New Yorker and NYT This Week

[wesleyhtswx]

Look, I enjoy the NY Times, the WPost, and the NewYorker. It's by and large good writing. The only non-liberal equivalent that matches the quality is the WSJ. But it is painful to read above the fold "news" and high-profile pieces like the ones this week pasted below. I challenge anyone to dispute categorizing such pieces as propaganda. One story blames CO2 on droughts, the other uses the old CO2 "holds more moisture in the air" shibboleth to account for this Spring's tornado activity. Nare a mention of any evidence of ANNUAL precipitation increases, as one would think to check if one were truly thinking scientifically as opposed to politically. As evidenced by the good discussions on this board, there is ample empirical data to support real AGW arguments, though I think the skeptics have some plausible, empirically supported counters and shouldn't be looped in with "deniers" and all that connotes historically. I think what bothers me most is that these writers, and predominant readers, think of themselves as more sophisticated (a.k.a. smarter and more scientifically grounded) than everyone else.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/06/13/110613taco_talk_kolbert

http://www.nytimes.c...rvest.html?_r=1

Also, whither Jeff Masters and Capital Weather Gang. Remember?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/02/as_is_often_the_case.html

JM:

There are some cases where extreme events are improperly blamed on climate change. For example, the number of violent (EF-4 and EF-5) tornadoes has not increased in recent decades, at least as far as our crude data on these can tell. Yet, sometimes I hear a violent tornado being blamed on climate change. For phenomena such as hurricanes, blizzards and heat waves, the best science that we have does predict that the dice are now loaded in favor of stronger such extreme events. A warmer world provides more energy for the strongest storms to get stronger, be they hurricanes or blizzards. When an unprecedented hurricane, blizzard or heat wave occurs, though, it should not be blamed on climate change, as no single weather event can be blamed on climate change. It is proper to say that such an occurrence "is consistent with what we expect to see from climate change," to draw attention to the very real risks that an increase in these extreme events will pose.

[Clifford]

http://www.nytimes.c...rvest.html?_r=1

Interesting article.

I find it interesting that the conclusions all seem that we are currently living in a climate optimum. And that a 2°C rise in temperatures would be devastating. And, likewise a 2°C drop in temperatures would be devastating. Perhaps that is why there was so much growth of civilization during the Holocene, but we certainly know that throughout the history of Earth, the temperatures have never been constrained to such a tight range.

With all the talk of difficulties feeding the population, not once is there a mention of population growth or suburban sprawl.

[skierinvermont]

Look, I enjoy the NY Times, the WPost, and the NewYorker. It's by and large good writing. The only non-liberal equivalent that matches the quality is the WSJ. But it is painful to read above the fold "news" and high-profile pieces like the ones this week pasted below. I challenge anyone to dispute categorizing such pieces as propaganda. One story blames CO2 on droughts, the other uses the old CO2 "holds more moisture in the air" shibboleth to account for this Spring's tornado activity. Nare a mention of any evidence of ANNUAL precipitation increases, as one would think to check if one were truly thinking scientifically as opposed to politically. As evidenced by the good discussions on this board, there is ample empirical data to support real AGW arguments, though I think the skeptics have some plausible, empirically supported counters and shouldn't be looped in with "deniers" and all that connotes historically. I think what bothers me most is that these writers, and predominant readers, think of themselves as more sophisticated (a.k.a. smarter and more scientifically grounded) than everyone else.

It is highly likely that rising CO2 levels will increase the occurrence of droughts. For one thing, the increase in precipitation is more than balanced by the faster evaporation. Soil moisture is supposed to decrease. Second of all, as the climate changes some areas will become drier and some areas wetter. So what we now consider a drought in some areas, like the SW U.S., will be more common. Climate change is virtually certain to alter weather patterns, thus making some areas wetter and some drier. What we consider normal weather will be altered.

And the article you say that blames the spring's tornadoes on agw... doesn't. It says quite clearly that we don't know whether tornado activity is going to increase. Which is true.

[tacoman25]

It is highly likely that rising CO2 levels will increase the occurrence of droughts. For one thing, the increase in precipitation is more than balanced by the faster evaporation. Soil moisture is supposed to decrease. Second of all, as the climate changes some areas will become drier and some areas wetter. So what we now consider a drought in some areas, like the SW U.S., will be more common. Climate change is virtually certain to alter weather patterns, thus making some areas wetter and some drier. What we consider normal weather will be altered.

And the article you say that blames the spring's tornadoes on agw... doesn't. It says quite clearly that we don't know whether tornado activity is going to increase. Which is true.

I don't get this. Wouldn't this just speed up the water cycle?

[skierinvermont]

I don't get this. Wouldn't this just speed up the water cycle?

Yes it is faster, but less water is stored "in reserve" in the soil.

And then there is still the fact that some areas get wetter and some drier, weather becomes more variable, seasons change, etc. which causes unusual dry (and wet) periods relative to today's climate.

[nzucker]

Yes it is faster, but less water is stored "in reserve" in the soil.

And then there is still the fact that some areas get wetter and some drier, weather becomes more variable, seasons change, etc. which causes unusual dry (and wet) periods relative to today's climate.

It looks as if some arid regions of agricultural importance such as the Canadian Prairies and Central Africa will become wetter with more soil moisture, however. This could be a large benefit for humanity, especially since a large portion of our grain is grown in Central Canada.

We know that precipitation patterns will change with global warming, but it may be to the effect of relieving drought in some areas and eliminating excessive precipitation in others. However, the general tendency so far (and I believe it is modeled to be continued) is that dry areas are becoming more arid (like the American West) and wet areas are becomining even rainier (like the Northeast). I do know of one place, Southern Chile, which is seeing a generally beneficial (to agriculture, not ecosystems) reduction in the annual rainfall of nearly 100"/year on the Southern Chilean coastal plain.

[wesleyhtswx]

It is highly likely that rising CO2 levels will increase the occurrence of droughts. For one thing, the increase in precipitation is more than balanced by the faster evaporation. Soil moisture is supposed to decrease. Second of all, as the climate changes some areas will become drier and some areas wetter. So what we now consider a drought in some areas, like the SW U.S., will be more common. Climate change is virtually certain to alter weather patterns, thus making some areas wetter and some drier. What we consider normal weather will be altered.

And the article you say that blames the spring's tornadoes on agw... doesn't. It says quite clearly that we don't know whether tornado activity is going to increase. Which is true.

I disagree. See the third paragraph and the article title:

For decades, climate scientists have predicted that, as global temperatures rose, the side effects would include deeper droughts, more intense flooding, and more ferocious storms. The details of these forecasts are immensely complicated, but the underlying science is pretty simple. Warm air can hold more moisture. This means that there is greater evaporation. It also means that there is more water, and hence more energy, available to the system.

What we are seeing now is these predictions being borne out. If no particular flood or drought or storm can be directly attributed to climate change—there’s always the possibility that any single event was just a random occurrence—the over-all trend toward more extreme weather follows from the heating of the earth.

[tacoman25]

Yes it is faster, but less water is stored "in reserve" in the soil.

And then there is still the fact that some areas get wetter and some drier, weather becomes more variable, seasons change, etc. which causes unusual dry (and wet) periods relative to today's climate.

I see. But the thing is, climate has always been in a state of flux...some areas have always gotten wetter/drier, weather patterns have always been variable, etc. Just look down through the annals of history and you'll find plenty of times that weather variability/climate change impacted humans significantly.

So while it could be said that drought, floods, blizzards, whatever are "consistent with AGW expectations", it could also be said that they are consistent with natural history.

[BethesdaWX]

I disagree. See the third paragraph and the article title:

For decades, climate scientists have predicted that, as global temperatures rose, the side effects would include deeper droughts, more intense flooding, and more ferocious storms. The details of these forecasts are immensely complicated, but the underlying science is pretty simple. Warm air can hold more moisture. This means that there is greater evaporation. It also means that there is more water, and hence more energy, available to the system.

What we are seeing now is these predictions being borne out. If no particular flood or drought or storm can be directly attributed to climate change—there’s always the possibility that any single event was just a random occurrence—the over-all trend toward more extreme weather follows from the heating of the earth.

eh, well yes the heating of the Earth (in the past) had led to, overall, more precipitation globally, but also higher evaporation rates, obviously. So whether the Warming is Naturally Caused or Man-Made, there should be no overall change in the water Budget (as has to be) run to equilibrium, otherwise the water cycle couldn't exist. Its not like the Earth is, or can, lose water With less Ice in a warmer world, there would in theory be more water. The speed of the Water Cycle is one thing, but these doomsday talks about "predicting future drought/floods in areas prone to them" is a bunch of Hypothesis and banter, case closed.

Since the Climate system is Chaotic in every aspect, it can be Predicted that these changes in Precip location/intensity will occur, based on models.....but predictions are predictions, there is no proof behind them other than what "models" show, and we'll know whether we can Trust Climate Models within the next 10-15yrs.

If Temps remain fairly flat or cool for the next 10-15 years, we'll need to-re-think every aspect of what we call "the climate". And to think its that easy... the over-simplification of the climate system could come back to bite us in the azz. This Scenario would be an absolute disaster for our understanding of the climate.

[tacoman25]

It looks as if some arid regions of agricultural importance such as the Canadian Prairies and Central Africa will become wetter with more soil moisture, however. This could be a large benefit for humanity, especially since a large portion of our grain is grown in Central Canada.

That's the other thing: the assumptions with AGW are always TOTALLY negative, with little if any thought given to possible benefits. I believe this is due in part to the environmental movement absorbing the climate change/carbon cause over the past 20 years, and thus anything human-created is automatically seen as terribly harmful to the earth.

[skierinvermont]

I disagree. See the third paragraph and the article title:

For decades, climate scientists have predicted that, as global temperatures rose, the side effects would include deeper droughts, more intense flooding, and more ferocious storms. The details of these forecasts are immensely complicated, but the underlying science is pretty simple. Warm air can hold more moisture. This means that there is greater evaporation. It also means that there is more water, and hence more energy, available to the system.

What we are seeing now is these predictions being borne out. If no particular flood or drought or storm can be directly attributed to climate change—there’s always the possibility that any single event was just a random occurrence—the over-all trend toward more extreme weather follows from the heating of the earth.

I don't see the word tornado anywhere in the quoted section.

On the other hand, a few paragraphs after that, it says very specifically that we don't know whether AGW will increase or decrease tornadoes. Which is true. Although I tend to favor some of the studies in the past few years which suggest it could increase.

[tacoman25]

I don't see the word tornado anywhere in the quoted section.

On the other hand, a few paragraphs after that, it says very specifically that we don't know whether AGW will increase or decrease tornadoes. Which is true. Although I tend to favor some of the studies in the past few years which suggest it could increase.

That sure would fit with the increased number/severity of tornadoes in 2011!

What exactly are they talking about when they say: "we are now seeing these predictions borne out"? The inferences are clear - blame any severe/extreme weather that's happened recently on AGW. That is how the general public will read that article, as intended.

[Clifford]

That sure would fit with the increased number/severity of tornadoes in 2011!

What exactly are they talking about when they say: "we are now seeing these predictions borne out". The inferences are clear - blame any severe/extreme weather that's happened recently on AGW. That is how the general public will read that article, as intended.

And...

Does it also account for the increased number and severity of tornadoes in 1974? What about 1953?

2011 will likely turn out to be one of the worst years in a century. However, it is impossible to judge trends based upon a single year. It is not uncommon to have tornado "outbreaks".

The tornado season this year seems to have been exacerbated by the cool PDO and warm AMO. And, while the La Niña was weakening, its North America effects still remained strong.

[tacoman25]

And...

Does it also account for the increased number and severity of tornadoes in 1974? What about 1953?

2011 will likely turn out to be one of the worst years in a century. However, it is impossible to judge trends based upon a single year. It is not uncommon to have tornado "outbreaks".

The tornado season this year seems to have been exacerbated by the cool PDO and warm AMO. And, while the La Niña was weakening, its North America effects still remained strong.

Exactly. It's not coincidence that many of the worst tornado years occurred during the last -PDO phase. But I have not seen a single mention of that factor in any of the speculative articles.

[skierinvermont]

That sure would fit with the increased number/severity of tornadoes in 2011!

What exactly are they talking about when they say: "we are now seeing these predictions borne out"? The inferences are clear - blame any severe/extreme weather that's happened recently on AGW. That is how the general public will read that article, as intended.

You can make all the inferences you want, but it quite clearly says we don't know how tornadoes will increase or decrease.

[nzucker]

You can make all the inferences you want, but it quite clearly says we don't know how tornadoes will increase or decrease.

But you know that those inferences are intended by the biased staff of the paper.

[skierinvermont]

But you know that those inferences are intended by the biased staff of the paper.

I'm not going to draw inferences which are directly opposite to the overtly stated meaning. If somebody comes away from that story thinking that AGW is supposed to increase tornadoes they have to be stupid.

[tacoman25]

You can make all the inferences you want, but it quite clearly says we don't know how tornadoes will increase or decrease.

I'm not the one making the inferences, the writer is. Answer the question then: in context, what is the author talking about when he says we are seeing AGW predictions being borne out? In light of the information in the article and recent events, what do you think the average reader will assume?

[skierinvermont]

I'm not the one making the inferences, the writer is. Answer the question then: in context, what is the author talking about when he says we are seeing AGW predictions being borne out? In light of the information in the article and recent events, what do you think the average reader will assume?

Droughts, storms being stronger, more severe floods.

If the reader wants to assume things which are directly contradicted by the text of the article, then they must be stupid. The article specifically states that we don't know whether tornadoes will increase or decrease. If someone can't understand straightforward statements of fact that is their problem.

[skierinvermont]

If the article said 1+1=2 you guys would say "what if the reader were a moron and assumed/inferred that the author was really trying to say 1+1=3"

Honestly, I don't know how you can get any clearer than "WE DON"T KNOW WHETHER TORNADOES WILL INCREASE OR DECREASE"

It's right there in black and white. If someone can't understand that and wants to somehow magically assume something directly opposite to that, as if the New Yorker was written in code, then I don't know what to say.

[nzucker]

If the article said 1+1=2 you guys would say "what if the reader were a moron and assumed/inferred that the author was really trying to say 1+1=3"

Honestly, I don't know how you can get any clearer than "WE DON"T KNOW WHETHER TORNADOES WILL INCREASE OR DECREASE"

It's right there in black and white. If someone can't understand that and wants to somehow magically assume something directly opposite to that, as if the New Yorker was written in code, then I don't know what to say.

"We don't know whether tornadoes will increase or decrease" but "Hey, a lot of severe weather has been happening lately, possibly linked to global warming."

As you say, 1+1=2. Reading between the lines=reading the lines.

[Clifford]

A lot of severe weather hits EVERY year.

Even "once a century" events have to happen sometime.

One, or a couple of heavy years can significantly skew the data without actually indicating a trend. Sometimes it is even best to eliminate the "highs" and "lows"... and do the statistics on the non extreme data.

The only way to solve these questions will be with data collection and statistics. And even so, much of our historical data is pretty marginal, or too short of data sets.

[Mencken_Fan]

I read the first two articles and found them very good. Obviously there's going to be a point of diminishing returns with agricultural efficiency - and as a grocery shopper myself, I've clearly seen the rise in food prices.

Shifting the world's growing areas from one place to another does nothing to help the total output of food; while our population rises relentlessly. The food problem is going to get worse with or without climate change. Oh jeez - how depressing...

[skierinvermont]

"We don't know whether tornadoes will increase or decrease" but "Hey, a lot of severe weather has been happening lately, possibly linked to global warming."

As you say, 1+1=2. Reading between the lines=reading the lines.

So basically the New Yorker writes in code. When they say "We don't know if AGW will increase or decrease tornadoes" what they really mean is "AGW causes tornadoes"

gotcha

[tamarack]

So basically the New Yorker writes in code. When they say "We don't know if AGW will increase or decrease tornadoes" what they really mean is "AGW causes tornadoes"

gotcha

You're a met-knowledgeable person who reads carefully, thus (like many on this forum, though I can only attempt to claim the 2nd half of that description) representative of a very small segment of the the population. The remainder of the people are not all idiots, but we're all ignorant, just on different subjects. Those less well versed in climate/wx, who have been getting bombarded with GW alarmism from the mainstream media for years, are likely to remember the info they've been preconditioned to believe, and "We don't know..." isn't really part of that while "GW is being borne out..." (paraphrase) is.

[tacoman25]

Droughts, storms being stronger, more severe floods.

If the reader wants to assume things which are directly contradicted by the text of the article, then they must be stupid. The article specifically states that we don't know whether tornadoes will increase or decrease. If someone can't understand straightforward statements of fact that is their problem.

There hasn't been an issue with droughts recently, nothing big in the news. Storms being stronger obviously translates to severe storms/tornadoes in the current national conscience. Were this article to come out right after a big hurricane like Katrina, it would translate to hurricanes. The timing is not coincidental.

[tacoman25]

If the article said 1+1=2 you guys would say "what if the reader were a moron and assumed/inferred that the author was really trying to say 1+1=3"

Honestly, I don't know how you can get any clearer than "WE DON"T KNOW WHETHER TORNADOES WILL INCREASE OR DECREASE"

It's right there in black and white. If someone can't understand that and wants to somehow magically assume something directly opposite to that, as if the New Yorker was written in code, then I don't know what to say.

That's just a disclaimer. This is how it basically comes across to the average reader: "We don't know for sure at this point if AGW causes more tornadoes, but we DO know that it leads to stronger, more severe storms so..."

It's propaganda-driven fear tactics capitalizing on the most recent episode of extreme weather, pure and simple. Why else would this article come out right after one of the worst springs for tornado deaths in U.S. history?

[LakeEffectKing]

That's just a disclaimer. This is how it basically comes across to the average reader: "We don't know for sure at this point if AGW causes more tornadoes, but we DO know that it leads to stronger, more severe storms so..."

It's propaganda-driven fear tactics capitalizing on the most recent episode of extreme weather, pure and simple. Why else would this article come out right after one of the worst springs for tornado deaths in U.S. history?

You have hit the nail on the head. Seeminly every "non-normal" event, stirs someone in the climatology field to bust out the old "it's consistent with the effects of....blah...blah...blah...." ...even when more specific aspects of generalized weather events are shown to have little to no correlation to the hypothesis.

The problem is that "normal" is inclusive of many events that are scattered outside of 2, 3 or even 4 standard deviations....and always have been. So every "non-normal" event is also "consistent with the effects of natural variation in climate over various timeframes."

And as we go forward to search for some tendency in increases in extreme events supposedly driven by AGW....how to we quantify the known issues of better reporting, better technology in identifying, and a greater population when comparing such data over lengthy historical timeframes???

If Katrina goes 200 miles further west or ingested dry air (which is was doing at the time of LF) for another 12 hours, or (insert any other tweak that would have lessened the effects considerably) we would have had a much different perception of the storm some 6 years later......and no chance at it becoming the poster girl for AGW scare mongers...

....and the point?? Discussion of ANY extreme event relative to AGW, on it's own, is propaganda...and is generally laughed at by a growing number of lay and educated folk. Unless trends can be teased out of the data (again, not as easy as one would think) when speaking of extreme events, the relating of such to AGW is a self deprecating exercise.

[skierinvermont]

That's just a disclaimer. This is how it basically comes across to the average reader: "We don't know for sure at this point if AGW causes more tornadoes, but we DO know that it leads to stronger, more severe storms so..."

It's propaganda-driven fear tactics capitalizing on the most recent episode of extreme weather, pure and simple. Why else would this article come out right after one of the worst springs for tornado deaths in U.S. history?

Oh, just a disclaimer, I see! So it's like the warning on my car that says "always wear seatbelt" .. what they really mean is don't wear your seat belt. What was I thinking wearing a seat belt all these years..

And besides it isn't even incorrect to suggest that AGW will increase tornadoes, as several studies in the last few years suggest this to be the case. But I don't even see this article doing that. It gives several other types of events which are more conclusively likely to increase with AGW.

[LakeEffectKing]

Oh, just a disclaimer, I see! So it's like the warning on my car that says "always wear seatbelt" .. what they really mean is don't wear your seat belt. What was I thinking wearing a seat belt all these years..

And besides it isn't even incorrect to suggest that AGW will increase tornadoes, as several studies in the last few years suggest this to be the case. But I don't even see this article doing that. It gives several other types of events which are more conclusively likely to increase with AGW.

Only if you don't look at the historical tornadic data....unless you offer a new hypothesis that suggests there is some threshold value we haven't passed yet....