Skip to Content
11Jul 2012

Lots of Ink: New study says, sometimes, one really can blame that storm (drought, etc.) on climate change

Yes, we done it. At least, some of it. Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, UK's Met Office, and elsewhere have a package of reports in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Association that, news reports say, add up to a nos culpa, which means I think same as a collective mea culpa. The package includes NOAA's annual report on such things, this edition being the State of the Climate 2011. Some droughts, storm onslaughts and other weather strangeness can be attributed, via one or two sigmas worth of confidence,  to the cumulative effects of greenhouse gases and other human forcings on climate.

This is getting considerable attention even in a media world that is shrunken, jaded, and beaten down by the denialist barrage.And, the news is not new, not to those who read news regularly. But the official, heavily-reviewed nature of the core document, from NOAA, lifts it above the noise.

Sample Stories:

Related News:

Grist for the Mill: NOAA Press Release containing a perhaps deliberately sly line - "Worldwide, 2011 was the co0lest year on record.." (wait for it) "..since 2008." Wow. Global warming stopped three years ago? No, but the deniosphere is being shined on, one thinks. ; State of the Climate 2011 on line ;

- Charlie Petit

 

 

Comments

Given the high probability that the greatest policy imperative of the next 40 years is a massive shift to non-carbon-emitting renewables, the climate change story deserves the heavy weight Tracker gives it.

One angle of this story that didn't get much attention, although flagged heavily near the top in the actual 238-page NOAA report, is that satellite measurements of the atmosphere, particularly since the late 1970s, have taken their place alongside the "in situ" surface measurements -- as an independent check on the trends.

In other words, denialists should take note of a second major class of evidence on climate change that checks, and largely validates, the trends that began to look worrisome around 1970, at the time of the Williamstown, MA, conference on human impact on climate, which I reported for The Boston Globe.

The NOAA release and report also noted that additional classes of evidence are slated for future annual reviews.

It's probably worth noting that Justin Gillis of the NY Times also reported the NOAA study (page 11 in the edition I saw on July 11), with one skeptical voice saying some of the science looks hasty and calls loudly for checking.

Login or register to post comments