Yesterday’s horrific, tragic and enormous tornado in Moore, OK has been described as “the biggest, most destructive tornado in the history of the world.”
In its wake, many are questioning the relationship between such monster storms and climate change. Here’s a statement from Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in response to that question, as obtained via email today by Peter Sinclair (he, of the geat Climate Denial Crock of the Week website):
Warmer and moister conditions are the key for unstable air.
The climate change effect is probably only a 5 to 10% effect in terms of the instability and subsequent rainfall, but it translates into up to a 32% effect in terms of damage.
(It is highly nonlinear).
So there is a chain of events and climate change mainly affects the first link: the basic buoyancy of the air is increased. Whether that translates into a super-cell storm and one with a tornado is largely chance weather.
So, in short, Trenberth seems to suggest that while one cannot directly “blame” climate change itself for any particular storm, the altered weather patterns, thanks to global warming and the increased moisture in the air, increase, fairly radically, the probability of such storms and, in turn, their size and destructive power.
Or, if you prefer, you can listen to leading climate science denier Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma who has said many times in the past that concerns about man-made climate change are nothing more than “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” and nothing to worry about.
While we haven’t heard him say as much today yet, for some odd reason, he has explained that he — like his fellow Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, will support federal disaster relief funding for his state, unlike their vote against federal disaster relief funding for the East Coast after Superstorm Sandy last year. Why? Because, as Inhofe explained today, the money for his state won’t simply be a “slush fund”, as he described the relief for the millions of East Coasters affected by Hurricane Sandy. “That won’t happen in Oklahoma,” he said.
Meanwhile, Coburn (who is also a climate change denier), after also voting against relief for Hurricane Sandy while tens of thousands were left homeless on the East Coast in the middle of winter, slammed those who charged hypocrisy in his promise of federal relief “without delay” for his own OK constituents.
“It is crass,” his office said in a statement to reporters, “for critics to play disaster aid politics when first responders are pulling victims from the rubble.”
By Coburn’s reckoning, apparently, the time to “play disaster aid politics” is a few days or months later, as he did with Sandy aid, when victims were freezing and without power or homes.
Two of the biggest fuck nuts in Congress from the same state.
Watched two hours of MSNBC last night–Hayes and Maddow–not one hint of a mention of climate change being a factor. But my sister told me Chris Matthews was trying a little to get at that aspect of it all.
How about northeastern senators propose that they will sign off on the money needed in OK, if Inhoff and his ilk sign off on the rest of the Hurrican Sandy relief. Until they sign off on it no cuts or relief to OK. Let’s see how conservative Inhoff will be then, and how long residents of OK will remember that they have a senator that placed ideology over his fellow OKs.
They look like the same person.
Apparently it is NEVER the time to discuss , whether following an incident or otherwise.
What a line. It doesn’t wear thin for them, does it?
Alex, as tempting as your suggestion is, I can’t see holding the children of Oklahoma hostage for Sandy relief $$.
The fact that Inhofe and Coburn are hypocrites of the first order doesn’t mean that NE Senators should emulate their behavior.
I agree that my suggestion is repulsive, it was meant to be. The problem is that we are dealing with idealogue sociopaths (possibly psychopaths). They won’t see how revolting the situation they put fellow politicians in as well as how helpless they made people on the east coast feel until they get the same treatment. People in OK deserve all the support they can get. But their representatives in government have taken a caricature of the Libertarian philosophy and have added selective Darwinism (they get to choose, like dog breeders, who gets to survive), so that all people to the left of them in philosophy deserve no help or assistance in their time of need and as Alan Grayson has summed up “Die quickly”.
How many people in the northeast have died, or have had to endure more serious problems because politicians like Coburn and Inhofe have no feelings or empathy and think that everyone not associated with them is trying to steal their money through scams and fraud?
If you can think of a better way to get these extremists to start to think more rationally, I am all ears. Until someone starts playing as serious hardball against them as they have been playing with everyone else’s live and futures, I don’t see how they or their ilk will ever begin to see more rationally.
Alex,
I know what you mean and I’m with you on the outrage, but I am very skeptical that people who are as much in denial, are so very unconscious of how much they are motivated by ignorance and fear are capable of having new thoughts sparked by being treated the way they treat others. Their belief systems are too rigid for that sort of forced flexibility. They will just find another way to use the situation to reinforce their existing prejudices. You already see this in their responses to suggestions that they have obvious double standards on disaster relief.
The people of Oklahoma though may be another matter. If their consciousness can be raised, those two fuckwads could be voted out of office. ‘Course they probably use unverified voting in Oklahoma so there remains that possible impediment, too.
It seems that what the Republicans do fairly regularly is (psychologically and rhetorically)project the mean, evil and dasterdly actions that they themselves have commited or would commit if they were in the Democrats/Progressives shoes.
What I would really like to see is a regular report on the state of the Conservative rhetoric, called “The Mirror”.
The idea is that you would take the comments/talking points by one or a group of right-wing hate mongers and turn it on them in the form of a translation into what they really are thinking. Kind of what Colbert does in his “The Word” segment, but less roundabout and more direct.
Example: When Inhofe claims that climate change is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”. What he actuially means is that the efforts by him and the fossil fuel industry (especially in his state) have been able to swindle the American people into thinking that they care about anything but profits and kickbacks gleened from gouging the American public at the gas pump and in our electric bills. By convincing us that fossil fuels are essential and can never be replaced, while renewables are fads or such unreliable sources of fuel that they will never be feasible and practically applied. Inhofe and companies are the ones perpetuating the greatest and most damaging hoax on our planet.
“Trenberth seems to suggest that while one cannot directly “blame” climate change itself for any particular storm, the altered weather patterns, thanks to global warming and the increased moisture in the air, increase, fairly radically, the probability of such storms and, in turn, their size and destructive power.”
Yeah, we need to migrate from a blame analysis to a scientific analysis of a system.
What we are talking about is the global climate system.
System.
All events within and of a system are systemic events of that system.
The global climate system has been damaged by civilization’s use of fossil fuels.
A damaged system.
All events within a damaged system are systemic of a damaged system.
The system does not work properly any more like it worked before it was damaged.
As the damage increases the events that are systemic will evince evidence of the damage that has been done to the system.
The proper analysis is top down, not bottom up.
Like not seeing the forest for the trees.
WAFFELBOARD EXPERIMENTS
MADDOW IS BATSHZT NUTS
2 BLD 2 C
Pray you aren’t on the next waffleboard
PS: where’s the bradblog solar panels. NOWHERE that’s fscking where!