Northwest flooding gives some clues 5

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   sindark Posted 5:43 am
   07 Dec 2007

   Extreme events and climate changeThere are two reasons to be cautious about attributing all extreme weather events to climate change:
   
   
   It is scientifically impossible to attribute one specific weather event to a broad systemic phenomenon like climate change. Natural variation has always existed in weather and, while climate change will very likely increase it, that is not sufficient cause to blame it in every case.
   Tactically, blaming all droughts and flooding on climate change gives people space in which to say that every cold snap is evidence against it. Climate change is a global, systemic trend. It should generally be described using global, systemic data.
   
   
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink

2. 

   Kit Stolz Posted 7:02 am
   07 Dec 2007

   yes, but......the Post-Intelligencer story does include that caveat.
   More importantly, few of us live globally. We experience the climate where we live, inevitably, and if we cannot describe climate change except in terms of the whole planet, than that means we if we're not scientists we can't talk about climate change. It's as if we can't have a view on the war in Iraq because we haven't fought in Iraq.
   War is too important to be left to the generals, and climate change is too important to be left to the scientists, as much as we need their counsel.
   For example, where I live in Southern California, we experienced record rainfall and devastating floods that caused vast damage and killed quite a few people early in the winter of 2005. I talked to climatologist Kelly Redmond (also quoted in the story above) and asked him if these floods could be attributed to climate change and he said essentially yes...with the usual "not inconsistent with" caveat.
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/9/154714/4417
   Did this make it into the public record? Not really. The LATimes did do a big feature about the heavy rains, and discussed the possibility of a link to climate change, but because once in previous history (in 1889, if memory serves) Los Angeles had had more rainfall, it was essentially dismissed as a fluke. (Subsequently, by the way, oceanographer Bill Patzert found out that that past record was probably wrong...but of course, by then it was too late to talk about SoCal rainfall, records, and climate change.)
   Climate change matters to all of us, not just scientists -- that's why we have to talk about it in the context of our own lives, not just in terms of the planet.  

   Permalink

3. 

   wiscidea Posted 7:21 am
   07 Dec 2007

   Climate Change and Events in NWHi.
   I realize the climate is changing due to human activity; I'm not a global climate change denier. But how much of the flooding and other damage in the Pacific Northwest might be due to deforestation, redirecting natural drainage systems, and humans expanding into areas not really suitable for buildings? It is important to figure out what is due to climate change and what is due to other problems.
   For example, no one has convinced me that the wildfires in the southwest are the result of global warming... appears more of a relfection of humans trying to build wooden structure and grow inappropriate plants in naturally dry areas known to be swept by firestorms almost yearly.
   And along the Gulf Coast, people have been moving closer and closer to water, living below sea level, trying to confine natural rivers, destroying coastal wetlands, destroying protective dunes, building on unstable islands, et cetera. Global warming might have only sped up the inevitable.
   If we blame global climate change for every extreme weather event, we will neglect solving other real problems.
   I don't live in the Pacific Northwest... is there any evidence of sprawl extending into valleys where it doesn't belong, deforestation increasing runoff and erosion, resistance to appropriate zoning and building codes, or construction of dams that alter natural hydrology?
   
   http://ffrf.org/day/

   Permalink

4. 

   John former Marine Posted 1:58 am
   10 Dec 2007

   I agreeYou can blame Katrina on global climate change.  But levees holding back the Mississippi River for the past several hundred years have been preventing the annual flooding of the river delta and the silt deposition that goes along with it.  Also, now that the water is channelized, the spongy ground under New Orleans is not being kept buoyant but is drying out and sinking.  Add to that the fact that wetlands and barrier islands are no longer growing every year but rather are shrinking.  None of these things have anything to do with global warming but they all have to do with building a city in the wrong place and poor management of resources.  Due to saltwater infiltration in the aquifer under the city, New Orleans may eventually have to be abandoned just because there isn't any freshwater left underneath it.
   If we attribute all of these things to global warming and our arguments are disproved, it results in several steps back for the environmental movement.  I know there's a certain shock factor to be taken advantage of now that global warming is a popular tactic but we're already overplaying it in my opinion.
   
   Shu pas a vende.

   Permalink

5. 

   thalweg Posted 4:33 am
   10 Dec 2007

   Too nuanced?All the above are good and useful points, but let's not get lost down in the weeds, lest the trees topple on us: For instance, we can spend a good deal of effort in an attempt to determine the extent to which the recent flooding in PNW is due to to direct and indirect effects of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and to what extent it is due to logging and agriculture.  Yet, we do know with certainty that all factors are industrial practices gone wild.  Global warming is right up there, nay above,   global deforestation, global overfishing, global water pollution,etc.
   Further, I guess I don't quite understand the caution in some of the messages above to be careful that we don't overplay our hand regarding global warming:  we've already overplayed our hand when it comes to dealing with Mother Earth, so worrying about how loud we are whistling in the wind strikes me as a misplaced concern about one's manners. This is readily apparent in the way in which the term "climate change" has usurped "global warming."
   To quote from an international conservation organization's web page:  "The terms global warming and climate change are often used interchangeably, but the two phenomena are different. Global warming is the rise in global temperatures due to an increase of heat-trapping carbon emissions in the atmosphere.  Climate change, on the other hand, is a more general term that refers to changes in many climatic factors (such as temperature and precipitation) around the world. These changes are happening at different rates and in different ways."  This wording may be nifty, but it only serves to obfuscate the reality that the only reason we are talking about "climate change" is due to the frequency of severe weather events and relatively rapid changes in regional climate trends -- all of which are a consequence of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere from the beginning of the industrial age.  Let's call a spade a spade. I know that neuroscience has recently suggested that liberals' brains are more attuned to nuance, but the danger is that one can be too nuanced.

   Permalink