Are You Ready for More?
Sharon Begley is the science columnist and science editor of Newsweek. She is the co-author of the 2002 book, The Mind and the Brain, and the author of the 2007 book Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain.
In a world of climate change, freak storms are the new normal. Newsweek's Sharon Begley on why we're unprepared for the harrowing future, and how adapting to the inevitable might be our only option.
Joplin, Missouri, was prepared. The tornado warning system gave residents 24 minutes' notice that a twister was bearing down on them. Doctors and nurses at St. John's Regional Medical Center, who had practiced tornado drills for years, moved fast, getting patients away from windows, closing blinds, and activating emergency generators. And yet more than 130 people died in Joplin, including four people at St. John's, where the tornado sucked up the roof and left the building in ruins, like much of the shattered city.
Gallery: Freak Weather
Even those who deny the existence of global climate change are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year. In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage. The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood thousands of square miles, even as drought-plagued Texas suffered the driest month in a century. Worldwide, the litany of weather's extremes has reached biblical proportions. The 2010 heat wave in Russia killed an estimated 15,000 people. Floods in Australia and Pakistan killed 2,000 and left large swaths of each country under water. A months-long drought in China has devastated millions of acres of farmland. And the temperature keeps rising: 2010 was the hottest year on earth since weather records began.
Also in This Issue:
• Janine di Giovanni: The Making of a Monster
• 2012's Presidential Whiners by Howard Kurtz
• Niall Ferguson: Why Austerity Works From these and other extreme-weather events, one lesson is sinking in with terrifying certainty. The stable climate of the last 12,000 years is gone. Which means you haven't seen anything yet. And we are not prepared.
Picture California a few decades from now, a place so hot and arid the state's trademark orange and lemon trees have been replaced with olive trees that can handle the new climate. Alternating floods and droughts have made it impossible for the reservoirs to capture enough drinking water. The picturesque Highway 1, sections of which are already periodically being washed out by storm surges and mudslides, will have to be rerouted inland, possibly through a mountain. These aren't scenes from another deadly weather thriller like The Day After Tomorrow. They're all changes that California officials believe they need to brace for within the next decade or two. And they aren't alone. Across the U.S., it's just beginning to dawn on civic leaders that they'll need to help their communities brave coming dangers brought by climate change, from disappearing islands in Chesapeake Bay to dust bowls in the Plains and horrific hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet only 14 states are even planning, let alone implementing, climate-change adaptation plans, says Terri Cruce, a climate consultant in California. The other 36 apparently are hoping for a miracle.
The game of catch-up will have to happen quickly because so much time was lost to inaction. "The Bush administration was a disaster, but the Obama administration has accomplished next to nothing either, in part because a significant part of the Democratic Party is inclined to balk on this issue as well," says economist Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. "We [are] past the tipping point." The idea of adapting to climate change was once a taboo subject. Scientists and activists feared that focusing on coping would diminish efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On the opposite side of the divide, climate-change deniers argued that since global warming is a "hoax," there was no need to figure out how to adapt. "Climate-change adaptation was a nonstarter," says Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "If you wanted to talk about that, you would have had to talk about climate change itself, which the Bush administration didn't want to do." In fact, President Bush killed what author Mark Hertsgaard in his 2011 book, Hot, calls "a key adaptation tool," the National Climate Assessment, an analysis of the vulnerabilities in regions of the U.S. and ideas for coping with them. The legacy of that: State efforts are spotty and local action is practically nonexistent. "There are no true adaptation experts in the federal government, let alone states or cities," says Arroyo. "They've just been commandeered from other departments."
“You can no longer say that the climate of the future is going to be like the climate of today, let alone yesterday… we are going to have to change the way we do things in ways we can’t even predict.”
The rookies will struggle to comprehend the complex impacts of climate change. The burning of fossil fuels has raised atmospheric levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide by 40 percent above what they were before the Industrial Revolution. The added heat in the atmosphere retains more moisture, ratchets up the energy in the system, and incites more violent and extreme weather. Scientists disagree about whether climate change will bring more intense or frequent tornadoes, but there is wide consensus that the 2 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming of the last century is behind the rise in sea levels, more intense hurricanes, more heat waves, and more droughts and deluges. Even if the world went carbon-neutral tomorrow, we'd be in for more: Because of the CO2 that has already been emitted, we're on track for an additional 5 degrees of warming. Batten down the hatches. "You can no longer say that the climate of the future is going to be like the climate of today, let alone yesterday," says Judi Greenwald, vice president of innovative solutions at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "In all of the plausible climate scenarios, we are going to have to change the way we do things in ways we can't even predict."
How Newt Gingrich's Campaign Imploded
Peter J. Boyer joined Newsweek/Daily Beast after spending 18 years as a staff writer at The New Yorker, where he wrote on a wide range of subjects, including politics, the military, religion, and sports. Before joining The New Yorker, Boyer was a reporter for the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, and a television critic for National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition.” As a correspondent on the documentary series, Frontline, he won a George Foster Peabody Award, an Emmy, and consecutive Writers Guild Awards for his reporting. Boyer’s New Yorker articles have been included in the anthologies The Best American Political Writing, Best American Science Writing, Best American Spiritual Writing and Best American Crime Writing. He is at work on a book about American evangelism.
Philip at 90: What's Behind All the Gaffes?
Tom Sykes, 36, is a British writer and journalist. He was formerly nightlife reporter for the New York Post and now tries to live a largely blameless life in Ireland with his wife, two kids, three pigs, six hens, and a turkey. He is the co-author, with Detmar Blow, of Blow by Blow, a biography of Isabella Blow.
Anthony Weiner's Ex: He Lied to Me
Kirsten Powers is a columnist for The Daily Beast. She is also a political analyst on Fox News and a writer for the New York Post. She served in the Clinton Administration from 1993-1998 and has worked in New York state and city politics. Her writing has been published in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the New York Observer, Salon.com, Elle magazine and American Prospect online.
- EW.com 'The Voice': Top 16 Power List!
- DIY Life 10 Weird Things from the Craigslist Free Section
- Shelter Pop Shopping Guide For Disgraced Politicians
- My Daily Man Gets Back at Girlfriend by Putting Up Abortion Billboard
- Political Wire An Update on Giffords' Health
- The Hollywood Reporter Jon Cryer Breaks Silence on Charlie Sheen: ‘We Felt There Was No Control Over Him'
- Good A Decade of Global Food Price Increases in One Interactive Chart
- Christian Science Monitor Why Mormonism Might Not Be a Problem for Mitt Romney
Do Cellphones Cause Infertility?
Sharon Begley is the science columnist and science editor of Newsweek. She is the co-author of the 2002 book, The Mind and the Brain, and the author of the 2007 book Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain.
Are Cellphones Really a Cancer Risk?
Sharon Begley is the science columnist and science editor of Newsweek. She is the co-author of the 2002 book, The Mind and the Brain, and the author of the 2007 book Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain.
Saving Sight, Testing Faith
Sharon Begley is the science columnist and science editor of Newsweek. She is the co-author of the 2002 book, The Mind and the Brain, and the author of the 2007 book Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain.
shortcourse
not one comment in this article about how the true magnetic north has shifted toward Europe due to the loss of the earths magnetism...why? Airports have had to change runway coordinates due to the shifting of the north pole. Russian scientists have called this the wobble effect. Air currents have shifted as well as ocean currents. Yes our climate is changing but please....look at all of the facts...
Scroto_T_Bagginz
No no, you've got it all wrong, shorty. Airports have had to change their runway coordinates because of all the rednecks driving their gas guzzling pickups and SUVs!
ndspinelli
It is my hope that more people take a drive across the stark, but beautiful are of Southern Utah. You can see canyons w/ very distinctly colored rock formations. They show the different milleniums of this earth in that region. It was ocean, jungle, alpine, ice and desert. THIS EARTH IS ALWAYS WARMING AND COOLING! Do we have some effect, yes but is is miniscule. Should we conserve..yes. Should we listen to these charlatans who try to scare us..NO. We should reject all fear mongers, be they right or left wing.
imagineallthepeople
The ice caps are melting, ndspinelli, so rapidly that scientists agree it is not part of the usual cycle of warming and cooling. So many reputable sources now, so don't expect citations. You are quite out of date in your assertions.
Plantagenet
Obama failed to keep his promise to bring a new climate change treaty from the Copenhagen conference in 2009, destroying all the momentum built up at the Bali 2007 Climate Change conference. Then Obama walked away from his promise to institute a "cap and trade" bill in the USA. While Obama still talks about climate change, he has accomplished nothing.
gatorbass1
Interesting. I Knew the pole shifted along predictable pathways. Navagational charts have compensated for this for more than a century.
imagineallthepeople
The poles have always moved. The news is the acceleration in movement and how soon after that there could be the inevitable catastrophic flip. Still could be a long, long time away. The CO2 problem that is causing climate change is what we have to focus on now, while we still have a change to mitigate it.
Chuckv
Of course the climate is changing because of the changes is he earth's magnetism!!! This means we don't have anything to do with it, so we need to do nothing!!! And that is the most important thing for government to do: nothing. Any sort of regulation of the oil/auto industries is an interference with the free market, which is perfect and always right. It is socialist, if not Marxist, and will cost jobs. Nor should government spend any money on encouraging alternative energy or projects to minimize the harm of global warming. That requires money, and taxes are the most evil thing possible. Nothing the government could do with the money can make up for the badness of taxation. Our government should have the same response to global warming that governments had to the Black Plague in 1347. They told people to pray and ask God to forgive their sins. (Of course in 1347 no one had the slightest idea of what to do, so doing nothing was easy. Now we must remember that taxes are worse than any governmental action.) Prayer would not require any taxes and would strengthen family values. And if we can get the feminists and gay rights activists to ask God to pardon their sins, maybe He will even stop global warming Himself.
imagineallthepeople
Incorect, Chucky. The polar ice caps are not melting because of magnetic pole change. Even scientists with conservative politics would laugh at that.
imagineallthepeople
Oh, sometimes I am slow to see sarcasm, Chucky :)
jimbox
Thanks Chuckv, speaker of truth. I will start driving my hummer again. I do not know why I ever listened to these climate change freaksters. Thanks again.
NikFromNYC
OBEY CLIMATE COPS
http://oi51.tinypic.com/hv6luq.jpg
OBEY CLIMATE CRIMINALS
http://oi51.tinypic.com/1iohe0.jpg
kinoptika
Would brick, superadobe or any other similar type of construction make any difference during tornado season? Would it be sturdy enough?
AlanD2
If I were building in tornado alley, I'd use a steel frame, solidly anchored to the ground, with diagonal cross-braces. Lots of builders are now including a sturdy tornado shelter room inside new homes. Perhaps building codes should be changed to require this for all houses.
gatorbass1
The hospital in Joplin was shifted off its foundation.Thats a big, heavy re-inforced structure. I think if the winds are strong enough nothing shy of a 'bunker' will survive it.
imagineallthepeople
Correct, AlanD2 (my degree is in architecture.) California is the only state with sensible building codes, because of the history of earthquake.
PigFarmer
imagine, I agree. As a Californian who moved to the midwest I was amazed at the lax building standards here. So many brick bulidings that are just waiting to be toppled by a moderate earthquake. Snowloads that wouldn't support a dollhouse. It truly is astounding to me.
wordtypist
Actually, Florida now has some decent building codes for people more exposed to possible hurricane damage. Steel reinforced cinder block construction and 140mph windows are standard. Probably not strict enough and doesn't cover enough area but for a state owned by the development industry it's a hell of an improvement.
jimbox
A concrete "igloo" would survive? You know, concrete roofs running into the walls, with no division between them?
clearthinker
Building codes will do little against the force of an F4-F5 twister. You must remember that twisters take up far less land mass than a hurricane or earthquake. People need to stop panicking over a single twister. Yes, devastating for Joplin, but it is rare for a tornado this size to hit a high population area. Storm shelters under ground are the best.
imagineallthepeople
Yes, underground for tornados.
2cspirit2
It is true that the earth is going threw changes and have been told by our ancient teacher's that it is 'like a woman going threw labor'. While the lower forces could care-less of the common man but on profit and destruction, it maybe that the hard facts of reality will wake up many that call them self Conservative and quit voting against their own interest and for those that seek their destruction.
Scroto_T_Bagginz
Don't worry, I'm sure that the coming "war on weather" pursued by liberals will be just as successful as the conservatives' wars on drugs and terror have been, and produce similar results.
imagineallthepeople
Yes, 2cspirit2, I believe these climate events in combination with powerful financial entities' accelerating abuse will cause more and more unrest and revolutions. Even in Western Industrialized countries. Spain is only the beginning.
Dr_SwampGas
I feel sorry for the majority of people in the world, who are in poverty and consume very little. They are not the ones leaving the largest carbon footprint, but as usual they will suffer the most.
Scroto_T_Bagginz
Tell that to all those poor people in Tanzania that have been inadvertently contributing to the melting of the glaciers atop Mt. Kilimanjaro due to deforestation in the region.
PigFarmer
Perhaps we should bomb them? As you say yourself what they are doing is inadvertent and yet you seem to have scorn for them.
sandwiches
why are glaciers on top of kilimanjaro important?
i think it's more important for people to not starve.
rogueright
Yawn. Don't you clowns ever give up? No one's buying your AGW crap.
Dr_SwampGas
If you live long enough, you will learn the hard way that it's not "crap", although I really think that people like you just don't give a shit about anything.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
AlanD2
Spoken like a true troll, rogueright.
rogueright
And here I though that weather events are not the same as climate. Not the same until it suits the cause of climate alarmists.
When every sign, whether warmer or cooler, becomes proof of AGW, it's no longer science, but religion. All science must be capable of being proven false.
drstevebrule
climate science is real, but rogueright is absolutely correct. liberals mocked the hell out of people who talked about winter records, but they now point to a single weather event and say SEE?! any good climate scientist will tell you - thats not how this works.
AlanD2
Rogue, I always say that no weather event proves (or disproves, for that matter) Global Warming. Only long-term averages allow climate scientists to see trends in our climate.
Given that 97% of the world's climate scientists say that Global Warming is real and is caused by human activity, I think it's safe to agree with them. And believe me, climate scientists working for energy companies are working as hard as they can to disprove AGW - without much success.
Fang1944
The National Academy of Sciences buys it.
I know, them thar science fellers don't use they common seyunse.
rogueright
Please provide a url where the National academy of Science links "freak storms' to AGW.
NOAA disagrees,
"This year is an extraordinary outlier," said Harold Brooks, research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Oklahoma. ...
Brooks said the contemporary US tornado record, which dates back to 1950, "can be a difficult thing to work with."
But when scientists examine the most complete records available and adjust for changes in how tornadoes were reported over time, "we see no correlation between global or US national temperature and tornado occurrence," Brooks said.
Nor are the storms themselves getting larger than they used to be, even though it may seem so after learning of massive twisters like the one in Missouri that tore apart a six-mile (10 kilometer) long, half-mile deep stretch of land.
"Tornado deaths require two things. You have to have the tornado and you have to have people in the right or the wrong place," Brooks said. ...
The tornado record does not show a steadily increasing trend toward bigger deadlier storms, he said. For instance, "2009 was a really low year for tornadoes. Some recent years have been big, some recent years have been small," he said.
Since modern records on tornadoes began, the deadliest outbreak was on April 3, 1974. The "Super Outbreak" claimed 310 lives when 148 tornadoes over a 24-hour period swept across 13 states.
The single deadliest tornado in US history, described in early accounts, killed 695 people when a massive twister tore up parts of Missouri, southern Illinois and southwestern Indiana in 1925.
DoctorPV
@rogueright:
You're right but for the wrong reasons. These kinds of stories are sensationalist stories which don't properly present scientific data.
Additionally, just think of the whole "AGW" label. By calling climate change the same thing as "Al Gore Warming," or global warming somehow being created by the shenanigans of one man, you're giving into the sensationalism.
The fight over global climate issues isn't even about the scientific evidence anymore. I can give people all the scientific evidence they want, and I can get colleagues of mine to give evidence to the public, but it won't make a difference. Why?
The argument nowadays is nothing more than a defense of ideology, not scientific facts.
I know climate change is occurring. I know global ambient air temperatures are increasing. I know the potential for the atmosphere to hold moisture is increasing. However:
What I don't know as well as what every other scientist doesn't know is the gravity of adverse effects and the many facets of global climate modeling and model complexity. There's so many factors, it's impossible to know what factor is a direct cause of an effect; there is one exception.
Anthropogenic sources of pollution is the only factor we can be sure of at this point. We may be small as individuals, but our inability to really grasp the size of our own population coupled with our need for resources is inhibiting not only the governments but public citizens from understanding the gravity of this situation.
Donutwarrior
Funny DoctorPV I agree with you, but could say exactly the opposite things. You are exactly right, AGW proponents are driven by ideology and act like its a religion. Disagreeing is heresy.
Atmospheric CO2 is not the only factor driving changes, despite what you say. The forcings model is BS, and there are plenty of data which show that. I could point you to satellite data (from NASA) which directly refutes AGW theory, ie the trapping effect is measured as zero, but you would tell me its a lie or false. So I hope that the rest of the country prevents any more AGW action because arguing with the true believers is a waste of time. Good luck with your AGW theology.
imagineallthepeople
You are a few years behind the curve, rogueright. More current research will show you what is solid fact now.
rogueright
The last few years have weakened the case, not strengthened it.
Since you confuse "fact" with "theory", clearly you know nothing about the scientific process.
DoctorPV
2010 was actually the warmest year on record for several areas in the United States, including my home state of Connecticut. 2009 was the second hottest for CT specifically.
To suggest there has been weakness in the case of global climate change is just silly. Our Earth is always changing, and are climates are always changing as well.
Although a slow process, anthropogenic sources of pollution and use of resources by our booming population are the main causes for the warming of the atmosphere. Any disasters, ect. are indirect adverse effects from anthropogenic actions.
imagineallthepeople
Fact, rogueright - the ice caps are melting.
Scroto_T_Bagginz
You know, last week everyone was busy ripping that pastor who predicted the rapture was coming a new one, and dismissing his claims of doom and gloom as nothing but fear-mongering and nonsense while calling him out on his profiteering on the event.
Now this week they turn around and go right back to beating their own doom drums with the global warming (whoops, I mean "climate change") scare tactics again in light of the devastation that the midwest region recently suffered through. Never let a crisis go to waste indeed.
"The idea of adapting to climate change was once a taboo subject. Scientists and activists feared that focusing on coping would diminish efforts to reduce carbon emissions."
This perfectly sums up the "green" movement in a nutshell and what scam artists they've become... they can't allow people to adapt to changing environments, because then they won't be able to get rich selling their bullshit carbon credits and "green" products.
Fact: Mankind has been "adapting" to its environment since the day it first stood up on two legs. That's not going to change anytime soon... but a select few would have the rest of us believe that they alone can keep us safe and shelter us from the elements and the dangers that we supposedly have wrought on ourselves... and they conveniently promise to help us, if only we buy the bullshit that they are selling.
Sound familiar?
Brer rabbit
The only thing familiar is a moron denying the existence of pigs while neck deep in their faeces
rogueright
Please, don't speak about envronmentalists like that.
Dontmakemelaugh
Sound familiar? LOL yes the drool hasn't changed since "feed Jane Fonda to the whales. The green movement gave us vastly cleaner air and water. For example, Rivers near Erie don't catch fire anymore. Make no mistake, the green movement saved millions of lives.
Perhaps you would prefer living in the USSR and China where the impact of pollution can be measured in years lost from human life expectancy.
DoctorPV
I remember the year. The Clean Water Act of 1972 was passed by environmentalist groups and scientists calling out after prolonged dumping of industrial wastes into river systems were causing rivers to catch fire.
We were warned about peak oil / global climate change / increased frequency and severity of some natural disasters / ect. in the 1970s.
Face it, this isn't an argument about the facts anymore, it's nothing more than a defense of ideologies. It's childish and the sad part is, I don't see me or any fellow scientists being interrogated or asked questions about this as often as I do seeing ignoramus fools either sensationalizing climate change or saying its nonexistent/not caused by anthropogenic sources.
JimBob
"Fact: Mankind has been "adapting" to its environment since the day it first stood up on two legs." - That ignores the fact that man does not live on this earth alone and is dependent on other organisms for his sustenance and life itself. If they cannot adapt as fast to the changing conditions then man is in deep kimchi. You're ignoring the total ecological web of life and have a typical anthropocentric view of the universe.
rogueright
Excellent post. While libs laugh at the folly of others they fail to see their own folly.
vigorous
Check out the "IL-76 waterbomber", a firefighting airplane from
Russia the US, Canada, and Australia have rejected. The US' foremost authority on Soviet era airplanes has said in a Tony Kovaleski report from ABC Denver it is 'almost criminal' that this
airplane is not now being used to fight wildfire in the west.
snafina
I guess the author hasn't heard about the mini-Ice Age in Europe...Part of the reason it seems that we have more weather has to do with the constant need for "news" in our 24-hour-a-day news cycle that saturates the airwaves and the Internet. Extreme weather is nothing new, but now we hear a whole lot more about it.
Although Joplin did get the largest possible tornado, it has happened before. The Tsunami in Japan occurred as part of an event that also happens with predictable regularity ...hundreds of years apart, of course. California is due for a large earthquake as part of a known cycle in tectonic shifts.
While I am not denying climate change, this kind of article with ZERO scientific citations, makes a lot of assumptions. For example, Joplin is regularly hit by tornadoes and the author suggests Joplin was "prepared." But Joplin's building code does NOT require safety glass, not even in medical facilities. One of the reasons for the high death toll was exploding windows and flying glass.
Joplin was not properly prepared. The death toll reflects that sad truth.
Back in the '80's or early '90's I saw a TV show about climate change that suggested Miami would be under water by the year 2000. I wish I could get my hands on that show...it make a lot of irresponsible predictions, none of which has come to pass.
The problem with sloppy journalism is that it tends to make us ignore all predictions....even the well-researched valid ones.
imagineallthepeople
snafina, the ice caps are melting. Most reasonable people stopped arguing about whether climate change was happening when that became obvious.
rogueright
No one is disputing that climates change. It's done so for long before we walked the earth. The question is about it cause.
imagineallthepeople
Why do you not believe the scientists? Do you think it is a conspiracy? Or do you dispute the agreement of the overwhelming majority of scientists? Or, other?
imagineallthepeople
Well, I see that you say "While I am not denying climate change" snafina, but it is lost in the denying tone of your comment. This is serious. The arguement should not be picking the fine points of media, but how to effect real change.
imagineallthepeople
and to answer your contention "The problem with sloppy journalism is that it tends to make us ignore all predictions" directly, I would say that while people like yourself pay attention to the "well-researched valid ones," there is a segment of people, not as talented as you, who will finally pay attention by an article like this one.
rogueright
Indeed, let's not worry about the fact, we must take action now.
imagineallthepeople
Since you have an illogical emotional attitude about this, rogueright, I'm sure you can see how many other people could. Many of them will not be convinced by climate scientists, just as you are not. Some of those (not you, of course) may be convinced by tornados, etc., whether it is solid science or not. So I would say, the ends justify the means in this case, if the wrong argument takes some people to the right conclusion. Much more defensible than the torture rationals, I think.
JimBob
Miami and sea level
http://eyeonmiami.blogspot.com/2008/10/sea-level-rise-in-miami-here-now- by.html
AlanD2
Given the expected 3 to 6 foot rise in sea level by the end of this century, I'd advise readers not to buy property in Miami - or New Orleans, for that matter, JimBob. :-)
imagineallthepeople
Four years ago I invested in the slightly cool (but warming up enough lately to see a growing wine industry) western NY area ABOVE Niagara Falls. The largest fresh water body on earth, no floods, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. It's my best pick for choice property for my grandchildren.
Fang1944
Miami may not be underwater, but shipping lines are running freighters through the Arctic Circle during the summer. You don't have to be very old to remember when that was impossible all year round.
BobtheAuteur
I'm here to tell you that climate change is real. Our artists saw it coming a long time ago and now scientists are universally on board too.
floridavet
Geez, will you just stop with the global warming crap? The recent spate of tornadoes has nothing to do with climate change, but more to do with a pervasive pattern of weather which brings the jet stream south over the Rockies, and then east through the country's midsection towards the Great Lakes and the Northeast. This has happened before, it will certainly happen again. The continuing discoveries of fossils of sea creatures in the mountainous areas of the Western United States are proof enough that climate does change from time to time. But to unequivocally state that "freak storms are the new normal," is irresponsible, unfounded, and certainly short-sighted.
imagineallthepeople
The acceleration of the melting of the ice caps is hard evidence of unusual climate change.
JimBob
There is some thought that the intensity of the storms is increasing as a result of the increased energy available via climate change - whether there is a real connection or not it would behoove us to do somethings that would improve the situation. Reduce our carbon footprint by conserving energy, develop and implement better building standards, don't build in areas which are vulnerable (e.g. flood plains and seashores). However some people would rather just going on ignoring the natural world about them. In fact that is part of the problem we live in a very artificial environment (the more "primitive" people on this earth are far more connected to Mother Earth). So we live in our air conditioned, automatically heated and cooled homes, travel to and from work, stores, etc, in our climate controlled automobiles, work in climate controlled, offices, etc. Our contact with Nature is a walk on a paved jogging trail through some city park, an outing on the golf course, or some similar situation. The closest we get to something "wild" is a trip to the zoo or a them park. And automatically we're experts on the natural world - by osmosis I suppose.
rogueright
Please feel free to return to nature as soon as possible. If you really feel this way, go off the grid, stop using fossil fuels, no longer cool or heat your home, sell your car.
Wouldn't it be nice to see the AGW crowd actually do what they think should be done, rather than just blather about what others should do.
imagineallthepeople
We are combatting your disinformation campaign right now, rogueright. That is a constructive thing to do. People must understand this issue for change to happen.
I am not telling you what to do, rogueright. I am patiently listening to your arguements and trying to answer them rationally.
AlanD2
Global Warming is a likely candidate for the cause of shifting jet streams, Vet.
To unequivocally state that "freak storms are the new normal," is likely true. That's what climate scientists have been telling us for several decades now, and they have the facts to back it up.
floridavet
Yeah, climate scientists like Heidi Cullen - the weather channel's blazingly left-leaning chief tree-hugger who thinks all TV weather personalities should be fired if they don't embrace GW....or how about Bill Nye the science guy...the scientific community's chief idiot who doesn't seem to realize that other countries actually have tornadoes! No thanks....if you think that buying curly-cue light bulbs and driving electric cars is going to save the planet, more power to you. The whole global warming scenario (which I soundly reject) would have a lot more credibility is the likes of the chief charlatan and scam artist Al Gore were not the author of it. And for the record, just because people (including so-called scientists) believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true. Remember all the polar bears that were supposedly disappearing, and actual evidence showed their population actually increased? Hmm...and of course the melting polar ice, that's never happened before either, huh?
AlanD2
Vet, the Arctic Ocean is now projected to be ice-free during the summer within 10 years. I doubt this has ever happened in the last few hundred thousand years. As for polar bears, where's the evidence showing their population is actually increasing? I like links to reputable sites, please.
Given the rest of your rant, please turn off Fox News. It's damaging your brain.
rogueright
Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, "To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off."
AlanD2
Rogue, from "Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models", by Durner et al. (2009):
"Despite variation in their projections, all GCMs indicated habitat losses in the polar basin during the 21st century. Losses in the highest-valued RSF habitat (optimal habitat) were greatest in the southern seas of the polar basin, especially the Chukchi and Barents seas, and least along the Arctic Ocean shores of Banks Island to northern Greenland. Mean loss of optimal polar bear habitat was greatest during summer; from an observed 1.0 million km2 in 1985-1995 (baseline) to a projected multi-model mean of 0.32 million km2 in 2090-2099 (%u221268% change). Projected winter losses of polar bear habitat were less: from 1.7 million km2 in 1985-1995 to 1.4 million km2 in 2090-2099 (%u221217% change). Habitat losses based on GCM multi-model means may be conservative; simulated rates of habitat loss during 1985-2006 from many GCMs were less than the actual observed rates of loss. Although a reduction in the total amount of optimal habitat will likely reduce polar bear populations, exact relationships between habitat losses and population demographics remain unknown."
A 68% loss in summer habitat cannot be good for polar bears in the long run, Rogue, no matter what people are seeing today. In fact, the loss of habitat may be forcing polar bears into closer contact with humans, which might account for the apparent increase in numbers.
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/07-2089.1
floridavet
AlanD2, please go quietly to your room - oh, and on the way plug in your electric car.
Storybec
This is why I love the Warmongers... rogueright quotes an actual study of the polar bear population and the health of that population. AlanD2 rebuts that study with his own "facts" with these quotes: " indicated habitat losses", "projected multi-model mean", "Projected winter losses", "based on GCM multi-model means", "simulated rates of habitat loss", "will likely reduce", " relationships between habitat losses and population demographics remain unknown". Boolean logic applied to an extremely variable system equals no logic at all. When your facts consist of the words "projected", "model", "simulated", "will likely", and "remain unknown", you actually have no "facts" at all.... nothing more than a wild guess.
AlanD2
Vet, I don't own a car. I ride a bicycle and use public transportation. Sorry to have injected some facts into this discussion, but that's the way it goes...
chalmers
An article in the paper said the tornado outbreak last week was the worst in 50 yrs. It didn't say we have never seen this before.
I don't doubt that the climate is changing. That what climate does, after all.
The problem is people who really believe that we can do something about it. We can't.
We can try to clean up our air and water. We can try to conserve resources but we cannot really prepare for climate change or fix it.
imagineallthepeople
Scientists explain that the acceleration of ice caps melting is hard evidence that the earth is warming more rapidly than expected in normal cycles.
It is important to reduce CO2 emmisions to reduce the ultimate increase in average temperature of the world. That is a very specific thing. It is probably too late to stop a rise of two degrees, that is expected to cause a lot of economic dislocation. It not too late to stop it at a degree or so more. We must act to stop increacing CO2 emmisions now.
rogueright
What is a "normal cycle" when it comes to climate? Climate is in a constant state of flux.
imagineallthepeople
See my question above today, re: what is the basis of your disbelief, please.
PigFarmer
chalmers, your second and third paragraphs (I think they're supposed to be paragraphs) contradict each other. Cleaning the air can go toward changing the climate.
AlanD2
To say we can't do anything about climate change is the moral equivalent of hiding your head in the sand, chalmers.
William D. Perry
Talk all you want - nobody's going to voluntarily make great sacrifices in their lifestyles.
imagineallthepeople
One step at a time, William D. Perry. We can be smart enough to stop our own destruction. The first thing is to remove corporate money from our political process so that the US can stop being the major obstacle to gradual change in the correct direction. fixcongressfirst.org
IowaKC
So true. I think it was Bill Mahr who noted once on this subject that we're talking about "sacrifice" from people who bitch about having to get off the couch to grab the remote.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
IowaKC
Worst year since--what is it? 1953? Hmmm. What was the global climate theory in 1953? Moreover, this year's tornadoes are a result of cooler than normal air in the Northwest, which doesn't really jive with that whole global warming thing. Evidently the major transition we're experiencing is the theory revision from global warming to "climate change." I wonder how long it will be before we go full circle back to the global cooling/new ice age theory.
imagineallthepeople
Weather systems are so complex that any assertion that tornados are caused by climate change is premature.
Scientists came together in agreement that climate change is real when ice cap melting accelerated far past the point expected by archeological evidence.
imagineallthepeople
Terminology changed because it's uncharted territory, exact effects unknown.
AlanD2
Iowa, perhaps it has missed your notice that 2010 was the hottest year in recorded history. I doubt we will need to rename "Global Warming" any time soon.
rogueright
No it wasn't. First these estimates are based on satellite records which only go back a few decades, not all of "recorded history". And 1998 beats 2010 by a small margin.
Climate alarmists claimed that hundreds of thousands would be displaced by rising oceans by 2010. In fact, the number turned out to be zero.
The tendency of climate alarmists to overstate their case results in a lack of credibility among thinking people. If the problem is so urgent and so obvious, why do you have to exaggerate it's effect?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/rss-data-2010-not-the-warmest-year -in-satellite-record-but-a-close-second/
AlanD2
rogueright, you can bring in all the old disproven lies you want, but that does not change the facts. Recent satellite records confirm the trend of tide gauge records, which show almost 8" of rising sea levels from 1900 to 2000. See "Rising Sea Levels Affect Millions Around the World, and Billions of Dollars in Property" at:
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.html
"Climate alarmists claimed that hundreds of thousands would be displaced by rising oceans by 2010. In fact, the number turned out to be zero."
Wrong. Many people from the islands of Tuvalu and Tonga have already been relocated to New Zealand due to rising sea levels.
copper360
When we are stranded on the last melting ice cap, we wonder if we will remember, with a curse, all those who denied carbon made any difference. Just like mediaeval times when the reactionries could not see the connection between sewage in the streets and the diseases of the day.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.