In recent years, here in Colorado we have experienced devastating fires as a result of dry hot weather and equally devastating floods that literally changed river courses. Can we attribute these to climate change or isolated weather events? As the article says, when climate change happens, it's not going to announce itself by name. We can only look at changes in weather patterns. I notice that the summer monsoons don't come regularly anymore relieving the incredible dryness and heat in the summer, mild fall weather extends well into November in recent years when that used to be unheard of, unrelenting days in the nineties for weeks on end in the summer, and balmy periods in the 60s and 70s during what should be the coldest months in winter... We know what the consequences will be if we don't act. For years our family has tried hard to reduce our carbon footprint by insulating our house, putting up solar panels, riding our bikes and taking buses for transportation, eating low on the food chain, and most importantly voting for candidates who take climate change seriously and are willing to take legislative action to curb it. Most of our actions have improved our health, comfort and quality of life. If only we can get Americans to take this seriously and realize it is not necessarily a detriment to make changes in a positive direction.
15
Thank you so much for publishing this. It's maddening to see article after article - in this and many other news outlets - covering the floods (and the fires) with no mention of the starring role played by our changing climate. For the person who claims this is politicization - it is not. It is science. It's quite possible (probable?) that the government has not prepared for this type of disaster - but that doesn't change the fact that 500-year floods are now happening on a yearly basis. The folks who have politicized climate change are the executives at Exxon who have paid to cover up the science - and keep the government from mitigating the harm - for the past thirty years. The science of climate change is irrefutable, and the sooner our governments start to act, the better.
5
What *is* politicization is denying the global influence of climate change, which endangers all of us and all of our futures. It's not new, this link will take you to Bell Labs 1958, Lynson Johnson, 1968, Isaac Asimov referencing 1969 in 1989, and Margaret Thatcher in 1981: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/global-warning/#comment-95394
3
You believe in Climate change or not, start buying houses away from Sea and low lying areas.
2
"And God gave Noah the rainbow sign no more water, the fire next time". Alas the "fire" aka heat is the result of C02 and methane in our atmosphere. That is Mother Nature in her scientific incarnation. See Venus for the ultimate impact in gases run amok.
1
One unfortunate aspect of this precipitation event is the small number of people who have mitigated their flooding risk by purchasing flood insurance. Only about 12% of the flooded homes are covered by flood insurance. This, even though flood insurance is one of the best insurance bargains going.
4
How dare you!! How dare you politicize our tragedy before the flood waters even recede. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of homes are flooded, including mine, and hundreds of thousands of people have lost everything. And here you sit trying to politicize our tragedy to fit your political agenda. We have lost a lifetime of memories that can never be replaced. We have lost our homes, our vehicles, our normalcy, and some have lost their lives. And here you sit.
We did not flood due to climate change. We did not flood due to rain. We flooded due to governmental politics. We flooded because the government (local, state and federal) failed to provide the proper drainage and maintenance to our drainage systems that our communities need for which we citizens have paid for multiple times yet were never done.
We don't care about your politics.
We don't care about your agenda.
We don't care about your racist leanings either way they may be.
We don't care about your climate change.
We care about our community.
We care about our neighbors.
We care about our friends and family.
We care about Louisiana.
Keep your agendas, politics and national media out of our beloved state and communities. We don't need you. We have each other. We don't have color here. We don't have rich or poor here. We have friends, family and neighbors. Wether they live next door or on the other side of the state.
We are all family.
We are all Louisiana.
We did not flood due to climate change. We did not flood due to rain. We flooded due to governmental politics. We flooded because the government (local, state and federal) failed to provide the proper drainage and maintenance to our drainage systems that our communities need for which we citizens have paid for multiple times yet were never done.
We don't care about your politics.
We don't care about your agenda.
We don't care about your racist leanings either way they may be.
We don't care about your climate change.
We care about our community.
We care about our neighbors.
We care about our friends and family.
We care about Louisiana.
Keep your agendas, politics and national media out of our beloved state and communities. We don't need you. We have each other. We don't have color here. We don't have rich or poor here. We have friends, family and neighbors. Wether they live next door or on the other side of the state.
We are all family.
We are all Louisiana.
3
Despite a failure to accept science, ice melt and sea level rise continue to accelerate and Louisiana in in the cross-hairs.
From a 1981 front page article in the NY Times about a climate paper by James Hansen:
"The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ''almost unprecedented magnitude'' in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ''flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world'' within a century or less."
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-coul...
From a 1981 front page article in the NY Times about a climate paper by James Hansen:
"The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ''almost unprecedented magnitude'' in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ''flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world'' within a century or less."
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-coul...
3
8 500 year flooding events in less than a year, yet you blame it on "drainage".
2
Your home has not flooded it's just another liberal lie.
1
It's certainly no surprise that this precipitation event and its consequential flooding should happen to us here in Louisiana. Look at any map of cumulative annual precipitation in the United States, the Gulf states get a whole lot of rain -- no surprise there. This most recent event, which began as unorganized low in the eastern Gulf, eventually channeled its moisture on southern Louisiana, which is extremely flat (unlike Maryland in and around Ellicott City) with poor drainage.
Couple this with warmer temperatures – climatologists report this July was the warmest on record locally. Warmer air means more Gulf moisture, and more rainfall, which in turn leads to flooding and more flooding.
What is really ironic, is that Louisiana is presently wresting with coastal restoration -- what to do about our eroding coastal wetlands and how to pay for it. Billions of dollars have already been spent already "fortifying" developed areas around New Orleans, and billions more in expenditures are in the offing, to address possible storm surge from tropical storms. But what this event clearly shows, there is little defense against convection. Nature will use convection to leapfrog whatever coastal defenses we can devise, steadily depositing Gulf moisture farther inland, creating new wetlands further inland. Southern Louisiana has become a climate change laboratory. Welcome to the future!
Couple this with warmer temperatures – climatologists report this July was the warmest on record locally. Warmer air means more Gulf moisture, and more rainfall, which in turn leads to flooding and more flooding.
What is really ironic, is that Louisiana is presently wresting with coastal restoration -- what to do about our eroding coastal wetlands and how to pay for it. Billions of dollars have already been spent already "fortifying" developed areas around New Orleans, and billions more in expenditures are in the offing, to address possible storm surge from tropical storms. But what this event clearly shows, there is little defense against convection. Nature will use convection to leapfrog whatever coastal defenses we can devise, steadily depositing Gulf moisture farther inland, creating new wetlands further inland. Southern Louisiana has become a climate change laboratory. Welcome to the future!
4
This flooding- rather flooding all over the place is due to climate change and specifically due to hydrogen in fossil fuels being combusted to water vapour. We all know that when WV stays in the atmosphere it contributes to greenhouse effect and when it precipitates it contributes to flooding. When USA started using LNG/ CNG to power heavy vehicles what happens to the 25% hydrogen in gas it becomes WV. Within 18 months from President Obama's declaration at Georgetown University in March, 2011 about using gas, Newyork experienced the worst hurricane Sandy to hit NY in 500 years and cost US economy $50 billion. Please refer K.C.Somaratna - Water Related Disasters in an internet search you can read what I say on this. Please rest assured that it is not CO2 or global warming which will ruin mankind , but water which looks after us from the time we are conceived till we exhale our last breath. Louisiana is the last experience , but there will be many more. Accept the fact Water vapour from combustion of gas, diesel and gasoline is the killer.
1
The dynamics of heat trapping from greenhouse gases is not quite as direct a conversion as this poster claims, but the consequences are similar, though smaller in direct effect, bigger in long-term consequences. It's a long term phenomenon, unfortunately delayed so we don't get it as we emit, only later. I would suggest interested party seek expert knowledge, readily available in many places, rather than thinking it is a direct conversion of fuel to vapor.
2
Eight 500 year floods in 15 months sounds shocking enough. What would make this article truly ironclad is a comparison of how many 500-year floods we would normally expect to see in a 15 month period. We need more infallible science like that to shut down the climate change deniers.
1
A 500 yr flood is not defined as happening once every 500 yrs. the science of rainfall is predicated on probability of rainfall amounts, which are modeled on historical data.
A 500 yr storm event (roughly 9 inches here in eastern pa) has a 1/500 ( or 0.005) chance of happening every time it rains. A 100 yr storm has a 1/100 (or 0.01) chance of happening. A 2 yr event has a 1/2 chance for every storm.
So while deniers may or may not have a point, look at CA that's in a 4 year drought. Lakes are barely there.
As long as humans continue to multiply, the earth will adjust to its needs. Why are shocked? Why call it climate change? Isn't it just evolution of a planet? :)
A 500 yr storm event (roughly 9 inches here in eastern pa) has a 1/500 ( or 0.005) chance of happening every time it rains. A 100 yr storm has a 1/100 (or 0.01) chance of happening. A 2 yr event has a 1/2 chance for every storm.
So while deniers may or may not have a point, look at CA that's in a 4 year drought. Lakes are barely there.
As long as humans continue to multiply, the earth will adjust to its needs. Why are shocked? Why call it climate change? Isn't it just evolution of a planet? :)
1
Science is never infallible.
The statement itself defines the likelihood: one storm in 500 years. So if there 8 in 15 months, that's unlikely indeed.
The whole point of science is to understand how things work and advise based on reality. Leave certainty to Trump, please.
The statement itself defines the likelihood: one storm in 500 years. So if there 8 in 15 months, that's unlikely indeed.
The whole point of science is to understand how things work and advise based on reality. Leave certainty to Trump, please.
3
Note to climate change deniers: If you can't learn to live with reality, reality will come to live with you.
7
The Tea Party Louisiana electorate (mainly white folks) who twice elected the climate change denying governor Bobby "I'm not a scientist" Jindal wants government out of their lives. They don't want government to provide a safety net for the "takers" because they are the "makers", as the simplistic dichotomy of our society has been described by Romney and Ryan. They don't want to spend a cent on socialistic projects like the repair of the Interstate system or improvement of our national parks.
Well here's a chance for them to put their money where there mouth is by relying solely on private enterprise and charity from good Christian folk they claim to be. Being the upright, principled Liberty loving folks they are, they shouldn't accept a dime from FEMA, that Obama controlled socialistic federal agency.
Well here's a chance for them to put their money where there mouth is by relying solely on private enterprise and charity from good Christian folk they claim to be. Being the upright, principled Liberty loving folks they are, they shouldn't accept a dime from FEMA, that Obama controlled socialistic federal agency.
15
Are you sure it's not because God is angry with the US South?
2
Whenever there is a freak snowstorm or a colder than average winter (2013-2014 winter was coldest this century) all the climate activists say "single events and anecdotal evidence are not valid for supporting climate change hypothesis." However in this case because this single event supports their argument it apparently is acceptable??
Sheesh. Shoddy reporting. Also lazy is the reporter quoting a scientist who says the reason for the flooding is not clear and very complicated and then followed by an activist saying its 'quite clear ... basic physics ....' climate change! Somehow the scientist and activist have equal say in the matter.
Sheesh. Shoddy reporting. Also lazy is the reporter quoting a scientist who says the reason for the flooding is not clear and very complicated and then followed by an activist saying its 'quite clear ... basic physics ....' climate change! Somehow the scientist and activist have equal say in the matter.
3
Even though I think climate change is real, I still agree with you. The article kind of contradicted one of the fundamental rules of science: no blanket statements without scientific evidence. And I do think some politics was behind the activist's statements. That being said, events like these will become more likely in the future.
Jonah, a 500-year flood does not ever, Ever, EVER mean "precipitation that will occur once every five hundred years." It ONLY means it has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year. People need to understand, and reporters need to really explain this accurately to the public, because it's dangerous for people to think these flood events only happen once every 500 years. If they continue to believe it's a rare occurrence, then they will continue to build in high risk areas. They will continue to not purchase flood insurance, which means the rest of us taxpayers have to pay the shortfall. Please fix this wording in your story, shown below.
"The flooding in Louisiana is the eighth event since May of last year in which the amount of rainfall in an area in a specified window of time matches or exceeds the NOAA predictions for an amount of precipitation that will occur once every five hundred years, or has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year."
"The flooding in Louisiana is the eighth event since May of last year in which the amount of rainfall in an area in a specified window of time matches or exceeds the NOAA predictions for an amount of precipitation that will occur once every five hundred years, or has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year."
7
People who have trouble absorbing the concept are unlikely to know what 0.2 percent is (1/5 of 1 percent); they're likely to read it as 2 percent, and not know that is 1/50 of 100 but just that it is small. I think using layperson simplified language is helpful but overdefining terms will make them tune out.
There are other ways of contextualizing the useful termination of 1000 year floods.
There are other ways of contextualizing the useful termination of 1000 year floods.
4
You are correct that "once every 500 years" is a corruption of the strictly accurate "on average every 500 years, when averaged over a very long time period." That is, strictly accurate in accordance with the model that is being used to represent the precipitation events.
I think the point the article seems to be trying to make is that the models are based on past behavior, and that the climate system is now changing, so that what was once a "500-year event" (0.2 percent annual probability) is now a substantially more likely event.
I think the point the article seems to be trying to make is that the models are based on past behavior, and that the climate system is now changing, so that what was once a "500-year event" (0.2 percent annual probability) is now a substantially more likely event.
1
oops, terminology not termination. Would that "termination" of big floods was true!
1
I was one of the fortunate ones that did not flood here in south LA, I'm living on a virtual island right now, surrounded by waters in the near distance. Where the rain comes from doesn't matter to us, it just came.
3
I'm glad you're safe and I wish everyone in the flooded areas well.
But some of us want to know why there is a trend in the long term data that shows the incidence of these exceptionally heavy rains is increasing. And could humans be playing a role in contributing to the causative factors behind what we are observing.
And if we are could we do something to help mitigate such impacts.
The best science we have today says we will lesson these impacts in the future, reducing the pain and damage that will otherwise be experienced by your children and future generations, if we reduce CO2 emissions.
That's why studying these extreme phenomena, improving our understanding of singular events in the context of the broader, warming climate system, and hopefully doing something to mitigate them matter to many of us.
But some of us want to know why there is a trend in the long term data that shows the incidence of these exceptionally heavy rains is increasing. And could humans be playing a role in contributing to the causative factors behind what we are observing.
And if we are could we do something to help mitigate such impacts.
The best science we have today says we will lesson these impacts in the future, reducing the pain and damage that will otherwise be experienced by your children and future generations, if we reduce CO2 emissions.
That's why studying these extreme phenomena, improving our understanding of singular events in the context of the broader, warming climate system, and hopefully doing something to mitigate them matter to many of us.
3
A look at NOAA's GSOD data suggests that there has been no appreciable increase in the number of worldwide significant precipitation events over the last 30 years. For example, in the year 1995, worldwide, of the 2.5 million data points (daily readings for weather stations around the world), there were 1,591 days in which there were reports of greater than 5 inches at any weather station. In the year 2015, for 4.2 million data points, there were 1,411 days in which over 5 inches of rain were reported.
I am by no means a climate skeptic, but the preoccupation with sea level rise and precipitation events is to my mind a greatly misplaced emphasis. The temperature change should clearly be the singular focus since our planet could well be uninhabitable from the effects of the increased heat on our food supply long, long, long before sea level rise effects our civilization. You can always move when the sea rises, but you can't escape the consequences of the increased temperature on our food supply system.
I am by no means a climate skeptic, but the preoccupation with sea level rise and precipitation events is to my mind a greatly misplaced emphasis. The temperature change should clearly be the singular focus since our planet could well be uninhabitable from the effects of the increased heat on our food supply long, long, long before sea level rise effects our civilization. You can always move when the sea rises, but you can't escape the consequences of the increased temperature on our food supply system.
7
James opening statement is dubious at best, assertion as evidence, particularly considering the suffering thousands suffering from flood damage recently. I hope that people will check it rather than taking his word for it. He is right about increased heat.
Here's a good place to start: http://climate.nasa.gov/
Here's a good place to start: http://climate.nasa.gov/
1
It's obvious to anyone with eyes that the climate has been changing and at an alarming rate. Here in Canada, we have been seeing it at least since the early 1990s. Now, it is undeniable. In 2012, here in New Brunswick where I live, the pattern of rainfall changed. Now, almost all the major rainfalls we get come down as torrential gushes. Americans, in particular, have refused to do anything about the reality of climate change. The Republican Party is dedicated to climate change denialism and has done all it can to obstruct not just the US but the entire world in dealing with this apocalyptic problem.
Ultimately, the issue is going to be heavily influenced by the insurance industry. Getting insurance in increasingly weather-disaster prone areas is going to be incredibly expensive and that will shape demographic and economic trends.
Ultimately, the issue is going to be heavily influenced by the insurance industry. Getting insurance in increasingly weather-disaster prone areas is going to be incredibly expensive and that will shape demographic and economic trends.
23
Perhaps the most succinct image of Americans will be a sad person in a rowboat floating amongst a sea of rooftops saying "it's the worst flooding in recorded history, but climate change is a hoax!"
4
And most of those states will continue to elect republicans to represent them. That is the way to guarantee that climate change won't be accepted and that we will continue to plunge ahead with the policies that make it worse. It's not even on the agenda as a discussion item. At least the republicans make them comfortable with their prejudices.
14
What makes this so much worse is that here in the south, Republican politicians control the vast majority of state wide offices, and they religiously deny the existence of global warming. They are not only against measures to limit climate change, they are also against measures to even protect against it. After all, if the climate is not changing why takes expensive steps to protect against it. Why build seawalls to protect Charleston from rising sea levels? Why take measures to protect against the Zika virus? It's mostly a tropical disease, right?
And here in the midlands, why inspect, regulate and strengthen dams against a 1,000 year flood? Except that, back in October, the thousandth year came early and many, many homes, businesses and lives were unnecessarily lost because of this willful ignorance.
While we had plenty of tragedy here, (Columbia at least has a good run-off topography) Louisiana had it worse. It, like the rest of the south, is doubly cursed - from the effects of global warming and Republican leaders.
And here in the midlands, why inspect, regulate and strengthen dams against a 1,000 year flood? Except that, back in October, the thousandth year came early and many, many homes, businesses and lives were unnecessarily lost because of this willful ignorance.
While we had plenty of tragedy here, (Columbia at least has a good run-off topography) Louisiana had it worse. It, like the rest of the south, is doubly cursed - from the effects of global warming and Republican leaders.
22
Great post, Ed. In South Carolina dam failure from unprecedented rain also puts at risk the Oconee Nuclear power plant. "Duke Energy has noted that a rapid failure of the Jocassee dam would flood the plant and cause the loss of power and safety equipment, potentially damaging its three reactor cores within 8 to 9 hours. It could further lead to reactor containment failure within 59 to 68 hours, triggering a significant release of radioactivity into the environment. Duke informed the NRC about this flooding hazard as early as January 1996." (Wikipedia) Now that we can anticipate rain bombs, the NRC needs to take a new look at plants like Oconee, and maybe shut it down, because if the dam bursts and the plant fails 1.5 million people are at risk, and Oconee and Pickens counties would become irradiated wastelands.
7
Gonna need a bigger boat.
2
Remember when gas was so cheap that American bought SUV after SUV and resisted the change for more fuel efficient cars and trucks.
Then $4 gallon gas came along and the car industry was forced to change,
That analogy is prescient to Global Warming, either you take charge when you can at least affect change or have it forced upon you rather fast.
31 inches of rain happened VERY fast.
Then $4 gallon gas came along and the car industry was forced to change,
That analogy is prescient to Global Warming, either you take charge when you can at least affect change or have it forced upon you rather fast.
31 inches of rain happened VERY fast.
12
Is this the best you can do... Climate change? They have like +20,000 people without a home down here and you write about climate change? Hundreds of people (civilians with boats) went search for people and rescued literally thousands, and you write about climate change? All of these people came together as one race the HUMAN race, almost no looting and NO riot's, and all you write about is climate change.....??
2
That's because climate change very likely exacerbated the flooding.
Perhaps if you read the article . . .
Perhaps if you read the article . . .
14
I understand what you're saying. There are many angles on this story and there is a touch of schadenfreude in the article and the comments. But all those other angles are familiar and routine. They happen in virtually every major disaster. Why 500-year floods are happening more routinely is the more important angle, especially if it helps change the minds of those affected so they can actually start doing something to help themselves. Right now, the southern states won't even consider mitigation. That's incredibly irresponsible and will cost more lives and property down the line.
5
Umm what do riots have to do with anything? Unless you're suggesting something um racist ?
3
"Dr. Easterling said that those sorts of estimates were predicated on the idea that the climate was stable, a principle that has become outdated."
The idea that the climate was stable, in the face of knowing, even within the last several centuries, of past climate oscillations (e.g., the "Little Ice Age"), was pure folly. Never mind knowing that the northern hemisphere was very nearly covered in ice less than 20,000 years ago, the notion that climate is stable represents a perfect example of wishful thinking; of biased rejection of data--one that was as unscientific as medieval priests claiming the sun did the revolving and not the earth.
And it is a perfect justification for skepticism at the pronouncements of climate scientists today. That scientists could accept, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, that the climate was heretofore stable, shows that scientists are mere human beings, subject to the same biases and blinders and blunders as everyone else when it comes to examining data.
It is undoubtedly true that the climate is constantly changing. All the evidence we have points to its inherent instability. Knowing exactly why it is unstable is another matter. We don't know why it cooled and warmed before our arrival on the scene. And It is the essence of hubris to confidently proclaim that its warming today is by our own hand. We simply do not know.
The idea that the climate was stable, in the face of knowing, even within the last several centuries, of past climate oscillations (e.g., the "Little Ice Age"), was pure folly. Never mind knowing that the northern hemisphere was very nearly covered in ice less than 20,000 years ago, the notion that climate is stable represents a perfect example of wishful thinking; of biased rejection of data--one that was as unscientific as medieval priests claiming the sun did the revolving and not the earth.
And it is a perfect justification for skepticism at the pronouncements of climate scientists today. That scientists could accept, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, that the climate was heretofore stable, shows that scientists are mere human beings, subject to the same biases and blinders and blunders as everyone else when it comes to examining data.
It is undoubtedly true that the climate is constantly changing. All the evidence we have points to its inherent instability. Knowing exactly why it is unstable is another matter. We don't know why it cooled and warmed before our arrival on the scene. And It is the essence of hubris to confidently proclaim that its warming today is by our own hand. We simply do not know.
1
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but why should people believe yours over the findings of mainstream science, which undergoes world wide peer review and is based on research by thousands of real scientists with advanced degrees. The crucial question is what is causing change today, and the consensus is that it is human CO2 emissions primarily.
Scientists by the way are well aware of the "mountains of evidence" that earth's climate has gone through many warming and cooling cycles over geologic time. Scientists are the source of that information after all. It's not news to specialists, they made the discoveries you seem to be referring to.
And we do know the basic drivers of the climate system: GHGs (mainly CO2), solar insolation, albedo and the many important feedbacks and secondary drivers such as water vapor, melting ice, melting permafrost, clouds, aerosols and so forth. Changes in orbital geometry also play a role in the natural long term forcing of climate.
The basic greenhouse effect has been developed over the last 150 years and is well established. If you have an alternative theory that withstands world wide scrutiny and you over throw the existing theory of radiative heat transfer, you will definitely win the Nobel prize. Good luck.
Scientists by the way are well aware of the "mountains of evidence" that earth's climate has gone through many warming and cooling cycles over geologic time. Scientists are the source of that information after all. It's not news to specialists, they made the discoveries you seem to be referring to.
And we do know the basic drivers of the climate system: GHGs (mainly CO2), solar insolation, albedo and the many important feedbacks and secondary drivers such as water vapor, melting ice, melting permafrost, clouds, aerosols and so forth. Changes in orbital geometry also play a role in the natural long term forcing of climate.
The basic greenhouse effect has been developed over the last 150 years and is well established. If you have an alternative theory that withstands world wide scrutiny and you over throw the existing theory of radiative heat transfer, you will definitely win the Nobel prize. Good luck.
18
Blame the article for not expanding on what the speaker meant by the term "stable climate". It certainly does not mean that climate has never changed before, as you seem to indicate.
Obviously climate scientists are as aware as you are, if not more so, that climate changes. And is affected by volcanoes, sun spots, meteor strikes etc.
The fact that scientists question assumptions when data contradicts the assumptions is a good thing and shouldn't be used to call into question climate science, in general.
Obviously climate scientists are as aware as you are, if not more so, that climate changes. And is affected by volcanoes, sun spots, meteor strikes etc.
The fact that scientists question assumptions when data contradicts the assumptions is a good thing and shouldn't be used to call into question climate science, in general.
5
-You- may not know. -I- certainly do.
2
While we waste precious time on the media-driven soap opera known as Campaign 2016, climate change, zika virus, Syrian genocide, refugee crisis, inner city poverty and a host of other critical issues go underreported and unasddressed. We are going to wake up on November 9th with a hangover and any number of icebergs dead ahead.
16
My thoughts as well. The GOP is fiddling while Rome burns. Their answer to the critical problems we face? Go on vacation break without more funding for zika and of course, devote all their time in yet the next chapter of the HRC witch hunt on which emails were classified. Of course, there is not one word in any GOP campaigns about global warming since they know for a fact it is a hoax.
These people are treasonous morons. They all need to be booted out in November and it cannot come fast enough.
These people are treasonous morons. They all need to be booted out in November and it cannot come fast enough.
6
Well said. Rome burns while American voters fiddle with Trump …
3
And Exxon Mobil knew that their oil and gas worsened climate change. So, ... another lawsuit is coming (Kidding, so far).
4
Anthropogenic global warming is caused by our habit of digging up fossil carbon that was removed from the atmosphere by plants long ago and geologically sequestered, and returning it to the atmosphere by burning it for energy. As this article makes clear, the costs of AGW are already being paid, and they will increase as long as temperatures do. The world needs energy, but it can no longer afford to obtain it from fossil carbon.
Multiple carbon-neutral energy sources exist, needing only R&D followed by build-out of supply and distribution capacity. The issue is economic: as long as the prices consumers pay for fossil energy don't reflect the cost of AGW, entrepreneurs have little incentive to invest in alternative energy, and we have little incentive to buy it.
A carbon tax would eliminate the price advantage fossil fuels have over alternatives, allowing market forces to drive the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. Energy prices would be higher at the beginning, but before long they'll be about what they are now, while the cost of further warming will be capped.
The best thing any American can do keep the costs of AGW from rising ever higher is to advocate for a revenue-neutral carbon tax on fossil fuel production, along with a Border Adjustment Tax on imported goods to keep our industry competitive and encourage other countries to follow our lead. Ask your elected representatives to support a national carbon tax. If they don't listen, elect others who will.
Multiple carbon-neutral energy sources exist, needing only R&D followed by build-out of supply and distribution capacity. The issue is economic: as long as the prices consumers pay for fossil energy don't reflect the cost of AGW, entrepreneurs have little incentive to invest in alternative energy, and we have little incentive to buy it.
A carbon tax would eliminate the price advantage fossil fuels have over alternatives, allowing market forces to drive the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. Energy prices would be higher at the beginning, but before long they'll be about what they are now, while the cost of further warming will be capped.
The best thing any American can do keep the costs of AGW from rising ever higher is to advocate for a revenue-neutral carbon tax on fossil fuel production, along with a Border Adjustment Tax on imported goods to keep our industry competitive and encourage other countries to follow our lead. Ask your elected representatives to support a national carbon tax. If they don't listen, elect others who will.
15
One of the most common laments we hear from flood victims is the irretrievable loss of family heirlooms and photographs. The loss of photos and critical family documents can be mitigated by digitizing them and storing copies in another physical location or even on the Cloud. This is not as an expensive undertaking as it would have been a few short years ago. Relying on historical records to determine if you are at risk from flooding is not so reliable anymore.
4
We are all going to suffer on a massive scale- but the southern states are the first to feel the real brunt of floods due to global warming.
Ironically, these are the very states that continue to vote republican and continue to deny climate change as they experience floods and disaster.
I have no idea what it will take to have these people wake up and realize they are being lied to and their lives and their kids' future are being put at risk.
I can only confess that my sympathy is a bit tempered when I know the red states continue to vote GOP and thus are party responsible for their own disasters since they continue to vote for climate change deniers.
But, in the end, we are all in this together and global warming is not limiting itself to disasters in red states alone. We must act together.
Ironically, these are the very states that continue to vote republican and continue to deny climate change as they experience floods and disaster.
I have no idea what it will take to have these people wake up and realize they are being lied to and their lives and their kids' future are being put at risk.
I can only confess that my sympathy is a bit tempered when I know the red states continue to vote GOP and thus are party responsible for their own disasters since they continue to vote for climate change deniers.
But, in the end, we are all in this together and global warming is not limiting itself to disasters in red states alone. We must act together.
16
Further south, in Panama, he looks more like an easy solution to global warming, climate change and the alleged scientific confrontation: THE OCEANOGENIC POWER (https://www.academia.edu/1478086/OCEANOGENIC_POWER)
But does not benefit those who pay both sides of this useless clash of, will be or not be, because they swear they can continue to benefit by novels marketing, controlling human plague and above all, selling weapons. Even they spend thousands of dollars to hide and steal it in the future.
But even here they insist prove to be descendants of gorillas, ie different genome to the rest of their species. In the same line of thought, still they think in flat Earth and only the northern hemisphere, and worse, without the United States.
His plan is to use this discovery for within 50 years, just as when the invention of the automobile. Sure, in his madness, they are believed to be eternal due of their (or better our?) money, with which still they buy lies and they betray truths.
And the free of charge reality, is that in the future will be dust, or will be part of the planet's atmosphere.
But does not benefit those who pay both sides of this useless clash of, will be or not be, because they swear they can continue to benefit by novels marketing, controlling human plague and above all, selling weapons. Even they spend thousands of dollars to hide and steal it in the future.
But even here they insist prove to be descendants of gorillas, ie different genome to the rest of their species. In the same line of thought, still they think in flat Earth and only the northern hemisphere, and worse, without the United States.
His plan is to use this discovery for within 50 years, just as when the invention of the automobile. Sure, in his madness, they are believed to be eternal due of their (or better our?) money, with which still they buy lies and they betray truths.
And the free of charge reality, is that in the future will be dust, or will be part of the planet's atmosphere.
1
Wow, an article mentioning climate change......incredible, all those small government types who hate the FED, will now be expecting the FED to cover their losses.
Big Insurance will tell them to take a hike...Insurance policy, what Insurance policy, the fine print says you pay us a premium, the part about claims is not valid...
Big Insurance will tell them to take a hike...Insurance policy, what Insurance policy, the fine print says you pay us a premium, the part about claims is not valid...
4
The terms 100 year and 500 year flood were created for a reason many years prior to the invention of "global climate change". It should not shock us when it occurs. We can engineer for it better, or stop developing and living on flood plains acting shocked when they flood. My neighbors are originally from Johnstown PA flooded out in the worst downpour that had ever been recorded in that part of the country in 1889 by a then huge rainstorm.
2
"Global climate change" wasn't invented. It has developed along with the industrialization of the planet and exponential human population growth that contribute to it. The Johnstown Flood was mainly the result of a poorly engineered, poorly constructed and poorly maintained dam that could not withstand an abnormally heavy rain system. There had been indications of the dam's impending failure that were largely ignored.
8
Four thousand years of flooding in only 15 months. The models are obviously wrong. I read elsewhere in the NYT about people flooded out who hadn't purchased flood insurance. You'd think it would be too expensive to live in flood-prone areas, but people continue to do so.
We should certainly help those in immediate need, but how does one balance that need against people who continue to put themselves in harm's way or vote for policies that allow or encourage the same?
We should certainly help those in immediate need, but how does one balance that need against people who continue to put themselves in harm's way or vote for policies that allow or encourage the same?
The areas that were flooded did not require flood insurance. If an area hasn't flooded in more than a century wouldn't you think that flood insurance wasn't necessary?
2
a 500-year flood, or a 1000-year flood, is one that is likely to happen once in 500 year, once in 1000 years. You've confused the sense.
That floods are that unlikely are happening frequently is important, and so is accepting reality, but since people are so ready to take advantage of language missteps, it's worthwhile understanding what these words mean.
That floods are that unlikely are happening frequently is important, and so is accepting reality, but since people are so ready to take advantage of language missteps, it's worthwhile understanding what these words mean.
3
This belongs in the opinion section. The climate is always changing and to attribute flooding in the south to that is speculative. Given that this is the only world we have, we really have no basis for comparison. Unexpected events occur sometimes. It would perhaps be wise, again, given that this is the only world we have, to invest in sustainable energy, but it is not at all clear that this would reverse the warming that is occurring or prevent future flooding.
3
The current rate of change is more than 50 times the pre-industrial rate and we are observing the results in disappearing species and ecosystems that humans depend on.
It really is past time to wake up.
It really is past time to wake up.
12
"Given that this is the only world we have, we really have no basis for comparison. Unexpected events occur sometimes."
Kristin, I agree that global warming would be easier to study if we had another earth where fossil fuels aren't being burned to act as a control, but to say that we can't study the issue for that reason is just plain wrong. Scientist know a lot and it seems you haven't been following their research because you label these floods as "unexpected". In fact, they've been warning of increased flood events for decades.
Kristin, I agree that global warming would be easier to study if we had another earth where fossil fuels aren't being burned to act as a control, but to say that we can't study the issue for that reason is just plain wrong. Scientist know a lot and it seems you haven't been following their research because you label these floods as "unexpected". In fact, they've been warning of increased flood events for decades.
5
That does not necessitate a causative relationship. Climate change is a constant.
1
The posters here who blame the afflicted as bringing this disasters on themselves are beneath contempt. Since moving to Louisiana, I've come to understand how offended and betrayed some folks feel when they're being told that the energy business that brought jobs and middle class prosperity to a deeply, deeply impoverished state since the early 20th century is now the devil that's driving climate change and destroying the physical world they dearly love. The levels of cognitive dissonance and grief cannot be underestimated, and it fuels pushback. Meanwhile, most Americans are entirely oblivious to how profoundly they continue to depend on the energy and shipping infrastructure that is driving Louisiana's physical extinction. Did you know that the dredging and infrastructure that's essential to Mississippi River commerce, that serves the entire U.S., is a prime reason for our cycle of coastal erosion? Nobody thinks about these things. Based on TV, we're just shrimp and swamps and New Orleans and we give great parties. So before anyone points a finger at "those" people in Louisiana who have chosen their own demise, *especially* in this awful time of destruction, you'd better look in the mirror.
22
I'm sorry you feel that way. Both things are true, that cheap energy has brought many benefits, and that, unfortunately, it has and is contributing to climate change which has made your floods so much more likely and so much worse.
Reality is not something that changes because of politics or emotion.
I did point elsewhere to the Portlight charities and donated to it last night; can I say that we who are not in the floodzone also care about you as human beings, despite appearances to the contrary? Some people express their worries in inappropriate ways, I agree.
Denying climate change is also wrong.
Here's the link to Portlight: https://www.wunderground.com/blog/Portlight/comment.html?entrynum=152
Reality is not something that changes because of politics or emotion.
I did point elsewhere to the Portlight charities and donated to it last night; can I say that we who are not in the floodzone also care about you as human beings, despite appearances to the contrary? Some people express their worries in inappropriate ways, I agree.
Denying climate change is also wrong.
Here's the link to Portlight: https://www.wunderground.com/blog/Portlight/comment.html?entrynum=152
5
Excellent post.
2
You are absolutely right. That is our gift and our responsibility as Americans - we are all of us equally responsible because of the things we do and don't do. Because we Americans share less and less perspective all the time, we are consumed with finding someone or something else to blame.
1
It would be interesting to know whether High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is playing a role in all the calamities when it has the capability of weather modifications or the calamities are in real, real. It is really time for some truth.
It's been shut down since 2013. Also, chemtrails aren't real, sorry to disappoint you.
2
Humans are supposed to be intelligent beings. With climate change, we leave it to ignorant politicians to decide whether it is real or not. With all the evidence that science has put forward we still cannot admit to what is really going on here. Climate change is the biggest event in the history of human kind and it is happening. People living in this world right now are responsible for the future of the planet. Will we get it right? Only time will tell, but whatever the case, there is no turning back.
6
My heart goes out to these folks, but can't help but wonder how many of them are climate change deniers. How many consistently vote for Republicans, the ones who refuse to address the issue? Physical evidence abounds throughout the world, and is now hitting the U.S. hard. So, what's it going to take to convince Americans and the politicians who supposedly represent them?
11
Cue the climate change denier troglodytes. . .
4
Gee, massive flooding in Louisiana. Thousands homeless. Many killed.
Where is the government? Where is governmental flood aid?
And it wasn't even from a hurricane.
Does anyone remember the name "Katrina?"
And of course climate change is involved. Climate change is a constant always with us. And we know the causes of climate change, all four of them. None is carbon dioxide. Or does any one of you have a shred of actual proof that carbon dioxide is the cause, other than what you have been told by politicians?
I didn't think so.
Where is the government? Where is governmental flood aid?
And it wasn't even from a hurricane.
Does anyone remember the name "Katrina?"
And of course climate change is involved. Climate change is a constant always with us. And we know the causes of climate change, all four of them. None is carbon dioxide. Or does any one of you have a shred of actual proof that carbon dioxide is the cause, other than what you have been told by politicians?
I didn't think so.
It isn't the politicians telling us. It is 99% of the world's climate scientists. To ignore them is just plain foolish.
5
Do you know even one of these "scientists?" No?
What you know is what the politicians tell you they say - what ever that is and whoever they are.
Here, I'll give you some actual science to look at. Go to the website of the IPCC - That's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an agency of the United Nations that monitors our climate (They won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for doing this work). Find their comments on carbon dioxide and the climate and read them. (They have found that in each of the past four ice ages, going back 120,000 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose as the climate cycle changed from cold, dry, and icy to warm and wet. But they also found that this rise in carbon dioxide "lagged behind the warming cycle by hundreds of years" each time.
The climate began warming, and then the carbon dioxide levels began rising. That's not causative. Atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't cause the change.
Read it for yourself. They've got charts of the two curves. Plot them.
The you reflect on why that 95% of "scientists" say what they are claimed to say.
What you know is what the politicians tell you they say - what ever that is and whoever they are.
Here, I'll give you some actual science to look at. Go to the website of the IPCC - That's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an agency of the United Nations that monitors our climate (They won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for doing this work). Find their comments on carbon dioxide and the climate and read them. (They have found that in each of the past four ice ages, going back 120,000 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose as the climate cycle changed from cold, dry, and icy to warm and wet. But they also found that this rise in carbon dioxide "lagged behind the warming cycle by hundreds of years" each time.
The climate began warming, and then the carbon dioxide levels began rising. That's not causative. Atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't cause the change.
Read it for yourself. They've got charts of the two curves. Plot them.
The you reflect on why that 95% of "scientists" say what they are claimed to say.
You can "know" scientists by their research. Not hard to figure that out.
Meanwhile, it's fascinating that for people like you, the same scientific inquiry that brings you your creature comforts suddenly doesn't know what it's talking about where the climate is concerned.
You're shooting blanks on behalf of your pro-business politicians, who have convinced you science is some sort of plot against you.
Brilliant.
Meanwhile, it's fascinating that for people like you, the same scientific inquiry that brings you your creature comforts suddenly doesn't know what it's talking about where the climate is concerned.
You're shooting blanks on behalf of your pro-business politicians, who have convinced you science is some sort of plot against you.
Brilliant.
3
So Mr Moore is quoting Zillow as a source? With their record notoriously poor real estate valuations who should doubt their ability to predict sea level rise?
1
I'm afraid you are one of the few people that thinks that point really resonates.
And yet, on this very week when Louisiana is flooding, Hillary Clinton picks Mr. Frack himself (Ken Salazar) to lead her transition team.
After 20 years of paying for outrageously expensive wars, just think if we had instead used that money to put solar panels on every house and building and wind turbines along the shore. We would have decentralized power enough to fuel this country, we would have innovated non-polluting renewable low CO2 energy, and we would be independent of Middle East oil. If only . . .
But no, instead we will get to elect one of two candidates who will give us more of the same, endless war to fuel our endless addiction to petroleum, lip-to-lip with the pushers - Exxon/Mobil, Chesapeake, and the Kochs. And no worries - only 1 in 8 damaged in the floods this week have flood insurance - this won't cut into insurance company profits. And we'll still have all those climate change deniers in their souped-up pickups, Confederate flag in the window - keep on pumping, frack baby frack.
Yes folks, God is indeed on our side! Can't you tell?
After 20 years of paying for outrageously expensive wars, just think if we had instead used that money to put solar panels on every house and building and wind turbines along the shore. We would have decentralized power enough to fuel this country, we would have innovated non-polluting renewable low CO2 energy, and we would be independent of Middle East oil. If only . . .
But no, instead we will get to elect one of two candidates who will give us more of the same, endless war to fuel our endless addiction to petroleum, lip-to-lip with the pushers - Exxon/Mobil, Chesapeake, and the Kochs. And no worries - only 1 in 8 damaged in the floods this week have flood insurance - this won't cut into insurance company profits. And we'll still have all those climate change deniers in their souped-up pickups, Confederate flag in the window - keep on pumping, frack baby frack.
Yes folks, God is indeed on our side! Can't you tell?
5
Yes folks, we need to elect a Democratic congress and then we need to go after Hillary; Salazar and the frackers are not good choices. Trump is not a better option, and I don't like what I've seen of Jill Stein, so we're stuck with trying to get at her obvious intelligence and support real action on climate change.
That action does not include expanding fossil sources, and fracking is both poorly accounted for and a boom and bust neighborhood destroyer.
That action does not include expanding fossil sources, and fracking is both poorly accounted for and a boom and bust neighborhood destroyer.
2
Silly humans. Silly humans. Silly Human race. Why can't we see that when you take all that geologically sequestered energy; all that has been building in storage in the ground and deep oceans for an endless millennia. All of it in its various forms like carbon and methane; when you take it out of its storage and proceed apace to pump it back out into atmospheric and environmental systems you are injecting more energy back into the active dynamic that is the global system. That energy has to go someplace; and it has to have an effect on said system. The basic end result? The system gets "turbo-charged." It heats up, amongst everything else it does.
The problem is it's waay too late to stop it. We've initiated a systemic cascade. Remember the atmospheric, oceanic and environmental system as a whole is an ever changing dynamic; it will seek a new equilibrium. I think we will not be liking much the new equilibrium once it finds it. But this is not an entirely hopeless situation if we but WISE UP. We need to institute policies that recognize the inevitable; that recognize our part in its creation; and set about the policies and procedures to mitigate the cascade as much as possible. We need to do this because we owe it to the future. We owe it to our progeny; those who will inherit that new equilibrium we ourselves set in motion.
John~
American Net'Zen
The problem is it's waay too late to stop it. We've initiated a systemic cascade. Remember the atmospheric, oceanic and environmental system as a whole is an ever changing dynamic; it will seek a new equilibrium. I think we will not be liking much the new equilibrium once it finds it. But this is not an entirely hopeless situation if we but WISE UP. We need to institute policies that recognize the inevitable; that recognize our part in its creation; and set about the policies and procedures to mitigate the cascade as much as possible. We need to do this because we owe it to the future. We owe it to our progeny; those who will inherit that new equilibrium we ourselves set in motion.
John~
American Net'Zen
4
"Louisiana joins five other states, most of them in the South, that have experienced deadly flooding in the last 15 months, including Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina and West Virginia." Actually South and North Carolina - not withstanding last year's one month monsoon - have been in a two decade drought. Our biggest fresh water issue here in South Carolina is the lack of it; we'd welcome frequent three or four inch rain storms which have been near absent this year.
Every day I wake to a brightly shinning Charleston day. Northerners still don't understand that the South is not a monolith.
Every day I wake to a brightly shinning Charleston day. Northerners still don't understand that the South is not a monolith.
1
Apparently Southerners don't understand that "Northerners" aren't a monolith, either.
1
Flooding and droughts are not mutually exclusive. Not even sure the point you are making. It's not what the article even said.
It's already too late for us to avoid these weather-related emergencies. However, I would feel a whole lot better if the ideological holdouts in Congress would just agree that we do indeed have an eduring problem of major proportions. But it's not just Republicans who are to blame for our non-action. They're just the low-hanging fruit. Every NYT reader who worries about climate change and who drives an oversized vehicle -- SUV, van, or truck -- that gets MPG in the 20s or less should trade it in next week and start to cut their own emissions. We are all in this together, regardless of politic stripe.
7
You may be able to trade in your car for a low emissions car, but others can not afford it. Also, somebody will buy your trade in, so it won't make a difference.
2
The American fleet is not a fixed pool of cars. Around 17 million new cars hit the roads in the US every year. A large proportion of those sales are oversized, gas-guzzlers. As for trade-ins, at least you would be making your own commitment to climate change and lowering your carbon footprint, at the same time saving your as much as $600 a year.
The article gives the impression that this event, and the 7 other heavy rainfall events recorded in the US since May of last year, proof of out-of-control climate change. A examination of the actual data however suggests that the total area affected by these events in this period is approximately the same as what one would expect if the probability of these events was in fact 0.2%.
The total land area of the lower U.S. is 3,119,885 m2. Then a 0.2% probability of an extreme rainfall event means that in any one year we would expect to observe that 6,240 m2 of land area in the US would experience such an event. The 8 events have taken place in a 15-month period. However, since no event was recorded between August 2014 and May 2015, it is reasonable to look at the 20 month (1.75 year) period since January 2015. We should then expect that 10920 m2 would experience such an event during this period. I have clicked through and looked at every map of every event and roughly measured the area which experienced a 0.2% event in each map. The total area in the US that experienced a 0.2% rainfall event in this period is approximately 8700 m2 or less than what one would expect given the expected probability. These events therefore appear to be within a normal range. I invite other readers to do the same measurements and see what results they get. Please let me know if I am missing something here.
The total land area of the lower U.S. is 3,119,885 m2. Then a 0.2% probability of an extreme rainfall event means that in any one year we would expect to observe that 6,240 m2 of land area in the US would experience such an event. The 8 events have taken place in a 15-month period. However, since no event was recorded between August 2014 and May 2015, it is reasonable to look at the 20 month (1.75 year) period since January 2015. We should then expect that 10920 m2 would experience such an event during this period. I have clicked through and looked at every map of every event and roughly measured the area which experienced a 0.2% event in each map. The total area in the US that experienced a 0.2% rainfall event in this period is approximately 8700 m2 or less than what one would expect given the expected probability. These events therefore appear to be within a normal range. I invite other readers to do the same measurements and see what results they get. Please let me know if I am missing something here.
3
I'm sure the 40,000 victims of this flood (and other victims of climate excess worldwide as it ramps up) are greatly comforted by the small amount of US land area they occupy.
5
The surface area of the U.S. in meters = 9.857 trillion m², so I think you need to review your estimates.
4
Not much done in the West will negate the massive adoption of coal based energy by both China and India. Stop all our autos tomorrow, turn off your air conditioners and the effect on CO2 would be negligible compared to what China is putting into the atmosphere. China is also on a nuclear plant building binge - something the West should be doing also - but it'll be decades before they offset the coal use.
The environmentalists bellyache about climate change but they share the responsibility for killing nuclear energy - the only realistic 365/24 source of clean energy. Anyone recall Gov. Cuomo killing the brand new functioning Shoreham nuclear plant? In its place the utility had to crank up an oil burning plant that consumed one million gallons of oil/day. The left wing rains down on the GOP but you can thank the Democrats - especially Sen. Reid for killing the nation's approved nuclear waste repository - and nuclear energy. There are loads of hypocrites in this debate. Believe science the true believers say - except when science goes against their philosophy. Most scientists then and now favor nuclear energy to mitigate climate change.
There's going to be world wide climate change - and little done here in the US will much matter. If there is any consolation it's that the price of beach front properties will get a lot less expensive; maybe even affordable.
The environmentalists bellyache about climate change but they share the responsibility for killing nuclear energy - the only realistic 365/24 source of clean energy. Anyone recall Gov. Cuomo killing the brand new functioning Shoreham nuclear plant? In its place the utility had to crank up an oil burning plant that consumed one million gallons of oil/day. The left wing rains down on the GOP but you can thank the Democrats - especially Sen. Reid for killing the nation's approved nuclear waste repository - and nuclear energy. There are loads of hypocrites in this debate. Believe science the true believers say - except when science goes against their philosophy. Most scientists then and now favor nuclear energy to mitigate climate change.
There's going to be world wide climate change - and little done here in the US will much matter. If there is any consolation it's that the price of beach front properties will get a lot less expensive; maybe even affordable.
1
The Shoreham nuclear plant was built right on the Long Island Sound. Close to populated areas which are now even more densely populated. Should a catastrophic event occur at the plant millions of people would be affected. After what happened at Fukushima ot allowing the plant to open looks positively prescient.
2
Old timer Louisiana residents and perhaps not so old timer, freely delivered bad advice to their families as heard in interviews on BBC World Radio.
In each such interview a person whose family had to be rescued said that someone in the family in the house being threatened had told them "Don't worry, this house has never been flooded. We can stay."
And along the same line, the National Flood Insurance maps showing such information as so called 100-year flood "shorelines", were based on historical records that are now only useful in providing the basis for seeing how things have changed.
How shall we educate politicians in denial to say nothing of ordinary citizens?
One more impossible task, I guess.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen
Professor emeritus-Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, who looks now and then to see howI terribly out of date a book he published in 1996 now is.
In each such interview a person whose family had to be rescued said that someone in the family in the house being threatened had told them "Don't worry, this house has never been flooded. We can stay."
And along the same line, the National Flood Insurance maps showing such information as so called 100-year flood "shorelines", were based on historical records that are now only useful in providing the basis for seeing how things have changed.
How shall we educate politicians in denial to say nothing of ordinary citizens?
One more impossible task, I guess.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen
Professor emeritus-Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, who looks now and then to see howI terribly out of date a book he published in 1996 now is.
4
Louisiana is the latest state to receive a wake-up call (although I would argue that they already got one eleven years ago). The trouble (for us) is that the climate changes so slowly, now that we're finally seeing the clear effects of global heating, our only response is mediation. The time for reversal was decades ago. A layman's essay on this topic: https://jefftcann.com/2016/07/22/boiled-frog/
1
How wrong can the GOP be, again?
They must be scrambling to find some pseudoscience response.
They must be scrambling to find some pseudoscience response.
4
Migratory birds, glaciers, plants, and northern bound pine beetles have figured out that the times, they are a-changing. Doesn't say much for human brain power, or our education system.
Still, as a retired Air Force weather officer, and a member of the American Meteorological Society for 55 years, indidual weather events do not validate AGW. But, climate, which is the accumulation of weather events is indicative that the earth is warming. Plus, most of the cause and effect physical mechanisms are reasonably well understood and also support AGW.
It is up to us, and maybe it's not too late. The only anti-migration wall that could concern me is one that Canada might contemplate.
Still, as a retired Air Force weather officer, and a member of the American Meteorological Society for 55 years, indidual weather events do not validate AGW. But, climate, which is the accumulation of weather events is indicative that the earth is warming. Plus, most of the cause and effect physical mechanisms are reasonably well understood and also support AGW.
It is up to us, and maybe it's not too late. The only anti-migration wall that could concern me is one that Canada might contemplate.
7
Our observation of these many events that displace people by the thousands - suggests that adaptive policies must be rapidly innovated. Homeland Security has to look beyond external terrorism, and instead add a new 'position' regarding U.S. emergency housing and building. Among other critical events, we must find a way to put youths into schools for their education. Otherwise we face a huge cycle of uneducated workers -- causing a severe lack of earnings across a large swath of workers. Meanwhile our young will put a strain on resources if poorly educated, with a lack of modern skills preparation. Thus it requires a two-pronged approach to salvaging the catastrophe: 1) build smaller homes, and 2) continue to educate a skilled future workforce.
1
The world will wake up one day and find its too late. Or maybe we will never wake up. People are willing to believe in the supernatural before science. It comforts them to think that there is a paternal supreme being that watches over them. Many believe that all is preordained. How do you deal with that. Governments are too busy making land grabs and fighting amongst ourselves to bother with saving the world. No my friends, I do believe the world is changing drasrically, and not for the better for mankind. Maybe we deserve it....
3
Giant Meteor 2016: Just end it already.
Just was reading Ursula K. LeGuin's 1969 SF novel, The Left Hand of Darkness. She set her story in the far future, and characters were talking about what we had done to Earth in the 20th century, citing Carbon Dioxide levels and global warming.
Le Guin wrote about that in 1969. Why is it so hard for the Right to not cede on this issue? After so many decades of solid evidence? This is what ends civilizations, folks. Now it's at our door and not in a science-fiction novel.
Le Guin wrote about that in 1969. Why is it so hard for the Right to not cede on this issue? After so many decades of solid evidence? This is what ends civilizations, folks. Now it's at our door and not in a science-fiction novel.
6
The reason the GOP doesn't cede on this issue is very simple- money. They get money from the Koch brothers et al to finance their campaigns so they get to stay in power.
4
The southern states, controlled by the Republican party, don't believe in science & their response is to every catastrophe is to "pray". That is. That's the sum of their response.
7
Nothing will change until a rising tide of voters sinks the GOP.
6
Newspapers should start putting this kind of information in the science section. This is not a matter or political opinion, it's a matter of believing in science. We must rapidly get past the debate on wether it's happening so we can do something about it.
15
Agree but if you put it int the science section few will read it. It is a political issue now; nature will not care which section in the paper it is in.
3
We are being warned again and again. It's obviously supremely foolish to not place climate change front and center everyday. We absolutely must reduce fossil fuel use... drive less, use less electricity and heat. We need solar electric systems on our roofs... homes, offices, schools... and electric cars on our roads. We need massive investments... AND job creation... in sustainable carbon-neutral systems. Or, alternatively, we could just go on being with our current extraordinary foolishness. These floods, as bad as they are, are just a small prelude. This is a massive slow-motion disasters spanning decades, slowly getting worse. It's also an invitation to all of us to move past politics and needless conflict so that we can begin to rationally take care of the extensive challenges that are beginning to emerge.
13
Too many posts, but this is important. For donations, here's a good place to go:
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/Portlight/comment.html?entrynum=152
(I chose the Wunderground version because the Donate button was more obvious. Wunderground gives good coverage of the world's weather extremes and often provides links to more, like this to Portlight, which I know is a good charity.)
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/Portlight/comment.html?entrynum=152
(I chose the Wunderground version because the Donate button was more obvious. Wunderground gives good coverage of the world's weather extremes and often provides links to more, like this to Portlight, which I know is a good charity.)
8
I just talked with friends who are more in touch with climate scientists than I am, and checked the recent article here at the NYTimes about scientists' attempt to clear up the attribution problem. It's annoying that the argument is so heavily weighted against science, but measuring the way in which individual events are related to climate change cannot be done overnight.
Dr. Trenberth has changed the statement about how climate change affects weather to remind us all there is an element of climate change in all weather. Dr. Hansen compares it to loaded dice.
There is more energy (heat) in the system, and there is more water vapor as well. The Gulf has been extraordinarily hot, and we've just had several years, each hotter than the last, with the almost all of the hottest years since 2000.
This combination of heat and moisture primed the weather to be extreme.
While weather is not climate, climate is made up of weather over time - decades - and space - the whole earth and its atmosphere. Scientists suggest using the longest possible time to look at trends, but 30 years is regarded as sufficient. Part of the heat we've accumulated has gone into the ocean, some to the shallow ocean and some deeper. Here's a graphic for that: http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg
Dr. Trenberth has changed the statement about how climate change affects weather to remind us all there is an element of climate change in all weather. Dr. Hansen compares it to loaded dice.
There is more energy (heat) in the system, and there is more water vapor as well. The Gulf has been extraordinarily hot, and we've just had several years, each hotter than the last, with the almost all of the hottest years since 2000.
This combination of heat and moisture primed the weather to be extreme.
While weather is not climate, climate is made up of weather over time - decades - and space - the whole earth and its atmosphere. Scientists suggest using the longest possible time to look at trends, but 30 years is regarded as sufficient. Part of the heat we've accumulated has gone into the ocean, some to the shallow ocean and some deeper. Here's a graphic for that: http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg
11
Climate in measured in centuries and millennia. Please attribute your information that thirty years is sufficient. There is a thirty or so-year period from the late 50's through 80's that have the only decent data -- and look at how poorly it has faired as a predictive model. There are more reasons than can be listed here to reign in fossil fuels, natural sources of atmospheric methane, and ozone/partial pollution. But pretending climate science is something it is not is as bad as rejecting science altogether. I believe in the precautionary principle, as many if not most scientists do, but wish Americans had enough science education to understand that concept.
2
In a 1500 character post in a comment section of one article, one can say anything. I tried to give an overview.
Here's a recent post that addresses your complaint about 1940s to 1970s in an amusing way, and gives lots of references. Be sure to watch the video clip.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/australian-silline...
It's a near perfect example of a politician bolloxed by the facts trying to argue they don't exist!
Here's a recent post that addresses your complaint about 1940s to 1970s in an amusing way, and gives lots of references. Be sure to watch the video clip.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/australian-silline...
It's a near perfect example of a politician bolloxed by the facts trying to argue they don't exist!
5
Thank you picking up your coverage of climate change -- front page. Climate change is THE issue of our time, of this year, of this election. We cannot afford to have another Congress run by climate change deniers. Responsible media must keep discussing this topic, the science, political, and economic, agricultural ramifications so that the public can understand that climate change is not a phenomenon of the future but of the present.
35
"Sustainable energy without the hot air" by the Cambridge physicist and UK dept. of Climate Change director, David Mackay is the clearest guide to action. He was a lifelong teacher who didnt want to give people the
"answers", but the tools to think for themselves and analyse a situation. Please do read his great book freely available online. And use his physics-informed analysis to retool your lifestyle and make the most effective choices to reduce your personal energy consumption. Americans after all consume 2X more energy per capita than Germany and other OECD countries:
1. Reduce your flying. In a single transatlantic flight you consume as much energy as leaving a typical AC switched on for an entire year. See https://www.withouthotair.com/c5/page_35.shtml
2. Reduce/increase your thermostat in the summer/winter. The typical home's energy consumption drops by 10% for each 1 degC change in thermostat. Insulate your homes.
3. Eliminate food waste. Food wasted is multiplied energy and water waste.
Lastly, dont be distracted by the myth that "every little helps". Seek out effective solutions to reduce energy consumption. As David often said "If everyone does a little, we'll achieve only a little"
"answers", but the tools to think for themselves and analyse a situation. Please do read his great book freely available online. And use his physics-informed analysis to retool your lifestyle and make the most effective choices to reduce your personal energy consumption. Americans after all consume 2X more energy per capita than Germany and other OECD countries:
1. Reduce your flying. In a single transatlantic flight you consume as much energy as leaving a typical AC switched on for an entire year. See https://www.withouthotair.com/c5/page_35.shtml
2. Reduce/increase your thermostat in the summer/winter. The typical home's energy consumption drops by 10% for each 1 degC change in thermostat. Insulate your homes.
3. Eliminate food waste. Food wasted is multiplied energy and water waste.
Lastly, dont be distracted by the myth that "every little helps". Seek out effective solutions to reduce energy consumption. As David often said "If everyone does a little, we'll achieve only a little"
10
What I found particularly useful was the scale of clean energy that is needed. We are just diddling with this, and that will not be enough. It can be done.
http://www.withouthotair.com/
Unfortunately, the English-speaking part of the world has been too casual about picking up the pace, while pushing fracking, which arguably doesn't help at all, as the accounting does not count all its costs. And pellet fuel is a travesty; at first it was supposed to be waste, but you can imagine that growing forests for export to make pellets is not woriking at all, which is what happens when you scale it up.
http://www.withouthotair.com/
Unfortunately, the English-speaking part of the world has been too casual about picking up the pace, while pushing fracking, which arguably doesn't help at all, as the accounting does not count all its costs. And pellet fuel is a travesty; at first it was supposed to be waste, but you can imagine that growing forests for export to make pellets is not woriking at all, which is what happens when you scale it up.
6
May be that catastrophes like this which have been accurately predicted will move climate change deniers to rescind their opposition to reason.
If this is the case one can hope that other more obvious myths will topple as well and we can get about living like the reasonable animal life we are equipped to become.
A lot more natural disaster may have to befall us, coupled with unanswered pleas for divine intervention in order to turn the corner, but coping with natural disasters demand rationality as opposed to the irrational disaster of war.
Neither are pleasant to contemplate, but one rises to the unity of life while the other accedes to the disarray of death.
If this is the case one can hope that other more obvious myths will topple as well and we can get about living like the reasonable animal life we are equipped to become.
A lot more natural disaster may have to befall us, coupled with unanswered pleas for divine intervention in order to turn the corner, but coping with natural disasters demand rationality as opposed to the irrational disaster of war.
Neither are pleasant to contemplate, but one rises to the unity of life while the other accedes to the disarray of death.
8
This catastrophe was not accurately predicted. The heavy rain areas were supposed to be in the Midwest and upper Plains. The south was supposed to dry out.
Meteorologists were giving heavy warnings all last week and before. Given the moisture, heat, and heavy energy, it was all too likely.
2
The author states that there is a "0.2 percent chance" per year for rainfall that NOAA would expect only occurs once every five hundred years. I imagine the author took 100% and divided this by 500 to get 0.2%, but I'm not sure the math adds up on this. If this rain only had a 0.2% chance of occurring each year, there would only be a 63.2% chance it occurs within 500 years. Instead, if there is a 0.91% chance it occurs each year, there is a 99.0% chance it occurs in 500 years. To round it out, it hits a 99.95% chance of occurring in 500 years if there is a 1.5% chance it occurs in a single year. My math may not be perfect, but may be worth a double-check.
2
I don't follow your math. If a 500-year flood has a chance of occurring once every 500 years, 0.2% is correct. Even if you get five 500 year floods in a year, the figures would remain the same, unless and until the metric is changed. It's a reasonable way to describe the phenomenon, but only a way of putting likelihood into language. Granted that's a little confusing, but it's like throwing dice. Andrew Freedman of Mashable provides the same figures, which would indicate the source was not the author here.
mashable.com/2016/08/15/louisiana-floods-causes-climate-change/
Just for fun, here's xkcd on assumptions of hierarchy in the sciences: https://xkcd.com/435/
mashable.com/2016/08/15/louisiana-floods-causes-climate-change/
Just for fun, here's xkcd on assumptions of hierarchy in the sciences: https://xkcd.com/435/
9
The is an 0.2% chance for any given year in 500 years. 2/1000 years or once every 500 years.
2
Great to see that the climate deniers who seem to inhabit the south are getting a chance to rethink their theories. Are we now going to see these states rights backers ask for federal help? Should we spend federal dollars to rebuild on a flood plain? What ever happened to individualism? It is time cut them off the bottle.
19
So where is President Obama? Everyone dumped on Bush for Katrina. Obama hasn't visited this devastation. He can't take time away from his golf??
People are suffering.
People are suffering.
So, after nearly eight years of denying the problem while he tried to work on it, obstructing him every step of the way, he's to hop to it? Are you headed down there yourself?
Anyone who wants to help can go here to donate: http://www.portlight.org/louisiana-response-8-15-16.html
Anyone who wants to help can go here to donate: http://www.portlight.org/louisiana-response-8-15-16.html
25
Katrina was quite different. People were on their roofs waiting for rescue for five days, being shown on national TV, while Bush said he didn't know about it. It is seared on our brains.
Here, rescue services are out and people are in trouble, but I think the deaths in Katrina were around 2000, and the water was up to the roof in whole areas, so people had to cut their roofs to get out, and nobody came for days.
Here, rescue services are out and people are in trouble, but I think the deaths in Katrina were around 2000, and the water was up to the roof in whole areas, so people had to cut their roofs to get out, and nobody came for days.
19
Don't see him trying to calm things down in Milwaukee either. He gets a pass on these things like usual.
1
Are those most vulnerable also those most in denial?
13
I think it's time to get started. To convene an international court with the purpose of trying climate-deniers with crimes against humanity. Because we are rapidly getting further up that ol' creek, and these corporations and their honchos are tossing all the paddles. They need to know they will be held accountable.
27
Yes, Congress needs to answer to the people of this country and this world for denying and lying about the single biggest threat to our lives. Many have already died and lost everything they own. It is high time they are charged for crimes against humanity. We are ALL effected by their criminal behavior.
13
I guess this would be an inopportune time to point out that most of Louisiana was under drought conditions less than a year ago (article is from Oct 2015). Notice that Baton Rouge was under extreme drought.
I wonder if that was because of climate change as well.
http://www.wdsu.com/.../most-of-louisiana-much.../35865038
I think there is a serious question as to whether climate change caused the front to become so intense, but as pointed out above, I am skeptical. When computer models predict everything, they predict nothing.
Significant parts of the flooded area in Baton Rouge are not considered flood plains. My in-laws' house is 4 miles from the flooded Amite River, has never been flooded before, and was under two feet of water on Sunday.
Yes, Louisiana is losing land, which could be attributed to many factors including climate change and disruption of natural river delta replenishment. However, this flood isn't happening because of any sea level rising. Nowhere could handle 25+ inches of rain. with an estimate four trillion gallons of water, over three days and not have widespread flooding.
I wonder if that was because of climate change as well.
http://www.wdsu.com/.../most-of-louisiana-much.../35865038
I think there is a serious question as to whether climate change caused the front to become so intense, but as pointed out above, I am skeptical. When computer models predict everything, they predict nothing.
Significant parts of the flooded area in Baton Rouge are not considered flood plains. My in-laws' house is 4 miles from the flooded Amite River, has never been flooded before, and was under two feet of water on Sunday.
Yes, Louisiana is losing land, which could be attributed to many factors including climate change and disruption of natural river delta replenishment. However, this flood isn't happening because of any sea level rising. Nowhere could handle 25+ inches of rain. with an estimate four trillion gallons of water, over three days and not have widespread flooding.
3
Global warming is adding energy to weather systems. The pot is being stirred harder and harder, and there are more extremes as a result.
9
"However, this flood isn't happening because of any sea level rising. Nowhere could handle 25+ inches of rain." You're right. I assume you're not saying that therefore climate change is a hoax. Obviously these rains are due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, which is caused by - guess what? - climate change.
3
I think you misunderstood the point. Yes, there will be flooding from rising sea levels. But there will also be flooding from "extreme weather" events such as the rains occurring in Louisiana and Moscow. One cause of flooding can be independent from the other, but both are predicted outcomes from climate change.
13
The extremists right wing of the Republican Party are irresponsible and delusional. What else could we expect from them but the rant that climate science is a hoax? These congressmen and women are elected by gerrymandered safe districts and are as narrowly tribal in their politics as those who vote for them, and are financially beholding to donors who are connected to the energy industries. Further, their delusional systems are self-fulfilling, as they usually blame others, such as"liberals," for the very acts of national sabotage that they actually do themselves. They have a seriously nasty tendency to project blame on the "others" to maintain their sense pf moral purity that renders themselves incapable of even the most banal insights into themselves. And the energy baron donor class ensures their survival, because their own power and income is enhanced and protected that way. There is little room for optimism in this pitifully puerile portion of the electorate who keep this ugliness going in the midwestern, southwestern and southern states.
22
Eight 'once in 500 year' rain events in about 16 months.
Oh well - at least we know there won't be another one for at least 4000 years eh? No - I know it isn't funny.
Just maybe it has something to do with the extra 7% of moisture that is now in the 1C warmer atmosphere? Maybe something to do with the record warm ocean temperatures - especially in the Gulf. Or it could just be some kind of FANTASTIC coincidence that things are turning out just the way the climate scientists have been projecting for years.
You decide.
Oh well - at least we know there won't be another one for at least 4000 years eh? No - I know it isn't funny.
Just maybe it has something to do with the extra 7% of moisture that is now in the 1C warmer atmosphere? Maybe something to do with the record warm ocean temperatures - especially in the Gulf. Or it could just be some kind of FANTASTIC coincidence that things are turning out just the way the climate scientists have been projecting for years.
You decide.
32
Listened to a guy go on for 10 minuets how much warmer it is in Asheville., since the 80's Then he said but, its amazing the glaciers are not melting. End of conversation. Shows dumb people will believe anything their told if they like what they hear. Their is a sucker born every minute.
10
Louisiana has had some of the worse flooding in North America and it is not going to get better; the experts say the beach side is disappearing at an alarming pace. Why to spend money in those areas? It makes more sense to relocate those communities to safer regions where they can prosper and live knowing that tragedy won't struck every year. It is good for the people, better for the environment, and best for the economy.
11
Norway is fairly well situated regarding sea level rise as it fjords deepen some.
But a large proportion of the population of Bangladesh lives on the sinking delta and they are hemmed in by two countries building walls to make sure they don't escape.
Half that country is going to disappear. It will disappear in catastrophic storms.
It will be horrific and it will be televised. Will we turn off our TVs?
But a large proportion of the population of Bangladesh lives on the sinking delta and they are hemmed in by two countries building walls to make sure they don't escape.
Half that country is going to disappear. It will disappear in catastrophic storms.
It will be horrific and it will be televised. Will we turn off our TVs?
14
Both Steve Fankuchen and Matty in NYT Picks make important points, as does the title, "Flooding in the South looks a lot like climate change. "Looks like" is not the same as "is".
If people want to see a signal of climate change and global warming in the data, then look at any number of measures (e.g., temperature, sea level rise, glacial melting, etc.) that have changed over time and have coincided with human caused events. Then add non-human caused factors that also might cause climate change into the model that could possibly cause these changes. In this way climate scientists can discard variables that do not add explanatory power to the model. At this point, climate models show the influence of heat trapping gases release by the burning of fossil fuels on climate is the most likely explanation for global warming.
Individual weather events have very little explanatory power in climate models. Nor can one say that man-induced climate change is responsible for these singular events, no matter how dramatic they are. The best data with the strongest signal are long term data.
If people want to see a signal of climate change and global warming in the data, then look at any number of measures (e.g., temperature, sea level rise, glacial melting, etc.) that have changed over time and have coincided with human caused events. Then add non-human caused factors that also might cause climate change into the model that could possibly cause these changes. In this way climate scientists can discard variables that do not add explanatory power to the model. At this point, climate models show the influence of heat trapping gases release by the burning of fossil fuels on climate is the most likely explanation for global warming.
Individual weather events have very little explanatory power in climate models. Nor can one say that man-induced climate change is responsible for these singular events, no matter how dramatic they are. The best data with the strongest signal are long term data.
9
From a 1981 NY Times article about a climate paper by NASA scientist James Hansen.
"The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ''almost unprecedented magnitude'' in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ''flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world'' within a century or less."
Modern ice sheet models are only now catching up to what Hansen warned about 35 years ago.
And we are still ignoring him and other climate scientists at our peril.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-coul...
"The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ''almost unprecedented magnitude'' in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ''flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world'' within a century or less."
Modern ice sheet models are only now catching up to what Hansen warned about 35 years ago.
And we are still ignoring him and other climate scientists at our peril.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-coul...
29
Well, we are 35 years into their prediction increases of 15 to 20 feet in sea level and it looks like everything is still pretty static. Not much of Florida or Louisiana has disappeared. maybe the next 35 years will be different
A LOT of Louisiana has disappeared. Granted sea level rise is not the only factor....but to state that Louisiana is not disappearing belies all facts and renders your comment moot. Just Google "LA coastal wetlands" and educate yourself.
17
Barrier islands in the Chesapeake are already getting uninhabitable- like Tangier Island. It is happening everywhere not just in the deep south.
Ironic that we all have instant access to this information if we want to know. For those that do not, it is willful ignorance.
Ironic that we all have instant access to this information if we want to know. For those that do not, it is willful ignorance.
3
Readers here say buy hybrids, recycle, lower your carbon footprint, etc. But that's not enough. A Carbon Tax. A Carbon Tax. A Carbon Tax. Use all the revenue to subsidize the purchase of renewables. On vehicles a combination of the highest mpg and lowest price to receive the highest subsidies, and bigger and more long lasting subsidies to install solar and wind electricity generation. TVA could be solar with hydro back-up tomorrow--No Coal--with the right incentives. Solar is already cheap, but both TN Senators, as are all Republicans, are on the take from the oil/coal industry. The entire Gulf Coast could be solar tomorrow with hydro/natural gas back-up. Batteries and other renewables will eventually take up the slack. Take the initial investment out of the Defense budget. They won't miss it, and are actually For a switch to renewables. Begin with the $5 billion investment promised immediately in Paris. Let the Corps of Engineers and TVA handle it together.
Half way measures, like cap and trade, and depending on individual savings won't work. A Carbon Tax and massive investment in renewables will. CO2 ppm is still going up. The warming we already have, which will feed on itself--i.e. additional warming--is already catastrophic. CO2 ppm need to come down. Aiming for Zero emissions is the way to do it.
China and cities in Asia will follow. There it's also a situation of not being able to breathe the air. Also Save forests--Live with Nature, not conquer it.
Half way measures, like cap and trade, and depending on individual savings won't work. A Carbon Tax and massive investment in renewables will. CO2 ppm is still going up. The warming we already have, which will feed on itself--i.e. additional warming--is already catastrophic. CO2 ppm need to come down. Aiming for Zero emissions is the way to do it.
China and cities in Asia will follow. There it's also a situation of not being able to breathe the air. Also Save forests--Live with Nature, not conquer it.
18
Nuclear power would do it. And India could afford it as well. That is, if it's really a crisis.
3
Maybe its time to move back up north. The crooked governor here won't even let his administration mention the words climate change. Floriduh...
12
Why the worry? Earth will always be around, just not humans when we become extinct, maybe some Supreme being will recreate us again
8
"when we become extinct, maybe some Supreme being will recreate us again"
Why?
Why?
14
D......yes, the "planet" as a barren rock in space may be around for a very long time. But it takes millions of years for ecosystems to restore after extinctions to evolve the rich biodiversity we take for granted. Even such simple things as a leaf or a bird song are extraordinary, fine-tuned evolutionary feats found nowhere else in the known universe. Given human arrogance, disrespect and ingratitude, why would any "Supreme Being" waste creation on us again?
10
Ilya Prigogine : 1977 Nobel Prize for work on thermodybamics of non-equilibrium systems. 1984 - "Order Out of Chaos" written for laymen: When at an interface, there will be wild fluctuations until a new pattern is achieved. This is what we're seeing: expect more severe weather until the new setpoint 'warming' sets in.
8
The places most vehement in their denial are going to be affected most. Let's see if Republicans live up to their "small government" claims and do away with flood insurance for anything more than one 100 year flood every 100 years. Trying to have sympathy but sometimes schadenfreude is more enjoyable.
15
So ice sheets exposed to warming oceans can melt faster. There's 3-4m of sea level rise equivalent of ice on West Antarctica sitting on land as low as 1km below sea level, so it is bathed in warming oceans. And in the East there's 20m similarly situated.
In the Amundsen Sea of West Antarctica the land slopes down as you head inland from the shore, so the ocean can follow a calving front at Thwaites Glacier all the way back to the transantarctic mountains. That's why two independent teams of scientists reported in 2014 that it was irreversibly collapsing, nothing to stop 3m of sea level rise.
Yet we do nothing. Are we waiting for similar news about the 20m in East Antarctica?
In the Amundsen Sea of West Antarctica the land slopes down as you head inland from the shore, so the ocean can follow a calving front at Thwaites Glacier all the way back to the transantarctic mountains. That's why two independent teams of scientists reported in 2014 that it was irreversibly collapsing, nothing to stop 3m of sea level rise.
Yet we do nothing. Are we waiting for similar news about the 20m in East Antarctica?
17
You can believe the degreed experts or believe those with no scientific knowledge. Hard to comprehend how people make that choice.
A number of social and psychological studies as well as common sense indicate a huge number of people reject facts and consensus science whenever they are in conflict with deeply held pre-existing beliefs, cultural values and political views.
Many think that burning every gram of carbon fuel is good for society, it can't possibly cause harm. Don't tell me it will damage anything, that's not what I believe. People gravitate to information that confirms what they already hold as true. When climate science runs into strong contrarian beliefs, naturally it's simply rejected.
Time of course for the right wing politicians, corporations and voters to take the blinders off. Very hard of course when they will reject out of hand any info that contradicts their values.
Don't know what will open their eyes, but maybe 2 feet of rain in 4 hours in Lafayette will get them thinking that maybe scientists really do have valid reasons we should all be concerned about climate change. And move as rapidly as possible to clean, renewable energy sources.
More massively painful impacts in the future is the other option. With everyone's home rebuilt or relocated at taxpayer expense of course.
Hope people vote for the party of science and sanity, then we might have a chance.
A number of social and psychological studies as well as common sense indicate a huge number of people reject facts and consensus science whenever they are in conflict with deeply held pre-existing beliefs, cultural values and political views.
Many think that burning every gram of carbon fuel is good for society, it can't possibly cause harm. Don't tell me it will damage anything, that's not what I believe. People gravitate to information that confirms what they already hold as true. When climate science runs into strong contrarian beliefs, naturally it's simply rejected.
Time of course for the right wing politicians, corporations and voters to take the blinders off. Very hard of course when they will reject out of hand any info that contradicts their values.
Don't know what will open their eyes, but maybe 2 feet of rain in 4 hours in Lafayette will get them thinking that maybe scientists really do have valid reasons we should all be concerned about climate change. And move as rapidly as possible to clean, renewable energy sources.
More massively painful impacts in the future is the other option. With everyone's home rebuilt or relocated at taxpayer expense of course.
Hope people vote for the party of science and sanity, then we might have a chance.
80
Don't hold your breath for any big enlightenment moment to occur with these doctrinaire fascists who think that the very phrase "global warming" is communist-inspired liberal propaganda. They would rather exercise the "nukular" option (as their beloved W43 mispronounced it) than accept the truths of science. That is, until it's time for a lifesaving medical procedure to be performed on one of them...
3
You mean the party that will spend give more money to Iran than to Louisiana flood victims?
The party that supports foreign refugees more than it's own homeless and veterans?
The party whose presidential candidate doesn't know what a classified email looks like?
The party that has members of Congress that speculate on whether Guam will 'tip over' if we place too many members of the military on it or whether the Mars rover will find the flags we planted there during the Apollo program?
The party that thinks legal guns are more responsible for the death of children than abortion?
The party who's been in charge of 'education reform' since the 1960's and has produced Ivy Leauge college students that think it's a good thing that Karl Marx is running as a 'third party' candidate since Bernie dropped out and supported Hillary?
The party that supports foreign refugees more than it's own homeless and veterans?
The party whose presidential candidate doesn't know what a classified email looks like?
The party that has members of Congress that speculate on whether Guam will 'tip over' if we place too many members of the military on it or whether the Mars rover will find the flags we planted there during the Apollo program?
The party that thinks legal guns are more responsible for the death of children than abortion?
The party who's been in charge of 'education reform' since the 1960's and has produced Ivy Leauge college students that think it's a good thing that Karl Marx is running as a 'third party' candidate since Bernie dropped out and supported Hillary?
Some people prefer to confirm their low-information biases by talking to the person next to them at the bar.
In London a pro-Brexit spokesperson was being interviewed about how his followers would cope with some of the dire predictions coming from economists.
His reply: "Experts!? My people are tired of hearing from experts!"
In London a pro-Brexit spokesperson was being interviewed about how his followers would cope with some of the dire predictions coming from economists.
His reply: "Experts!? My people are tired of hearing from experts!"
Consider that the Pentagon recently "released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages."
And consider that many of our lawmakers have been slowing action on this "immediate threat to national security" in return for petrodollars. Why is this not a crime punishable by long prison sentences? (and this also goes for those paying the bribes)
Imagine the response if they were increasing our exposure to another threat to national security (albeit a lessor one) named IS
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presen...
And consider that many of our lawmakers have been slowing action on this "immediate threat to national security" in return for petrodollars. Why is this not a crime punishable by long prison sentences? (and this also goes for those paying the bribes)
Imagine the response if they were increasing our exposure to another threat to national security (albeit a lessor one) named IS
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presen...
20
Thank you, Erik. The Pentagon report should be brought up more often. Those concerned about national security and immigration might want to consider the Middle East is predicted to become uninhabitable:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=climate+chan...
And where will all those people go?
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=climate+chan...
And where will all those people go?
9
There are two scientific principles that people need to understand:
1. Warmer air can contain a greater amount of water vapor than can the same volume of colder air. Warmer air leads to wetter storms.
2. Storms extract heat energy from the surfaces that they traverse. Hotter surface temperature translates into more energy and more violent storms.
Am I imagining it, or are we seeing stronger storms with larger rain content than in years past? If that is true, it argues strongly that things are warmer than in the past.
You can't fool Mother Nature. She does not care what YOU believe.
1. Warmer air can contain a greater amount of water vapor than can the same volume of colder air. Warmer air leads to wetter storms.
2. Storms extract heat energy from the surfaces that they traverse. Hotter surface temperature translates into more energy and more violent storms.
Am I imagining it, or are we seeing stronger storms with larger rain content than in years past? If that is true, it argues strongly that things are warmer than in the past.
You can't fool Mother Nature. She does not care what YOU believe.
25
Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, South Carolina.
Five states. Eight climate change denying Senators. (Nine if you judge Joe Manchin by his voting record rather than his lip service.)
Do you people really want to keep voting for these clowns?
Five states. Eight climate change denying Senators. (Nine if you judge Joe Manchin by his voting record rather than his lip service.)
Do you people really want to keep voting for these clowns?
40
I like the final quote--"When Zillow starts warning about sea level rise, it may be time to start worrying about sea level rise." Insurance underwriters have been recalculating risks for several years to cover their ... investments.
Yes, god forbid we would listen to the climate scientists on this. Just put it in people's facebook news feeds and let some extreme weather event interrupt a Fox News climate denier losing his place when the teleprompter is swept away on the Sean Hannity show.
And woe to vulnerable residents who will have to depend on the National Flood Insurance Program, so badly discredited as a tool of the insurance industry after the Fronline episode this spring.
Yes, god forbid we would listen to the climate scientists on this. Just put it in people's facebook news feeds and let some extreme weather event interrupt a Fox News climate denier losing his place when the teleprompter is swept away on the Sean Hannity show.
And woe to vulnerable residents who will have to depend on the National Flood Insurance Program, so badly discredited as a tool of the insurance industry after the Fronline episode this spring.
13
Evidence is just another way of helping people accept the body of knowledge that supports earth's reality. We are so accustomed to exploiting cheap nature, beginning with Genesis which told us the earth is here to serve us, that we have a hard time accepting that earth's systems operate independently of our desires and will. We, earth's largest predator, an expanding population with growing appetites on a finite planet, are approaching the limits of what earth can support. We have no innate right to more of the world's goods than those who cannot take hot and cold running water for granted, either, so they too will be wanting TVs and easy transport, heat and A/C, light switches, and all, which will add to the already huge burden we impose on our hospitable home.
We wish it weren't so, because it means drawing back our infinite demands and sharing and working together to solve problems, and we have become used to our comforts. I understand, I feel it too.
But here we all are, and floods like this are just one of many signs (the west Pacific is also being devastated as we speak, and there's a big storm in the Arctic that may be dispersing ice).
Back in June I collected some of older videos on the subject, here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/global-warning/#comment-95394
I hope you will take a look, as there's no room here; it includes Bells Labs, 1958: Lyndon Johnson, 1965; Isaac Asimor referring to 1969 (in 1989); and Margaret Thatcher, 1989. This is not new!
We wish it weren't so, because it means drawing back our infinite demands and sharing and working together to solve problems, and we have become used to our comforts. I understand, I feel it too.
But here we all are, and floods like this are just one of many signs (the west Pacific is also being devastated as we speak, and there's a big storm in the Arctic that may be dispersing ice).
Back in June I collected some of older videos on the subject, here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/global-warning/#comment-95394
I hope you will take a look, as there's no room here; it includes Bells Labs, 1958: Lyndon Johnson, 1965; Isaac Asimor referring to 1969 (in 1989); and Margaret Thatcher, 1989. This is not new!
7
That was Bell Labs and Asimov, typos, aargh. But I returned to post this written by Bill McKibben in 2012, which was much cooler than now, with the roller coaster still gathering steam:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new...
"here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe."
There's lot's more maths in there, for those who don't think he knows science! He covers the undoubted fact that we need to leave a lot of fossil fuels in the ground.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new...
"here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe."
There's lot's more maths in there, for those who don't think he knows science! He covers the undoubted fact that we need to leave a lot of fossil fuels in the ground.
7
At 13 years old, I saw the Bell Lab's film back in 1964 at a junior high school assembly. At that age, I was a believer in the predictive power of science and this film left a lasting impression on me. In October 1998, Hurricane Mitch's effects were felt from Honduras to where I was working as a hunting guide high in the Colorado Rockies. It rained non-stop for days on end. The hunters hunkered down in the soggy cook tent and waited out the storm which finally dumped about two feet of snow on us. I mentioned to one of the young hunters that this crazy weather was most likely an effect of climate change. He scoffed at that and said there's no such thing as climate change; his grandpa told him so and that was that. And so it goes. Seems that when the gullible are presented with solid peer reviewed evidence alongside a gussied up pig, they'll kiss the stupid lipstick smeared pig everytime. They say you can't fix stupid.
2
And why do no politicians step up and say "now is the time to institute a carbon tax so we will have a fund of money to pay for these events because FEMA is not going to be able to keep up and anyway, why should tax payers who do their best to not contribute to climate change be forced to pay for the recovery of everyone else? I don't want to, I already have a very light footprint and my next big purchase is solar panels and an electric car. Why are the costs of protecting and recovering people and homes never talked about when the climate deniers say we can't afford to change our habits? Even most of the Democrats are silent on this--of course, because they get campaign finance money from big oil. When will enough be enough?
15
Republicans down there in Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma. When will you realize that there are consequences of voting for climate deniers like the good Senator Inhofe, Senator Cornyn, etc.
If you like packing sandbags and swamping muddy water out your house's vote Republican. If not, may I suggest that you vote in people who recognize that there are consequences of not addressing global warming.
If you like packing sandbags and swamping muddy water out your house's vote Republican. If not, may I suggest that you vote in people who recognize that there are consequences of not addressing global warming.
26
It's time to eliminate Frderal disaster insurance for future floods. It will bankrupt the country more than SocialSecurity and Medicate.
8
Sea level rise, being very non-linear, can be lulling. At somewhere a little above 3mm per year now, that's only a third of a meter in a century, if it continued at that rate. Here's a graph of post glacial sea level rise, note the curve at Meltwater Pulse 1A. It's very non-linear. http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/post-glacial_sea_level.png
An article in the Guardian from 2014 noted that ice sheet mass loss between 2009 and 2014 more than doubled. That's five years. Too short a time frame to accurately extrapolate long term doubling rates, but even a 10 year doubling rate nets 3m in around 60 years.
And as the glaciologist Richard Alley noted (in a recent talk you can find on YouTube called Slip Sliding Away), mass loss happens in spurts. As one section of an ice sheet loses its grip on land it slips. So although we know that multi-meter sea level rise is possible in century time frames, it may be that a large portion of one century's sea level rise occurs during a short time frame.
Think of ice sheet retreat as a retreating army, moving quickly from one hilltop to the next and then pausing. Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica has 3m of sea level rise equivalent of ice holding on to undersea mountains by its fingernails and debris evidence indicates that in the past a large section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost its grip on land and slid quickly a long way into the ocean.
An article in the Guardian from 2014 noted that ice sheet mass loss between 2009 and 2014 more than doubled. That's five years. Too short a time frame to accurately extrapolate long term doubling rates, but even a 10 year doubling rate nets 3m in around 60 years.
And as the glaciologist Richard Alley noted (in a recent talk you can find on YouTube called Slip Sliding Away), mass loss happens in spurts. As one section of an ice sheet loses its grip on land it slips. So although we know that multi-meter sea level rise is possible in century time frames, it may be that a large portion of one century's sea level rise occurs during a short time frame.
Think of ice sheet retreat as a retreating army, moving quickly from one hilltop to the next and then pausing. Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica has 3m of sea level rise equivalent of ice holding on to undersea mountains by its fingernails and debris evidence indicates that in the past a large section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost its grip on land and slid quickly a long way into the ocean.
11
While sea levels are rising, deltas are sinking.
Half a billion people live in deltas. Major cities, think Cairo, think the Ganges, think New Orleans.
The deltas are sinking because of things like oil and water extraction and the upstream dams holding back the sediment that used to keep the deltas in balance.
If we get a few meters of sea level rise from West Antarctica, and a few meters from Greenland, and a few meters from around the Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica, and a few more meters from other areas around East Antarctica that can make icebergs, then you get a lot of meters.
This combination of land subsidence in the deltas with accelerating sea level rise and increasingly powerful storms doesn’t bode well for a lot of people.
These places likely won't go gradually, but in catastrophic storms, Katrina killed 1836 people. People really shouldn't be living in places like New Orleans for much longer.
Half a billion people live in deltas. Major cities, think Cairo, think the Ganges, think New Orleans.
The deltas are sinking because of things like oil and water extraction and the upstream dams holding back the sediment that used to keep the deltas in balance.
If we get a few meters of sea level rise from West Antarctica, and a few meters from Greenland, and a few meters from around the Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica, and a few more meters from other areas around East Antarctica that can make icebergs, then you get a lot of meters.
This combination of land subsidence in the deltas with accelerating sea level rise and increasingly powerful storms doesn’t bode well for a lot of people.
These places likely won't go gradually, but in catastrophic storms, Katrina killed 1836 people. People really shouldn't be living in places like New Orleans for much longer.
14
Also, there's developing and building shipping channels, like New Orleans OKGo.
These deltas used to silt up, and there was natural growth. But now we streamline the outflow to protect shipping and property.
These deltas used to silt up, and there was natural growth. But now we streamline the outflow to protect shipping and property.
10
Clearly we need to reduce tax rates, roll back pesky government regulations, drill baby drill, and let the free market solve this flooding problem.
13
.
.
We'll be reading articles like this until 2050, whatever steps we take to limit our future impact on the climate. Some things take a while to undo.
This piece makes the realities easier to grasp, so no one can look away.
.
We'll be reading articles like this until 2050, whatever steps we take to limit our future impact on the climate. Some things take a while to undo.
This piece makes the realities easier to grasp, so no one can look away.
6
Here is a simple example of how climate change can affect weather. Tropical cyclones derive their strength from warm water and much of the resulting damage is due to storm surge. Add heat to the system and a higher base sea level and you get more destructive storms. This is not exactly rocket science.
I don’t think one can say that global warming caused Sandy, but ocean temperatures were several degrees above normal for both Sandy and typhoon Haiyan and sea levels were higher than before the Industrial Revolution, so global warming exacerbated the storms.
Another interesting thing about Sandy. Changes in the jet stream due to Arctic ice decline allowed Sandy to follow an unusual, and unusually damaging course; directly into land with the dangerous semi-circle of the storm piling water ashore.
If we wait to act until there’s a category 6 hurricane stalled for days over NYC or Miami on top of 2m of sea level rise it will be too late.
I don’t think one can say that global warming caused Sandy, but ocean temperatures were several degrees above normal for both Sandy and typhoon Haiyan and sea levels were higher than before the Industrial Revolution, so global warming exacerbated the storms.
Another interesting thing about Sandy. Changes in the jet stream due to Arctic ice decline allowed Sandy to follow an unusual, and unusually damaging course; directly into land with the dangerous semi-circle of the storm piling water ashore.
If we wait to act until there’s a category 6 hurricane stalled for days over NYC or Miami on top of 2m of sea level rise it will be too late.
16
Hello kindred observer!
I kept my family alive through Sandy, so I had reason to watch it closely, and a meteorologist friend let me know about it several days before the news broke, which helped me plan.
These things were characteristic of the changes in storms due to global warming: the way it became a hybrid with a northeaster (and got huge), the lateness in the season, and the blocking high over Greenland.
I kept my family alive through Sandy, so I had reason to watch it closely, and a meteorologist friend let me know about it several days before the news broke, which helped me plan.
These things were characteristic of the changes in storms due to global warming: the way it became a hybrid with a northeaster (and got huge), the lateness in the season, and the blocking high over Greenland.
5
Agreed about the flooding in the South as an indicator, but so too probably is megadrought and unprecedented wildfire in the West.
79
The media isn’t keeping people abreast of current climate science which is progressing rapidly. Already since the last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—suggesting a meter of sea level rise by 2100 was a worst case scenario, with 2/3 confidence—there’ve been dramatic advances, one being in ice sheet modeling.
Improvements in ice sheet models—see recent video below by the ice sheet modeler Prof Rob DeConto of the University of Massachusetts—which incorporated the physics of high unstable ice cliffs, have finally been able to replicate past fast sea level rise events, so they appear to be more useful than previous models.
The problem, according to Rob is the new models are showing continued burning of fossil fuels leading to several meters of sea level rise in 100 years and more than 10m in 500 years.
We really aren't prepared for that. So we need to stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK_8Pfo6wRk
Improvements in ice sheet models—see recent video below by the ice sheet modeler Prof Rob DeConto of the University of Massachusetts—which incorporated the physics of high unstable ice cliffs, have finally been able to replicate past fast sea level rise events, so they appear to be more useful than previous models.
The problem, according to Rob is the new models are showing continued burning of fossil fuels leading to several meters of sea level rise in 100 years and more than 10m in 500 years.
We really aren't prepared for that. So we need to stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK_8Pfo6wRk
12
The national security threat that climate change represents will make ISIS seem like a minor annoyance.
27
Keep on doing nothing and drill, baby, drill. I feel really sorry for my grandchildren.
13
This is why I don't like hearing the Olympic athletes say "God brought me here" after they win a medal. Actually it was most likely your relentless training that did it, it's pretty scientific. Attributing everything to a supreme being is also a way for people to disavow science & climate change, aka "it's God's plan." Actually no, we did this, and we are running out of time to fix it.
28
Plus a lot of carbon was expended to carry off the Olympics -- both the construction and the transport. People are flying way too much.
3
Who wants to put money on another once in a thousand year flood happening in the next year? I will.
22
I can almost hear Willie Soon: 'That'd be great! That would mean it wouldn't happen again for another 2000 years!' (now back to work on the scourge of sunspots)
Give or take a few more 'events,' extending that into the twilight of the anthropocene, I suppose.
Give or take a few more 'events,' extending that into the twilight of the anthropocene, I suppose.
3
Politics generally requires compromise, and what many of our leaders don't get is that you cannot compromise with physics. Earth has a tremendous energy imbalance right now. (It is more than equal to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima size atomic bombs every day, 365 days a year). That is how much extra energy the Earth is absorbing daily). Unless we get atmospheric CO2 concentration below 350ppm the planet will continue to heat dangerously.
Before reaching mean 1C we are already seeing catastrophes. In 2014 two independent teams of scientists reported that parts of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were irreversibly collapsing. It is being eaten away by warming oceans and energy is going into the net melting of ice all over the planet. Corals may not survive this century of warming and acidifying oceans.
Because of the decades long lag between a climate forcing and our feeling the effect, due to the thermal inertia of the world’s ocean, the effects we are feeling now are largely the result of emissions from the 20th century. And emissions have been increasing exponentially for decades.
We are also seeing numerous amplifying feedbacks, loss of albedo (heat reflectivity) from ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and massive wildfires; the Earth is starting to wrest any possible further human control of the climate away.
We're about out of time on this, if not already, and leaders are still acting as if this is not a planetary emergency.
Before reaching mean 1C we are already seeing catastrophes. In 2014 two independent teams of scientists reported that parts of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were irreversibly collapsing. It is being eaten away by warming oceans and energy is going into the net melting of ice all over the planet. Corals may not survive this century of warming and acidifying oceans.
Because of the decades long lag between a climate forcing and our feeling the effect, due to the thermal inertia of the world’s ocean, the effects we are feeling now are largely the result of emissions from the 20th century. And emissions have been increasing exponentially for decades.
We are also seeing numerous amplifying feedbacks, loss of albedo (heat reflectivity) from ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and massive wildfires; the Earth is starting to wrest any possible further human control of the climate away.
We're about out of time on this, if not already, and leaders are still acting as if this is not a planetary emergency.
43
As the article states this increase in flooding is not confined to the southern US. But, as the event that inspired this article occurred in the south I feel compelled to paraphrase a particularly obnoxious comment often used in the south; you may not believe in man made climate change, but man made climate change believes in you.
17
Not another dime for those states where GOP congresspeople who want to cut all spending for combating climate change. Every time these states have catastrophes--often of their own making--they are there with their hands out for their private jobs programs. That's is--move, get a job, find another way.
23
I attended public school back in the 60s-70s in the NY suburbs. I was lucky enough to score in the 95th percentile in pretty much all subjects, but my real love were the sciences. Unfortunately, even then, that love was uncommon. I felt like a nerd and the 50th ruled the cool.
I'll be darned if that 50th percentile isn't still "ruling the cool" by voting against science. I can see now why the founding fathers (so often brought up by these very sheep) wanted to prevent the unwashed masses from voting. IMO, those masses would include even the Harvard educated evangelicals like Senator Cruz. Those ignorant sellouts are going to take us all down with them.
What a disaster. I'm glad that I won't be around to see the worst of it. So sad...
I'll be darned if that 50th percentile isn't still "ruling the cool" by voting against science. I can see now why the founding fathers (so often brought up by these very sheep) wanted to prevent the unwashed masses from voting. IMO, those masses would include even the Harvard educated evangelicals like Senator Cruz. Those ignorant sellouts are going to take us all down with them.
What a disaster. I'm glad that I won't be around to see the worst of it. So sad...
13
Forget about rising again - instead, The South is going to be sinking.
10
The last 16 months have seen sequential temperature records.
But more alarming has been the acceleration o temperatures over those 16 months. Temps are increasing exponentially as though the earth had passed a tipping point with numerous feedback loops.
When the permafrost melts releasing millenia of methane, nature will have done with the noxious human species.
But more alarming has been the acceleration o temperatures over those 16 months. Temps are increasing exponentially as though the earth had passed a tipping point with numerous feedback loops.
When the permafrost melts releasing millenia of methane, nature will have done with the noxious human species.
6
Remember that global temperatures, when averaged over several years, have been going up fairly linearly over the last 40 years and that trend is expected to continue for a while.
A transfer of just a small percentage of the vast heat content of the oceans to the surface causes heat spikes on the land as we've seen during strong El Ninos.
Other impacts like extreme weather, ice melt and sea level rise are extremely nonlinear and will cause big changes over the next several decades.
A transfer of just a small percentage of the vast heat content of the oceans to the surface causes heat spikes on the land as we've seen during strong El Ninos.
Other impacts like extreme weather, ice melt and sea level rise are extremely nonlinear and will cause big changes over the next several decades.
6
I am a left-leaning Democrat. Also a Southerner, as are many friends and family members. And sorry to disappoint, but none resemble the ugly stereotypes I see portrayed with so much self-righteousness in these comments.
Still, I hope Northerners, who have reaped so many benefits from the US economy, which is based on fossil fuels, and of course our dubious wars in the Middle East, will not be treated in the future the way they treat the South. Because someone could come along and play the little game you are playing. That is, profiting off the eternal vilification of Southerners, while claiming moral superiority too.
But if you are lacking in kindness and empathy, you can play that game. Only problem is, we all have the problem, and it's partly from our own economy. A side-note for all you folks who went to school in the North--there's a whole intellectual tradition in the South critiquing industrialism. (Robert Penn Warren anyone? Eugene Odom?) But of course Southern thinkers are too stupid to be listened to, right?
In any case, an entirely different culture could come along and say the US deserves to suffer because our capitalist machine is spreading over the globe and causing devastation. So how about let's find smart solutions instead casting repetitive, facile aspersions?
In the meantime, to the firemen in Baton Rouge, and other public servants--thank you for your heroic efforts. My cousins in Baton Rouge say you're amazing.
Still, I hope Northerners, who have reaped so many benefits from the US economy, which is based on fossil fuels, and of course our dubious wars in the Middle East, will not be treated in the future the way they treat the South. Because someone could come along and play the little game you are playing. That is, profiting off the eternal vilification of Southerners, while claiming moral superiority too.
But if you are lacking in kindness and empathy, you can play that game. Only problem is, we all have the problem, and it's partly from our own economy. A side-note for all you folks who went to school in the North--there's a whole intellectual tradition in the South critiquing industrialism. (Robert Penn Warren anyone? Eugene Odom?) But of course Southern thinkers are too stupid to be listened to, right?
In any case, an entirely different culture could come along and say the US deserves to suffer because our capitalist machine is spreading over the globe and causing devastation. So how about let's find smart solutions instead casting repetitive, facile aspersions?
In the meantime, to the firemen in Baton Rouge, and other public servants--thank you for your heroic efforts. My cousins in Baton Rouge say you're amazing.
30
Well said, thank you.
3
I am myself in Florida and not exactly a Yankee. But the southern progressive tradition is extremely problematic, and I would look to the Communist-Black labor coalitions rather than Robert Penn Warren for my inspiration. The fact is that the Confederacy was not wiped out-- all those Jeff Davis and Robert E Lee Blvds everywhere you go and the hatred of public, state action in favor of a phony communitarianism. And its ideas have taken over the Republican Party. So sorry to say, much ails all of America and even more ails the south.
5
Well said! You may also appreciate my comment in reply to professor, NC
2
Climate Change couldn't be happening in the south because they don't believe in it.
19
So now climate change is being blamed for a stalled weather front. I suppose if there were less CO2 in the atmosphere, the front would have sailed right through, and there would have been little damage.
And you wonder why people are skeptical.
And you wonder why people are skeptical.
7
Nobody is "blaming" climate change. Climate change/global warming are being named as the likely cause of a variety of extreme events that are accelerating as the years go by. We are no longer being silent about cause and effect.
We are accumulating heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, which is increasing the energy ("heat) in the system, which is disrupting our planetary circulation (climate change). This is a delayed effect, and the last time we had this much CO2 in our atmosphere, the seas were over 20 feet higher than they are now. So that's what we have to expect, up to likely over 200 feet if we ignore the problem.
Climate is weather over space (the whole earth) and time (decades). At this point, some decades have already passed, and the consequences are getting bloody obvious. Time to stop arguing and start acting. It is shameful to go on making false arguments.
We are accumulating heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, which is increasing the energy ("heat) in the system, which is disrupting our planetary circulation (climate change). This is a delayed effect, and the last time we had this much CO2 in our atmosphere, the seas were over 20 feet higher than they are now. So that's what we have to expect, up to likely over 200 feet if we ignore the problem.
Climate is weather over space (the whole earth) and time (decades). At this point, some decades have already passed, and the consequences are getting bloody obvious. Time to stop arguing and start acting. It is shameful to go on making false arguments.
7
Actually, increasing green house gasses in the atmosphere causing higher temperatures in the Arctic does seem to alter jet stream patterns, resulting in a slower and "dippier" jet stream. This does increase the likelihood of stalled weather fronts.
2
Joseph, people are skeptical, because like you, they don't listen to any of the factual information presented to them or when they do, they deny it.
3
Is anyone on this thread or reading this article prepared to change any of their habits and choices to reduce their carbon footprint? Does anyone feel that their workplace, neighborhood, city, town, friends, whatever or whoever, has anything useful to offer towards personal goals of reducing fossil fuel emissions? Has anyone here found a useful, convenient way, in the mode of fitbit, to even measure the impact of their daily choices? To heck with theory -- what do are individuals who care prepared to do or change, personally, in service of a livable future, and are our institutions doing anything meaningful to support such changes?
59
Yes. Since this news became pretty solid in the 1980s, it's time to stop giving any wiggle room to climate science denial, no matter how "tolerant" you are of the multiple arguments out there.
This means defeating Trump and Republicans in a big way, and not staying home for midterms because the candidate doesn't excite you. Republicans are funded by big fossil, and the return on lobbying dollars are 100:1, nice work if you can get it. Overcome voter suppression, gerrymandering, intimidation, and all the other cheating to get Democrats in office, so we have support for collective action to solve problems, not just for the rich and powerful, but for all of us.
It means stop caring only for low gas prices, and buying fuel efficient cars when you get the chance. If you can moderate your meat consumption, do so. Don't sneer at people who can't or don't make the same sacrifices. Don't support blockbuster events that make you want to scream, don't waste. Don't buy the latest product and throw away the old if it still works fine. Don't let marketing persuade you that unreal is more important than real.
It means waking up to the fact that this is the biggest crisis humankind has ever faced, and that it is not yet in your face is no excuse. Wake up and join the community of humankind instead of hating and blaming.
Realize that science works and unjoin the blame game.
This means defeating Trump and Republicans in a big way, and not staying home for midterms because the candidate doesn't excite you. Republicans are funded by big fossil, and the return on lobbying dollars are 100:1, nice work if you can get it. Overcome voter suppression, gerrymandering, intimidation, and all the other cheating to get Democrats in office, so we have support for collective action to solve problems, not just for the rich and powerful, but for all of us.
It means stop caring only for low gas prices, and buying fuel efficient cars when you get the chance. If you can moderate your meat consumption, do so. Don't sneer at people who can't or don't make the same sacrifices. Don't support blockbuster events that make you want to scream, don't waste. Don't buy the latest product and throw away the old if it still works fine. Don't let marketing persuade you that unreal is more important than real.
It means waking up to the fact that this is the biggest crisis humankind has ever faced, and that it is not yet in your face is no excuse. Wake up and join the community of humankind instead of hating and blaming.
Realize that science works and unjoin the blame game.
18
Yes. Got solar panels, drive less, drive a Prius, compost, use less plastic, conserve energy and water. It all helps.
9
I chose to live in an apartment building close to where I work so I could get rid of my car. I commute by public transit, bicycle, walking, and zip car or uber when necessary, which is rarely.
So, yes, I've changed my life to lower my carbon footprint due to accepting my climate change responsibilities.
So, yes, I've changed my life to lower my carbon footprint due to accepting my climate change responsibilities.
4
Not another penny of insurance or infrastructure should go to homeowners on barrier islands.
Homeowners and businesses located in vulnerable coastal areas should be given notice of cancellation of flood insurance.
Homeowners and businesses located in vulnerable coastal areas should be given notice of cancellation of flood insurance.
7
Many of the areas that are flooding now have NEVER flooded in recent memory or records. Many of the homeowners whose houses have flooded were told that they didn't need it because their homes were not supposed to be flood-prone. And - Baton Rouge is not remotely a "barrier island."
6
If we wanted to move everyone out of harm's way, we'd have to buy them out. Can't just expect everyone stuck with a wet one in this game of musical chairs to up stakes and move at a loss.
2
What this discussion points to is the increasing social and economic costs that climate change will continue to levy. Consider the destabilizing political effects of the refugee crisis in Europe (many of whom, by the way, are climate refugees due to drought conditions in the Middle East (worst in 900 years.) That's just a small down payment.
5
Just so everyone has the facts, here are the 11 things addressing the environment taken from the GOP platform at their convention last month that deregulate pollution, halt any action to prevent climate change, and expand fossil fuel use:
1. Cancel the Clean Power Plan. This plan is the EPA's program to reduce carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. The GOP platform dismisses it as part of "the President's war on coal."
2. Build the Keystone XL pipeline and more like it.
3. Kill federal fracking regulations.
4. "Oppose any carbon tax.
5. Expedite export terminals for liquefied natural gas.
6. Abolish the EPA as we know it.
7. Stop environmental regulatory agencies from settling lawsuits out of court. This would wipe out the agency's ability to reduce emissions and slow climate change.
9. Turn federal lands over to states.
10. Revoke the ability of the president to designate national monuments.
11. Halt funding for the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UNFCCC is the treaty system through which the world's 195 nations work together to avoid catastrophic climate change.
So, after the platform calls for virtually eliminating all environmental protections, it then says, "The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists."
Thanks a lot, Republicans. And why do you southerners continue to vote for the GOP???
1. Cancel the Clean Power Plan. This plan is the EPA's program to reduce carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. The GOP platform dismisses it as part of "the President's war on coal."
2. Build the Keystone XL pipeline and more like it.
3. Kill federal fracking regulations.
4. "Oppose any carbon tax.
5. Expedite export terminals for liquefied natural gas.
6. Abolish the EPA as we know it.
7. Stop environmental regulatory agencies from settling lawsuits out of court. This would wipe out the agency's ability to reduce emissions and slow climate change.
9. Turn federal lands over to states.
10. Revoke the ability of the president to designate national monuments.
11. Halt funding for the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UNFCCC is the treaty system through which the world's 195 nations work together to avoid catastrophic climate change.
So, after the platform calls for virtually eliminating all environmental protections, it then says, "The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists."
Thanks a lot, Republicans. And why do you southerners continue to vote for the GOP???
125
Comment of the week! Thanks for bringing attention to that.
And the South is the region most averse to building public transit, designing communities to facilitate non-automotive transportation, or bringing passenger rail system up to world standards, thus ensuring that gasoline-powered transportation, a major contributor to global warming, proceeds as usual.
16
Our descendants will look back on this period and shake their heads.
With continued low interest rates, we could be preparing our infrastructure (like Trump building the seawall to protect his golf course) to meet the challenges of climate change and we could invest in research and innovative strategies.
But approximately half the country would rather adopt the ostrich strategy, due to ideology or cult religious theory.
With continued low interest rates, we could be preparing our infrastructure (like Trump building the seawall to protect his golf course) to meet the challenges of climate change and we could invest in research and innovative strategies.
But approximately half the country would rather adopt the ostrich strategy, due to ideology or cult religious theory.
25
In a nation where 60% identify themselves as Christian Evangelicals, who believe the world was "made" ten thousand years ago (and some of those might still think it is flat), hard to imagine any of them will be interested in knowing or doing anything about climate change. But if their homes were to become vulnerable, easy to imagine how swiftly they will rush to accept government aid subsidized by their fellow taxpayers. No problem with socialism there.
34
You know, Sir William Harvey's "Circulation of the Blood" is still only a theory, since science does not prove, merely weighs evidence in support of a hypothesis.
And yet you won't find one of these Young-Earth, Direct-Creation Science-Deniers refusing bypass surgery.
(They're OK with porcine grafts, too).
And yet you won't find one of these Young-Earth, Direct-Creation Science-Deniers refusing bypass surgery.
(They're OK with porcine grafts, too).
9
They, and the Gov of Louisiana, sure do a lot of praying after the fact, but not much praying or prepping beforehand. God helps those who help themselves.
6
This family living on the banks of a flooding river watches people passing by trying to leave before the situation worsens. 'Come with us!' yell people in passing boats. 'No, God will provide for us!' comes the reply.
Finally the water reaches and floods their home, and while the patriarch is on the roof (rest of the family left ...), he asks why God failed to save their home. God says 'Didn't you see those boats I sent?'
Finally the water reaches and floods their home, and while the patriarch is on the roof (rest of the family left ...), he asks why God failed to save their home. God says 'Didn't you see those boats I sent?'
10
There will be more flooding & low lying areas will be underwater. The evidence is undeniably clear. It may be too late for humankind to give up fossil fuels globally before permafrost thawing will be triggered and will release millions of tons of methane into the atmosphere and cause runaway release of global warming gasses and create an iceless world with much higher sea levels that will change nature of the human settlements.
I think our species will survive flooding but the real worry is the impact of ocean acidification that may dramatically do harm to the food web. Humankind will still be able to eat but our diet will need to dramatically change.
There is a possible pathway to avoid catastrophe, My colleague James Powell authored a recent book, "Silent Earth" which describes a technology solution to giving up fossil fuel and continue to improve our standard of living.
In summary, it involves creating cheap electric power with sustainable technologies including space based solar power beaming energy to Earth receiving stations. A portion of the electricity can be used to make synthetic gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from air and water. Finally, we could convert much of our transport system to 300 mph superconducting Maglev to transport passengers and freight.
Clearly, these development programs should be put on a wartime footing and Maglev space launch should be developed internationally.
I also think it would be smart to start monitoring the permafrost.
I think our species will survive flooding but the real worry is the impact of ocean acidification that may dramatically do harm to the food web. Humankind will still be able to eat but our diet will need to dramatically change.
There is a possible pathway to avoid catastrophe, My colleague James Powell authored a recent book, "Silent Earth" which describes a technology solution to giving up fossil fuel and continue to improve our standard of living.
In summary, it involves creating cheap electric power with sustainable technologies including space based solar power beaming energy to Earth receiving stations. A portion of the electricity can be used to make synthetic gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from air and water. Finally, we could convert much of our transport system to 300 mph superconducting Maglev to transport passengers and freight.
Clearly, these development programs should be put on a wartime footing and Maglev space launch should be developed internationally.
I also think it would be smart to start monitoring the permafrost.
11
And all that water -- a tragic waste -- flowing out of the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. It could be pumped onto the 300 mph+ Maglev Water Train consists heading west. This inter-basin transfer would generate funds for disaster assistance and co-insurance to help the flood victims in the Mississippi River basin, while at once providing sustaining resources for 30 million + people in the western U.S. Another resource is being squandered by failing to embrace available Superconducting Maglev freight technologies which can transport water cheaper than the multiple pipelines, energy inefficient pumps that comprise the limited long-haul methods now in use. This is about American technology leadership, energy efficiency, smart water resources management, and a decade or more of new job creation. Think boldly America. It can be done.
4
Any of you folks blaming "red staters" for this (or in the most hateful example, a poster who hopes "they all die")....
You'd better not be posting this from a nice air conditioned house! or have driven to work in an air conditioned car or ridden in an air conditioned bus!
You'd better -- that burns more fossil fuel than almost ANYTHING else!
You'd better be eating local and not cool ethnic foods that must be imported -- no fresh fruit in winter from Chile -- no coffee -- no chocolate -- no spices -- no imported olive oil! You'd better be a real locavore, and eating roots & tubers all winter long. And cook in LARD.
You'd better not have more than one child, either.
Because folks, EVERYTHING causes global warming. PEOPLE cause global warming. There are 7 BILLION people on this planet, all causing GLOBAL WARMING.
You cannot have 7 billion people and NOT have global warming....and if you are serious about fighting global warming, turn that A/C off immediately -- and start your new job, as a subsistence farmer -- in the dark -- hot & humid for months, no A/C -- and eating a diet of cabbage, onions, apples & tubers. Because nothing else will cure or stop GLOBAL WARMING.
You'd better not be posting this from a nice air conditioned house! or have driven to work in an air conditioned car or ridden in an air conditioned bus!
You'd better -- that burns more fossil fuel than almost ANYTHING else!
You'd better be eating local and not cool ethnic foods that must be imported -- no fresh fruit in winter from Chile -- no coffee -- no chocolate -- no spices -- no imported olive oil! You'd better be a real locavore, and eating roots & tubers all winter long. And cook in LARD.
You'd better not have more than one child, either.
Because folks, EVERYTHING causes global warming. PEOPLE cause global warming. There are 7 BILLION people on this planet, all causing GLOBAL WARMING.
You cannot have 7 billion people and NOT have global warming....and if you are serious about fighting global warming, turn that A/C off immediately -- and start your new job, as a subsistence farmer -- in the dark -- hot & humid for months, no A/C -- and eating a diet of cabbage, onions, apples & tubers. Because nothing else will cure or stop GLOBAL WARMING.
9
The choice is not between going back to cave-dwelling and doing nothing.
20
You nailed it.
Except for this one thing: while 'Red staters' are not to blame for causing GLOBAL WARMING, red staters CAN be blamed for claiming it doesn't doesn't exist - for choosing to 'not believe in' it, as if it were like 'not believing in' the G*d of a different religion or the thousand angels on the head of a pin.
Red states have not figured out that there is no such choice as 'believing in' or 'not believing in' science - rather, one BELIEVES scientifically-described reality, because when it comes to BELIEVING REALITY one has NO CHOICE. It's there. Believe it. Really. That's the reality.
Except for this one thing: while 'Red staters' are not to blame for causing GLOBAL WARMING, red staters CAN be blamed for claiming it doesn't doesn't exist - for choosing to 'not believe in' it, as if it were like 'not believing in' the G*d of a different religion or the thousand angels on the head of a pin.
Red states have not figured out that there is no such choice as 'believing in' or 'not believing in' science - rather, one BELIEVES scientifically-described reality, because when it comes to BELIEVING REALITY one has NO CHOICE. It's there. Believe it. Really. That's the reality.
15
Imagine a fanatic evangelical talking away to a friend on his smart phone suddenly exclaiming, "Y'all don't believe in science, do ya?"
1
And a lot of these folks will still vote for Trump. And want federal government assistance but do not believe in the federal government. Go figure.
31
And just wait -- all that standing water will give mosquitoes a perfect breeding ground, so the flood tragedy may well be followed by a Zika tragedy. Not to mention other viruses.
16
Houston surgeon
" Why has it been the quietest decade for hurricanes for 50 years? "
Warmer Waters Are Making Pacific Typhoons Stronger
Decades of storm data show that tropical cyclones in the Pacific are getting more intense as ocean temperatures rise
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/warmer-waters-are-making-pa...
" Why has it been the quietest decade for hurricanes for 50 years? "
Warmer Waters Are Making Pacific Typhoons Stronger
Decades of storm data show that tropical cyclones in the Pacific are getting more intense as ocean temperatures rise
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/warmer-waters-are-making-pa...
13
I wonder whether this might help convince Senators Marco Rubio and James Imhoff to change their views.
4
Senator Inhofe, spell please. But the real villains are currently Rep. Lamar Smith and Judicial Watch (who are also going after Clinton's emails), and Sen. Cruz. They are persecuting climate scientists and NOAA, using supposed freedom of information to demand years of personal correspondence because they want to "prove" that climate science is a conspiracy between President Obama and all the world's most credible scientists and publications. They are also doing the bidding of some of their biggest funders, big fossil and the Koch billionaire network, who think their quarterly profits are more important than the lives of younger members of their families.
10
When hell freezes over.
Though, given current climate trends, this seems unlikely.
Though, given current climate trends, this seems unlikely.
Although it is obvious that not EVERY weather event is necessarily related to climate change, the issue is that all too many people believe that NONE of them are. To these people I would offer the age-old "frog in the pot" metaphor:
If you drop a live frog into boiling water, it will jump out. If you place a frog in lukewarm water, and slowly bring the temperature up to a boil, it will sit there and boil to death.
We are all "frogs in the pot," and if we don't recognize that, we will all "boil to death."
If you drop a live frog into boiling water, it will jump out. If you place a frog in lukewarm water, and slowly bring the temperature up to a boil, it will sit there and boil to death.
We are all "frogs in the pot," and if we don't recognize that, we will all "boil to death."
7
Why then do you not accept that sometimes a cool day in July might signify that global warming might not be as intense as we thought? The answer is that you are a one way thinker. One way thinking NEVER gets you to the truth.
This makes no sense. If your house is on fire, and you find a small part that has not yet burned, do you doubt that there is still an urgent issue? Someone says to you, "Our house is on fire, we need to do something!" And your response is, "You are such a one-way thinker! Look at this little part that has not yet burned!"
7
Well, we just had a winter with lots of blizzards not long ago. That's down to increased water vapor, and if the temp is below freezing, that's what you get. Some of the north will see this as well, it's erratic.
It's hard to think about something that is a trend if you are used to ignore the whole globe and the pattern over time, but that is climate, and it has changed and is changing.
It's hard to think about something that is a trend if you are used to ignore the whole globe and the pattern over time, but that is climate, and it has changed and is changing.
3
Political and religious dogma will always Trump science and reason. Time for some more snowballs in the Senate Chamber red state Republicans?
6
Climate change (warming) seems quite real, hence, scary, if nothing is done. The facts are there, for us to take sensible measures to minimize the harm...but go tell that to the republicans, climate change-deniers, obstructing even common-sense measures in that regard. Hypocrisy? You bet.
2
Appropriately enough, NASA just announced that July was the hottest month on record and 2016 continues on pace to become the hottest year on record. July is the 10th straight month of monthly record high temperatures. 2016 will be the third straight record year. NOAA will undoubtedly announce similar results in a few days.
Instead of debating solutions this election year, we find ourselves concerned with such idiocies as whether Hispanic judges can be unbiased, walls 50 feet high and thousands of miles long, water boarding, and ideological tests for immigrants. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!
Instead of debating solutions this election year, we find ourselves concerned with such idiocies as whether Hispanic judges can be unbiased, walls 50 feet high and thousands of miles long, water boarding, and ideological tests for immigrants. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!
11
Hoax, contraction of Hoe-Axe, an adze, a tool used since ancient times to shape wood when building of boats. Maybe that life-size model ark should be not-so-dry docked in Louisiana. Just in case.
2
Not only are we 'not in Kansas anymore Toto', but 20 years from now we won't be in Oz, either. And 20 years after that, will there even be a place called Louisiana? The CO2 curve is an exponential function that leads to a singularity. Having volunteered to get on this ride, we should expect nothing less from its long-predicted effects.
1
So when red states suffer disproportionately from climate change, yet continue to disproportionately obstruct efforts to combat it, would that be considered ironic or tragic?
85
Both.
2
A large percentage of people in those states don't believe in global warming. Maybe these same people will now deny that there was flooding.
47
That'd be great if they deny there's flooding. Then we don't have to provide them disaster funding.
6
Disaster funding? I wouldn't want to insult them by even suggesting such a thing, since they believe in no government interference in their lives.
9
Sure, why not? Donald Trump denies that California is experiencing drought.
I share everyone's impatience with Republicans and other climate change deniers, but it's annoying to read comments from north-easterners sneering about their dumb southern brethren. After all, hundreds of millions of tax dollars were spent rebuilding norther-eastern coastlines after Sandy. I've visited so many places in New York and New Jersey that have been totally rebuilt, right along the coast, and now await the next devastating storm. And these are places where people believe climate change is real.
68
Unfortunately, Governor Christie has reneged on his "belief" and in any case he was more about giving relief funds to his development buddies than helping real victims.
There's only one solution: vote the bums out. Get some real, intelligent, compassionate human beings into government at every level; that would be Democrats, or - and believe me, there are or used to be plenty of these, moral compassionate Republicans in your primaries. Overcome the obstruction, the voter suppression, gerrymandering, intimidation, hacking and all, and vote!
There's only one solution: vote the bums out. Get some real, intelligent, compassionate human beings into government at every level; that would be Democrats, or - and believe me, there are or used to be plenty of these, moral compassionate Republicans in your primaries. Overcome the obstruction, the voter suppression, gerrymandering, intimidation, hacking and all, and vote!
17
This is no time to respond politically, because climate change and sea level rise knows no boundaries. Please don't preach to southern states; instead, persist in voting and activism that supports climate change science.
7
Yes those impacted by Sandy finally received their (justly deserved) compensation after much resistance from GOP factions.
But the Northeasts resident's "sneering", as you refer to it, might have a lot to do with the FACT that the South and the West pay far less but receive more Fed tax dollars benefits back than we do despite of their prevailing attitude that this is a "hoax". Maybe we're tiring of this irony.
But the Northeasts resident's "sneering", as you refer to it, might have a lot to do with the FACT that the South and the West pay far less but receive more Fed tax dollars benefits back than we do despite of their prevailing attitude that this is a "hoax". Maybe we're tiring of this irony.
These are the states whose politicians go furthest in denying global warming and climate change. Instead they all yap about how folks help each other in times of crisis. The Confederacy still needs its Reconstruction and revolution.
13
More nonsense from the global warmists. Somebody predicted floods around Baton Rouge? Cite an article. The Mississippi flooding is a 1000 year event? Doubt it. Bill McKibbin says this is predicted by climate change experts because the atmosphere is warming and rainfall increases? Why is there the worst drought ever across California and the western states? Does climate change work differently in California than in Louisiana? Wasn't there supposed to be an onslaught of killer hurricanes after Katrina? Why has it been the quietest decade for hurricanes for 50 years?
Just screaming that the sky is falling doesn't justify spending billions of dollars that might be better spent in another manner. It is worth asking whether the third world's impoverished are going to be helped by spending huge amounts of money on unproved carbon schemes. The carbon schemes and spending may make elites like McKibbin feel better but whether they will accomplish anything for the poor is an open question.
Just screaming that the sky is falling doesn't justify spending billions of dollars that might be better spent in another manner. It is worth asking whether the third world's impoverished are going to be helped by spending huge amounts of money on unproved carbon schemes. The carbon schemes and spending may make elites like McKibbin feel better but whether they will accomplish anything for the poor is an open question.
5
" More nonsense from the global warmists. Somebody predicted floods around Baton Rouge? Cite an article. "
Extreme rain events -
Record-breaking heavy rainfall events increased under global warming
07/08/2015 - Heavy rainfall events setting ever new records have been increasing strikingly in the past thirty years. While before 1980, multi-decadal fluctuations in extreme rainfall events are explained by natural variability, a team of scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research detected a clear upward trend in the past few decades towards more unprecedented daily rainfall events. They find the worldwide increase to be consistent with rising global temperatures which are caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. Short-term torrential rains can lead to high-impact floodings.
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/record-breaking-heavy-rai...
Extreme rain events -
Record-breaking heavy rainfall events increased under global warming
07/08/2015 - Heavy rainfall events setting ever new records have been increasing strikingly in the past thirty years. While before 1980, multi-decadal fluctuations in extreme rainfall events are explained by natural variability, a team of scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research detected a clear upward trend in the past few decades towards more unprecedented daily rainfall events. They find the worldwide increase to be consistent with rising global temperatures which are caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. Short-term torrential rains can lead to high-impact floodings.
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/record-breaking-heavy-rai...
2
Assuming that you are interested in answers to your questions, there are some good websites that will provide answers to your questions.
4
Climate change does manifest differently in different areas, due to wind patterns, regional climate patterns, where high and low pressure areas tend to persist or increase. Climate change also manifests in ocean acidification, which is thinning the shells of a number of mollusks and shifting marine animal populations. If you look up mapping forecasts, certain areas of the world will become more prone to drought, others more prone to monsoon-like weather; some will have higher temperature increases than others. Global climate change has never meant that every inch of the world will experience the exact same changes, intensifications, or reversals.
7
Record high temperatures, record low cold, record rain, record floods, record snow, record fires, record tornados, record drought, record this, record that. Coincidence? Or? What?
9
Look, I am firmly on the side of science, but this is not necessarily climate change. Your article yesterday, which did not accept comments, clearly stated "...areas that have never flooded before are not severely devastated and under water up to their roofs..." What does this mean? Well, for one thing, the Mississippy river is no longer allowed to run its course, Its dammed and leveed all along its length, from Minnesota to the delta.
Along the delta, the river has not been able to flood annually, spreading silt along its banks as it has done for millennia. It is this gradual buildup of its banks that kept these areas that "....have never flooded before..." mostly high and dry. But now, the absence of silt buildup along its banks together with levee walls that actually capture silt, causing the river level to rise higher within the levees, requiring requires building ever higher levees. AND, more importantly, those banks beyond the levees that are no longer annually inundated, are drying out and actually sinking - it is called SUBSIDENCE. Higher levees because of higher river levels. Sinking banks. It is a recipe for colossal disaster for areas that have "never flooded before.."
Along the delta, the river has not been able to flood annually, spreading silt along its banks as it has done for millennia. It is this gradual buildup of its banks that kept these areas that "....have never flooded before..." mostly high and dry. But now, the absence of silt buildup along its banks together with levee walls that actually capture silt, causing the river level to rise higher within the levees, requiring requires building ever higher levees. AND, more importantly, those banks beyond the levees that are no longer annually inundated, are drying out and actually sinking - it is called SUBSIDENCE. Higher levees because of higher river levels. Sinking banks. It is a recipe for colossal disaster for areas that have "never flooded before.."
71
Ok so it's not climate change. It's flooding. Another factor that is almost never mentioned is the amount of grading and compaction being done, especially during the late Housing Bubble. "Marginal" farmland in the millions of acres, consisting of pasture and forest with topsoil and diverse-vegetation sod thousands of years in the forming, was replaced with nursery sod laid on top of leveled subsoil. The result has been massive runoff from areas previously able to absorb and gradually release water.
In any case, a lot of those houses look newer, which tells me that over the past twelve or fifteen years, someone thought it all right to build in what geologists, not without a reason, call a "FLOODPLAIN."
Hello?
In any case, a lot of those houses look newer, which tells me that over the past twelve or fifteen years, someone thought it all right to build in what geologists, not without a reason, call a "FLOODPLAIN."
Hello?
1
Subsidence is responding to the combined effects of marsh ditching and canals for oil exploration, along with the effects of sea level rise; the latter of which is indeed a consequence of climate change.
2
You're missing the scale of this disaster. While I take exception to the person who compared it to Katrina (I was watching, and a week of camping on the roof asking for help being shown on national TV while President Bush said he didn't know about it), it's pretty bad. The amounts of rain are not in the range of normal you mention. They're just not. Check the figures, please (and note, there is a more recent entry with even more bad news):
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/historic-flood-event-in-lo...
The article lists the flood amounts, but does not include the 31 inches of rain that I saw somewhere earlier today. Andrew Freedman of Mashable does a good job of covering world weather events:
http://mashable.com/2016/08/15/louisiana-floods-causes-climate-change/
"Why the extreme Louisiana floods are worrying but not surprising"
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/historic-flood-event-in-lo...
The article lists the flood amounts, but does not include the 31 inches of rain that I saw somewhere earlier today. Andrew Freedman of Mashable does a good job of covering world weather events:
http://mashable.com/2016/08/15/louisiana-floods-causes-climate-change/
"Why the extreme Louisiana floods are worrying but not surprising"
4
Al Gore warned us. Al Gore told you so. And then everybody went off to do exactly what they were doing before Al Gore. Just like Ronald Reagan raising the speed limits after Jimmy Carter's initiatives, republicans continually give way to what they call progress. If this is what progress looks like, elect Donald Trump and you'll get yourself a face full.
16
Climate deniers get shellacked by Climate Change - I did not know that the wheels of Karma turned so fast.
Wake up folks, we still have time before it is too late. Vote the deniers out in November.
Wake up folks, we still have time before it is too late. Vote the deniers out in November.
13
And yet, Louisiana is home to a moderately large group of climate change deniers. In 2011, I attended a UN sponsored event in New Orleans to discuss the impact of Climate Change in the Caribbean, with nearly all the heads of state of Caribbean nations and their environmental ministers in attendance. In opening remarks, the mayor of Lake Charles, Louisiana got up and gave a rousing denunciation of climate change as a concept. An invention of rabid liberals, he claimed. The next speaker got up and discussed the fact that they'd lost 10% of their coastline over the last number of years to rising sea levels, and then asked the mayor to explain that, then. Surreal.
24
We have a pretty good idea what areas are likely to be underwater in the upcoming years. There should be programs incentivizing relocation for residents of those areas now. In the long run, it's a lot more effective than sending FEMA every time the same area floods.
61
All of which is why I am seriously considering moving further north, like to Vermont.
7
Forecasts--as mentioned in the article--are that the flooding will be worse there.
Think Canada , then you kids and grandchildren will be as ok
Yes, except remember that Boston got hammered with 107 inches of snow in only 6 weeks in winter 2014-15! New England is tiny - you better believe that VT got hammered with snow up the eaves of the roofs, record cold, etc. etc. And this summer up here is very, very dry - after a winter with temp spikes of 50 degrees in a 24 hour period and trees exploding because the freeze happened so quickly they did not have time to drop their water back down into the ground. Now that El Nino has passed, it looks like the Northeast will be hammered again this coming winter.
I remember a few years back when someone pointed out that we had already had 5 storms of the century and it wasn't even 2010 yet.
10
i'm pleased that, along with squirt gun emojis, the gender of god, the identity politics of bathrooms and the gold medals in rio, the NY Times has actually devoted some space to the impact of climate change -- you know, on news and events that will actually shape our future.
two decades from now, no one will really care about the iphone, rabbi theories, partisan politics or aging athletes. but everyone will be grinding their teeth with the mutter, "why didn't we see this coming sooner?"
in our time, of course, it's not "why didn't we see this coming sooner?" the newsworthy quote is instead: "what are we doing about it now?"
any reporters covering that story?
two decades from now, no one will really care about the iphone, rabbi theories, partisan politics or aging athletes. but everyone will be grinding their teeth with the mutter, "why didn't we see this coming sooner?"
in our time, of course, it's not "why didn't we see this coming sooner?" the newsworthy quote is instead: "what are we doing about it now?"
any reporters covering that story?
44
In order to have maximum credibility, climate scientists need to be careful about attributing weather events to climate change. In this regard, I would note that flooding is neither a weather or climate event. Flooding is a consequence of heavy rains and the ground soil's ability to absorb these rains. 10 inches of rain may or may not cause flooding, The best that climate scientists can do is o predict such rains. They should leave flooding predictions to experts in the ground's absorption or rain water.
1
I agree-climatologists are best at modeling climates, and hydrologists are best at modeling watersheds. However, you do need rain to cause flooding. Even very absorptive substrates can experience flooding-it just takes more of it, like the massive events described in the article.
But they don't exist in silos. Any hydrologist will tell you that it is impossible to predict flooding without an idea of the probability ranges of precipitation, which are modeled by climatologists. Any climatologist will tell you than fine-scale modeling of regional climate requires an understanding of the watersheds found there.
But they don't exist in silos. Any hydrologist will tell you that it is impossible to predict flooding without an idea of the probability ranges of precipitation, which are modeled by climatologists. Any climatologist will tell you than fine-scale modeling of regional climate requires an understanding of the watersheds found there.
4
Thanks to the neverending attack dogs of climate science deniers, aka unskeptical "skeptics" aka fake skeptics, scientists have been working hard at the science of attribution and have made some progress. So nowadays, instead of allowing the "no single" event can be attributed to be read as "no" event, they are actually drawing the connections between cause and effect. This is because all of us, including not only my family but yours, depend on acknowledging this slow-developing but inevitable change as soon as possible After four decades of denial and delay, it's time for us, the community of humankind, to act in our own best interests.
That means the arguing needs to stop occupying center stage, and since scientists are hardworking and intelligent, they're getting quite good at it.
For a simple place to go for evidence, try this: http://climate.nasa.gov/
But you need go no further than this paper:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/science/looking-quickly-for-the-finger...
That means the arguing needs to stop occupying center stage, and since scientists are hardworking and intelligent, they're getting quite good at it.
For a simple place to go for evidence, try this: http://climate.nasa.gov/
But you need go no further than this paper:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/science/looking-quickly-for-the-finger...
4
Ok, will US taxpayers be on the hook over and over again once these houses dry out and are rebuilt? Odds are this will happen again next year.
Hopefully all the Corexit dumped and laying on the bottom of the Gulf and the latest Shell spill 164 miles out in the Gulf that leaked too will be dispersed into the greater ocean once these waters recede.
To our brothers and sisters in the middle of this record flood, God didn't make the mess you are in, man has. Have there been climate changes as we are facing today such as has happened in the past, yes. They were due to being hit by meteors, volcanoes exploding and earthquake made tsunamis. TODAY HOWEVER we know that fossil fuels are causing the planet's demise. Your God knows this, it's about time you educated yourselfs about it also. Try putting your Faith before what you think especially if you aren't smart enough to learn more about the subject. Like maybe you want start with staying out of your vehicles when the tide is so high.
Hopefully all the Corexit dumped and laying on the bottom of the Gulf and the latest Shell spill 164 miles out in the Gulf that leaked too will be dispersed into the greater ocean once these waters recede.
To our brothers and sisters in the middle of this record flood, God didn't make the mess you are in, man has. Have there been climate changes as we are facing today such as has happened in the past, yes. They were due to being hit by meteors, volcanoes exploding and earthquake made tsunamis. TODAY HOWEVER we know that fossil fuels are causing the planet's demise. Your God knows this, it's about time you educated yourselfs about it also. Try putting your Faith before what you think especially if you aren't smart enough to learn more about the subject. Like maybe you want start with staying out of your vehicles when the tide is so high.
4
Unfortunately, there is too much in this article that encourages the confusion of weather and climate. People read "massive flooding" and "climate change" in the same piece, and the nuances and probabilities are lost. Not only is this bad science and dubious journalism but, in a certain sense, it is significantly worse. If you allow, let alone encourage, people to effectively cherry pick facts and interpretations, you functionally validate those who deny anthropogenic climate change through their own selectivity. You really don't want to give deniers the justification to claim that several cooler years or a snowstorm in Philadelphia in May would prove climate change is a hoax.
In any given year there will be weather outliers somewhere. If you use those to "prove" your point, then you validate contrary outliers. Anecdotal evidence fit into a preconceived narrative is an excellent way to organize people. However, it can cut both ways and is, in any case, lousy science.
In any case, lumping together "scientists, analysts and activists", thus implying equal authority, is absurd, when it comes to explaining the relationship of the current flooding to climate change. Also, the fact that models did not predict something may well mean the models were faulty, not that the facts are changing. Those of us who believe anthropogenic warming and consequent climate change are a serious problem often call the deniers unscientific. Acting in a similar manner will not help our struggle.
In any given year there will be weather outliers somewhere. If you use those to "prove" your point, then you validate contrary outliers. Anecdotal evidence fit into a preconceived narrative is an excellent way to organize people. However, it can cut both ways and is, in any case, lousy science.
In any case, lumping together "scientists, analysts and activists", thus implying equal authority, is absurd, when it comes to explaining the relationship of the current flooding to climate change. Also, the fact that models did not predict something may well mean the models were faulty, not that the facts are changing. Those of us who believe anthropogenic warming and consequent climate change are a serious problem often call the deniers unscientific. Acting in a similar manner will not help our struggle.
96
Steve had a very valid point here, I also was not thrilled to see Bill McKibben or the NRDC mixed in, without clarity, to the more science based sources. I value what McKibben and the NRDC do, but what they do is not attribution studies.
That said, Steve is also making a bit more of his objection than is warranted. Attributing an extreme 'outlier' like the flooding in Louisiana does *not* open the door for deniers to use a snow storm in Philly the same way. The reason is that climate change is altering the dynamics of climate and is making extremes in *both* directions more likely. So, when we see 500 year floods *and* 500 year droughts happening every 10 years, these events do not cancel out. Snow in Philly in May (actually the 2 feet I had in New Jersey in October some years back ...) and 70 degree weather in January are both attributable to global warming precisely because a warm atmosphere holds more water (i.e. more energy)
Steve also makes an observation about the 'models were faulty, not that the facts are changing'. Of course the answer here is that the models *are* faulty because the facts *are* changing. These models are tested and regressed against our growing body of observations through a process called hindcasting: using the model to predict what you know happened based on the same starting conditions.
25 inches of rain in 3 days is not model failure or just a statistical fluke when taken in context, it is a systemic change in our climate caused be us.
That said, Steve is also making a bit more of his objection than is warranted. Attributing an extreme 'outlier' like the flooding in Louisiana does *not* open the door for deniers to use a snow storm in Philly the same way. The reason is that climate change is altering the dynamics of climate and is making extremes in *both* directions more likely. So, when we see 500 year floods *and* 500 year droughts happening every 10 years, these events do not cancel out. Snow in Philly in May (actually the 2 feet I had in New Jersey in October some years back ...) and 70 degree weather in January are both attributable to global warming precisely because a warm atmosphere holds more water (i.e. more energy)
Steve also makes an observation about the 'models were faulty, not that the facts are changing'. Of course the answer here is that the models *are* faulty because the facts *are* changing. These models are tested and regressed against our growing body of observations through a process called hindcasting: using the model to predict what you know happened based on the same starting conditions.
25 inches of rain in 3 days is not model failure or just a statistical fluke when taken in context, it is a systemic change in our climate caused be us.
8
The cause of a particular weather event may be impossible to pinpoint, however, climatologists have definitely predicted more severe storms and weather extremes as indicative of climate change. Floods, droughts, temperature extremes........how many records must be broken before we stop calling them "outliers"?
5
Try this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/science/looking-quickly-for-the-finger...
Like Democrats, climate scientists are too willing to give in to the unrelenting, uncompromising attacks of climate science deniers, who are nothing but unskeptical self-labeled "skeptics"
Like Democrats, climate scientists are too willing to give in to the unrelenting, uncompromising attacks of climate science deniers, who are nothing but unskeptical self-labeled "skeptics"
2
What really frightens AGW deniers is they have no policy solution. Lower taxes and less regulation will not work; neither will the invisible hands of God and Adam Smith. For deniers, global warming can’t be real and the answer to man’s increasing need for energy is “drill baby drill”, which is a plan of least resistance; a Third World strategy of extraction and consumption. AGW deniers would rather close their eyes to the truth, live the delusion, and gamble on the outcome than accept that AGW is real because they fear the solution more than the problem. To deniers, reducing CO2 emissions means higher taxes, increasing regulation, and the loss of personal liberties, which means the end of cheap gas, big trucks, and florescent light bulbs to some, and Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism to others.
Published scientific papers and their data are produced by experts for experts. The oft-quoted Daniel Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” We need to keep the debate regarding AGW in the realm of rational science and out the realm of conspiracy theories and political quackery.
Published scientific papers and their data are produced by experts for experts. The oft-quoted Daniel Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” We need to keep the debate regarding AGW in the realm of rational science and out the realm of conspiracy theories and political quackery.
137
AGW believers are now also deniers, because they believe that AGW can be slowed or reversed in any meaningful time scale.
That would be quite false.
That would be quite false.
2
Holon, what really frightens AGW deniers is thinking about the billions and billions of dollars that will be thrown at this issue, which is totally beyond us, and get nothing in return. Pork barrel projects galore.
2
Unfortunately we are also experiencing a crisis in our public education system at the same time. Scientific evidence is dismissed as quackery while government openly professes belief in ancient writings like virgins giving birth, walking on water, and a "holy ghost".
Even with these frequent, off-the-charts climate disasters, GOP members of the U.S. House and Senate continue to believe climate change is a hoax. Their profound stupidity and inaction will bend the arc of this global catastrophe ever sharper toward climate collapse. History should record the name of each member of the House and Senate for his or her willful ignorance and contribution to the resulting global disaster. Future generations, dealing with the consequences, should never forget names on this list of shame. To the people of Louisiana: Nearly every one of your representatives is on that list.
29
Once again, probably the biggest perpetrators of all are the Koch Bros. whom while they spend millions bribing politicians who continually deny climate change and attempt to withdraw subsidies for more energy efficient systems, the K. Bros. are more than willing to accept the tax breaks and subsidies that go with their currently profitable and climate destroying fossil fuel business.
11
I'm sorry, you're wrong. There is no climate change in Louisiana (or Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, or West Virginia). In those states, and a few others, climate change is a "hoax." It's not real.
Keep voting that way, red states.
Also, keep buying sandbags and mops, pay heightened risk premiums for property insurance (regulations on companies are bad!), vote for Trump, prop up the coal industry, let your children continue to move to civilized states, and go to church! You'll be okay, really!
Keep voting that way, red states.
Also, keep buying sandbags and mops, pay heightened risk premiums for property insurance (regulations on companies are bad!), vote for Trump, prop up the coal industry, let your children continue to move to civilized states, and go to church! You'll be okay, really!
37
Ironic that the states most adversely affected are the ones represented in Congress by the climate change deniers.
29
It's a sign from God, and they are not getting the message!
2
Can't help but notice the very sanctimonious tone of commenters from places other than the South in their certainty of southern ignorance. Perhaps they need to be reminded that much of the devastation of these floods occurred not for from the main campus of LSU, a leading public and scientific research university, as well as one of the locations of a major particle accelerator. It feels very much like shaming the victims, rather than empathizing with them. It seems that there are many blue places and Democrats that share an unsavory trait with Mr. Trump...vilifying people, especially those in need, who think differently than you do.
9
Right. Refugees.
The problem is that a lot of people from Louisiana think climate change is a hoax. Even when they experience flooding, lose everything, well, Trump says climate change is a hoax, so, climate change must be a hoax.
Still, I empathize. Leaders should know better.
Still, I empathize. Leaders should know better.
3
Thank you Nancy.
2
Water tables will be infiltrated by saltwater from rising sea levels long before any houses are reclaimed by the ocean. Drinking water will move people out before they need boats to get out of their driveways.
8
"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere, on a global scale, through a steady increase in the burning of fossil fuel".
Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1965.
In a Special Message to Congress
Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1965.
In a Special Message to Congress
29
I just want to know one thing. Why do people consistently vote against their own best interests? It's like having a big mean black dog that always bites you when you feed it. Sooner or later, you have to catch on that somethings not right.
8
The idea of voting against ones best interest seems to be strictly an American trait. I really have never seen this anywhere else in any of the western industrialized democracies and I suppose much of it has to do with the limited political/ideological choice Americans currently have at their disposal and the considerable influence imposed by special interest groups and lobbyists who can control the information agenda.
I guess ultimately it also could have a lot to do with education and spending the time to study a subject rather than just watching television to get all ones information.
I guess ultimately it also could have a lot to do with education and spending the time to study a subject rather than just watching television to get all ones information.
8
So glad this issue is front and foremost in the presidential election. The world thanks you. Not. Bring it up to the top of the agenda, please.
10
But they won't heed the warnings, and the rest of us will have to continue to foot the bill for their ignorance.
And it's all the GOP elite's dream. After all, there is no profit in peace and stability.
And it's all the GOP elite's dream. After all, there is no profit in peace and stability.
14
Disaster Capitalism?
5
Let's say you predict that the chances of an event happening in city X are 1-in-1000 per year, and the event happens this year. That's pretty remarkable! However, let's say you made the same prediction for 1000 cities, and city X is the only one in which it occurred. Now that outcome is looking much less remarkable.
I just looked at the linked NOAA page (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/aep_storm_analysis/), and I didn't go through all of the details, but it appears that they ONLY create these products for specific locations after severe floods occur there. That's fine, but if you want to try to use those predictions to argue that floods are generally occuring more often than would be expected, you have to recognize that they demonstrate a pretty strong selection bias. The right way to make that case is to make predictions for lots of locations beforehand, not only for selected places retroactively after they've already experienced flooding.
I should point out that I'm no climate change denier; I've seen much stronger evidence than what is presented here and was convinced long ago. But my point is that if you want to make a really solid case, you have to do the statistics right. This article makes a pretty good argument, but ultimately its evidence is basically anecdotal.
I just looked at the linked NOAA page (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/aep_storm_analysis/), and I didn't go through all of the details, but it appears that they ONLY create these products for specific locations after severe floods occur there. That's fine, but if you want to try to use those predictions to argue that floods are generally occuring more often than would be expected, you have to recognize that they demonstrate a pretty strong selection bias. The right way to make that case is to make predictions for lots of locations beforehand, not only for selected places retroactively after they've already experienced flooding.
I should point out that I'm no climate change denier; I've seen much stronger evidence than what is presented here and was convinced long ago. But my point is that if you want to make a really solid case, you have to do the statistics right. This article makes a pretty good argument, but ultimately its evidence is basically anecdotal.
9
You are correct. This is a short, fairly anecdotal, article and could have been better written. Ultimately this is a bit complex for an article this short.
However, much more detailed study has been done and the change in regional nd global statistics is making it clear the 'climate dice' are in fact being loaded (to steal a metaphor from either Hansen or Schneider, don't recall who).
At some point you've rolled the dice enough times to say, "something ain't right here".
We have well reached that point (particularly given that we watch as the dice were altered right in front of us ....)
However, much more detailed study has been done and the change in regional nd global statistics is making it clear the 'climate dice' are in fact being loaded (to steal a metaphor from either Hansen or Schneider, don't recall who).
At some point you've rolled the dice enough times to say, "something ain't right here".
We have well reached that point (particularly given that we watch as the dice were altered right in front of us ....)
4
"I'm not denier but ..." the latest excuse. There's a lot of it about. Try a more direct approach:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Or this paper: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/science/looking-quickly-for-the-finger...
Time to stop prevaricating.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Or this paper: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/science/looking-quickly-for-the-finger...
Time to stop prevaricating.
2
@Susan Anderson: I don't know who's prevaricating. Perhaps I wasn't clear, since you obviously misunderstood me. I believe (quite strongly) that climate change is occuring, but I believe that the statistics in this article aren't what many commenters think they are. The studies mentioned in the NYT article you linked to may have used statistical methods that allowed more conclusive inferences to be made, which would be great!
2
One thing that might help is for all those Republican Red State Welfare Queens to become ineligible for FEMA dollars and federal loans. We know they're all ruggedly independent, self-reliant federal government haters, so I am sure they'll get along just fine without more bailouts from Washington.
51
Reality--Do you mean corporations and wealthy people?
1
I would like to agree with the sentiment, but let's not use these people's misfortune to castigate them with a "holier-than-thou" attitude.
Besides, I know lots of real human beings in Louisiana. States like that might even be blue if everybody voted.
Besides, I know lots of real human beings in Louisiana. States like that might even be blue if everybody voted.
8
These kinds of malthusian pronouncements by experts are so out of whack with reality that it leaves one not knowing how to address the massive negativism that is coming out of the west and destabilizing our societies. There is no statistics that show any increase or decrease of any weather event around the world. But the negativism keeps coming. The result: Donald Trump. So keep up the Malthusian ideology and you will see the unwinding of our society. If the weather is going to kill us all, what is the use in keeping the norms of our society. When gender bathroom discussions dominate our politics and clearly problematic issues are left unresolved, is it any wonder that throughout the west, norms are becoming shattered and folks like Trump are coming out of the woodwork. the left and right have become unhinged. Normally optimistic scientists are now saying environmental doom is a certainty. What a total joke! Next people will be telling us aliens are going to take over our planet. All of these doomsday scenarios are a total joke.
3
There are many, many studies providing exactly the statistics you claim do not exist. I would recommend starting with the U.N. IPCC Working Group I reference and then following up on the many references provided there.
Also the National Climate Data Center is a great place to start:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events
Or NASA's Vital Signs site: http://climate.nasa.gov
There is nothing 'malthusian' about this. And are you suggesting there are *no* limits to anything we do? Malthus did have a valid point you know ...
... it really is *no* joke ...
Also the National Climate Data Center is a great place to start:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events
Or NASA's Vital Signs site: http://climate.nasa.gov
There is nothing 'malthusian' about this. And are you suggesting there are *no* limits to anything we do? Malthus did have a valid point you know ...
... it really is *no* joke ...
4
I thought climate change was a hoax sponsored by Obama and his liberal friends. I have heard that from many Republican politicians. Surely this flooding is just God's way of sticking it to all those Southern Red States who will be voting for Trump.
29
Yep, just like Hurricaine Katrina in 2005 when Bush was president and the states whom overwhelmingly voted Republican the year before. What was the excuse then? As usual, Republicans have short memories and continually deal in revisionist history.
5
Hey, aren't these the same people who have consistently voted for smaller government and laughed at those who spoke about climate change? Well, it's time for an agonizing reappraisal of those to positions. Hopefully it not too late for us all to reverse the damage we did.
11
I've never seen so many paid trolls from the oil and gas industry reacting to the comments made here about climate change and the link to what has happened just happened in Louisiana. Money sure is killing this country.
14
Then you haven't been paying attention. It is a dedicated effort and it's been going on for decades. Any port in a storm. Try this:
www.skepticalscience.com
A good list of the more common complaints. But they are still going strong.
www.skepticalscience.com
A good list of the more common complaints. But they are still going strong.
4
Here is some additional information regarding this Hurricane season that describes some of the causes of our "Ducky" weather the last two years;
http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/atlantic-hurricane-season-still-expect...
And save this in your favorites to keep up with the development of tropical systems so you have adequate time to prepare;
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Remember the Boy Scout Motto; "Be Prepared" and learn to survive.
http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/atlantic-hurricane-season-still-expect...
And save this in your favorites to keep up with the development of tropical systems so you have adequate time to prepare;
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Remember the Boy Scout Motto; "Be Prepared" and learn to survive.
8
The irony is that the very people who consistently voted for the GOP in Louisiana, a party who consistently denies climate change and has a presidential front runner who wants to overturn the Paris Accord, are now reaping the consequences of doing nothing to combat climate change.
412
Very true, and it's why I really don't have much sympathy for them. It's like the kids that mess around on top of subway cars after being told not to. When they fall off, I can't regard it as a tragedy.
2
And you would also be very wrong. South Louisiana has our largest cities, and in between is a majority Catholic and French speaking population that overwhelmingly doesn't support Republican policies. The rural areas of north Louisiana is why our state keeps handing electoral votes to republicans.
10
The poor suckers who voted for those crooks and fools will be flooded out. The people who suckered them will be high and dry - for a while....
3
I just googled photos from the flood of 1927. This isn't anything like that one. Hmm.
4
There will always be unusual events. The worst blizzard ever to hit this country was 1888. The winder of 1789 was the coldest on record. What is different is we are now experiencing one extreme weather event after another. Record after record is being broken. Repeatedly. The time between disasters is getting shorter. Connecticut got hit by a major hurricane in 1635, 1815, 1938. After that the pace started picking up. We are in for a very rough ride.
7
You are correct. This isn't *anything* like 1926/27. This is essentially from a single extreme rain system over a very short period of time. Basically flash flooding on steroids (with CO2 in the atmosphere playing the role of nandrolone).
These extremes are happening more and more frequently as we keeping 'doping' our atmosphere.
The 1927 flood was caused by may days of rain in 1926 (all summer really) over the entire central Mississippi basin.
If you are going to try this "it's happen before" argument, you need to know enough to pick better examples.
These extremes are happening more and more frequently as we keeping 'doping' our atmosphere.
The 1927 flood was caused by may days of rain in 1926 (all summer really) over the entire central Mississippi basin.
If you are going to try this "it's happen before" argument, you need to know enough to pick better examples.
4
Paul,
I'm not saying that at all. In fact just the opposite. Climate change has been happening since the dawn of time. And yes these events seem to be happening more frequently but humans CANNOT reverse it. Just the way it is, unless you believe that humans can end war, end poverty, end hate and make my Packers win the SB every year into eternity. We just have to adjust. (I did stop using spray deodorant like the experts suggested, but it doesn't seem to have helped). Cheers.
I'm not saying that at all. In fact just the opposite. Climate change has been happening since the dawn of time. And yes these events seem to be happening more frequently but humans CANNOT reverse it. Just the way it is, unless you believe that humans can end war, end poverty, end hate and make my Packers win the SB every year into eternity. We just have to adjust. (I did stop using spray deodorant like the experts suggested, but it doesn't seem to have helped). Cheers.
While I read all your 'funny' comments on how dumb people are down there, I am waiting for a reply from a dear friend who lives in (check first picture in article. Lafayette LA. He or his wife usually reply pretty fast. It's been 10 minutes. Nice young couple. Grew up here. I'm their out of the area (in MA) emergency person. To keep their families in touch. Everyone is supposed to call here if they have to get out, in a hurricane, but, I figure floods count too. Friday was a joke about 19", and still hot between downpours. Sunday it was 'Sunlight I missed you!". Hope he is safely on the road and can't see the text. Kami! You read this text me. Love Fuzzy.
12
The irony is not lost on those living in the Blue States of the East and West Coast that some of the worst effects of “Climate Change” are in the Red States. Recent floods are events predicted to "occur once every five hundred years, or has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year.”
Here in Texas, this year’s record massive floods, plus record drought and record high temperatures which occurred 3 years ago, are all starting to change more minds that there may be something to this “Climate Change”.
Surprisingly, when George W. Bush was Governor of Texas, he instituted mandatory targets of minimum percentage of electricity generation from renewable sources. They could take the form of wind, hydroelectric, garbage for fuel, etc. Obviously West Texas has plenty of wind. In fact, on December 20, 2015, 45% of the total Texas electricity supply was generated from wind power. Today Texas now leads the nation in the total amount of electricity produced in the US by one state. If Texas were a separate country it would rank 6th in the world.
It is unfortunate, that once George W. Bush became President, VP Cheney and the Coal Industry gutted his attempts to have renewable power generation as a key goal. On this critical issue for the US and the world, the Republicans were once again Party First, Country Last.
WEB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas
WEB: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Texan-Wind-Is-Blowing-Away-The...
Here in Texas, this year’s record massive floods, plus record drought and record high temperatures which occurred 3 years ago, are all starting to change more minds that there may be something to this “Climate Change”.
Surprisingly, when George W. Bush was Governor of Texas, he instituted mandatory targets of minimum percentage of electricity generation from renewable sources. They could take the form of wind, hydroelectric, garbage for fuel, etc. Obviously West Texas has plenty of wind. In fact, on December 20, 2015, 45% of the total Texas electricity supply was generated from wind power. Today Texas now leads the nation in the total amount of electricity produced in the US by one state. If Texas were a separate country it would rank 6th in the world.
It is unfortunate, that once George W. Bush became President, VP Cheney and the Coal Industry gutted his attempts to have renewable power generation as a key goal. On this critical issue for the US and the world, the Republicans were once again Party First, Country Last.
WEB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas
WEB: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Texan-Wind-Is-Blowing-Away-The...
105
That's not irony, that's poetic justice.
As long as the Vinyard is OK, why should we worry about it? The optics of the President playing golf with fires, floods, and riots is a little off-putting, however. If there is urgency in attacking climate change, he certainly isn't dressed for war.
Climate change is here, it's real, and it's gathering strength. It's not something you can be God and stop in a day or a year. He's tried to get the message across for his entire presidency, check this out, which came out in primetime TV in 2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDqRpM72Odg
Meanwhile, Republicans have blocked him six ways from Sunday, and even now Rep. Lamar Smith and Judicial Watch are attacking NOAA and saying it's all a big conspiracy. Disinformation central has been funded, along with Republicans in Congress: the rate of return is over 100:1 on lobbying dollars, nice work if you can get it.
I think the guy deserves to take a vacation like other regular folk. Then maybe those folk can stop fighting reality and pretending politics will overcome the earth itself. If you think he's better than rescue services to help all those folk in trouble (and they are far from the only ones, with the mounting toll of disasters everywhere) one at a time, please take a moment to reflect. We need more real public servants in government, so let's all get out and vote for Democrats/realists who care about everyone, across the board!
Meanwhile, Republicans have blocked him six ways from Sunday, and even now Rep. Lamar Smith and Judicial Watch are attacking NOAA and saying it's all a big conspiracy. Disinformation central has been funded, along with Republicans in Congress: the rate of return is over 100:1 on lobbying dollars, nice work if you can get it.
I think the guy deserves to take a vacation like other regular folk. Then maybe those folk can stop fighting reality and pretending politics will overcome the earth itself. If you think he's better than rescue services to help all those folk in trouble (and they are far from the only ones, with the mounting toll of disasters everywhere) one at a time, please take a moment to reflect. We need more real public servants in government, so let's all get out and vote for Democrats/realists who care about everyone, across the board!
16
And the do-nothing Congress has no responsibility here.
It's like you people are on another planet.
It's like you people are on another planet.
4
Well, he did sign the Paris deal regarding climate change. Can't do anything about today's weather, but he did address the long-term problem. He wore a tie, in case you're curious.
5
The nay sayers for climate change will not believe that it's really happening until the streets of NYC are under water and by the time that happens it will be irreversible if it's already not.
These political games we continue to play will not only be the downfall of both parties, but will greatly impact the future of the world. It's past time for the Republican Party to join with the Democrats to work for meaningful reduction of carbon emissions.Sure it may lose them a segment of votes and it's not as headline grabbing as fighting terrorists, but the flooding of our coastlines will cause far moire damage and deaths then any group of terrorists can inflict.
These political games we continue to play will not only be the downfall of both parties, but will greatly impact the future of the world. It's past time for the Republican Party to join with the Democrats to work for meaningful reduction of carbon emissions.Sure it may lose them a segment of votes and it's not as headline grabbing as fighting terrorists, but the flooding of our coastlines will cause far moire damage and deaths then any group of terrorists can inflict.
17
It's notable that in HRC's convention speech that she actually had to say she believed in science, whereas far too many of our congressional members don't, let alone climate change itself. The right's insistence on its social agenda, which favors creationism to be presented as science, only enables future policy makers to ignore our man made ills and to perhaps postulate that the world is really flat.
20
Robert--The right believes in a magical God and the Apocalypse. That includes all of the Republican candidates for president, except Trump--and he's fibbing, again.
1
I can't help but believe that most Americans believed Jimmy Carter back in 1980 but it was just too good an offer not to believe the Reagan fantasy of no pain and all gain.
Is that a chicken roosting in the tree behind the sandbaggers?
Lest the Democrats become too self congratulatory they were very much complicit in the destruction of the presidency that offered America a chance of leading the world in the twenty first century.
Is that a chicken roosting in the tree behind the sandbaggers?
Lest the Democrats become too self congratulatory they were very much complicit in the destruction of the presidency that offered America a chance of leading the world in the twenty first century.
15
Since we refuse to fix our damaged bridges and roads, why would we do anything about climate change?
115
I would suspect as soon as the next round of rising waters and floods knock down a few of those bridges and wash out a few of those roads, at that point, there wont be any choice. Just hope there wont be anyone on them when it happens.
2
". . . The flooding in Louisiana is the eighth event since May of last year in which the amount of rainfall matches or exceeds the NOAA predictions for an amount of precipitation that will occur once every five hundred years, or has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year."
After the financial markets experienced "once every million year" event take place with some regularity during the 2007-2008 financial crisis, participants were compelled to update their financial risk models. Perhaps the participants in global climate, viz, all of us, will update our assumptions, models - and behaviors - only after a climate crisis (howsoever that is defined) hits. I earnestly hope that it is sooner than that.
After the financial markets experienced "once every million year" event take place with some regularity during the 2007-2008 financial crisis, participants were compelled to update their financial risk models. Perhaps the participants in global climate, viz, all of us, will update our assumptions, models - and behaviors - only after a climate crisis (howsoever that is defined) hits. I earnestly hope that it is sooner than that.
3
It's the 7% law , for every 1C degree rise in sea surface temps. There's 7% more water vapor in the atmosphere.
35
Enough anecdotal evidence is no longer "anecdotal." The climate has changed in the US -- the only question is how much will it further change.
11
Yawn. The Mississippi River floods. It always has. It always will. It happened prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Bill McKibben keeps hoping for a virus to kill off 90% of humanity - he is the last person anyone should ask any questions of, and he should be forced to live out in his precious nature like Ted Kaczynski (another anti-human like Bill) did.
This is NOT "exactly what scientists have been predicting". And the Global Warming/Climate Change predictions have yet to actually become real. James Hansen's 1988 predictions to Congress: Failure. Al Gore's predictions in his movie: Failure. Michael Mann's Hockey Stick: Failure. How many failures do you have to hear before you realize that the snake-oil salesmen are still selling you snake oil?
Bill McKibben keeps hoping for a virus to kill off 90% of humanity - he is the last person anyone should ask any questions of, and he should be forced to live out in his precious nature like Ted Kaczynski (another anti-human like Bill) did.
This is NOT "exactly what scientists have been predicting". And the Global Warming/Climate Change predictions have yet to actually become real. James Hansen's 1988 predictions to Congress: Failure. Al Gore's predictions in his movie: Failure. Michael Mann's Hockey Stick: Failure. How many failures do you have to hear before you realize that the snake-oil salesmen are still selling you snake oil?
6
I guess you didn't read the article.
12
Nice of you to yawn at other people's troubles.
Here's Mike Mann: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php : 53 pages of single-spaced credibility. Your other targets are the best there is. You got any credentials to prove you know better?
People, if they don't want to believe the science, should at least looking at the mounting incidence of life-altering and expensive disasters worldwide. It's a slow moving danger, and by the time it comes to your door, it will be much much worse.
Here's Mike Mann: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php : 53 pages of single-spaced credibility. Your other targets are the best there is. You got any credentials to prove you know better?
People, if they don't want to believe the science, should at least looking at the mounting incidence of life-altering and expensive disasters worldwide. It's a slow moving danger, and by the time it comes to your door, it will be much much worse.
14
No Chump it isn't exactly the experts said. It's worse. Things are moving faster than their models predicted. Somehow, worse, does not make me feel better. So, if you are so sure it's nothing, cancel all homeowner's insurance, waste of money, you will never have a problem. Please buy a big chunk of ocean front property, say on Cape Cod.or southern Florida. Spend ever cent you can get your hands on. Build a beautiful but totally unprotected billion dollar home. Sit back and just wait to drown. I promise when it happens, no one will come to save you or your family. Why should anyone risk their lives to save someone who is convinced it will never happen. Instead we will all stand on the edge of actual land and cheer as you go down. None of your extended family will get anything because remember no flood insurance. And rising sea levels are considered floods when they first come ashore and regular home owners insurance doesn't cover floods. Remember that as you go down for the last time. Not only will you, your family, but, everything you have ever worked for will be gone. Even the cemeteries your ancestors are buried in. No one will ever even wonder about you, you will never have existed. I for one say, hurrah!!!!
9
Slap a surtax on fossil-fuel companies. Make the polluters pay for the National Flood Insurance Program and FEMA, not us taxpayers. It is the fossil-fuel polluters and their lies, and their Republican party enablers, and their right-wing media machines like Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch and all the rest at Fox News who have been disputing the science, dragging their feet, and recklessly refusing to pass laws to limit carbon pollution. They've been lying for a generation, and now, it's too late. They ought to be thrown in jail for their criminal negligence and fraud, but at the very least, make them pay for the mess they made.
124
We taxpayers will end up with the bill anyway, only we'll get it as consumers. If you tax the oil and gas companies, they will simply pass it on as higher oil and gas prices. I don't dispute their culpability, or that of their supporters in the government and the media, but we all share some blame too. I type this in an air conditioned office, will soon get in my air conditioned, non fuel efficient old car, and go home to my air conditioned house. How many of us are doing the same? We can't blame the oil and gas companies for supplying what we demand...
4
Mostly, it's cars, yeah, even in 2016. Look it up.
3
Oh, yes you can. Certainly the public bears some responsibility but when the Koch Bros. continually spend millions bribing climate change deniers in the government fighting government subsidies to alternative energy sources while gladly accepting their own government tax breaks and subsidies for their fossil fuel business, it becomes much more of an uphill battle than is really necessary.
People only make change when it is in their best interest to do so and now is the time. The special interest groups and their 1500 lobbyists in Washington are doing everything in their power to prevent it.
People only make change when it is in their best interest to do so and now is the time. The special interest groups and their 1500 lobbyists in Washington are doing everything in their power to prevent it.
2
Since the planet is over 5 billion years old and there have many floods, how exactly is this climate change? How many years out of those 5 billion do reliable records exist?
All extreme weather is blamed on climate change these days.
What happened to global warming? What happened to the coming ice age?
Wasn't there an ice shelf covering all North America?
C'mon people, get real!
And the latest data indicate the planet hasn't warmed in almost 20 years!
All extreme weather is blamed on climate change these days.
What happened to global warming? What happened to the coming ice age?
Wasn't there an ice shelf covering all North America?
C'mon people, get real!
And the latest data indicate the planet hasn't warmed in almost 20 years!
5
Matt....the world emits 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each and every year.
Your suggestion that this massive annual release of CO2 into Earth's finite atmosphere is childish and reeks of scientific illiteracy.
The data actually says you're misinformed or disinformed.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-pause.htm
Your suggestion that this massive annual release of CO2 into Earth's finite atmosphere is childish and reeks of scientific illiteracy.
The data actually says you're misinformed or disinformed.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-pause.htm
44
The "latest data" ..? From where, the back of a cereal box??
I only wish that climate deniers could be compelled (along with their children and grandchildren) to have to live in an area that will be inundated by sea level rise, so that they will directly feel some 'accountability' for their obfustication. People like you have cost all of us some valuable time that could have been spent looking for solutions, rather than convincing people there was a problem in the first place (long past when reasonable people knew there was).
I only wish that climate deniers could be compelled (along with their children and grandchildren) to have to live in an area that will be inundated by sea level rise, so that they will directly feel some 'accountability' for their obfustication. People like you have cost all of us some valuable time that could have been spent looking for solutions, rather than convincing people there was a problem in the first place (long past when reasonable people knew there was).
27
People will take you seriously, if you sign an affidavit that you won't take money from government when affected by client related event.
14
"When Zillow starts warning about sea level rise, it may be time to worry about sea level rise." So now we have to rely on real estate companies, instead of scientists, to get through to Red State residents that the climate is changing? I swear these Republicans wont see the fist until the punch lands. Financial punishment should be the least they deserve for their science denying ignorance.
86
Considering that Republican (and many Democratic) lawmakers are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate interests, I would say that yes, when business talks is when they will listen. Real estate companies, insurance companies, banks, etc. donate to political campaigns. Scientists donate relatively little, and even expect the government to pay for their work. So whose opinion do you think matters more in the Corporate States of America?
12
The sky is falling. The sky is falling. There have never been rains like this. Oh wait, never mind.
“This is exactly what scientists have been predicting,” said the climate activist Bill McKibben.
Bill, their projections of the last 15 years weren't even in the ball park but maybe if you shout louder?
“This is exactly what scientists have been predicting,” said the climate activist Bill McKibben.
Bill, their projections of the last 15 years weren't even in the ball park but maybe if you shout louder?
8
@ Michael F, So if 98% of the oncologists on the plane told you you had a treatable form of cancer you would wait to see what Sarah Palin had to say on the subject before taking action?
157
Rick, science is not consensus but politics most certainly is.
2
Re: Michael F.
More ignorance from the "scientists" at Faux News and Hate Radio Inc.
More ignorance from the "scientists" at Faux News and Hate Radio Inc.
14
If they hate the Government and deny Climate change, why are they looking for Government help now? Why not have Fox News send down some helicopters to help. What about Trump, why doesn't he send his airplanes. I hear he is really rich.
340
I really like your style!
3
Note to Louisiana politicians, before requesting government aid, remember these words of republican "wisdom":
"Government is the problem, not the solution."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
"Government is the problem, not the solution."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
24
And he's got "a very, very good brain." It's so big it even has two hemispheres, trust me.
1
We keep seeing these extremes all over the world and yet there is little galvanization of the public towards drastic action.
I keep waiting for that one event that is truly cataclysmic in nature, something so far from the norm that it stuns the deniers into silence. If biblical floods in Louisiana aren't going to do it then something worse will. Whether it is a 135 degree heat wave killing hundreds in a major city or a class 5 hurricane parking itself over the Carolinas for a week, the weather is only going to get wilder.
May I humbly recommend the climate blog robertscribbler.com to those who want a front-seat view on a rapidly changing world.
I keep waiting for that one event that is truly cataclysmic in nature, something so far from the norm that it stuns the deniers into silence. If biblical floods in Louisiana aren't going to do it then something worse will. Whether it is a 135 degree heat wave killing hundreds in a major city or a class 5 hurricane parking itself over the Carolinas for a week, the weather is only going to get wilder.
May I humbly recommend the climate blog robertscribbler.com to those who want a front-seat view on a rapidly changing world.
14
Robert Scribbler does indeed provide needed information that the main stream press censors. The public is not informed for one reason; the 6 major news corporations are not reporting the facts. Is it ignorance or deliberate? Does dark money have a hold on them? This is the same reason we wound up in Iraq; very poor reporting to the public.
1
Louisiana 1927, by Randy Newman. This is hardly a new development in the state's history.
1
Go do some historical and scientific research on the flood of 1926/27 and then report back to us on how this event is completely different.
... or you can base your opinions on a Randy Newman song ... I guess the choice really is up to you ...
See, you don't come of as topically clever, just woeful ignorant.
... or you can base your opinions on a Randy Newman song ... I guess the choice really is up to you ...
See, you don't come of as topically clever, just woeful ignorant.
2
Shame that it has come to be known as "Global Warming." It's like "Global Cuddling." Not many are averse to "warmth."
Global Heat Death seems more appropriate.
Global Heat Death seems more appropriate.
7
Yet another reason - and for me, the most important reason - to vote for Secretary Clinton for President - Donald Trump says climate change is a hoax. The press should be covering this a lot more - the methane eruptions in Siberia, off the coast of Washington, and under the Arctic Sea should be front page news as these events may precipitate abrupt climate change or may trigger one of 10 points which in turn can cause abrupt climate change. Methane is 20 times more powerful in terms of impact than carbon dioxide and has the added danger of also exploding into flames. Furthermore, the Arctic Ice Cap has receded at an alarming and record-breaking rate, which in turn leads to ocean warming and, eventually, devastating sea rise. The fact Donald's antics are front page news every day, yet the accumulating damage to our globe and climate is not front page news every day constitutes a neglect of journalistic responsibility.
30
Louisiana has been a solidly "red state" for the last 20 years...supporting a political party that will do and say anything to prevent climate change action....a state that has been so bought by the oil and gas industry despite all of the evidence of climate change. In November, Louisiana will be voting for Donald Trump...enough said.
212
I guess the locals have already forgotten about the BP disaster in the gulf and a few of the fisherman who committed suicide after they saw, through no fault of their own, the destruction of their livelihood.
3
So long as the death and destruction primarily affects those whose stubborn ignorance compels them to deny climate change, then I'm alright with it.
The primary way to reduce the damage caused by climate change over the next century or so is to reduce the number of humans. Overpopulation is the main problem for the world, the root of every problem we have. If dangerously deluded people are often the first casualties, this can only help us in the long run.
The primary way to reduce the damage caused by climate change over the next century or so is to reduce the number of humans. Overpopulation is the main problem for the world, the root of every problem we have. If dangerously deluded people are often the first casualties, this can only help us in the long run.
17
What a horrible thing to say. Even if you somehow believe that death is an appropriate punishment for denying climate change, I don't see how you can countenance the effects on the child victims, who are surely blameless. Fortunately there have been no reports so far of child deaths, but there are certainly thousands of kids who are injured, homeless, etc. I, for one, am not OK with that.
4
Obama and soon-to-be President Clinton should require that governors of states that want federal aid for floods and disasters associated with climate change must sign an official affidavit that says they agree that climate change is a national/global problem and that the US must put forth national policies to deal with the ever increasing damage.
77
About 10-12 years ago, I decided to tune in to Rush Limbaugh to see what he had to say about anything.
That day it happened to be Global Warming, as Climate Change was known then.
Rush did not believe in it because Nature would automatically counterbalance it, in a process a listener was to imagine worked somewhat like our body's immune system responding to an allergen or new microbes.
Stunned, I clicked off within 2 seconds, but I'm certain that his legion of listeners did not. Thanks to the stupidity of Rush Limbaugh and his peers, millions of Americans are left to believe that Climate Change is a hoax created by the Eastern Elite to enslave them and their children.
Thanks to the secretive largess of the Koch brothers and their ilk, hundreds of pandering politicians resist any and all attempts to control man's contribution to the oncoming catastrophe.
This November, we the people have a good chance to wrest control of our various governments and place it in the hands of people who, we hope, will be more rational, thoughtful, and far-sighted than the pitiful actors we have been saddled with.
That day it happened to be Global Warming, as Climate Change was known then.
Rush did not believe in it because Nature would automatically counterbalance it, in a process a listener was to imagine worked somewhat like our body's immune system responding to an allergen or new microbes.
Stunned, I clicked off within 2 seconds, but I'm certain that his legion of listeners did not. Thanks to the stupidity of Rush Limbaugh and his peers, millions of Americans are left to believe that Climate Change is a hoax created by the Eastern Elite to enslave them and their children.
Thanks to the secretive largess of the Koch brothers and their ilk, hundreds of pandering politicians resist any and all attempts to control man's contribution to the oncoming catastrophe.
This November, we the people have a good chance to wrest control of our various governments and place it in the hands of people who, we hope, will be more rational, thoughtful, and far-sighted than the pitiful actors we have been saddled with.
75
Yep, Rush and many of his so-called conservative whiz kid commentators also thought the financial meltdown 2008 would never happen because, just like the Fed and Alan Greenspan, the market would automatically solve the problem.
3
The phenomenon is known as "Magical Thinking".
1
Astonishing photo of them in the boat.
1
It's a good time for these likely adherents of Trump to ask him again if he still rejects the existence of climate change.
I wonder if the senators from these flooded areas voted against federal aid for Sandy victims in the Northeast?
I recall that the senators from Colorado voted no, and then quicky appealed for aid when they experienced diasterous flooding a year later.
What goes around, comes around.....
I wonder if the senators from these flooded areas voted against federal aid for Sandy victims in the Northeast?
I recall that the senators from Colorado voted no, and then quicky appealed for aid when they experienced diasterous flooding a year later.
What goes around, comes around.....
34
Tragically, most southerners militantly reject scientific knowledge, deny the phenomenon of climate change and the human actions that are causing it, and continue to elect public officials who are intent on continuing the unsustainable use of fossil fuels for energy.
195
Well Western man what did you think of their predictions of the last 15 years. Climate change enablers don't resemble scientists in any fashion whatsoever. What kind of scientist would ever refer to science as settled?
3
CastleMan - regarding "most southerners"... I am one. I grew up in south GA where the heat/humidity was brutal and I hated it. When I was a kid in the 60's, we were wearing sweaters by mid October. Now people are still wearing shorts. It should be quite obvious to any one with an IQ above room temperature that something's up. Us humans have been pumping particulates of one form or another into the atmosphere for over a hundred yrs. - why wouldn't it have an effect? It doesn't just drift off to Mars.
By the way, my husband is from NYC and has a math degree. He's a climate denier in the strongest possible terms. Of course he is - he's listened to those esteemed client experts over at Fox and of course the big man himself - el Rushbo. So, my point is, the climate deniers are not limited by geography, although we do have an abundance of them here.
By the way, my husband is from NYC and has a math degree. He's a climate denier in the strongest possible terms. Of course he is - he's listened to those esteemed client experts over at Fox and of course the big man himself - el Rushbo. So, my point is, the climate deniers are not limited by geography, although we do have an abundance of them here.
8
Perhaps then, he should strongly consider getting a tuition refund from the college for his degree. By the way, it was not Trump University was it?
3
Yep, all the models perdicted this really quite well. But that relies on math and science and stuff and half the people in the US don't believe in that.
356
The models predicted a rapid rise in temperature for the last 15 years. There was none. Real scientists go back to the drawing board. Politcized scientists scream louder.
5
Really? What models?
The same models that said the North Pole would be melted by now?
The same models that said the planet would get warmer but the measurements show it hasn't warmed in almost 20 years?
The same models that said the North Pole would be melted by now?
The same models that said the planet would get warmer but the measurements show it hasn't warmed in almost 20 years?
6
Jk,
I have been reading about this since the 1970s. I'm fairly certain most Americans knew this would happen and were just hoping the snake oil really was a miracle cure. Remember when St Ronnie told us Chesterfield cigarettes were good for us and the man in a doctor's smock told us not a cough in a carload. I am sure most Americans know there ain't no Heaven but it is no sin to want to believe.
I have been reading about this since the 1970s. I'm fairly certain most Americans knew this would happen and were just hoping the snake oil really was a miracle cure. Remember when St Ronnie told us Chesterfield cigarettes were good for us and the man in a doctor's smock told us not a cough in a carload. I am sure most Americans know there ain't no Heaven but it is no sin to want to believe.
5
This is so sad. To have your home filled with water and muck. To leave behind what you know on the hope that someone somewhere else with have shelter for you and those you love. To see your garden ruined, and what little you acquired in your lifetime destroyed.
12
Climate deniers will never accept this flooding as part of the larger climate change. At best, they will label it a coincidence. By the time reality sets in, many, many more will be dead and no action will help. Really scary.
82
They don't matter and their numbers are few. They are just very vocal. The people that matter are the residents.
2
Not that scary, I'd say. We need a lot less people. This climate change death toll might help with that.
or they'll call it divine retribution...which will fall heavily on the red states. hmmm...lesson there?
3
Willing to bet that those unfortunate red-state folks filling the sandbags are solidly in the climate-change denier camp.
140
I bet the poor and minorities were hit hardest, rather than the deniers.
5
You speak based upon a vast fund of ignorance.
5
Sweet. Blame the victims and assume everyone in Louisiana is identical along a negative trait! Thanks Sausalito Joe for reminding us of the pervasiveness of the Trump-ian approach to viewing others, even in Cali.
5
Given Trump’s well-known penchant for milking every opportunity for publicity dry and his well-known penchant for not making significant financial contributions to people in distress and worthy charities, I’m expecting him to pull out all the stops for victims of the Louisiana floods.
Look for a massive inflow of Trump-branded-goods to arrive in the state in the next few days. Trump hats (you know the ones); Trump water; Trump steaks; Trump neckties made in China (seconds, of course); diplomas from Trump University complete with facsimile signatures from Donald (especially valuable to people who have lost everything and need to start their lives over again); Trump ashtrays and gambling chips from his bankrupt casinos (they make you feel rich); Trump campaign signs for people who need temporary shelter from the rain; souvenir tee shirts from Atlantic City he picked up for pennies after the city went busted; and Trump wooden legs and horse blankets he may have obtained through other failed enterprises of his.
Some of these donations may be beyond their date of expiration (be especially careful about those steaks and that water) and of doubtful utility (the wooden legs, in particular), but all them will constitute very respectable tax deductions (the wooden legs in particular, because they are antiques).
As for those large cash contributions, well as you know, his checks are in the mail.
Look for a massive inflow of Trump-branded-goods to arrive in the state in the next few days. Trump hats (you know the ones); Trump water; Trump steaks; Trump neckties made in China (seconds, of course); diplomas from Trump University complete with facsimile signatures from Donald (especially valuable to people who have lost everything and need to start their lives over again); Trump ashtrays and gambling chips from his bankrupt casinos (they make you feel rich); Trump campaign signs for people who need temporary shelter from the rain; souvenir tee shirts from Atlantic City he picked up for pennies after the city went busted; and Trump wooden legs and horse blankets he may have obtained through other failed enterprises of his.
Some of these donations may be beyond their date of expiration (be especially careful about those steaks and that water) and of doubtful utility (the wooden legs, in particular), but all them will constitute very respectable tax deductions (the wooden legs in particular, because they are antiques).
As for those large cash contributions, well as you know, his checks are in the mail.
41
Wow, eight 500-year floods in a 15-month period? Why is global climate change still a debate?
397
Because people don't understand statistics.
8
@Sticks and Stones: "Why is global climate change still a debate?" Because of at least 20 yrs. of the hard right propaganda authored by fossil fuel interests, disseminated by Fox, Rush and the Republicans who are paid to do so.
18
15 months? Considering that our geological history, as far as we can tell, dates back million of years, how you you give any credibility to such a short time frame? It just more of "this is my life span so I'll make it as important as I can" .
15 months of anything, usually means nothing
15 months of anything, usually means nothing
1
It's going to be insurance companies and, very importantly, reinsurance companies, who will rudder the response to climate change. It will also be litigators in class actions against issuers of securities over sufficiency of risk disclosure in their SEC registration statements.
214
I'm interested in your logic here - esp. on reinsurance. Insurance companies will measure the risk and estimate the cost of future claims. Reinsurance will reallocate the risk among amenable players. The overall systemic risk remains in the system, just distributed acceptably. We will all bear the increased risk through the costs to our insurance and taxes.
2
I agreed with you, until I had the chance to speak with a number of senior executives as reinsurance companies. As far as they're concerned, they're happy to trade some short-term losses to gain a vastly larger calamity insurance market.
1
Years ago I work in the a actuarial department of a property/casualty insurance company and along with all the formulas used to calculate rates, there was what was called a "catastrophe factor", used to amortize the effect of say, a flood or hurricane over a several year period. It's not just the climate models which are going to have to be revised, but also the insurance rate calculations - and not to anyone's liking.
4
The majority of voters there believe that climate change is a Chinese hoax and live with the floods more often. They deny the value of the federal government, which they believe "is the problem" and desperately call for its help (our help, the taxpayers' help). Sometimes I do wish they'd secede.
269
They also call for God's help. How is that working out? Fortunately, the tide has turned (no pun intended) on Trump and we could look forward to continued sensible action by the federal government and govs. of most other countries. Of course, that is only part of the solution and until more people not only believe in climate change but are willing to make individual sacrifices to help combat it, we live in peril.
51
Hi Dagwood. Good post. One nit however: The flooding described in this article is in Louisiana, but it's Texas where the cry of secession is most often heard.
16
Same here. I hate to say this, but I have zero pity for people who choose to be ignorant and uneducated.
January 2011 in Teresopolis and Petropolis Brazil as an example with similar large extreme rain events and deadly flooding.