Is the US geographically unable to perceive global warming?
Global warming has long been a bigger public issue in Europe than in the US, and pundits have always assumed this is because Europe is more left-wing than America. But what if it's simply because the geography of Europe makes it more likely that people notice global warming?
That's the contention of an interesting -- if too-short -- piece in the Week in Review section of today's New York Times. Andrew Revkin points out that the countries of Western Europe often experiences extreme weather events together, such as the 2003 heat wave that killed thousands. Since the same thing is happening to diverse populations, it makes it more likely that they'll suspect something is awry in the global climate. In the US, however, precisely the opposite happens: The structure of the continent makes it such that a homogenous population regularly experiences totally different vicissitudes of weather in different regions. For example, in the last few weeks, Denver has been ploughed under with freaky levels of snow, while New York basks in a September-like balm. This has to do with geography:
In the lower 48 states, he said, conditions are shaped by variable patterns of warming and cooling in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the atmospheric blockade created by the Rockies and other factors.
This essentially guarantees that the country is almost always experiencing more than one so-called climate anomaly at a time, Dr. MacCracken said.
"People live the weather," he said. "Climate is a mental construct."
Interesting point. I'd love to see it a bit more fleshed out, though.
Posted by Clive Thompson at January 07, 2007 10:15 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1604
That makes a lot of sense. It's true, I probably think this way too. It seems that a lot of places in the northern half of North America are experiencing unseasonable warmth, my home town included. However, the very moment I might consider it to be the result of global warming, I picture news footage of Denver under a mountainous amount of snow a think... nah! Can't be.
Mind you, if it's going to bring about a wonderfully mild January, global warming or not, it's hard to complain. :)
-j
Posted by: digital_blue at January 8, 2007 12:11 AM
Heh. Well, the events of this year probably aren't related to global warming -- it's more likely the result of the El Nino that formed in the equatorial Pacific last fall. But either way, yeah, I think this idea is interesting. Psychogeography is a wickedly cool area of thought.
Posted by: Clive at January 8, 2007 1:43 PM
At this point I can understand why residents of Denver wouldn't perceive global warming.
So why is it that unusually warm weather is automatically evidence of global warming, while unusually cold weather is evidence of nothing?
Clearly the earth's climate is changing, but I'm still not so sure that anybody actually understands what is actually happening and how.
Posted by: Larry Borsato at January 8, 2007 3:56 PM
Oh, I don't think that "unusually cold weather is evidence of nothing." The consensus of most, though not all, climate scientists is that as the climate warms, it will produce excesses in both directions: Hotter hots, and colder colds, often unpredictably and weirdly in the middle of otherwise normal seasons.
But it's not yet clear that any of those extremes have yet begun to appear in everyday weather. The Denver stuff, again, is probably more related to naturally occurring climate variations.
Posted by: Clive at January 8, 2007 8:38 PM
Even scientists have trouble detecting the global warming signals with their most sophisticated instruments, and it's only a fraction of a degree warmer than it was in the 1930's, so I doubt the difference comes down to physical perceptions. However, people in the US move around a great deal and are used to local climates that differ by vast amounts, from scorching desert to frozen tundra. The 100-year warming forecast in the IPCC reports is, to us, what we'd get if we drove an hour or so to the South.
Posted by: George Turner at March 3, 2007 1:56 AM
Post a comment
That makes a lot of sense. It's true, I probably think this way too. It seems that a lot of places in the northern half of North America are experiencing unseasonable warmth, my home town included. However, the very moment I might consider it to be the result of global warming, I picture news footage of Denver under a mountainous amount of snow a think... nah! Can't be.
Mind you, if it's going to bring about a wonderfully mild January, global warming or not, it's hard to complain. :)
-j
Posted by: digital_blue![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 8, 2007 12:11 AM
Heh. Well, the events of this year probably aren't related to global warming -- it's more likely the result of the El Nino that formed in the equatorial Pacific last fall. But either way, yeah, I think this idea is interesting. Psychogeography is a wickedly cool area of thought.
Posted by: Clive![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 8, 2007 1:43 PM
At this point I can understand why residents of Denver wouldn't perceive global warming.
So why is it that unusually warm weather is automatically evidence of global warming, while unusually cold weather is evidence of nothing?
Clearly the earth's climate is changing, but I'm still not so sure that anybody actually understands what is actually happening and how.
Posted by: Larry Borsato![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 8, 2007 3:56 PM
Oh, I don't think that "unusually cold weather is evidence of nothing." The consensus of most, though not all, climate scientists is that as the climate warms, it will produce excesses in both directions: Hotter hots, and colder colds, often unpredictably and weirdly in the middle of otherwise normal seasons.
But it's not yet clear that any of those extremes have yet begun to appear in everyday weather. The Denver stuff, again, is probably more related to naturally occurring climate variations.
Posted by: Clive![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 8, 2007 8:38 PM
Even scientists have trouble detecting the global warming signals with their most sophisticated instruments, and it's only a fraction of a degree warmer than it was in the 1930's, so I doubt the difference comes down to physical perceptions. However, people in the US move around a great deal and are used to local climates that differ by vast amounts, from scorching desert to frozen tundra. The 100-year warming forecast in the IPCC reports is, to us, what we'd get if we drove an hour or so to the South.
Posted by: George Turner![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 3, 2007 1:56 AM