It is proving more difficult than I had expected to pick one event worthy of the superlative "Biggest Story of 2011." The May election brought many changes to the face of Parliament. Each party was historically transformed -- to their joy or despair. The two parties that suffered the most, the Bloc and the Liberals, even saw their leaders losing their own seats, while Stephen Harper celebrated gaining a majority of the seats (with only 39% of the popular vote). The NDP was jubilant with its new found status as official opposition. And the Greens were rewarded with the long hoped for breakthrough. With my election as the Member of Parliament for Saanich Gulf Islands, the Greens, at last, had one elected MP.
As important as were these political events, I don't think they qualify for Biggest Story of 2011. Arab spring is a closer contender since it has redrawn the political map of the Arab world. But I think, for me, the biggest story is the one that never gets told. 2011 was another year of record breaking extreme weather events, most of which are likely the result of human-induced climate change. Of course, the single most devastating event, the Japanese tsunami and the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, were unrelated to climate change.
Nevertheless, the famine in North Africa, brought about by record-breaking drought; the astonishing, long-lasting flooding of Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam; and the evacuation of parts of Manhattan due to storm surges worsened by sea level rise, are some of the global events that fit the models of climate crisis impact.
For Canada, extreme weather events made 2011 the second most expensive year for the insurance industry. The prairie floods put more land underwater than ever in our history. And the flooding lasted from October 2010 until late July 2011. More devastating floods hit Quebec.
The wild fires brought on by extremely dry conditions destroyed one third of Slave Lake. Much of Canada was blanketed in record-breaking heat for much of the summer. Arctic sea ice hit a near record summer low.
There is more, but my biggest story of the year is the on-going refusal to connect the dots and describe climate change events for what they are. Not "Mother Nature" on a rampage; not some "wacky and wild curve ball."
Climate change events, fitting the pattern of increased extreme events one would expect due to, what is in human experience, the all-time high greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.
So for political story -- Canada filing legal notice of withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. For biggest story of 2011, the ongoing, accelerating losses due to the climate crisis and the fact of, unlike a suicide bomber in a troubled region where media are keen to find who "claims responsibility," the amazing level of denial. These disasters are no longer "natural"--their causes are known and our government is charting a course to make them worse, year by year.
Global Warming- Science - The New York Times
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Climate Change - New Scientist
Climate change news, comment and analysis | Environment | The ...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
I thought she was supposed to be up on that kind of stuff....
It might not hurt to explain the difference between average and normal as well.
As a fellow Canadian, you must share my outrage that right now, the Harper government and it's spin machine, through such mouthpieces as the liberal arts student turned "science writer" Donna LaFramboise are denying that we even have a problem.
Thanks for keeping this issue in public discourse.
We must be ever vigilant, however. This current incarnation of conservatism has been planned since the late 1980's by people like Tony Clement and his band of merry misanthropes. They have no concern for anything beyond power, and lucre.
It is a shame what they are turning our Canada into.
seem the least bit interested in fact. Recent weather is not weirder than it has ever been.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/19/why-it-seems-that-severe-weather-is-getting-worse-when-the-data-shows-otherwise-a-historical-perspective/
Meanwhile the rest of us will believe our own eyes and the science of the National Academy of Sciences.
Rahmstorf, Stefan and Dim Coumou, Increase of Extreme Events in a Warming World ,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, no. 44, pp 17905-
17909, November 1 2011. doi:10.1073/pnas.1101766108
That most enlightening commentary you linked to is just a representative example of the standard of excellence at the award winning blog site hosted by Mr Anthony Watts.
As noted there, the illusion that weather patterns are worse today than in the past is a manufactured illusion caused by 2 decades of near non-stop propaganda by the alarmists.
Anyone that bothers to check the actual facts, such as the fact that Accumulated Cyclone Energy is at record lows or global Sea Ice coverage, knows that today's extreme weather events are within natural variation.
Dear Orkneygal,
Isn't NIPCC global warming "skeptic" Dr. Robert M "Bob" Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?*Â
Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?
If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's grossly misleading misrepresentation of scientific data.
Bob Carter is a lead author of the "skeptical"Â Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change's (NIPCC's) latest "skeptical" -- and not peer-reviewed, of course -- report on global warming.
Please finally answer these questions instead of continuing to run away from them, Orkneygal - thank you.
------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
Why are we willing to gamble with our planet so a select few (a very select few) can continue to line their pockets (Mobile, Exxon, etc.)?
Are we really that stupid?
And if we are, maybe we should just step aside, let natural selection run its course, and let the bees or whomever have a whack at it.
When the so called solution would make the supposed problem worse than doing nothing, then logically doing nothing is the better choice.
Which odds artemesia. We can see the effects of humans from space.
artemesia: "but they can and do change weather"
You have poised conflicting statements. Climate is defined as the average of weather. Therefore, if we change weather, we are by definition affecting climate.
Once again, I ask: who is against clean air, clean land and clean water? And why?
Every time I post this question, the result is resounding silence.
What other unforeseen consequences of global warming can we expect?
My prediction: People in the US will finally understand human-caused global warming when the weather gets hinky enough to screw up agricultural yields enough to start making food procurement problematic.
But the factoids presented by the deniers are more than depressing.
How can there be no repercussions for their disinformation campaign?
We didn't tolerate it with the tobacco companies, but we allow the fossil fuel companies a free hand?
AGW is real. More energy is entering the system than is leaving. Most of the increased energy goes into the oceans. If, you expand your wft plot to include the industrial era you see the long term trend line is clearly rising. Why would you cherry pick only ten years unless you didn't want everyone to see the long term trend line?
I think I'll go with the scientists rather than a forum poster with little track record. Hoosier you sound just like a fossil fuel apologist would sound, if you were such.
"A senior environmental official at the United Nations...says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed...Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees", threatening political chaos...governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.."
Link
http://tinyurl.com/6x8r9yc
BTW, Orkneygal, you're quite a conundrum. One minute you're posting that human-caused climate change won't be a problem, the next you're posting quotes on the severe consequences expected from human-cause climate change. That begs the question: What is your true position on human-caused climate change?
The current, glorious warming must be treasured for the wonderful things it is bringing for Gaia. During the current warming, humanity has reached achievements that have made the current generation the healthiest, most productive and most prosperous ever.
As far as the miniscule amount that human activity might or might not be adding to the current warming, it must not be forgotten the devastation that the has been prevented by avoiding another Little Ice Age, at least in the short term.
A warm Gaia is a happy Gaia!
I thought we were doomed by next thursday!
I can buy green bananas agains!
Yay!
Where are the 50 million climate refugees predicted by the UN?
15 years ago they said in 10 years there would be 50 million.
Seems their predictions are a bit off.....
I went to the website for the Canadian Action Party and this is what I found.
http://actionparty.ca/policies/environment/cleaning-up-our-toxic-country/
"Environmental Concerns
We must reduce the use of fossil fuels to meet the Kyoto Accord. In order to achieve this goal we shall adopt a similar energy strategy to Europe, which includes: 1) energy conservation; 2) renewable energy such as wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal; 3) use cleanest available fossil fuel in the most efficient way possible. In particular, we shall review the development of the Alberta tar sand's and its contribution towards global warming. In situations involving resource extraction we shall seek alternatives that provide jobs and prosperity without damaging wildlife habitat or contributing to CO2 emissions."
Policies » Environment » Climate Change / Global Warming
Climate Change / Global Warming Policy
This policy is under revision.
http://actionparty.ca/policies/environment/climate-change-global-warming/
http://aircrap.org/weatherman-scott-stevens-interviews-weather-modification/333558/
We could reduce our need to burn toxic fossil fuels in increments.
Or, we can buy more car and truck than we can use, indulge in fuel wasting past times, drive the price of fuel up, and get excited about things that only make other people wealthy.
Our choice.
Climate death is upon us!!
Oh, ....wait...., that was from a 200 year old newspaper.....
http://www.real-science.com/below350-org
Whatever reason resonates with you, we need to develop an alternative NOW while we still have affordable energy with which to do so.
The media are long gone, unable to discuss climate change, peak oil, food, water and other amazing issues.
Thankfully change is occurring outside the realm of trolls and brown shirts but on the level of communities. As time goes on seeking media validation is not going to be a part of the solution. Only doing real things. And if the media aren't involved? Who cares?
Positive things are happening out there, but not reflected here and certainly not in government. But you knew that. You've known it all the time.