Climate Change

[AndyH]

It appears that there isn't any scientific data to tell whether tornadoes are getting more frequent with climate change...

Sorry, no. Science has been warning of increasing effects from the beginning! More frequent catastrophic storms, more frequent droughts, more frequent deluges, more frequent fires (like, oh, 1.5 million acres of Texas charred for instance?)...

Warning is not the same as measuring an actual effect. In the case of tornadoes, Jeff Masters points out that there aren't any reliable measurements to tell us whether this is actually happening. Read the article referenced to see why this is so. Of course, there are plenty of other measurements which DO confirm that climate change is occurring as predicted from basic science.

See? We just cannot keep from falling into the 'let's debate climate change' trap! We shouldn't be debating 'is it or isn't it' - that's best left to climate scientists. Our job is to decide if we act or not based on what we know today. Which lottery ticket do we buy? Change is real and it's going to mess up our back yard so we better prepare, or acting is worse than the possible problem so I'm going to buy the 'do nothing' lottery ticket than head out to play a few rounds of golf.

Debating the existence of climate change simply ties us up and keeps us from doing the work we need to do! This is the real problem with the blasted "debate" - we might as well all be shot with a secret DoD non-lethal bubble-gum dispenser that keeps us stuck to the side of buildings instead of chasing the bank robbers!

Back to Masters - who is he? What's his background? Why should I care what he says? At BEST - if he's a climatologist and a 'confirmed good guy' with no funding from questionable organizations and all his biases in check, he belongs in the second from the bottom "individual Professional" tier. He might be correct, or not - but he references five papers. The top-level organizations work thru THOUSANDS of papers.

There IS enough information on the increasing likelihood of more severe storms from the significantly more credible sources - and unless it's our job to build the "Tennessee Tornado Model" what's the point of getting bogged down with Masters?

The absolute best information is going to come from higher sources of information. But the entire field is highly specialized and will therefore need significant synthesis to make a decent 'big picture'. That's what the NAS and AAAS do, and is the charter for the IPCC. Go there for 'fully digested and reviewed information' rather than a blogger - even a Dr. Blogger.- because a couple hundred scientists working on climate change are going to be able to create a significantly higher quality assessment than a single guy even if that single Dr. (a dentist maybe?) is inside the IPCC. I hope that makes sense a little?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-5-3.html

General features include a poleward shift in storm track location, increased storm intensity, but a decrease in total storm numbers...

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-8-4-2.html

Evidence for changes in the number or intensity of tornadoes relies entirely on local reports. In the USA, databases for tornado reporting are well established, although changes in procedures for evaluating the intensity of tornadoes introduced significant discontinuities in the record. In particular, the apparent decrease in strong tornadoes in the USA from the early period of the official record (1950s–1970s) to the more recent period is, in large part, a result of the way damage from the earlier events was evaluated. Trapp et al. (2005) also questioned the completeness of the tornado record and argued that about 12% of squall-line tornadoes remain unreported. In many European countries, the number of tornado reports has increased considerably over the last decade (Snow, 2003), leading to a much higher estimate of tornado activity (Dotzek, 2003). Bissolli et al. (2007) showed that the increase in Germany between 1950 and 2003 mainly concerns weak tornadoes (F0 and F1 on the Fujita scale), thus paralleling the evolution of tornado reports in the USA after 1950 (see, e.g., Dotzek et al., 2005) and making it likely that the increase in reports in Europe is at least dominated (if not solely caused) by enhanced detection and reporting efficiency. Doswell et al. (2005) highlighted the difficulties encountered when trying to find observational evidence for changes in extreme events at local scales connected to severe thunderstorms. In light of the very strong spatial variability of small-scale severe weather phenomena, the density of surface meteorological observing stations is too coarse to measure all such events. Moreover, homogeneity of existing station series is questionable. While remote sensing techniques allow detection of thunderstorms even in remote areas, they do not always uniquely identify severe weather events from these storms. Another approach links severe thunderstorm occurrence to larger-scale environmental conditions in places where the observations of events are fairly good and then consider the changes in the distribution of those environments (Brooks et al., 2003; Bissolli et al., 2007).

Although a decreasing trend in dust storms was observed from the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s in northern China, the number of dust storm days increased from 1997 to 2002 (Li and Zhai, 2003; Zhou and Zhang, 2003). The decreasing trend appears linked to the reduced cyclone frequency and increasing winter (DJF) temperatures (Qian et al., 2002). The recent increase is associated with vegetation degradation and drought, plus increased surface wind speed (Wang and Zhai, 2004; Zou and Zhai, 2004).

edit...fixed a URL

 

[Stoaty]

I think you misunderstood my post. Climate change is definitely occurring, and we need to take action now. I just don't think that there is good evidence that tornadoes are increasing in frequency and severity (although they almost certainly are). It is important to be objective about what can be measured and what it shows. While there are multiple lines of evidence and measurements showing climate change is happening (and at a frightening pace), the evidence for tornadoes is equivocal. Jeff Masters is definitely one of the "good guys". He has had a number of posts about the all time heat records being broken in a number of countries. He is often quoted by Joe Romm. As far as sources of information, I agree about the National Academies, IPCC, etc. being the definitive statement about what we know. However, once one is convinced by the evidence that climate change is occurring, Joe Romm's blog is one of the best places to get current information on the science. Unfortunately, all of the new information coming out generally shows that changes are happening more rapidly than predicted just a few years ago.

 

[AndyH]

Thanks Sloaty. Not disagreeing with you (and not trying to be disagreeable ).

I'm a retired military intelligence analyst, not a climatologist. All I can contribute to this is a view on qualifying the information sources and making a stab at assembling a decent 'big picture'.

The main message I want to get across - and apparently not to you - is that the most consulted 'sources' of information tend to be the least credible - and the 'big picture' one assembles from the bad data is very likely to do more harm than good.

---
Hit this for a good 'general purpose' overview. This book was assembled from top-level info sources by the US Global Change Research Program. The target audience is Congress, so it's been somewhat 'translated' from 'Scientist-ese'. It focuses on the US, and includes a look at current and projected climate change as well as the effects on government, industry, farming, health, transportation, insurance, etc... It's in the used book webosphere (IE bestbookbuys.com) but is downloadable from the .gov site.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

Sorry...back to tornadoes. The IPCC info appears to match Master's view. This is presented in the Global Climate Change... doc as (page 38):

Reports of severe weather including tornadoes and severe thunderstorms have increased during the past 50 years. However, the increase in the number of reports is widely believed to be due to improvements in monitoring technologies such as Doppler radars combined with changes in population and increasing public awareness. When adjusted to account for these factors, there is no clear trend in the frequency or strength of tornadoes since the 1950s for the United States as a whole.

So far so good - no smoking gun here.

However - looking to other inputs we have the following from the insurance industry:

While it doesn't appear we cannot positively (yet) account for larger, more frequent, or more intense tornadoes, we certainly can see that the type of severe storms that spawn tornadoes have increased and have caused significant damage.

 

[Stoaty]

This book was assembled from top-level info sources by the US Global Change Research Program. The target audience is Congress, so it's been somewhat 'translated' from 'Scientist-ese'. It focuses on the US, and includes a look at current and projected climate change as well as the effects on government, industry, farming, health, transportation, insurance, etc... It's in the used book webosphere (IE bestbookbuys.com) but is downloadable from the .gov site.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

Thanks, Andy, we are definitely on the same page here. I hadn't seen this particular report (or forgot that I read it). Since it doesn't include input from other countries, at least the deniers can't call it an international socialist plot. In that sense, very good for U.S. citizens. I am a bit surprised that congress would be able to understand even this simpler report, but based on most of the GOP responses to climate change perhaps my skepticism about their abilities was not misplaced :lol:

 

[derkraut]

Since this is a "Nissan Leaf" forum, I'll put us back on subject. Once I get my Leaf (providing I don't die from old age first), I won't have to worry about tornados. As soon as I hear the warning, I'll just jump in to my Leaf. With the weight of the battery pack holding me down, I figure I should be safe.

 

[AndyH]

... I am a bit surprised that congress would be able to understand even this simpler report, but based on most of the GOP responses to climate change perhaps my skepticism about their abilities was not misplaced :lol:

:lol: :lol:

Agreed. I cannot understand how anyone in a position of trust - that has sworn an oath to this country - can keep their jobs after voting against scientific fact.

 

[AndyH]

Since this is a "Nissan Leaf" forum, I'll put us back on subject. Once I get my Leaf (providing I don't die from old age first), I won't have to worry about tornados. As soon as I hear the warning, I'll just jump in to my Leaf. With the weight of the battery pack holding me down, I figure I should be safe.

Since this is a Non Leaf Discussion area, your post is spam. :lol:

I get that your post is an attempt at humor, but after growing up in tornado alley, I'd advise against staying with any vehicle - the ditch is your friend.

 

[Stoaty]

For those who are interested in the possible link between tornadoes and climate change, Joe Romm has a detailed post here:

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/02/tornadoes-extreme-weather-and-climate-change/

Bottom line: attribution is difficult for tornadoes, evidence for other extreme weather events is much stronger.

 

[AndyH]

Sorry Sloaty. He wrote, he interviewed, he linked...did this post come up with anything new that we haven't already outlined? Maybe I missed it?

 

[LEAFfan]

226 tornadoes touched down last Wed. in a 24 hour period which is an all time historic record since records have been kept. Now, tell me how 'normal' that is? If these historic storms aren't because of global warming, I'll eat my shorts.

 

[Stoaty]

Sorry Sloaty. He wrote, he interviewed, he linked...did this post come up with anything new that we haven't already outlined? Maybe I missed it?

Only new thing would be current quotes from recognized experts in the field. Joe knows a lot of these guys and has good access to them, so we can be pretty certain this is up-to-date. Findings aren't any different from the 2009 report you mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[AndyH]

Thanks - I'm still too new to the overall information flow and wanted to make sure I got the message you intended.

edit... I think it's best to stick with the major players and leave the blogs and 'this guy knows these guys' articles for recreational reading. The major sources have the benefit of time peer review, and then fusion to form a unified big picture. It's waaay too easy to get pulled down a rabbit hole if we try to get too close to the sausage making.

What do you think we as a nation should be doing - targets/goals/big picture wise?

 

[Danny]

Earthships all around. Too bad my start in Texas will probably never get finished.

 

[Stoaty]

What do you think we as a nation should be doing - targets/goals/big picture wise?

--either a carbon tax, cap and trade, or cap and dividend (most important)
--strong energy efficiency standards (new products sold, new buildings, air conditioners, refrigerators, lighting,etc.--and especially vehicles)
--feed-in tariffs for renewable energy sources
--strengthen pollution standards for coal plants (although latest evidence is that natural gas may be almost as bad from a climate change standpoint, it doesn't release mercury, etc. the way coal does)
--set national renewable energy portfolio standards (e.g., the way California is requiring 33% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020)
--national 55 MPH speed limit
--remove subsidies for fossil fuels and make fossil fuel usage pay for externalities. Cleaner fuels would already be competitive on a level playing field
--stop subsidizing nuclear power by limiting liability and putting the burden on the government. In a free market, nuclear can't compete because it is too expensive and is uninsurable. If it can't stand on its own economically after 50 years, let it go.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.

 

[Stoaty]

I think it's best to stick with the major players and leave the blogs and 'this guy knows these guys' articles for recreational reading. The major sources have the benefit of time peer review, and then fusion to form a unified big picture.

Unless you have lots of time/energy, reading and studying those major sources is not practical. In addition, the climate keeps changing more rapidly than predicted, so reading climateprogress allows one to stay abreast of the latest. Most of us need a scientist to communicate and interpret the findings. Joe Romm does the best job of anyone I have seen, and he has the credentials and experience.

 

[AndyH]

I think it's best to stick with the major players and leave the blogs and 'this guy knows these guys' articles for recreational reading. The major sources have the benefit of time peer review, and then fusion to form a unified big picture.

Unless you have lots of time/energy, reading and studying those major sources is not practical. In addition, the climate keeps changing more rapidly than predicted, so reading climateprogress allows one to stay abreast of the latest. Most of us need a scientist to communicate and interpret the findings. Joe Romm does the best job of anyone I have seen, and he has the credentials and experience.

I can't argue with any of your comments! And yet this is the most important task we have - we'd probably start making time. In between reading we really need to keep pounding on politicians while also working on the cultural transition - on a WWII timeline. Time keeps on slippin slippin slippin into the future...

Wearing my 'Joe Public' hat at just the right angle I'd probably start with something digested like the the US overview book, and then keep up with updates - but only after some solid background. Actually, for the typical American (is there such a creature?!) I'd include wonderingmind's videos on risk management, or his book "what's the worst that can happen" for a starter background and a very important look at bias. Extra points for the ability to see through spin to remove the useful nuggets.

The analyst in me wants to move up the chain from the 'heavily digested' content like the US summary and work through the IPCC docs while also pulling individual papers as they're released.

I'm sorry that I've pushed back at evnow's TOD and GaryGid's population comments here in the past. The more I read the more I understand why some climatologists are preparing survival property.

Yes - it's happening more quickly. A quickening as it were. Or some moron riding a geometric progression while poking at sleeping tigers just for the thrill.

Extreme climate rides - 50 cents. Look ma - no hands! (and well, uh, no net...)

On the bright side, our industrial complex will be perfectly suited for terraforming Mars - they're really 'up' on their mad CO2 and methane skillz...

You say that there's not enough time to move up the chain. I don't know who you are, how old you are, or where you are (and don't need to). But please let me ask - what can we do to elevate this problem to the proper level of importance? What can we do to get a majority of people like you with time constraints into a "Seal Team Six" mindset where there's no room for debate or waffling - there's a solid mission and only one way to walk to get to the other side?

 

[AndyH]

Earthships all around.

Hear Hear Danny! I'll drink to that!

Too bad my start in Texas will probably never get finished.

Don't say that - you're garage is part way up! Let me know when to bring a shovel!

I'm still working on my plan - the global model is looking very good - looks like they've killed a few bugs in the latest design.

 

[Danny]

I think I am only going to get one chance, and it's there in Texas. That one is now very logistically difficult.

Anyone want to build one here in L.A. county? Let me know.

 

[TRONZ]

125 dead in Joplin, MO.

 

[occ]

...
What do you think we as a nation should be doing - targets/goals/big picture wise?

I just went to a IEEE (OC) sponsored talk by Gregory Benford (SciFi author and physicist) on ideas about Geoengineering. One of the ideas was intriguing: in the US, 15% of total carbon emitted is through agricultural wastes, much of that is from the America heartland. The reason is that only a very small (~10%) portion of what is grown is actually used as food, the rest goes into pits and landfills for decomposition, which becomes CO2 eventually, and back into the atmosphere. A radical proposal is instead of letting the waste rot, you ship it down the Mississippi River (let gravity do the work), off-shores about 30 miles or so, to the deepest part and let it sinks to the bottom (~2 miles down, again let gravity do the work).

CO2 will eventually accumulate in the sea anyways, and eventually goes to the bottom as carbonate rocks and sediment (but in cycles of thousands of years). In effect, you'd just speed up that process, but using a lot less energy than conventional carbon sequestration methods (if there is such thing as a conventional one). A quick way to reduce 15% per year of US carbon output.