Hurricane Sandy: "It's Global Warming, Stupid"

Garvin Jabusch, Green Alpha Advisors, LLC
November 05, 2012 | 32 Comments

On a recent broadcast of the news show Democracy Now hosted by Amy Goodman, Cynthia Rosenzweig, co-chair of the New York City Panel on Climate Change, went out of her way to begin her comments on Hurricane Sandy and the effects of global warming to issue a disclaimer: "but first Amy, I need to make something very clear: any one storm cannot be associated directly with climate change…we have to be very careful not to say Hurricane Sandy was caused by climate change."

Unfortunately, this could easily be taken to imply that warming and Sandy may have had nothing to do with one another. The word “associated” is particularly misleading (as opposed to “caused”) because to say a given storm and global warming aren’t associated is flat untrue. Rosenzweig said this right at the beginning of her segment before she went on to explain about the dangers of climate change (which she is qualified to do as a distinguished climate scientist).

This is the kind of overly couched, ass-covering commentary that drives me crazy. Because the fact is that global warming did, unquestionably, influence Sandy.

Basic chemistry proves that carbon dioxide traps heat, primarily infrared wavelengths. This has been known since 1859, and is clearly demonstrated in this great BBC video experiment. (If you have any doubts at all regarding the fundamental science, watch it, and even if you don’t, it’s pretty cool.) Since the beginning of the fossil fuels era, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased to nearly 43 percent, from 280 parts per million (PPM) to 400 PPM. That is a lot more carbon dioxide holding a lot more heat energy. Simple calculations reveal that between 1951 and 2011, extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has added energy in the amount of 210 sextillion additional joules that would not be here if we were still at the old 280 PPM levels. (Energy or heat wise, a joule is a little less than a quarter of a calorie.)

So we’ve added 210,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 extra joules of heat and counting (we’re adding about 34 billion tons more carbon dioxide per year, trapping ever more heat energy), and that energy is in every molecule of the atmosphere. That’s how it works. More energy in any system means that system is powered to be more active. If you throw a ball 43 percent harder, it will fly with more force. If a gallon of gas gets you and your car 20 miles, 1.43 gallons will get you 28.6 miles. That’s what warming is – extra energy rendered as heat.

Small wonder insurers have concluded that the rate of weather-related disasters has quintupled over the last three decades. Yes, there were storms back before warming, when the atmosphere was still at 280 PPM, but they had a lot less energy to work with. There can be no question that the additional energy in the molecules of the atmosphere comprising Sandy influenced her strength. On the contrary, physics indicates that it’s impossible for all that energy not to have influence, as if somehow Sandy existed in a 280 PMM atmosphere, as if she grew in a bubble shielded from reality. She didn’t, we don’t.

It is worth observing that with energy in the atmosphere at its highest in the era of human recordkeeping, Sandy came ashore with record rainfall and record storm surges. (Spoiler: as additional carbon dioxide traps still more additional energy in the atmosphere, more extreme weather event records will be set. Soon.) Sandy may well have existed in a 280 PPM world, but there is no way she would have been the same storm with the same energy; implying that all things might have been equal in a pre-warming world and at the present day is misleading and just wrong.

However well intentioned, comments like Dr. Rosenzweig’s provide the kind of exclamation that gets repeated without context, ad nauseum, by proponents of climate disinformation. Don’t be surprised if disinformer-in-chief Senator James Inhofe even quotes her on the floor of the Senate to make his case for “drill baby drill.” (Don’t laugh, Inhofe has applied this tactic using the words of 350.org’s Bill McKibben, Grist’s David Roberts and others; see this year’s Senate Hearing on Climate Change, starting at 1:40 in this video.)

Fortunately, not all media communication on warming is so timid. Enter Mike Bloomberg. His approach to business and government has been empirically rational and evidence based. If data tell him something unequivocally, that’s what he seems to believe. His endorsement of President Obama in next week’s election was made on the same basis, “I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.”

So for him and his organization it made sense for the post-Sandy cover of their flagship magazine Bloomberg Business Week to read “It’s Global Warming, Stupid,” above an image of a Sandy-flooded New York City. This is evidence based, real, non-misleading climate communication, from a man not afraid of backlash. Kudos, Mayor Bloomberg. Your unwillingness to temper science in the face of monetarily or ideologically motivated pressure shows us a real way forward.

But still the other end of the communications spectrum remains. In her effort to be fair and balanced, and qualified as she is, Dr. Rosenzweig doesn’t seem to realize that her language plays into the hands of climate change deniers funded by and existing for the benefit of the fossil fuels industry. Many news viewers and listeners don’t get past the first 30 seconds of a segment, so unfortunately many people heard an expert say, “we have to be very careful not to say Hurricane Sandy was caused by climate change.” As a result, more people, not less, arguably think climate science must be debatable. It’s not.

We’ve been so conditioned by climate deniers’ chimera of false fairness and by fear of being labeled ‘extremist’ that now even climate scientists are making arguments that seem to encourage doubt. Dr. Rosenzweig, plainly speaking the truth is not extremism. Fear to do so is.

32 Comments

ANONYMOUS
November 20, 2012

No doubt a number of natural events in the last few years have been partially blamed on climate change. And there is enough scientific reasoning to support the same as well. For those who are not convinced and call all this a 'sham' or 'hype', I think cannot explain why then nations globally are meeting on common platforms to address this issue. For countries such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Maldives and many more, who are slowly losing their land and ever so vital drinking water resource, this is no soft matter. Ultimately, it is the political world that will have to come together to find consensus to this growing danger, just as their decisions have, over the years, created the problem. The scientific community can just give warnings and provide some solutions. Industries can provide cleaner solutions and technologies, but it is the politicians who will enforce everything.

And for those who are ever so negative about the subject, you may not realsi the gavity of the problem,, but your children will have to live it and suffer

Philip Haddad
November 13, 2012

I fully agree that we must convert to renewables as soon as possible. Yes fossil fuels are the chief contributor to global warming; but it is not the CO2, it is the heat of combustion that raises the temperature. The correlations of CO2/temperature do not show any evidence that CO2 caused anything. In the 400,000 previous years there were four cycles (Malenkovich) in which increased solar radiance caused temperatures to rise. As soon as the peak was passed temperatures dropped rapidly but CO2 drop was much slower, decades and centuries, showing that CO2 was not causing or supporting higher temperatures. Present day correlations show that both CO2 and temperature rise was caused primarily by combustion of fossil fuels. Kyoto gave no consideration to the heat emitted as being a contributor. Very poor science.

Peter Bradshaw
November 13, 2012

@Philip Haddad

"The BBC demonstration: what a farce. CO2 snuffs out a candle by excluding oxygen and the presenter says its trapping heat!"

Clearly you did not look carefully at the video. The candle was outside the chamber that was filled with CO2, and continued to burn brightly in the air. The camera was looking at the infrared heat of the candle, clearly visible through the long tubular chamber when full of ordinary air, with just a small amount of CO2, virtually disappearing when the tube was being filled with CO2.

As to the correlation of CO2 alone and temperature, the data analysis of CO2 in ice layers and the fossil-species evidence of temperature variation show a substantial degree of correlation over the last half million years or so. As far as we know, no significant fossil fuel burning was going on until the last few hundred years. But even if the current temperature changes are caused in large part by the heat emission from burning fossil fuels, this is yet a further argument for converting to renewable sources, such as solar power, as fast as we know how.

Severi Gustaf
November 8, 2012

I am always amazed at how many people ae not willing to look at "THE BIG PICTURE" which is that resources are finite, yes that includes fossil fuels too so why are we using more each year? When will we reach sustainable use. Most of the minerals can be recyled so the NET new consumption can be limited but the only way to recycle fossil fuels is to return the carbon to plant material. Pumping it into the ground is no solution. It is all very nice to use solar panels adn wind turbines BUT we are still going to increase the use of oil and gas and coal for some time so what we should really be looking at and thinking about is how we can reduce our consumption. The best way is to look at how much efficiency can be improved with the heating and cooling transportation systems we are using today. Do this and we could make what we have left last much longer.

Kurt Grossman
November 7, 2012

Just curious: how many trees would it take to breathe in enough CO2 to balance heat engines? What if you produce the same amount of energy while emitting 50% of the CO2? What if there is a new hydropower that can produce power at 10% of the energy density? There is a lot of talk about the problems and very few economically viable solutions.

Philip Haddad
November 7, 2012

The BBC demonstration: what a farce. CO2 snuffs out a candle by excluding oxygen and the presenter says its trapping heat!Kyoto, and apparently nobody else accepts the fact that we burn fossil fuels for the heat content. The CO2 is a beneficial by-product. Global warming is caused by humans and it is due to the heavy consumption of energy. For example: in 2008 we emitted 50X10E16 btus (that's equivalent to 500 Mount Saint Helen eruptions) into an atmosphere whose mass is 530x10E16 kilograms. That is enough to raise the temperature 0.17*F. actual rise was about one fourth that due to cooling from glacial melting and photosynthesis. Conversion of CO2 and H2O (by photosynthesis) removes 5000 btus per pound of CO2. The models assigning a climate sensitivity to CO2 are based on the erroneous assumption that correlations of temperature/CO2 indicate that CO2 is the CAUSE rather than a result of the real cause which raised levels of both factors. Fossil fuels are not the only source of heat. Nuclear power, though free of CO2, emits twice the total heat as its electrical output. The EPA has labeled CO2 "a hazard to human health" and passed laws to save us from "THE CARBONIC PLAGUE", and upheld by the Supreme Court. The alarmists would have us believe that the level of CO2 is now so high the temperature will continue to rise even if we quit using energy. We must replace fossil and nuclear energy with renewables, such as solar, wind, etc, that remove as much energy from the environment as they produce in useable form. There is no other answer. We can't plant enough trees to overcome the heat emitted from energy use.

Donald Wagner
November 7, 2012

There were four factors that influenced the extent of the devestation:
1) The hurricane hit shore close to the high tide
2) A Northern storm forced the hurricane inland instead of going out to sea
3) There was an unusually large storm that was unusually late in the seaon
4) The ocean is higher than it was a century ago.

The first two items were bad luck. The last item and obvious effect of climate change. The third item is partially due to climate change. A good analogy is comparing homeruns in the steroid era of baseball. There were a lot more home runs and a lot more records broken (e.g. Barry Bonds). Without the steroids a lot fewer home runs would have been hit. While without climate change we would still have natural catastrophes, now they will be larger and happen more often, and it will be getting worse.

BETTY MUNSON
November 7, 2012

Cause and effect, cause and effect. Human beings want to determine the cause of any effect, and the effect of any cause. This results in some ludicrous theories.

Where it gets dangerous is when the ludicrous theories gain enough support among the elite, whether intellectual, or religious, or social, or scientific, or medical, to have a burdensome or downright dangerous effect on the regular folks.

It takes a long time, sometimes generations, to get at real causes.
How long was malaria caused by bad air?
How long has rainfall been generated by deliberate human action, including cloud seeding and traditional dancing?
How long has knocking on wood quelled the evil spirits?
How long did human sacrifice make the god or gods smile upon you and your neighbors?

Some causes were actually identified without knowing why they created their effects. Plant a fish under your corn. Cold weather makes you catch cold.

But before I jump on any "cause" bandwagon, I think about my grandmother, who was a very thoughtful and practical person. She lived in East Texas. When the extreme weather events of the 50's were making news, and affecting her environment, she was satisfied she knew the answer: testing atomic bombs. And lo and behold, as nuclear testing diminished, so did the severe weather.

On the subject of bulldozing the deserts to build solar arrays (and doing similarly destructive things to erect wind turbines), we are not only speaking of disrupting the microfauna and soil layers. Those unfamiliar with the biology of the desert do not know and do not care that the millions of creosote bushes and other long-lived flora are busy sucking up CO2 every day in unfathomable amounts. FOR FREE. Creosote bushes are among the oldest plants on earth. Very hardy.

But we would be hearing all about it if Big Solar and Big Wind and the Big Noise from DC were proposing sending the bulldozers to old-growth redwood forests.

Poor creosotes, they so rarely get any hugs.

Jim Andre
November 7, 2012

@ Gerald

Yes, reading, you should try it sometime. Hybrid? Yes indeed. Read: http://pvtimes.com/news/kern-river-gas-holds-hearings-on-pipeline/

"The BLM is expected to issue a draft environmental impact statement on the gas pipeline in early January, public hearings will take place in mid to late January, Vaillancourt said. A final decision is expected by the BLM in mid 2013, after which Kern River Gas has to apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC ."

"BrightSource Energy has an application pending before the California Energy Commission to build two, 250-megawatt solar power plants at the 3,200-acre Hidden Hills Ranch along the Tecopa Road on the California side of the state line. While it will produce solar power, BrightSource needs natural gas to help the plant get up to full operating potential when the sun comes up and to keep the transfer fluid warm at night, Smith said."

Are these projects a front for the natural gas companies?

As for thermal solar, 13 projects have been permitted in the CA deserts alone, of those 8 are thermal, using vast amounts of gas and water.

Gerry Wootton
November 7, 2012

Green NH3 is just an alternative way to store electrical energy chemically. This is a less efficient route than the EV approach and maintains both the inefficiency and complexity of an IC engine. If this is 'the least expensive fuel in terms of $ GJ', electricity, by definition is cheaper. In any case, fuel taxes average 48.9 cents per gallon so it is unlikely that any vehicle fuel would sell for 50 cents as claimed nor would it retail at production cost (storage, wholesale, distribution, retail, promotion, etc); Only $2.44 per gallon represents the cost of petroleum in the price of gasoline. Ammonia still needs an auxiliary combustion material such as gasoline. While it's potentially clean, there is still some NO/NOx to deal with. The toxicity of ammonia might also be an issue - no one needs a garage full of ammonia fumes. The comp in current use in the consumer retail fuel market would be propane.

Gerry Wootton
November 7, 2012

@jandre -'Fact is more thermal solar utility-scale projects that have been permitted on public lands in CA than PV' - definitely not a fact. I have the list and have analyzed it in various ways including by technologies, land use, land disturbance, use of resources, nature reserves, impact on watersheds, etc. CSP projects are in the minority by capacity and by land use. In fact there are single PV projects with as much capacity as all of the CSP put together. Since every one of these projects has to file a detailed EIS, the data is all there including site plans, easements and technical data. Reading is fundamental. In any case, your argument about hybrid generation is useless - you might just as well say that San Onfre nuclear plant is currently gas fired.

Jim Warden
November 7, 2012

GreenNH3 is 50 cents a liter and zero emissions. Peered by 6 universities. Safer and lower cost than gas and diesel. Scientific American says peak 2014. Mr Obama (and Harper) will not reply to GreenNH3 ? If we let Oil continue to control our lives they will. It is every Oil company ceo's job to create the most profit for his shareholder. If that entails ignoring his grandkids future he can say he is just doing his job. But the polititions should be ashamed.

Rich Barbarics
November 7, 2012

I have a lot of respect for Amy Goodman's objectivity. Extreme weather like hurricanes (not climate change) is aggravated by rise in 'ocean' temperature which has risen slightly over the past few decades. Single events like Sandy, are much more a matter of bad luck when they hit the shorelines. Hopefully such storms will veer off into the Atlantic in the future but we know some won't. Climate change will occur over the next 50 years and has probably already been tipped. Living on the eastern shore or on the San Andreas fault is simply risky business that most of us want to accept.

Severi Gustaf
November 7, 2012

I think the only question that really remains is how many disasters and at what scale will tehy have to be before we begin to take this seriously. At present we are still looking at who should be blamed. Industrialized countries use far and above more energy per capita than the developing counties. Of course it is going to be difficult for them to stop their growth. We have to lead by example. Start with transportation. Stop making heavy, powerful gas guzzling SUVs etc. USA could easily cut their transportation emissions and reduce CO2 emissions by a billion pounds or so without any dramatic lifetstyle changes. Stop talking and start doing.

Alex Zaitsev
November 7, 2012

Colleagues,
it seems that there is a general misconception about the origin of global warming. Have a look at "The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change" by Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder. It seems that CO2 makes only a small contribution to the global warming as compared to general albedo of our planet. I do not mean that we should not curb the GHG emissions or plant more trees than we cut. I also consider the renewable energy as a locomotive to drive the general technological progress. And I have installed off-grid PV system at my place (believe me, it is much more costly and much more difficult in Russia than it is in the US). It is a question of objectivity. Now too much money and too much emphasis was made on GHG emissions, therefore the establishment would desperately resist alternative point of view.
The very pathos of the paper is oversimplified. CO2 generated from coal was naturally stored in the form of coal for millions of years, therefore this is energy that is balanced historically. For insyance, thermal emissions from nuclear energy is not balanced by any natural trap.

Jim Andre
November 6, 2012

Gerald, there are pros and cons to just about everything no? Fact is more thermal solar utility-scale projects that have been permitted on public lands in CA than PV, yes those gas-guzzling water-consuming carbon-rich-soil-ripping projects. My emphasis was on decentralized generation (I was talking about solar btw not gas generators in Africa but you knew that). In order to move a conservation past the petty cloggings, it's important to focus on the debate - DG vs. Utility-scale solar. Yet every conversation I have with a utility solar guy is simplistically redirected to Coal vs Sun by that guy? Why run? I pointed out the fallacy of big solar's greenness as a carbon offset (which you seemed to disbelieve) and clearly stated my preferred alternative being DG solar. I guess the only way we'll move on from that is if you indeed look beyond this screen and check out the research out there. Scientists (like myself) who study desert systems are amazed how the facts have been conveniently ignored by the utility solar 'greenwash', both in terms of carbon, projected species losses, crashing of ecosystem functions (see my earlier comments about hurricane Sandy's impacts on bad city planning). Details do matter in this case. You also said 'Of course, you can prefer rooftop if you are willing to accept a higher cost of energy'. That 1.7 billion taxpayer loan to Brightsource for ISEGS? More than 30 billion in loans handed to companies more than willing to rape the west. Just think what that money would do if used as incentives for DG? I've been off the grid on solar for 20 years, and saved a lot of $ compared to what I'd be paying SDGE if I had panels on the grid, or was to acquire if my electricity from Ivanpah Solar, for example. Ignoring the real costs has it's price too. The loss of soils at these bulldozed projects = dust storms = pricey medical bills, etc.. Desert soil crusts only take 100-1000 years to recover. I'm sure future generations won't notice.

Gerry Wootton
November 6, 2012

@ jandre - I believe I said PV not CSP - that's a fact. PV is the dominant form of solar electric power and doesn't use any natural gas. It's true that some, not all, CSP plants are hybrid thermal plants and, as a result, they use less natural gas than if they used natural gas exclusively. Of course, if you don't want to use natural gas - don't. Natural gas is the cheap option for those who prefer cheapness over any other values. As for damaging the planet, there is no panacea. All human activity is a tax on the environment. Everyone with money could have a gas generator in their back yard in the name of distributed power. They do it in South Africa ... taint good for the environment nor for those who can't afford it. As for corporate monopoly, sometimes you've got to dance with the one that brought you especially if they're buying the drinks. You posit simplistically that distributed generation is intrinsically better and it is in some aspects but it is also worse. If everyone was back-feeding the grid, a lot of distribution transformers would be at risk and utility line-men and firemen would be routinely fried. There is no question that ground mount arrays on trackers with regular maintenance including glass cleaning are way more efficient than unmaintained fixed mount roof top arrays. Of course, you can prefer rooftop if you are willing to accept a higher cost of energy and are good with ladders - good on yah. Personal note: I have rooftop solar and have worked on utility solar - there are pros and cons.

Jim Andre
November 6, 2012

Thermal solar plants like all the ones permited in CA and NV don't use natural gas? Check your facts. And please, let's not transfer the discussion to BIG SOLAR vs. BIG COAL, I want neither. You want the former. The earth (and that includes the atmosphere) needs decentalized generation. It's a better alternative, unless you want to continue to rationalize anti-coal without caring at all for how your alternative destroys the planet as well, while continuing our vulnerability to long-distance distribution and a corporate/utility monopoly. I think somewhere above you dissed simplistic thinking?

Gerry Wootton
November 6, 2012

'solar plants use natural gas (up to 30% of production)' say what? PV plants don't use any NG at all - just sun. Or are you referring to the usual inaccurate mythology about energy rate of return of solar manufacturing? Also, your 21M acres is about half the area in new fossil fuel development permits in the southwest and way more than the BLM solar lands of 0.285M acres. In any case, 21M acres of solar farms could be offset by 25M acres of open-pit coal mining. The carbon sequestration you speak of does not come close to the carbon density of coal deposits acre for acre. When they say 'Disturbance of this sequestration process by ground-mounted solar power installations could slow this sequestration.' a) they say 'could' and b) they don't say why disturbance by only ground mounted solar and no other disturbance should be of concern, given that it involves mostly a scattering of post holes and that the resultant shadowing could increase the sequestration capacity and c) they have no measurable values for the rate of carbon sequestration only the total amount of carbon currently sequestered in certain, not all, geologic structures. The carbon density of coal seams is approximately 250 times that of sequestered carbon in the approximately 1 meter layer of calcium carbonate bearing structures you speak of (no one would even mine a coal seam that thin). You talk about '21 million ac of pristine carbon-sequestering land' which is a) a specious area, b) not mostly pristine and c) mostly not carbon sequestering geology. Your statement is truly a miracle of loaves and fishes. There is no question that PV can be versatile in siting; however, why shouldn't Phoenix be home to a few dozen thermal power plants - say a mix of nuclear, coal and natural gas types? As they say, turn about is fair play. It seems you think big box malls the acme of land use.

Jim Andre
November 6, 2012

Gerald, I didn't prsent math, but if you want to learn more about this reference the research of Michael Allen's lab at Univ. of California, or Bill Schlesinger at Duke. The carbon is not stored in living microfauna, it's in the caliche layer (calcium carbonate), which is inorganic. Couple the hundreds of years of release of this carbon with the reality that the solar plants use natural gas (up to 30% of production), the fossil fuel offset isn't happening. The most recent agressive proposal (PEIS) for solar development on public lands in the desert southwest targets up to 21 million ac of pristine carbon-sequestering land, I think that's bigger than Phoenix. But Phoenix is big, and offers enough pristine rooftops to power Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego and Las Vegas combined.

Gerry Wootton
November 6, 2012

@jandre - "dozing them releases more carbon into the atmosphere than is offset by the move to big solar from fossil fuels." That math doesn't work. The amount of carbon in the micro-fauna layer of a desert is far less than in any coal seam of the same area. And, the microfauna in disturbed areas will grow back, especially when the fencing keeps the ATV crowd away. The math is that a coal fired plant of equivalent capacity will, in 30 years, be supported by slightly more area of open pit mining plus substantial deposits of toxic waste. The amount of carbon sequestered in those coal seams dwarfs that in the micro fauna; furthermore, start with the vegetation removed (often forests) growing on top of those coal deposits. Of course, the carbon budget is important; however, that doesn't diminish the threats of NOx, SO2, Mercury, arsenic, cadmium, other heavy metals, uranium and other radioactive materials dispersed into the environment by burning coal. Natural gas, while shy on some of these has its own unique contaminants and releases substantial quantities of methane into the environment - from a GHG perspective, natural gas is only better in the 50 year+ time frame but not in the short run.
As for desert land, the land allocated by FERC for solar development is smaller in area than the land set aside for future urban sprawl in greater Pheonix - there is no chance for the biosphere on concrete, asphalt or composite roofs. Perhaps you can speak favorably about CO2 sequestration in desert region swimming pools.

Jim Andre
November 6, 2012

Flushing Meadows used to have meadows. Estuaries and forested watersheds with biologically intact soils used to filter toxins and moderate hydrological runoff, rivers were flocked with riparian vegetation in backwaters that absorbed and slowed storm flow. Nature is complex, and the series of alterations by the bipeds to it have left the system in such bad shape, it doesn't serve us well. Storms like Sandy make a bigger mess, because of the mess we've made of the natural system that used to moderate the effects of storms.

The most troubling alteration going today, and one that will have the greatest impact on our lives....grading millions of acres of biologically rich desert (public lands) to install industrial-scale solar while calling it green and the answer to stemming global warming. A lot of liberal journalists are falling for this and applauding Obama. The irony, we scientists are learning that arid lands soils are huge carbon sinks, dozing them releases more carbon into the atmosphere than is offset by the move to big solar from fossil fuels. The next irony, it COULD all happen on rooftops and degraded lands, but that wouldn't keep the big corporations happy - and so we give them for free our natural heritage to develop, and we watch as our energy and climate future is still guided by big oil companies like Chervron, killing our last great ecosystems while still sending GHGs through the roof.

Gerry Wootton
November 6, 2012

1 ft sounds like exaggeration. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png Looks like a bit less than 7' since 1912. If one wants to read the tea leaves, it looks like the abatement during the great depression could indicate an association with human activity. Still, I don't think you can exaggerate stupidity: in one stunning Fukushima moment, a reporter stands at the edge of the tidal debris field near the reactors and then, facing uphill, points to an ancient obelisk that says essentially 'high water mark' with a date. And, if you think that Americans wouldn't build a nuclear reactor in a flood plane and put essential equipment in the basement, you'd be wrong. And if you think that Canadians wouldn't build a reactor within the flood of a recorded seiche (fresh water tsunami), you'd also be wrong. (that's not a knock against nuclear power but it is a knock against a bunch of jumped up primates).

Jim Andre
November 6, 2012

GeraldR, very good comments, thanks

Jim Andre
November 6, 2012

Sea level has risen about a foot in the past century, so rather than a 13 ft storm surge onto NY City, we would have had a 12 ft storm surge without warming the past century.

Gerry Wootton
November 6, 2012

A lot of this discussion is also representative of silver bullet thinking. Simplists want to reduce everything to a single causal relationship i.e. there is one and only one thing that causes and event to happen and there is one and only one thing that will make it all better. They must teach this nonsense in journalism school. Relative to Sandy and New York: sea level rise of ~6.6 inches in the last century had a little bit to do with the result but then modifying shorelines, removal of sandbanks, building over coastal swamps, soil subsidence caused by drainage, creation of artificial canyons and massive additions of hardscape, development along river basins upstream, building major infrastructure below sea level and so on contributed much more to the result. This was predictable and predicted. Also, we should always keep in mind that extreme events are rare but not unusual - it's only a matter of time. Last time there was major flooding on the Red River, local politicians, who were probably somewhat responsible for zoning flood plains for development as well as defensive measures, kept repeating the word 'unprecedented'. Checking the record, one finds very good records including land surveyor maps from past centuries and local university research proving a) not unprecedented and b) could be worse. Sometimes people strive a little to hard to blame their imprudence on something or someone else. Sea level rise is on a definite up slope and atmospheric energy is increasing: will that stop anyone from building on flood plains? Will that inspire anyone to stop returning sequestered carbon to the environment? Probably not. Much ado about nothing.

Gerry Wootton
November 6, 2012

Most people do not seem to understand the reticence of scientists. Science is based on preponderance of evidence and scientific opinion; that is, the statistical result of many observations characterized by diversity and redundancy as well as repeatability and reproducibility. Common mythology is that all that one needs is for one apple to fall on one head and eh voila. In any case, data has a certain amount of natural variation and uncertainty, while the public expects exactitude (vis the case of Italian scientists who couldn't pinpoint the exact hour of a major earthquake). Unfortunately, when scientists couch there statements in a probabilistic way, people pile on or even accuse them of deception or incompetence - they can't win. As a number of meteorologists have tried to point out, the effect of a major storm (as we humans perceive it) depends ever so much on the storm track. If a storm pounds Manhattan that is perceived much differently than if it pounds a Newfoundland out-port. There is no difference in the storm, just how we perceive it. Scientists generally rely on preponderance of data and peer review to try to minimize this type of bias. If everything could be determined from a single observation, science would be easy.

M. SIMON
November 6, 2012

'Talk about how the effect of Sandy (not the cause) was influenced by 1 ft rise in sea level over past several decades.' The rise is correct. The 'past several decades.' is not. At about 3.3 mm per year (worst case measured) how much did sea levels rise in 20 years? 66 mm. About 2.6 inches. It will make a bigger difference in your love life than it will in hurricanes.

Jim Andre
November 6, 2012

When I say rely on the data to make your case, state that mean temperature has increased in the last 50 years at 92% of all 500 mb raob weather stations located systematically around the world. State that warming models portend more extreme events. Talk about how the effect of Sandy (not the cause) was influenced by 1 ft rise in sea level over past several decades. Don't expect much from the NY hurricane data though....more hurricanes hit NY 50-100 years ago then in the past 50 years. And again, please stop tripping over your advocacy in your zeal to interpret the facts - you're not helping us clarify the impacts of climate climate change by dumbing down on scientific reasoning.

Jim Andre
November 6, 2012

I'm a scientist who studies impacts of global warming, and I've never read such a misleading crock of bull as this. Yes the earth is warming. Yes it's largely human-caused. No you can't make the direct association with Sandy by simply stating the theory of the warming, just as you don't want our opponents to jump at the next cold winter to make the case that warming doesn't exist. Rely on the data to make your case - and stop using cause and effect that simply kills your credibility.

M. SIMON
November 6, 2012

Planting trees would be a cheap solution. And it would have economic benefits. It has been ruled out so far. Solar, wind. and carbon taxes have ruled the day. But Carter II is coming. This evening in fact. Subsidies will get slashed by a Republican Congress. Then things will get done on their economic merits. I like trees.

Kurt Grossman
November 5, 2012

I hear lots of whining and predicting: the new "prophets" of Climate Change (NO longer Global Warming) When will someone stop ranting and talk about a reasonable solution? The bible predicted massive earthquakes, air pollution, and water pollution resulting in the marine ecosystem failing. Are you proposing that we kill 2 billion people so that we don't have the problem? That would cause less CO2. Government made cars (Oh we are doing that aren't we) that use hydrogen? $12 per gallon: "giddy-up!" Solar, wind, geothermal, are here at $8-$12 per gallon. Let's do away with deserts all together and use their sunshine: will that work? All this ranting about problems; stirring up frustration and ugliness never solved a problem! I invent renewable energy technology that offers solutions to the problems. Stop talking and start inventing.
Matthew 24
"6 You will hear of wars and lots of talk about wars, but do not be afraid. These things must happen, but it is not the end yet. 7 Nations will have wars with other nations. Countries will fight against countries. There will be no food for people. The earth will shake and break apart in different places. 8 These things are the beginning of sorrows and pains."

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Garvin Jabusch

Before co-founding Green Alpha Advisors, Garvin was the Director of Forward Sustainable Investments, a business unit of Forward Management, LLC. There his duties included supervision of and responsibility for all aspects of the management...