On Monday, The Washington Post published an op-ed by Bill McKibben, a writer and environmental activist, under the sarcastic headline, “A link between climate change and Joplin tornadoes? Never!”
McKibben mockingly chastises… well, the world, apparently. He directs his accusatory screed at “you” (as in, not him) for taking a hear-no-evil-see-no-evil position when it comes to potential connections between extreme weather and manmade climate change:
Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s shots from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that (which, together, comprised the most active April for tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn’t mean a thing…
It’s far smarter to repeat to yourself the comforting mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied to climate change.
When it comes to the media, at least, McKibben is off his rocker. Many journalists, at news outlets large and small, are asking questions about tornado-climate connections. They’re just not making the kind of overwrought assertions he seems to expect. In fact, they’re doing a fairly good job explaining the relationship between tornadoes and climate change, just as they did during the Russian heat wave and Pakistani floods last summer. Evidence abounds that journalists are getting better at covering the nuances involved in the relationships between climate change and various types of extreme weather.
Even Climate Progress’s Joseph Romm, a fierce critic who routinely flogs reporters for not explaining the threat of climate change more assertively, was fairly complimentary in a nice roundup; he even wrote that, “Today weatherman Al Roker appears to have gone beyond the data with his suggestion that “climate change” is bringing tornadoes to urban areas, although, admittedly, it is a brief clip and it’s not exactly clear what he is saying.” (Romm compliments McKibben’s op-ed, but they’re brothers-in-activism where climate is concerned, and well within their rights to express their opinions about the need to act.)
So what are the data and scientists saying? Let’s go back to coverage of the tornadoes that tore through the southeast and south in mid- to late April (see this 2011 tornado information fact sheet for details). Andrew Freedman quickly kicked out pieces for The Washington Post and Climate Central describing the immediate meteorological conditions (involving a southerly position of the of the jet stream and warm sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, which abetted the convergence of a hot, humid air mass close to the ground and a cold, dry one higher up, which got all twisted up and formed funnel clouds—see this primer from the National Severe Storm Laboratory)—that created the tornadoes. He also dutifully explored the climate connection, explaining that, contrary to McKibben’s assertion in the Post:
Those of us who write about climate change are often accused of attempting to link every unusual weather event to climate change, as if increasing air and ocean temperatures can explain everything from hurricanes to snowstorms. In this case, with the second-deadliest tornado outbreak in US history, and with the most tornadoes for any April since records began in the early 1950s, it’s important to understand that the scientific evidence indicates that climate change probably played a very small role, if any, in stirring up this violent weather. This might disappoint some advocates who are already using this to highlight the risks of climate change-related extreme weather.
Journalist Keith Kloor had an interesting post on May 4 at his Collide-a-Scape blog. He pointed out that Revkin's argument that the focus should be storm preparedness rather than climate connections drew flak from Romm and Peter Gleick, a water expert and co-founder of the Pacific Institute for Studies who wrote a piece for The Huffington Post overplaying the tornado-climate link. "The response by some climate scientists and climate bloggers to a nuanced perspective on the tornado/climate change issue reveals just how zero sum the climate debate remains in some corners," Kloor wrote.
#1 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Fri 27 May 2011 at 01:09 PM
Would it be off-topic to point out that by the time we have enough data to know for certain that climate change is making tornados (or almost anything else) worse, it will not only be too late to affordably undo what we have done, but it will also be too late to affordably prevent it from getting much worse?
#2 Posted by ThisOldMan, CJR on Sat 28 May 2011 at 11:19 AM
Actually, ThisOldMan, that's not off topic at all. We've had sufficient evidence for a long time, having nothing to do with tornadoes, that climate change is something the world needs to address. The fact that we don't understand exactly what will happen with severe weather in a warming world, and that we may not know for years, is no reason to dismiss the problem. Many people, such as Harvard's Martin Weitzman, have pointed out that the uncertainty (i.e. not knowing how bad it could get) is all the more reason to address the issue.
#3 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Sat 28 May 2011 at 01:53 PM
Revkin can be maddeningly unattributive to greenhouse gases. Reporters have been cautioned not to overstep. McKibben and I are right and have no skeptical boss to please. In climate, as in life, things are what they are. There is cause and effect. Experts know what the culprit is. Individual events are connected.
#4 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Thu 2 Jun 2011 at 09:52 PM
After reading the whole rundown, I'd say for journalists it's best not to draw macro connections from catastrophic weather events. You aren't qualified and know nothing about science. Why overstep? Things are what they are. Journalism can't prevent disasters. All such bystanders can do is watch and report. McKibben expects more. So do I and I deliver.
#5 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Thu 2 Jun 2011 at 11:55 PM
stypid bickering, of course more should be said about the links beteen climate change and catastrophes, not talking about water shortage, food pollution etc. let's face it: Reporters are often convinced by the industry and its PR syspem to lessen their comments.
#6 Posted by wunder, CJR on Tue 7 Jun 2011 at 04:44 AM
Curtis,
Unless I'm mistaken, John King (of CNN) last night didn't ask the seven Republican presidential candidates even a single question about climate change. I don't think the words 'climate change' or 'global warming' were uttered, by the candidates or King or the public or other questioners (from the media), during the entire lengthy debate.
Of course -- and I hope you'll agree -- we cannot afford another election cycle, or even to begin another election cycle, during which the media mostly ignore climate change -- or go light on it (if they raise it at all) -- during the key debates.
So, given The Observatory's role, and given the "prominence" and importance of key presidential debates (hosted by the media and media celebs), I'm hoping that The Observatory will take it upon itself to raise this specific point: Why didn't CNN and John King pose even a single question about climate change to the seven Republican candidates? Why? WHY? Let's have some critique, Curtis. This "incident" deserves -- and calls for -- a thorough and complete analysis.
(And I hope nobody will argue that there simply wasn't enough time: The debate was a very long one. I hope nobody will argue that the importance of the economy ruled out other topics: Nearly every topic under the sun, except climate change, was discussed: don't ask don't tell; gay marriage; the separation of Church and State; energy independence; tax subsidies for ethanol; immigration; abortion; and so forth.)
Please Curtis, time for some critique.
Jeff
#7 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Tue 14 Jun 2011 at 12:14 PM