Top Climate Scientist On The Monster Tornadoes: ‘It Is Irresponsible Not To Mention Climate Change’

[Playinghardball]

Source: Think Progress

Throughout human history, the climate system has been a source of life and death, the sun and rain capable of feeding our crops and bringing us comfort, or unleashing terrible devastation in wind, fire, drought, storm, and flood. Each tragedy that occurs — such as the terrible outbreak of tornadoes and flooding storms this week in the South — reminds us of that awesome power, which is beyond our control and at the limits of our comprehension. We have also learned that humanity is meddling with that power, primarily through the burning of coal and oil that increases the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere and oceans. Scientists have been warning our leaders for decades that this interference with the climate system is dangerous, and have worked tirelessly to explain how these threats are now coming to pass.

However, the Republican Party is now dominated by ideologues who deny the threat of polluting our climate, even when faced with direct evidence of what the climate system can do to the people they are sworn to protect.

Conservatives attack any discussion of climate policy within the context of the killer tornadoes as “grotesque,” saying that to do so is blaming the victims.

More at: http://thinkprogress.org/

[villager]

1. So if rightwingers junk the science, and say it's all "God's will," are the Red State tornadoes...

..."God's will," as well?

Are the hate-mongers still spewing that same hate from the pulpits, in the light of current events?

[Ship of Fools]

3. as a tiny blue fleck in a sea of red here in Kansas, I can say, emphatically,

Yes.

[n2doc]

2. ...

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Climate scientist Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, explains further that “climate change is present in every single meteorological event”:

The fact remains that there is 4 percent more water vapor–and associated additional moist energy–available both to power individual storms and to produce intense rainfall from them. Climate change is present in every single meteorological event, in that these events are occurring within a baseline atmospheric environment that has shifted in favor of more intense weather events.

Thanks for the thread, Playinghardball.

[guardian]

15. Your M. Mann quote sounds like something that

thin skinned climate change whore whose entire livelihood and reputation is dependent upon pro-AGW funding would say.

It's funny to watch the doomers wringing their hands at every bit of unpleasant weather screaming GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING!

[Uncle Joe]

16. Unpleasant weather is one thing, consistent record breaking weather being another and

at what point do non-believers accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of man made magnified global warming as contributing to "unpleasant weather" fifty years from now, a hundred, a thousand?

How many canaries in the coal mine must die before you have the good sense to either ventilate the shaft or get out?

[pintobean]

19. That would mean that

the graph in post #12 should show a steady increase. It doesn't.

[Uncle Joe]

22. No

These canaries in the coal mine dying take every form of global warming magnified weather or weather related disaster in to account, tornadoes just being one example, droughts, forest fires, floods, invasive species migration and at some point war; itself will be a symptom of this global disease.

Furthermore your graph is inadequate in time span only going back to 1950 and ending 2005, the pumping of green house fossil fuel carbon in to the atmosphere has been taking place at an increasing rate since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

[pintobean]

24. Everything outside the average is proof of global warming.

You can't be wrong!
:sarcasm:

[The Doctor.]

25. What you do not appear to understand,

is that it is the global average.

Every instance of weather is an expression of climatic energy. There is more climatic energy, period.

Therefore, any instance of severe weather is almost certainly a result of that excess energy in one form or another. The fact of the matter is that instances of extreme weather are up all around the globe. Trying to look at one single location and argue that climate change has nothing to do with it ignores the nature of the issue entirely.

We will continue to see more extreme conditions as we add more energy to the climate. That's a simple, irrefutable conclusion. Weather we see the increase in one location, or spread out around the globe is impossible to predict with certainty.

[Uncle Joe]

26. Thanks for the compliment but that's not true I can be wrong, it's happened before.

But you're wrong "everything outside the average" isn't "proof" but if there is enough of it combined with common sense and logic, it can be evidence of global warming and the overwhelming scientific evidence points to the fact that you can't just dig up or drill up as if there were no tomorrow tens to hundred+ million year old carbon and burn it placing it in to atmosphere without drastic consequences.

This science isn't even new, carbon dioxide has been known to be a green house gas since the 19th century.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pintobean]

18. I think he was referring to Mann.

Who's packing what?

[The Doctor.]

21. My mistake.

Still, it sounds an awful lot like the poster is ignorant of many facts regarding climate change. My point remains basically the same.

[The Doctor.]

27. There is nothing wrong with ignorance... it just means one 'doesn't know'.

In this case, it appears you don't know the principles of climate change. Otherwise you'd understand why extreme weather is to be expected more and more as we add more and more energy to the climate.

[gratuitous]

5. The people Republicans are sworn to protect aren't people

Sure, hundreds can die from extreme weather events, but that's nothing (nothing!) compared to a quarterly report that isn't going up and up. And if you survivors can quit mourning for a minute, how's about you come on down and buy some stuff?

[Kurovski]

6. The Regressive Republicans are pro-pollution.

That's what their policy on climate change is based on. It's that simple, folks. Spread the word.

Republicans are pro pollution. What can you do? They dig that shit. All you can do is throw everyone of them out of office and never vote for another one again.

K&R

EDIT: oh, and pay very very close attention to how any Dem votes on these issues. Get rid of them too if they massage the rumps of pro-polluters.

[malaise]

10. +1,000

Rec

[Keith Bee]

7. NO IT'S CYCLICAL CYCLICAL OH MY GOD OH MY GOD!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[highplainsdem]

8. K&R. And here's a direct link to that ThinkProgress blog:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/29/climate-science-tornadoes/

[okieinpain]

9. no joke it's just like in the movies. I mean when was the last time

you saw a storm spawn 3 tornadoes at the same time and not little one either.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pintobean]

12. Tornadoes whipped up by wind, not climate: officials

<snip>
AFP - US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.

"If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but it's agreed upon by the tornado community that it's not a real increase," said Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University.

"It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said.

But he said it would be "a terrible mistake" to relate the up-tick to climate change.
<snip>
http://www.france24.com/en/20110428-tornadoes-whipped-wind-not-climate-officials

[Common Sense Party]

14. People have such short memories

and even smaller attention spans.

[The Doctor.]

23. The problem with making ANY assumption

is that energy does not always manifest as tornadoes, storms, or other severe weather. The reality is that as we add more and more energy to the climate, it becomes more and more likely that we will see more manifestations. In order to discount climate change as affecting weather, as so many here seem so keen to do, we would need to track all indicators. It is possible that in the years with less storm activity, there were more extreme temperatures or some other expression of energy. The real problem with dealing with this is that what we're talking about is global climate change, not 'Alabama climate change'. The excess energy in the climate can manifest anywhere on the planet, so the tracking of local activity, especially for the purpose of discounting weather as the result of climate change, is actually entirely fallacious.

It is more than reasonable to link any severe weather to climate change as it is an expression of the total accumulated energy in the climate.

So your graph really does nothing to discount the nearly certain link between the storms and climate change.

[pintobean]

29. It's not mine, it's NOAA's

And the goal posts keep moving.

[The Doctor.]

30. That doesn't even remotely change the point I just made.

And it has nothing to do with 'goal posts'. Just because what is predicted to be likely to happen doesn't happen in a given time frame does not make the underlying principles wrong. Just because one survives the first five rounds of Russian Roulette does not mean they will survive indefinitely. In fact, it is simply inevitable that they will lose. What we are facing with the climate is basically the same thing. Anyone who thinks we can keep adding energy to the system without consequence just doesn't understand the reality.

I am curious though, given that DU is a reality-based community for the most part... Do you deny humans are contributing to, if not entirely responsible for, the current and undeniable rate of climate change?

Like I said, just curious.

[Yo_Mama]

13. I don't see any reason to assume that this is caused by CO2

"Climate change" can cover a lot of effects with separate causes, but this particular weather pattern seems unlikely to be related to CO2 accumulation. Gavin Schmidt's comment really is saying that it is hard to link tornadoes with CO2.

There were much, much worse storms in the US in the 1920s. I remember learning about them as a little kid.

[The Doctor.]

20. It would be as big, if not bigger, a mistake to dismiss our impact on climate

as 'unrelated' to storm activity.

The people that are so quick to deny that severe weather has 'nothing to do with climate change' are sorely ignorant of one very important principle;

HEAT=Energy

There are plenty of simple facts that make any such dismissals seem terribly ignorant. They are as follows;

1) Humans add extra CO2 to the environment cumulatively every year, and have done so at ever increasing rates, above and beyond the natural CO2 cycle.

2) CO2 causes low-spectrum light to be converted to heat. More atmospheric CO2 means more heat. More heat means more energy.

3) The predictions of more severe weather, less sea ice, and acidification of the oceans have demonstrably been coming to pass... and in some cases, decades sooner than predicted.

Those simple facts make climate change not only a suspect in severe weather events, but a likely factor.

[NotThisTime]

28. But Jim Cantore said on NBC last night there was no scientific proof of climate change? Although he

did say that the storms seem to be getting worse and the planet warmer, but there just wasn't enough PROOF... I think 95% of scientists would disagree with him.

[guardian]

31. Trenberth, Mann, Hansen, et all

are more like religious quacks of some obscure religion than actual scientists.

If it's hot, it's global warming.
If it's cold, it's global warming.
If it's windy, it's global warming.
If it's calm, it's global warming.
If it rains, it's global warming.
If it's dry, it's global warming.

Now there is NO weather pattern these DOOMER acolytes can't attribute to global warming. Their global warming hypothesis (i.e., funding cash cow) can NEVER be disproven. It is no wonder that a majority of people think global warming is more of a religion or hoax than a scientific pursuit.

[pintobean]

33. Maybe they can hide the decline

in the graph up-thread. You know; settle the science some more. Why are these guys still working, if it's settled?

[guardian]

34. I doubt they even understand their own computer models.

From what I've seen, the code in their computer models is abysmal. Calling it amateurish would be a complement. Their understanding of statistics is little better. But one thing they do have down pat is the

DOOMER SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

Step 1. Define a topic that will lock in tenure or get a fat grant
Step 2. Gather information from like minded people and talk to nobody else
Step 3. Form the conclusion of what the result will be
Step 4. Come up with some sham experiments and cherry pick data
Step 5. Wash the data through a computer model. Because if it comes out of a computer it must be smart
Step 6. Publish results in your buddy's publications that say how smart you are that you know the conclusion even before you did the experiment
Step 7. Develop a list of insults and ad hominem attacks for any detractors
Step 8. Apply for a bigger grant to 'study it some more'

[pintobean]

35. You forgot

Toss out raw data

[guardian]

36. Thanks for catching that omission

We sure wouldn't want anyone to be able to check the results


YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

[L0oniX]

32. In hell, Jerry Fallwell is claiming that it's punishment for whatever.