After the second presidential debate, moderator Candy Crowley said, "Climate change -- I had that question, all you climate change people. We just -- you know, again, we knew that the economy was still the main thing, so you knew you kind of wanted to go with the economy." And the media's been talking about low information voters?
Now, along comes Sandy, who says to Candy, "Okay, then, take that!" See, Sandy doesn't get into debating these things, either. Now, let's see what Sandy's bill ends up being -- anyone taking bets? -- then let's sit down and talk some economy. In fact, there's an idea: Maybe a new American pastime could be organized 'disaster gambling,' with states collecting revenue as everyone bets on the tab for each new upcoming climate change disaster in their respective states?
Perhaps some still take issue with the suggestion that a superstorm like this is caused by our human-engendered climate change. But cigarette packages say things like, "cigarettes cause fatal lung disease." This, of course, is just shorthand, a monumental simplification, because in fact causation in complex systems is always a vastly complicated affair, and tobacco companies spent lots of money blowing smoke in the face of all that complexity: but the likelihood of getting lung disease is so greatly increased by smoking that eventually they gave up and we all agreed to go 'low-info' by just saying cigarettes cause fatal lung disease. As I'll demonstrate, in much the same way, we might as well keep it simple and just say this superstorm is caused by our human-made climate change.
I've been writing on the Arctic crisis, and in a recent long list of immediate physical changes from loss of summer Arctic sea ice, I listed (as #12) its potential impacts on weather at lower latitudes. It so happens that it is just at this time of year that this has the clearest line of causation, since lots of heat and moisture enter the atmosphere from the open waters that had been ice covered, and latent heat is released in the refreezing process, which progresses rapidly as the Arctic cools down right around now. Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, whose work was featured on the front page of the New York Times earlier this year, wrote in a recent paper (with Stephen Vavrus), "This warming is clearly observable during autumn in near-surface air temperature anomalies in proximity to the areas of ice loss."
And this in turn becomes very important for large-scale atmospheric circulation. For example, Dr. Francis has used the metaphor of a river going down a steep incline, which runs straight, versus a river that runs along a flat plain, which tends to meander. Likewise the jet stream, since the normal energy gradient between Arctic air and that of lower latitudes has become more relaxed in tandem with ice extent drops, is tending to meander more, and hence move more slowly as well. As the Francis paper said, "Previous studies support this idea: weaker zonal-mean, upper-level wind* is associated with increased atmospheric blocking events in the northern hemisphere." [*she means high west-east moving winds]
Let's look back again at this superstorm, and you'll see that important features of what you're about to experience stem from the Arctic situation I've been discussing. First, Arctic air is coming down to hook up with Sandy from the dip of the jet stream. Francis writes (from personal communication),
"The huge ice loss this summer, and subsequent enhanced warming of the Arctic (see attached figure), may be playing an important role in the evolution of Sandy by enhancing the amplitude of waves in the jet stream."
At the same time, high pressure over Greenland, and the extremely negative state of the North Atlantic Oscillation, is creating a blocking event that is impacting the path of Sandy herself, sending her back west over the U.S. Again, Dr. Francis (in personal communication):
"In this case, the effects could be causing strengthening of the block, elongating the block northward, and/or increasing its duration -- and this block is what's driving Sandy on such an unusual track westward into the mid-Atlantic coast."
Now, let's add to all that the underlying and obvious thing -- that Sandy is only surviving as a hurricane so far north, almost in November, because there are record high sea surface temperatures off the U.S. East coast right now. And while the third storm component, the one coming in from the west, might seem less remarkable, that is also something that generally becomes more probable with global warming, as our atmosphere can hold more water vapor as it warms and the evaporation rate is also increased by the warming. Thus, all major components of this superstorm show the signature of human-induced climate change to varying degrees, and without global warming the chance of the three occurring together like this would have a probability of about zero. So, let's make it simple, and just say climate change caused this storm.
I'm in New York City, just as much in the path of Sandy as so many others are, but come on, you do just have to sit back and love it, appreciate the full irony of it all, with Sandy striking right at those most sensitive loins of our American democracy, threatening to interrupt our sacred electoral process, after that process blocked climate change out, and now an atmospheric blocking pattern, created by that very climate change, pushes Sandy back on us. In a time when climate silence trumps climate science, when the candidates seem terrified to mention the 'C-word,' Candy, I hope you enjoy meeting Sandy. Maybe if the election gets as messed up as 2000, you three can even find time to meet up again, and go over a little issue you couldn't quite find time to fit in before?
If one can identify the fingerprint of climate change in the behaviour of this sort of storm is perhaps less well understood, but nonetheless it's a valid question. I have often heard it said "sooner or later a sufficiently extreme event might wake people up" - in reference to not only those in entrenched denial but the greater mass of people who go on with daily life, pushing this problem to the back of their mind.
Problem is - I haven't seen convincing evidence of this "awakening" despite the fact we now understand the link between climate change and weather extremes (and associated natural disasters), and know that this is rapidly escalating as the ice/snow albedo is lost from the Arctic (with a tinge of methane time bomb lurking in the wings).
So what would it take for people to actually do something meaningful?
I'm left with this sense that most people will just sleep walk right off the edge of this cliff, adjusting to ever worsening conditions and trying to go about daily living until their daily lives consist of riots, famines and conflict - and modern civilisation comes crumpling down.
How else to interpret the situation?
There is a lot of energy among younger people. People have a lot more intelligence and common sense then we give them credit for sometimes. Often people act stupidly out of ignorance or willful manipulation by sociopathic social institutions, so making sure that the truth is readily availabile is important.
However, as climate change becomes increasingly abrupt (eg loss of arctic sea ice within a few years) the scope to actually exert any meaningful impact on it rapidly dwindles away. The severity of the impacts also mitigates against longer range concerns at that point - I'm quite sure nobody experiencing problems as a result of Sandy are going to be thinking they ought to change their behaviour to reduce the risk of such storms rising over the next few decades? (ignoring that this alone would be insufficient to stop the processes now at work in the Arctic)
The willful refusal of American policy makers, acting at the behest of the very wealthy Carbon Extraction Industry, will rank as the worst crime in human history, and even the dimmest American will get why "they hate us"...for our "freedom" to pollute and not give a s**t that it will kill our children and grandchildren.
1) Ban fossil fuel production.
2) Nationalize the Fossil Fuel Industry firms.
3) Tax carbon. Pay the receipts to Americans per capita.
4) Divert 10% of the DOD budget to renewable energies, until the military budget equals that of the ROC.
5) Establish a reparations fund to pay climate justice claims.
Our coastline being decimated- floods, massive destruction- massive evacuations- lecture to me about forged data-
If you wish to read the article - here's the link: http://www.boomerwarrior.org/2012/10/the-irony-of-super-storm-sandy/.
It's all our fault... rain, clouds, wind, B-movies... all of it.
There, I said it. Go ahead, censor me now.
I guess your predictive abilities aren't very good.
Maybe you could take some science and math courses at night school and improve them!
Smoking only raises the chance for certain diseases. It's doesn't mean that there will be a 100% guarantee. That's all there is. Same with "passive smoking". The WHO says 600,000 people die from it every year. Evidence for that claim? None. It's completely statistical. Based on risk factors. There are no corpses, no autopsies, no medical files to back up any of it.
And now comes the bummer... statistics and science are not synonymous.
Discovery of a numerical discrepancy is not science. Accounting for that discrepancy in a reproducible manner is science. And that's where you all fail. Big time.
Challenge for you: stop using all fossil fuel related products. All of them. That means no more reading HuffPo online for you as well. Guess where plastic comes from.
Yeah man, it only means that the odds are overwhelming that innumerable smokers will get said diseases.
You don't have a "100% guarantee" that you will survive an airline flight either, or for that matter a drive to the grocery store. Does that stop you from flying or driving?
In any event what point, exactly, are you trying to make here? Apparently all you are trying to do is cast doubt on established scientific findings.
By the way: proper scientific statisical analysis IS scieniffic evidence, your science denier crapolla that would have one believe otherwise notwithstanding.
"Typical conservative. So concerned about short term political gain that she can't be bothered to even pretend to understand that the real issue is that the entire human race being irrevocably harmed by thermal pollution from fossil fuels that is producing global warming."
Perhaps you don't get out much but the media is full of warnings about the dangers of this storm. Are you taking care of yourself in that regard? Do you need help?
Funny also how the global temperatures 2,000 and 1,000 years ago were higher. Without fossil fuels. Of course your pope Gore will deny this, but have the archeological evidence for it.
The storm is Cat 1 and the media hypes it because they no longer do actual reporting but rather live from selling badly written end of the world scenarios as fact.
(and that makes no difference to the reality of the situation).
Further, the point of the title is not MY indifference, it's nature's
indifference. That indifference will continue ad infinitum, until
extinction, I suppose, if we continue to ignore it, so you had better get used to it -
we have to fit into various physical limits, not the reverse, and that's not liberal or conservative.
"8:01 am EDT....Central pressure down to 942 mb (27.81") which is very low. Computer models are still underestimating the central pressure."
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/anderson/sandy-has-made-the-turn-toward-the-coast/830939
in any case, let's concede that you are 100% correct, let's just concede that (truthfully, you are some % correct, but as you say, it's a complex system)...so what? ive never heard a good answer to that question. so weather kills millions of people, countries go bankrupt from disasters, whatever doomsday scenario happens? ok, so what? as some have mentioned, hasn't this ALWAYS been true forever and yet Mother Nature seems to tick along just fine and the world keeps spinning, even if it's without the dinosaurs.
you worry too much and you have an over-inflated sense of importance of your pet studies
Take everything that you said and apply it to yourself. " i have some bad news Mr dumdum2000- no one cares about what you find so important and ......"
Why don't you try that and then report back to us.
Hasnt that happened for thousand of years?
Electric bills are, in fact, skyrocketing...
Gas near $4 per gal...
Meanwhile, AlGore works on his 2nd 100 million.
This Globull Warming scam is the greatest class warfare scheme in the history of the planet
Eat less.
Turn your lights off when you aren't using them.
Drive a bicycle or walk.
Stop coveting your neighbor's wealth.
Stop repeating nonsense from people who couldn't care less about you.
In a world of intelligent people with well developed long range planning abilities, the production and sale of noisy, polluting, inefficient, unnecessary vehicles to provide ego gratification for their owners and blood stained profit for sellers at the expense of everyone else on the planet would probably be prohibited. Instead, industrial production would be devoted to producing non-fossil energy capture equipment, mass transportation equipment and carbon sequestration systems.
Instead, very few people are actively taking climate change seriously and they are now going to be educated in climate science the hard way, as they learn what happens to a species that foolishly damages their Arctic and with it, their jet stream.
The era of really really bad weather has begun. Perhaps humans will learn that a mindless gratification culture has some very serious drawbacks, including but not limited to collapse.
BTW I don't take orders from anyone these days, least of all a foreigner who thinks that his tin foil hat gives him scientific superiority to American climatologists.