Bob Dylan once told us, “You don’t need to be a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.” As I read The Washington Post Monday morning, I thought, “You don’t need to be a climatologist to tell that climate change is a reality.” The article I was reading was about the “Atmospheric River” that is dropping record amounts of rain on large parts of California.
I never heard the term “atmospheric river” until recently. “Bomb cyclones” were also unknown to me and, I suspect, to most of us. If recent weather patterns are any indication, we better brush up on both terms. They may become something of a new normal.
Bomb cyclones are no longer rarities. Fox News tells us: “A bomb cyclone, also known as explosive cyclogenesis or bombogenesis, is a fast-developing storm that occurs when atmospheric pressure drops at least 24 millibars over a 24-hour period. Bombogenesis refers to the quickness of how fast the low pressure develops. The intense pressure can intensify storms and cause them to spin counterclockwise, creating heavy winds, blizzard conditions and rainfall.”
Do you remember that a bomb cyclone hit the DC area six years ago? I did, but only vaguely. Clearly it could happen again. The Eastern Shore could have been hit.
Another Atmospheric River Event is wreaking havoc in California with massive flooding caused by heavy rainfall. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, tells us: “Atmospheric rivers are relatively long, narrow regions in the atmosphere – like rivers in the sky – that transport most of the water vapor outside the tropics. While atmospheric rivers can vary greatly in size and strength, the average atmospheric river carries an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to the average flow of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Exceptionally strong atmospheric rivers can transport up to 15 times that amount. When the atmospheric rivers make landfall, they often release this water vapor in the form of rain or snow.”
Both bomb cyclones and disasters caused by atmospheric rivers are evidence of climate change. Climate change skeptics may scoff and say, “Give me a break. I’ll start worrying about extreme weather when I start to see it here.” Really? Does that strike you as wise?
While bomb cyclones and atmospheric river disasters have not yet become regular occurrences on the Eastern Shore, we already are seeing evidence of climate change that threatens our way of life. The Environmental Protection Agency wrote this in 2016: “Maryland’s climate is changing. Most of the state has warmed one to two degrees (F) in the last century, heavy rainstorms are more frequent, and the sea is rising about one inch every seven to eight years. Higher water levels are eroding beaches, submerging lowlands, exacerbating coastal flooding, and increasing the salinity of estuaries and aquifers. In coming decades, changing the climate is likely to increase coastal and inland flooding; harm marine, wetland, and inland ecosystems; disrupt fishing and farming; and increase some risks to human health.”
Climate change is a global reality. Its impact is worsening as the problem remains largely unaddressed. Dramatic action is necessary. As the 2024 election approaches, the choice is clear. President Biden regularly talks about climate change. He stewarded legislation through Congress committing significant federal funding to addressing it. The other candidate, the ex-president, denied climate change in a Tweet in 2012 but has since recanted. Here is what Donald Trump said recently: “I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.”
It may take a bomb cyclone or flooding of a golf course resulting from an “atmospheric river event” to get Donald Trump to change his mind. Note that I wrote “may” rather than “will.”
J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.
Wilson Dean says
This is an extremely timely article, not because we are taking decisive action to deal with climate change (we aren’t), but because we all need to recognize that climate change marches on in spite of our inaction. Climate change is apolitical, it doesn’t care if former President Trump and most Republicans deny its existence—it will continue on its destructive path regardless. The irony is that in spite of what politicians who receive massive donations from the oil/gas/coal lobbies tell us, dealing with climate change will not lower our standard of living or cost us jobs. It only requires the adoption of already available renewable energy options, the sorting out of several promising technologies that can provide what renewables can’t, and—most important—the political will to implement a long-term plan that effectively confronts the challenge of climate change.
John Dean says
Thank you for a great comment. You are right–addressing climate change only requires the adoption of already available renewable energy options, the sorting out of several promising technologies that can provide what renewables can’t, and the political will to implement a long-term plan that effectively addresses the challenge. I could not say it better.
Rick Megahan says
While it is tempting to attribute any atypical weather events to human activity, I would invite everyone to review the climate information presented on co2coalition.org .
Somehow the scientists in that organization have reached different conclusions.
John Dean says
Thanks for reading the piece. I had not heard of the co2coalition, so I looked it up. They sent a letter to President Trump thanking him for leaving the Paris Climate Accords. The group is quite small but depends on contributions from energy companies. It does not do research. It is best described as a right-of-center advocacy group supporting energy companies.
I appreciate your disagreement with climate change, but I agree with the vast majority of scientists that human activity contributes to climate change and that climate change is a threat that needs to be addressed.
Rick Megahan says
Mr. Dean;
Thank you for responding to my observation.
I was first attracted to co2 Coalition because of the number of geologists involved, as my own educational background is in that science. Geologists view events over geologic time, not just the past century. What is your basis for concluding that most scientists disagree? Would you accuse Dr. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, of being bought off by the fossil fuel industry? Incidentally, though not a professional scientist, I can assure you that the fossil fuel industry does not pay me; I pay Exxon when they bill me.
Climate temperatures follow patterns of glaciation, as related to solar events and other related natural factors. If you review a number of the peer reviewed papers generated by their roster of scientists, it may cause you to disregard the allure of centralized control of energy resources.
James Brennan says
The U.S. fossil fuel industry is subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Our marketplace is rigged against large “green” or renewable energy projects even though we sorely need them.
Fortunately, any Maryland Homeowner who can afford to do so can install solar panels on their home or property. A relatively modest sized solar array will eliminate a home’s utility bill and pay for its installation in 6 to 7 years. This has been my experience from installing a 5.5 KWH array in 2017. The technology is mature, there are state and federal rebates available, and more than two dozen Maryland-based companies offer the installation of solar power systems.
I will continue to lobby for large renewable energy projects like commercial scale solar generation sites and off shore wind farms. In the meantime, I am a clean energy generator and consumer. I think we are either part of the solution to Climate Change or part of the problem. I recommend we all invest in the solution.
trudy wonder says
Most Americans have no idea that our Gov has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in this century than it has on defense spending. A report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revealing this fact concludes that “The world would be richer and healthier if the full costs of fossil fuels were paid.”
I learned of this eye-popping reveal in a Rolling Stone article a few years ago. “Oil, gas and coal companies have long argued that making consumers pay for the full impacts of fossil fuel use would cripple the economy. The IMF experts conclude the world would, in fact, be more prosperous.”
See full article at Rollingstone.com
Study: U.S. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Exceed Pentagon Spending
A few key points from the article
Direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015. Pentagon spending that same year was $599 billion.
In comparison to another important, but less well-funded part of the federal budget, fossil fuel subsidies were nearly 10 times what Congress spent on education.
Broken down to an individual level, fossil fuel subsidies cost every man, woman and child in the U.S. $2,028 that year.
Eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels would have created global “net economic welfare gains” in 2015 of “more than $1.3 trillion, or 1.7 percent of global GDP,” the study found. (These net gains are “calculated as the benefits from reduced environmental damage and higher revenue minus the losses from consumers facing higher energy prices.”)
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-fuel-subsidies-pentagon-spending-imf-report-833035/
John Dean says
Thank you for reading the piece and for your information. It is important we the public understands the full context of what is going on.
THOMAS FANNON says
I am not a ‘climate change denier’ and that is not the point of my email. I AM sick and tired of the Chicken Little references to every rainstorm, tornado, or hurricane in apocalyptic terms. Media coined terms like ‘bomb cyclone’ and ‘atmospheric river’ are just new names for the the same events that have occurred throughout history. California has had the same cycle of drought and flood for centuries. Catastrophic hurricanes and tornadoes are nothing new, in frequency or severity. These facts can be confirmed with a simple look on Wikipedia. I would much rather discuss climate change in appropriate terms instead of resorting to the scare tactics preferred by so many.
John Dean says
Thank you for reading the piece. One of the reasons climatologists and others concerned about climate change use terms like “bomb cyclone” and “atmospheric river” to get the attention of those of us who still tell us “weather changes all the time.” Efforts to discuss climate change without sounding an alarm have, unfortunately, met with little success in terms of getting people to reduce human impact on the environment.
in any case, thanks for commenting.