Andrew Revkin of the Times has the most balanced and intelligent take I’ve read so far for those trying to claim climate change/global warming/kinetic carbon emissions are causing the catastrophic weather in the Midwest. Summing up his argument, man-made climate change may have an effect, but that effect is insignificant when compared to other factors, like poor construction of housing in tornado zones. Do read the whole post, but here’s an excerpt:
But, first a brief diversion. Given continued assertions that human-driven global warming could be playing a role in the havoc down south, it’s also worth revisiting something that Walker S. Ashley, a meteorologist at Northern Illinois University, said last week on Dot Earth:
The heart of the matter lies with a growing and increasingly vulnerable population. That is what is driving “disasters.”
There’s no doubt that Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University is right when he says “climate change is present in every single meteorological event” — in the sense that the buildup of greenhouses gases is a background nudge everywhere.
But that’s a meaningless assertion without asking whether there is evidence of a meaningful influence — meaning enough of a nudge to the atmosphere that the contribution from greenhouse gases is relevant to policy and personal choices, in this case in tornado zones.
For the moment, there’s scant evidence to support this at any level — in the basic data on storm patterns or in tallies of damage and deaths. I’m not denying it’s possible, just that it’s relevant.
It’s fine for Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research to say he feels “it is irresponsible not to mention climate change” when discussing tornado outbreaks. Everyone’s entitled to his or her view.
My response would be that it is irresponsible not to mention the need to reduce inherent and avoidable human vulnerability to tornadoes in the crowding South, particularly in low-income regions with flimsy housing. I saw barely a mention of these realities in recent posts by climate-oriented bloggers on the tornado outbreak.
The same issue has played out in discussions of hurricane trends in a warming world. In 2006, amid persistent scientific debate over the possible role of greenhouse-driven warming in shaping hurricane patterns, 10 leading researchers in the field issued a single statement on vulnerability.
Here’s the relevant section from my story on that effort (which was just about the only coverage of this attempt to find common ground):
Ten climate experts who are sharply divided over whether global warming is intensifying hurricanes say that this question, a focus of Congressional hearings, news reports and the recent Al Gore documentary, is a distraction from “the main hurricane problem facing the United States.”
That problem, the experts said yesterday in a statement, is an ongoing “lemming-like march to the sea” in the form of unabated coastal development in vulnerable places, and in the lack of changes in government policies and corporate and individual behavior that are driving the trend.
Whatever the relationship between hurricanes and climate, experts say, hurricanes are hitting the coasts, and houses should not be built in their path.
I’d love to see a similar statement now from meteorologists, climatologists and other specialists studying trends in tornado zones. Any takers?