientific work. A combination of atmospheric observations, laboratory studies, and numerical modeling was used not only to explain the formation of the ozone hole in the Antarctic, but also to demonstrate why CFCs did not deplete ozone over the Arctic or in the troposphere. Their work did not require an appeal to scientific “consensus”, because the evidence was, and remains, compelling.
The effort to relate GHG to climate change has not produced compelling evidence thus far. The signs and magnitudes of climate feedbacks, which are needed to get a large warming, is still under debate. Although cloud and water vapor feedbacks are very large in models, they have not been verified with observations. So there is a mismatch between models and observations for climate change that does not exist for the ozone hole.