SO IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN BLOWN AWAY PERSONALLY, DOES IT COUNT?
First of all, this is not new. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated in May, 2010, "Some impacts – such as rising sea levels, disappearing sea ice, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves – are already being observed across the country."
There have already been numerous weather-related disasters across the country this year, and we are only just entering hurricane season. Here is a partial list:
Mississippi River Flooding at Memphis, 2011 Â
Mississippi River Flooding at Memphis and Mid-South, 2011
Missouri River Flooding at North Dakota, 2011
Texas Wildfires at Graham (west of Ft. Worth), 2011
Texas Wildfies at Stevens County, 2011
Arizona Wildfires at Springerfield, 2011
EF5 Tornado, Joplin Missouri, 2011
EF5 Tornado, Philadelphia, MS, 2011
"Large" Tornado, Wilson, NC 2011
EF5 Tornado, Tuscaloosa, AL, 2011
EF5 Tornado, Birmingham, AL, 2011
Florida Wildfires at Scottsmoor, 2011
EF4 or EF5 Tornado, Oklahoma City, OK, 2011
Mississippi River at Tunica, Mississippi, 2011
Tornadoes, Springfield, MA, 2011
Chances are, you have not been directlty affected by any of these disasters. You may have even made a contribution or two to the American Red Cross to help disaster victims. Chances are somewhat greater that you will have been affected indirectly through higher taxes to fund FEMA (including flood insurance premiums if you are smart enough to carry flood insurance) and higher homeowners insurance premiums.
The "liberal media" rarely (if ever) references climate change or global warming when reporting these "natural disasters", but as I've indicated above (and several times before), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences is very clear. So why is the "liberal media" so reticent to bring up climate change/global warming? Are they that intimidated by the fossil fuel industries, which btw, have been running full tilt PR campaigns recently to - no doubt - turn public opinion in their favor. Ever seen ads like these: Chevron We Agree: Renewables TV Ad , , and Coal Power?
Ten to one, though, you haven't seen this short video, recorded three years ago: Connecting the Dots: Western Wildfires
Well, if severe weather, resulting from climate change, hasn't directly affected you, you might also want to consider that medical risks are also increasing - as a result of climate change. Well, at least that's what the American Medical Association is telling us. But what do the doctors know - right?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 29
Generally, I think corporate media, or mainstream/establishment media, are more appropriate terms than 'liberal media'.
I was being facetious, using the term, "liberal media". Of course, "corporate media" is the more accurate term.
Hope you haven't directly been hit by these megastorms - or one of the associated medical conditions (e.g., asthma), which are being exascerbated by climate change.
And thanks for your recommendation and comment.
Fortunately, I have not yet personally and directly experienced the havoc an EF5 generates. Those types are quite rare in Florida.
Florida is one of the more vulnerable states, with intensity, frequency and duration of hurricanes expected to increase - along with sea level rise. Do you live near the coast?
http://www.c3headlines.com/severe-weather-chartsgraphs.html
Oh and Steve,
Before you can make a correlation between global warming and severe weather you have to show a pattern.....the facts don't indicate any sort of pattern as the 2000 decade was one of the lower for F3 -F5 tornados than the previous 30 years.
Also flooding has been on a downtrend since the 70s so since you can't show a trend it ain't related to global warming.
Sorry bud :-(
Perhaps, and this is only a humble thought, that the media have done their research on such matters of your disasters and have found that that its just a natural occurrence and not worth the coverage pertaining to climate change.
If your country had not recorded the past disasters some far worse than you are experiencing now, then you would have a case and we would have to take a closer look at what was happening.
Nothing new about floods, tornadoes, wildfires - yep - they've all occurred before. That much is true. It's the scope that's changing, as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (linked above) points out, and as NOAA also point out.
"Its the same with the wildfires that occur in your country...."
It's the scale....
Some key findings include:
* Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow.
* Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged. Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production.
* Threats to human health will increase. Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts.
Key words = "increased," "already observed," "projected to grow," "pose adaptation challenges," and "threats to human health will increase."
It would seem needless to say that we've had extreme events in the past and will continue to have extreme events in the future. That of course isn't particularly relevant to question of climate change impacts, which is related to frequency and severity, not some anecdotal listing of past events or falsified information from industry-funded lobbying organizations. The NOAA/multi-agency scientific report indicates that climate scientists have concluded that we are changing our climate and that the likelihood of extreme weather events will continue to increase as we do so. So we'll see more extreme events more often. I'm sure those who are effected by the recent events will acknowledge that the prospect of having to deal with it more often isn't one they would wish on anyone.
interesting post Steve - thanks.
Yep - there's something a bit disconcerting when "floods of the century" start occurring about every other year. We're just beginning hurricane season, and already we've had significant tornado, wildfire and flood events. I simply intended this post to highlight the scale of these events.
Some people would say there is no global warming because local climates do not "seem" to indicate it ... but, as has been mentioned, (I think), there is an overall balance of sorts in that increase in one area of hot or cold will reflect in opposite changes in another area ... and places like "here" where the "snow" is usually thought of by many as cold associated is really warm associated in that normally it is too cold to snow as much (a matter of humidity) ... anyway, because the cold lasted longer this winter the spring thaw was delayed and now all accumulation must melt in a shorter (and warmer because it is later) time span ... making for what would normally be spread out melting all happen in a very short time period with potential excessive flooding downstream ...
All is connected and when things begin to change from normal there can be abnormal peaks and extremes, sometimes longer in duration and sometimes shorter, and often times coming together in effect comparable to a "perfect storm" ... so expect ever more ... for lot's of reasons I will not go into here ... IMnsHO.
A warmer climate allows for greater moisture content in the atmosphere, so there is more snow when temps. drop. You're right that if it is colder, the atmospheric humidity drops and there is less snow. The often repeated snarl on the "right" that global warming can't be happening because there's more snow, is in fact exactly opposite of what actually happens. And of course, greater atmospheric moisture also causes more intense storms, which have been obvious causes of floods, as well. There is also something about how the jet stream reacts in a warmer atmosphere, such that weather systems stay in place for longer periods of time. It may be raining for days on end in one place, and close by, nothing. That's how you can have intense flooding in the midwest, while in the southwest, you can have intense drought, with associated wildfires - which is what we are also seeing.
Unlike cynics, like yourself, I do not delete comments, so I will leave your ignorance exposed for any readers here (it could happen) to see for themselves. You are obviously free to delete this crap, yourself, if you want to.
I won't bother to respond to your "opinions", since they mean nothing. I will leave it for any readers here (it could happen) to decide what is "biased" - your "opinions", or the warnings from warnings from every major scientific organization on the planet.