Is Global Warming Making Tornadoes Worse?

[RYSE cross-post]

Like most natural disasters, the tragic tornadoes in the Southeast and Midwest have triggered a veritable storm of media attention. One question that has come up repeatedly in both mainstream and environmental outlets is this: Could global warming be making tornadoes stronger and more frequent?

Joe Romm, one of the Web’s most thorough climate bloggers, published a detailed post on the subject. He quoted two scientists “who have done more research and publication on extreme weather and climate change than most,” Kevin Trenberth and Tom Karl. Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Karl is the director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

Karl explained that, while several studies show that conditions favorable for tornadoes are more common with more greenhouse gases, “the results are not conclusive.” However, “…what we can say with confidence is that heavy and extreme precipitation events often associated with thunderstorms and convection are increasing and have been linked to human induced changes in atmospheric composition.”

Trenberth, meanwhile told the New York Times that “it’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability. Nowadays, there’s always an element of both.”

April 2011 did set a new monthly record of 875 tornadoes in the U.S., which coincided with record high temperatures throughout the world. We know the climate is changing, so it seems logical that tornadoes, which are part of the climate, should be affected. But overall, it seems that the specific connection between greenhouse gases and tornadoes has not been explored deeply enough to produce a definite answer.

We must not lose sight of the big picture, though. We’re seeing not just tornadoes, but also record droughts and wildfires, unusually heavy rainfalls, historic floods, and deadly heat waves, in the U.S. and throughout the world. In addition, NOAA has reported that our current emissions path could lead to semi-permanent Dust Bowls in the Southwest and other regions. Experts have been warning for years that climate change would make events like these more common, and in this case, the connection with greenhouse gases is well understood.

Whether or not monster tornadoes add to the proof that our climate is disrupted, they show, painfully, how much our civilization relies on a stable environment, and how dramatic changes in weather patterns can cause damage that even the wealthiest nations struggle to shake off.

Bill McKibben showed us the big picture in his piece for the Washington Post:

Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections….It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advised to try and connect them in your mind with, say, the fires now burning across Texas—fires that have burned more of America by this date than any year in our history. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been—the drought is worse than the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if it’s somehow connected….

There have been tornadoes before, and floods—that’s the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don’t let yourself wonder why all these records are happening at once: why we’ve had unprecedented megafloods from Australia to Pakistan in the last year. Why it’s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years….

Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just come through its second hundred-year-drought in the last four years, or that the pine forests across the western part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in the last decade—well, you might have to ask other questions. Like, should President Obama really just have opened a huge swath of Wyoming to new coal-mining? Should Secretary of State this summer sign a permit allowing a huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta? You might have to ask yourself: do we have a bigger problem than four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline?

….Better to join with the US House of Representatives, which earlier this spring voted 240-184 to defeat a resolution saying simply “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.” Propose your own physics; ignore physics altogether. Just don’t start asking yourself if last year’s failed grain harvest from the Russian heatwave, and Queensland’s failed grain harvest from its record flood, and France and Germany’s current drought-related crop failures, and the death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden fields might somehow be related. Surely the record food prices are just freak outliers, not signs of anything systemic….

If you got upset about any of this, you might forget how important it is not to disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If worst ever did come to worst, it’s reassuring to remember what the US Chamber of Commerce told the EPA in a recent filing: there’s no need to worry because “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” I’m pretty sure that’s what they’re telling themselves in Joplin today.

Enough said.

Official Global Warming Debunking Tool by Matt Davies

With a rare snow currently blanketing the South, I thought it would be a good time to bring out this global warming cartoon by Matt Davies. (For a more serious reply to the cold-weather-disproves-global-warming argument, see Skeptical Science.)

Via ClimateProgress.

Activists Unite for Climate Solutions in 350.org Global Work Party

On October 24, 2009, people around the world united for what CNN called “the most widespread day of political action in our planet’s history.” Thousands of activists rallied under the banner of 350 — that is, 350 parts-per-million, the safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The number has become a symbol of the grassroots climate movement. Now that the top-down approach has failed in both Copenhagen and Washington, concerned citizens of the earth are resorting more than ever to organizing from the bottom up. Today, 10/10/10, is proof.

The folks at 350.org designated October 10 as a “Global Work Party.” While the event is organized similarly to last year’s action day, there are two main differences. First, the Work Party is much bigger. At 7347 events in 188 countries, it easily tops the stunning figures from last October.

The second difference: Today’s Work Party is just that — a work party. Not an action party. Not a tea party. Participants aren’t just waving signs and demanding change; they’re building, repairing, planting, and installing change. At any time, you could find people educating and protesting for every cause imaginable, but not all of them could boast that they actually did something practical. From planting community gardens to installing solar panels, 350.org actions are moving us closer to that number. (In fact, the movement got a boost a few days ago when Barack Obama re-installed White House solar panels that Jimmy Carter had put up and Ronald Reagan had taken down.)

The message to political leaders is, “If we can get to work, so can you.” Of course, whether they will listen is another matter entirely. The climate movement must continue to grow after today and after this year. Eventually all those voices will be impossible to ignore.

In any case, it’s a heck of a lot better than just writing letters.

Do Americans support climate legislation?

While the effort to pass a meaningful climate bill is often presented as an uphill battle, new polls by George Mason University show that the situation in Congress does not reflect public opinion.

According to the reports (read them here), 65 percent of American adults think the U.S. should reduce emissions regardless of what other countries do.  When it comes to specific policies, 77 percent support CO2 regulation, while 61 percent think utilities should produce a fifth of their energy renewably, even if this increases electricity bills.  Overall, most Americans feel the environment should be protected, even at the expense of economic growth, but a smaller majority believe that protecting the environment improves economic growth.

Judging by these numbers, the Senators obstructing the climate bill are not representing the public’s interests.  Whose interests are they representing, then?  A quick look at lobbying stats gives you the answer.

Bookmark and Share

Energy-related CO2 emissions down almost 10% from 2005 levels

Although we’re doing a lot of things wrong, it seems we’re doing something right.  According Energy Information Administration’s new report, energy-related CO2 emissions dropped faster than expected.

Although the economy played a role in this, the EIA has another chart showing that GDP drop only accounts for about a third of the decrease in emissions.

There are many factors in the emissions drop — decreasing consumption of fossil fuels played a role, as did lower natural gas prices, efficiency gains, and state renewable energy standards.  You can read the report for details on why emissions dropped.  The EIA concludes that

…longer-term trends continue to suggest decline in both the amount of energy used per unit of economic output and the carbon intensity of our energy supply, which both work to restrain emissions.

Remember, the goal of the Senate climate bill is 17 percent below 2005 emissions by 2020.  So, we’ve already met more than half of that (admittedly lame) target.  This makes it a bit harder to believe that the other 7 percent is impractical or would cripple the economy.

So there’s some positive news, in contrast to this year’s rather depressing Earth Month.