Climate Change Mad Libs
I see Grist has reproduced this post from Brad Johnson, including the headline playing off a Kevin Trenberth quote:
Top climate scientist on monster tornadoes: ‘It’d be irresponsible not to mention climate change’
I’ve given this some deep, deep thought. It seems the logic underlying that statement can be applied to most any major event, catastrophe or lifestyle pattern that is believed to have some climate change connection. So my deep thought observation is that we can come up with any number of similar headlines with just a few words substituted:
Top climate scientist on Arab revolts: ‘It’d be irresponsible not to mention climate change’
Top climate scientist on Texas wildfires: ‘It’d be irresponsible not to mention climate change’
You get the picture. We could also get creative:
Top climate scientist on combined carbon footprint of Al Gore and Thomas Friedman: ‘It’d be irresponsible not to mention climate change’
Top climate scientist on suburban sprawl: ‘It’d be irresponsible not to mention climate change’
Top climate scientist on endless growth of cities in arid and water-constrained landscapes: ‘It’d be irresponsible not to mention climate change’
Can you think of any others?
How about quoting Trenberth in full, or can you not read past the headline? I guess that would make your post look rather shallow and silly.
It is irresponsible not to mention climate change in stories that presume to say something about why all these storms and tornadoes are happening.
The environment in which all of these storms and the tornadoes are occurring has changed from human influences (global warming). Tornadoes come from thunderstorms in a wind shear environment. This occurs east of the Rockies more than anywhere else in the world. The wind shear is from southerly (SE, S or SW) flow from the Gulf overlaid by westerlies aloft that have come over the Rockies. That wind shear can be converted to rotation. The basic driver of thunderstorms is the instability in the atmosphere: warm moist air at low levels with drier air aloft. With global warming the low level air is warm and moister and there is more energy available to fuel all of these storms and increase the buoyancy of the air so that thunderstorms are strong. There is no clear research on changes in shear related to global warming. On average the low level air is 1 deg F and 4 percent moister than in the 1970s.
Moving behind the knee-jerk hand-waving of certain crowds, we can find a reasoned discussion:
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/02/tornadoes-extreme-weather-and-climate-change/
A recent study…
In this work, the authors present a “perfect prog” approach to estimating the potential for surface-based convective initiation and severity based upon the large-scale variables well resolved by climate model simulations. This approach allows for the development of a stable estimation scheme that can be applied to any climate model simulation, presently and into the future. The scheme is applied for the contiguous United States using the output from the Parallel Climate Model, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change third assessment A2 (business as usual) as input. For this run, relative to interannual variability, the potential frequency of deep moist convection does not change, but the potential for severe convection is found to increase east of the Rocky Mountains and most notably in the “tornado alley” region of the U.S. Midwest. This increase in severe potential is mostly tied to increases in thermodynamic instability as a result of ongoing warm season surface warming and moistening. Finally, approaches toward improving such estimation methods are briefly discussed.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2697.1
Since you’re invoking Climate Progress, let’s remember it is Joe Romm who often says that most people don’t read past the headline.
cue sandra bullock from miss congeniality: “oh, yeah–and world peace…”
the consensus is debasing their own currency.
C’mon Keith..stop being an adolescent cheese head. It really isn’t becoming of someone who likes to think of himself as contributing to the adult discourse.
Yes, Keith,
In the adult world, you just blame everything on global warming, keep the upper lip stiff and gently bob your head.
===========
Top climate scientist on suburban sprawl: “˜It’d be irresponsible not to mention climate change’
=============
We hear this constantly here to support proposals for public transit and new urbanism. Every time a new “condo-city” type tower is proposed to destruy a viable neighbourhood we hear this argument.
I think that I am missing an ironic twist
@ Shub..
I don’t think anyone was ‘blaming everything on global warming’..it’s that kind of semi hysterical exaggeration that leads away from productive enquiry. As the climate is changing (I’m assuming that you don’t seriously deny that) it would seem irresponsible (not to say stupid) to refuse to consider that in a discussion of the possible contributions to the record number of tornadoes.
@4
I plead guilty to arrested development. But I am a NY Giants fan, so no cheesehead for me.
More seriously, I think you miss the point of my last three faux headlines.
@8
I have to admit that the term ‘arrested development’ is a more acceptable description of what your are up to..but I am a little confused as to the last three headlines…I mean, the first headline in your post refers to tornadoes and the suggestion that global warming may be a contributor… that giant tornadoes in record numbers might be the result of global warming..whereas your last three ‘faux’ headlines mention things that are not possible results of global warming but are, instead, possible contributors..help me out here.
By ‘productive enquiry’, I want to be sure, is only attributing global warming to catastrophic events which lead to political or policy action, perhaps deemed as a productive activity?
Color me stupid here.
If there really is some new pattern of tornadoes then that IS climate change.
Saying that it’s “caused by climate change” is saying that it has caused itself.