The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (a.k.a. the Bush Administration) has issued a must-read report, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. It wouldn't be must-read or even big news if it weren't for the fact that
- Many environmentalists stopped talking about the extreme weather/global warming link a decade ago.
- The deniers, the delayers, and of course the Roger Pielkes of the world have pushed back against any claims that climate change is driving the extreme weather we see today. (as Chico Marx (dressed as Groucho) said "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?")
- The media has been brow-beaten by the deniers into downplaying the connection. The journalist Ross Gelbspan has a long discussion of this in his great 2004 book, Boiling Point -- I will blog on this later.
- The Midwest is experiencing the second "500-year flood" in 13 years. (Don't worry, big media, it's all just a big coincidence like the deniers keep saying.)
This report is really an "I told you so" from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and Tom Karl in particular, who has been a real leader in this area, helping to create the still rarely-discussed Climate Extremes Index (see "Still, waters run deep").
If you don't read the whole report, at least read the synopsis:
Changes in extreme weather and climate events have significant impacts and are among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate.
Many extremes and their associated impacts are now changing. For example, in recent decades most of North America has been experiencing more unusually hot days and nights, fewer unusually cold days and nights, and fewer frost days. Heavy downpours have become more frequent and intense. Droughts are becoming more severe in some regions, though there are no clear trends for North America as a whole. The power and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes have increased substantially in recent decades, though North American mainland land-falling hurricanes do not appear to have increased over the past century. Outside the tropics, storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are becoming even stronger.
It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Such studies have only recently been used to determine the causes of some changes in extremes at the scale of a continent. Certain aspects of observed increases in temperature extremes have been linked to human influences. The increase in heavy precipitation events is associated with an increase in water vapor, and the latter has been attributed to human-induced warming. No formal attribution studies for changes in drought severity in North America have been attempted. There is evidence suggesting a human contribution to recent changes in hurricane activity as well as in storms outside the tropics, though a confident assessment will require further study.
In the future, with continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.
Current and future impacts resulting from these changes depend not only on the changes in extremes, but also on responses by human and natural systems.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
The science behind a climate headline
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 8:45 am
24 Jun 2008
Extremely good!
I rode my bike to work today...it's 70 and sunny for the foreseeable future.
Thank you, Global Warming!
Permalink
christophersj Posted 12:05 pm
24 Jun 2008
And then Campbell went on to demonstrate with examples ranging from Native Americans to Pacific Islanders, there was indeed always a role for the clown/fool/jester in the majority of global cultures.
Is that the role you are aiming for, Jabailo?
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense and the less I should worry about you. It's not like you have any real impact on the coming carbon regulation and sustainable energy transition. You don't.
By the way, its always nice to hear that you drive an efficient car and ride your bike. That's nice -- like your temporary and very local weather.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:44 am
25 Jun 2008
Now, even though it seems that most people have finally admitted the reality of the situation, they want the government to save us from ourselves, want some magical technology to save us, or both. Very few of us have been saying that we need to simplify our lifestyles to live in a more natural manner, especially those in overdeveloped countries like the U.S., Canada, Australia, and western Europe.
Hopefully, people's attitudes toward this will continue to evolve so that they'll realize that they have some individual responsibilities and must change their lifestyles. Otherwise, humans will witness the end of life as we know it -- don't forget that global warming is only one of many equally serious environmental problems -- while realizing the causes.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:01 am
25 Jun 2008
I see no difference between the bow and arrow, plow, pulleys and sails, and a solar panels and low carbon producing jet planes and cars, and large properly managed shellfish farms. Its how they are used.
At this point isn't SUSTAINABILITY the important goal for all, even if lifestyles differ?
Can't the slick and futuristic AND the earthy and wholesome BOTH be used for getting 7 billion people to live a sustainable life?
Forcing a certain kind of window dressing on some folks isnt going to work and will cause a backlash in some.
That being said, I want to learn how to garden.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:32 am
26 Jun 2008
The differences between, to use your example, sailing and using an internal combustion engine -- regardless of the fuel -- is that the former consumes nothing for propulsion, while the latter does. Because overconsumption is one of the two root causes of environmental and ecological harms and destruction, greatly reducing consumption is what's needed. And that's why major lifestyle changes are need; people need to greatly reduce their consumption. Unless you think that some magical technology is going to come along that allows the highly unnatural lifestyles of people in overdeveloped countries while greatly reducing consumption, which would be contrary to the laws of physics, there's no other way to fix this problem.
As to there being too many people to live as hunter-gatherers, you're quite correct. But the solution is to greatly reduce human population, not to further destroy the Earth by continuing to live unnaturally and consume far too much.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 11:19 am
26 Jun 2008
By the way, check out the new movie from PIXAR, titled "Wall-E". Its about over-consumption on Earth. Amazing animation.
Permalink