New Studies Link Intense Rain and Snow Events to Climate Change
Posted February 17, 2011 in Solving Global Warming
If you’re like me, you probably know someone who views this winter’s crazy blizzards as evidence that global warming obviously doesn’t exist. If you do, you might want to show that person the two studies appearing in this week’s Nature magazine that directly link rising greenhouse gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the northern hemisphere.
As described by the New York Times:
[T]he researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.
According to the study, over the second half of the 20th century, the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by 7%. In other words, extreme events like heavier-than-usual rain and snow are becoming more common. And it’s not just a coincidence or fluke – that 7% increase is well outside the bounds of natural variability. It can only be explained by climate change.
This finding is a big deal. According to the Washington Post, “this is the first time researchers have been able to point to a demonstrable cause-and-effect by using the rigorous and scientifically accepted method of looking for the ‘fingerprints’ of human-caused climate change.”
Hold on, you might be thinking. More rain and snow? Isn’t climate change supposed to cause more droughts and water shortages, like NRDC pointed out in our recent vulnerability report? Actually, that’s right. Paradoxically, climate change is predicted to cause both more floods and more droughts.
While that might seem a little counterintuitive at first, the evidence supports it. Climate change is expected to push our weather patterns toward the extremes. While some places might end up getting less rain overall, leading to shortages and vulnerable water supplies, each individual precipitation event might be more intense, leading to flooding.
As these climate change impacts become more common, we won’t be able to rely on past weather and climate patterns as a guide for how things will be in the future. That makes it a lot harder to plan for things like where to build roads and houses, how to manage our water supplies, and when and where to plant crops.
So what should we do about it? Of course, it’s crucial that we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions so that we can minimize the occurrences of extreme weather events like those described in the Nature studies.
But some climate change impacts are inevitably going to happen anyway because of emissions we’ve already put into the atmosphere. We have to be prepared to adapt to those changes when they happen. When we’re talking about intense rains and floods, “adaptation” means doing things like:
- Improving monitoring, forecasting, and early warning systems for storm events.
- Preserving and restoring wetlands, floodplains, dunes, and other natural barriers to reduce the impacts of storms.
- Reducing stormwater runoff by requiring low impact development measures to capture and retain the water that falls during storms.
- Requiring the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA to incorporate the effects of climate change in their analyses of future flood risk.
- Discouraging development in areas that are, and will increasingly be, vulnerable to flooding.
The new Nature studies show that it’s more important than ever for states and local communities to start planning for the changes that are already happening. If we act quickly to enact well-informed, environmentally sound policies, we may be able to avoid the worst of these impacts – and hopefully be ready to cope with the next big rain or snowstorm.
Comments are closed for this post.




Comments
Alvin Hough — Feb 17 2011 02:08 PM
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! Folks who aren't in the know loosely refer to environmental issues under the umbrella of 'global warming.' But the correct term is climate change, and larger fluctuations in variability is the exact reason we are experiencing more severe and extreme weather. Take Central Park. 36.0" of snow in January 2011- an all-time January record. Everyone is up in arms that this is the most brutal winter ever. But how quickly we forget that February 2010 was the snowiest month ever, 36.9". But look at the other extremes - only 2.1" in January 2010 and so far 1.6" in February 2011. Averages are being skewed because of the increasing dichotomy between remarkably extreme weather patterns. It's not global warming, it's climate change. Absolutely love this post, because it gets straight to the truth. We need to be better prepared to handle blizzards and droughts, floods and record cold snaps, like the one in the southern Plains a couple of weeks ago. It's good to hear the truth reiterated and maybe soon, hopefully very soon, the general public will wake up and realize the true impact of GHGs on the volatility of worldwide weather patterns...and that they'll be ready for that next wallop Mother Nature will be packing.
C02Pirate — Feb 17 2011 06:23 PM
What utter nonsense.
Just months ago the warnings of severe drought and warmer temperatures were everywhere.
The IPCC continued its nonsense saying - fewer frost days, fewer snow days, fewer cold snaps and few cold extremes.
Now that all the above has occurred - everything once again has been molded to fit with it.
There not one ounce of truth to this nonsense - if its wet, if its dry, if its warm, if its cold, if it snows, if it doesn't snow, if its warm or if its cold - its all Global Warming.
If global warming can create all the above then global warming simply cannot exist - it means nothing different than normal weather.
Let me just reminded you all that Global Warming - does NOT create cooling - PERIOD. This is NOT part of the hypothesis and never has been.
The hypothesis also dictates that the poles must warm first and fastest - yet both poles are just as cold as they were 150yrs ago, yet we are to now believe that this is no longer so even though the hypothesis has NOT been changed one iota from its original form.
People you are being lied to - wake up.
How many more years of cooling and NO warming does there have to be before you all realize you've been lied and treated as fools.
WAKE UP!
John Liffee — Feb 17 2011 08:55 PM
@CO2Pirate,
What is there to say about a rant like yours other than this: You've just proven yourself to be utterly science-illiterate.
Alex — Feb 19 2011 07:08 AM
CO2Pirate,
global warming is yes about warming but also a global phenomenon, i.e. your point is invalid because you refer to temperatures in North America. The average global temperatures have gone up, and up, and up, and up. The occasional blizzard disproves the AGW theory as much as much as a cold Spring day disproves summer is coming.