Anyone here because of Friedman’s piece, start with this “Introduction to Climate Progress.”
Friedman has a great NY Times column today, “Is It Weird Enough Yet?“ He writes:
Thanks Mr. Perry and Mrs. Bachmann, but we really are all stocked up on crazy right now. I mean, here is the Texas governor rejecting the science of climate change while his own state is on fire — after the worst droughts on record have propelled wildfires to devour an area the size of Connecticut. As a statement by the Texas Forest Service said last week: “No one on the face of this earth has ever fought fires in these extreme conditions.”
Remember the first rule of global warming. The way it unfolds is really “global weirding.” The weather gets weird: the hots get hotter; the wets wetter; and the dries get drier. This is not a hoax. This is high school physics, as Katharine Hayhoe, a climatologist in Texas, explained on Joe Romm’s invaluable Climateprogress.org blog: “As our atmosphere becomes warmer, it can hold more water vapor. Atmospheric circulation patterns shift, bringing more rain to some places and less to others. For example, when a storm comes, in many cases there is more water available in the atmosphere and rainfall is heavier. When a drought comes, often temperatures are already higher than they would have been 50 years ago, and so the effects of the drought are magnified by higher evaporation rates.”
It really is high school physics. But I suppose that, along with biology, will be censored in President Perry’s USA. For the CP piece Friedman references, see “Hell and High Water Stoke Texas Blaze.”
Personally, I’ve never been thrilled with the term “global weirding,” mainly because “weirding” carries the connotation of “related to the supernatural” — with the origin of the word “weird” being “Middle English werde, fate, having power to control fate, from Old English wyrd, fate.”
There is nothing supernatural about what’s going on, and we don’t need any supernatural powers to control our fate.
Still, some people are using the phrase — and what’s happening does appear weird (see Virginia Deluge Was an “Off the Charts Above a 1000-year Rainfall,” Says National Weather Service). So I am interested in your thoughts on the phrase.
Here’s more from the piece:
CNN reported on Sept. 9 that “Texas had the distinction of experiencing the warmest summer on record of any state in America, with an average of 86.8 degrees. Dallas residents sweltered for 40 consecutive days of grueling 100-plus degree temperatures. … Temperature-related energy demands soared more than 22 percent above the norm this summer, the largest increase since record-keeping of energy demands began more than a century ago.”
There is still much we don’t know about how climate change will unfold, but it is no hoax. We need to start taking steps, as our scientists urge, “to manage the unavoidable and avoid the unmanageable.” If you want a quick primer on the latest climate science, tune into “24 Hours of Reality.” It is a worldwide live, online update that can be found at climaterealityproject.org and will be going on from Sept. 14-15, over 24 hours, with contributors from 24 time zones.
I’ll do a post on this shortly.
Not only has the science of climate change come under attack lately, so has the economics of green jobs. Here the critics have a point — sort of. I wasn’t surprised to read that the solar panel company Solyndra, which got $535 million in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy to make solar panels in America, filed for bankruptcy protection two weeks ago and laid off 1,100 workers. This story is an embarrassment to the green jobs movement, but the death by bankruptcy was a collaboration of the worst Democratic and Republican impulses.
How so? There is only one effective, sustainable way to produce “green jobs,” and that is with a fixed, durable, long-term price signal that raises the price of dirty fuels and thereby creates sustained consumer demand for, and sustained private sector investment in, renewables. Without a carbon tax or gasoline tax or cap-and-trade system that makes renewable energies competitive with dirty fuels, while they achieve scale and move down the cost curve, green jobs will remain a hobby.
I don’t disagree that nothing is more important than a price signal. If we had a bipartisan deal for a high and rising price for carbon to, say, help address the deficit, then I would agree that other incentives would be far less important. But absent that, if we want to compete with the Chinese and other countries with massive support for clean energy industries, we need to help our emerging industries.
President Obama has chosen not to push for a price signal for political reasons. He has opted for using regulations and government funding. In the area of regulation, he deserves great credit for just pushing through new fuel economy standards that will ensure that by 2025 the average U.S. car will get the mileage (and have the emissions) of today’s Prius hybrid. But elsewhere, Obama has relied on green subsidies rather than a price signal. Some of this has really helped start-ups leverage private capital, but you also get Solyndras. The G.O.P. has blocked any price signal and fought every regulation. The result too often is taxpayer money subsidizing wonderful green innovation, but with no sustainable market within which these companies can scale.
Let’s fix that. We need revenue to balance the budget. We need sustainable clean-tech jobs. We need less dependence on Mideast oil. And we need to take steps to mitigate climate change — just in case Governor Perry is wrong. The easiest way to do all of this at once is with a gasoline tax or price on carbon. Would you rather cut Social Security and Medicare or pay a little more per gallon of gas and make the country stronger, safer and healthier? It still amazes me that our politicians have the courage to send our citizens to war but not to ask the public that question.
Comments welcome!
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I like the term global weirding, it captures the concept that the effects of climate change aren’t just warming, but colder or longer winters, hotter or longer or shorter summers, missing Springs or Falls, deserts where they weren’t before, more intense weather events.
As for weird connoting supernatural, isn’t any sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable from magic? With the amount of science being rejected these days, weird is about as much as you can hope many people will understand.
I really don’t like the phrase “global weirding”. (1) It’s not self-explanatory, and (2) weird isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
“Climate Death Spiral” is much better. It’s obviously bad, and correctly describes the out of control and self-magnifying nature of the problem.
It’s great to see Friedman writing about this since he has a large audience. But since he has started writing about global warming and its effects over the last few years, he’s just been attacked by the deniers with the same vengeance they usually reserve for Al Gore. As far as “global weirding” is concerned, it may not be the best term to use in a technical sense, but it does get the average person’s attention. I hear people much more often talking about the weird weather we’ve been having rather than the warming climate. Friedman knows his audience.
Ed:
Funny, isn’t it, how easily we can gauge the effectiveness of someone in the reality based community, like Friedman or Hansen or Santer or Mann, by how viciously and relentlessly he or she is attacked? (To be more precise, I think it’s actually a measure of the deniers’ perception of the person’s future effectiveness.)
I’d stay away from “global weirding.” It’s not the kind of framing we need right now.
I’m also less than thrilled with the phrase “global weirding”, not so much for the supernatural connotations of the word “weird” but because weird implies that something inexplicable is happening.
What about “climate chaos”?
I second the “climate chaos” catch phrase. As a Dallas resident, breaking the all-time record for days over 100 degrees is not something any of us are cheering about. Seventy times this year we have hit that mark with the possibility of breaking that threshold again today. My front yard looks like the Death Valley. Anytime artificial grass is being installed throughout residential neighborhoods, something is wrong.
On “weirding” I’m somewhere between neutral to negative. Maybe it grabs a few more younger eyeballs.
I read the article in the Times and thought it was very good. From the general public standpoint weirding is very appropriate since the weather behavior we’ve been getting over the last several years has been noticeably weird (and covers hot, cold, dry or wet) – but from a journalistic perspective it doesn’t seem like a very good term to user and reinforce.
You asked for our thoughts on the term “Global Weirding,” and it wouldn’t be my first pick for sure. Being the son of a science fiction writer, I recall “the weirding way” weaponry from Frank Herbert’s book “Dune.” On balance, I’m less concerned with the supernatural connotation and suspect it might be a useful way to label the weather pattern changes we’ll increasingly come to associate with Global Warming.
While I’m glad that Friedman is shining a light on this topic, I still consider him a lightweight pundit. And I will never forgive him for declaring that we were building Democracy in Iraq. What a load of codswallop that observation was!
What writer?
Indeed, things are heading the way of weird. However, the word has a vagueness about it that I don’t like. As with some other longstanding commentators here on CP, I prefer the term “Climate Destabilisation”. It tells you all you need to know in blunt terms. It reminds us that the very reason that Mankind has been able to expand globally to where it is now has been down to a relatively stable (=benign) climate. Yes that stable climate has included severe weather, but only up to a certain frequency of occurrence – and OK – so history records longer periods of climatic deterioration in the past and their consequences, such as North African desert expansion. I would argue that all of these are relatively minor compared to the beast we are in the process of letting loose right now – on a planet with billions more mouths to feed.
Cheers – John
I second “climate destabilization” as the most accurate term. It is what I use most often.
I also really like “climate weirding” solely because I hear so many everyday folks using it. We have failed to capture the broader public’s imagination on climate impacts so far, so I see no need to throw out a term that is engaging lots of folks.
Agreed. I like “climate destabilization” also. More descriptive than “weird”. More urgent than “change” (as in “climate change”).
Friedman gave Obama too much credit, faint as his praise was.
Look, the guy rolled back ozone standards, hasn’t so much as mentioned global warming in over a year, and he’s basically endorsed the notion that environmental regulation kills jobs, when in fact, it creates them.
When someone with a record like that is your champion, that’s weirding. This guy is toxic.
Yes, he looks good compared to Perry or Bachman. Goofy and Daffy Duck do, too, but that doesn’t mean either should be President.
I say it’s time for a primary challenge.
Hilary would have been so much better, so much tougher. Obama has approached Congress as though it represented a community development problem, which is, after all, his background. Stay in the background (no upfront leadership) and try to get the disputing parties to find common ground. Good luck with that! It was like throwing raw meat into a tank full of sharks.
If you think Obama is frustrating now, just wait until he is an ex-President and suddenly starts lamenting the lack of government action on the critical climate threat…ala Bill Clinton.
I understand the technical deficiencies of “global weirding,” But I rather like the subtly threatening tone it carries. If something is weird, it is a little spooky, i.e., scary. And what is happening should be seen as very scary.
Bingo! That’s precisely why I like “global weirding” as a term for mass communication — the spooky factor.
People mentioned upthread “climate chaos”, which was my preference some time back when and I tried my best to promote the use of that term on my own site, but got essentially zero traction.
The oft-mentioned “climate destabilization” is too chrome plated; it sounds like something a person in a white lab coat holding a tablet display data would say.
There’s always FUBAR, which, sadly, has its own baggage…
Climate FUBAR. That’s a first, here, I think.
We’ve had this same set of comments over the years. What do we name this statistical monster that burning fossil fuel has created?
Heck, if extreme weather events weren’t involved who would notice or care? Like frogs in the gradually heating water, we are.
Thank God for extreme weather events. She’s trying to tell us something.
Definitely, it is weird enough.
How can we argue with the application of weird, “having power to control fate,” when a leading climate scientist already expresses the risk of “Game over?”
Decisions already made, and still at hand, do control what outcomes are still possible (a/k/a fate).
Friedman is calling the public to do some pattern recognition (skip the powerpoint, skip the graphs, and go for immediate experience).
Once is an accident
Twice is a coincidence
Three times is an enemy action
- Ian Fleming
Friedman wrote: “… green subsidies … really helped start-ups leverage private capital, but you also get Solyndras …”
Um, we got ONE Solyndra, which amounted to about one percent of the DOE loan guarantees for renewable energy.
I don’t disagree that putting a price on carbon pollution is crucial. But the government should also be actively subsidizing the rapid deployment — as rapid as possible — of today’s powerful, mature wind and solar energy technologies, AND the commercialization of newly developed technologies, AND research into even more advanced wind, solar, storage and smart grid technologies.
At the start of WWII, Roosevelt called in the CEOs of the automobile corporations and simply told them they were going to stop building cars and start building tanks. Period. End of story.
That’s the level of action that we need today.
Spot on! We should all be pouring everything into this effort, regardless of deficits and other economic constructs.
And what is wrong with ‘climate crisis’? It won’t go out of date in a hurry, ME
I’m against the phrase “global weirding”. It sounds like a counter-cultural movement rather than anything to do with climate or weather.
Can we re-cast this phrase to point out the difference between weather and climate? People experience weather, which is why we see those misguided arguments that global warming is good for the economy, based on the idea that a hot summer is better for tomatoes or something.
Can we point at extreme weather events (major storms, droughts, &c) and call them “weather weirding”, thereby speaking to those who can only describe weather?
Climate Chaos
some one going to eat his words…
The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder
online.wsj.com
Anne Jolis of The Wall Street Journal Europe writes that the latest climate change research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme over time.
http://goo.gl/5NYrW
I agree. I think it has two advantages not yet mentioned. One is that it carries an implicit explanation of the breadth of the effects of climate change. People who will question “global warming” when unprecedented snows are falling might be less likely to question “global weirding.” Second, unlike extreme-sounding phrases, it has a chance of catching on and being used by the general public and media, which would be a GOOD thing.
Possibly a third advantage. “Climate change” or “global warming” denial is apparently still quite possible. Denying “global weirding” would by now be a pretty tough sell, I’d think.
Intended as a reply to Ron Taylor, #12 above.
Google Map Reveals Weird Weather Caused Half of Mass Animal Death Incidents
Let’s avoid a flat percentage tax that would hit the poor and unemployed harder than others.
Or do what BC did which is to have a flat rate on carbon because it is so simple to do and then balance the income inequality side by writing everyone a check plus targeted tax break to cover the costs the lower income brackets pay. Similar to what Hansen recommends with his fee-and-dividend.
Friedman: “Joe Romm’s invaluable Climateprogress.org blog”
So true. Thanks Joe.
Yes, I’m glad Tom Friedman is calling out Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman (not hard to do), but I’ve never liked the phrase “global weirding.” It’s too clever by half and it doesn’t speak to the gravity of our planetary situation. And I speak from the upstate of New York’s upper Susquehann Valley, where we’ve had devastating floods the past two weeks and, earlier in the summer, the hottest 5 days on record for the Binghamton, New York station.
I don’t know what’s wrong with “global warming.” If Frank Luntz doesn’t like it, it’s because the phrase is describing a truth about the global situation. I can’t think of a better alternative, unless it’s “global extreme warming” or “global extreme climate” or some iteration thereof that conveys the grim new normal.
Friedman is usually at least 50% full of crap. This was the cleanest, most accurate, most straightforward thing he’s ever written.
Weirding is fine if it reaches new people who begin to become concerned and MSM covers it more.
Slightly OT but just searched Fox news website for Fox coverage of “arctic sea ice” – last story was Sept 2009. 2010 and 2011 continuing ice losses apparently don’t conform to “Fox facts” version of reality.
The thing is the folks Perry and Bachmann appeal to, the ones who come to their appearances and applaud wildly, are also bat-s#%t crazy. Sure the rest of us are worn pretty thin on the crazy after the continuous rant of complete nonsense we have been subjected to since 2008. The death party, er…tea party, has ramped up the crazy by calling for death to the terminally ill who can’t afford hospital care…but all the old crazy lies just keeps coming back, no matter how many times they have been debunked…birth certificate will be recycled soon. Only the truly crazy would persist in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary. So why would an issue that has years and years of solid evidence to support well established science, like global climate disruption, be any different? Does President Obama want to have the global warming debate or would he rather focus on jobs? Believe it or not but just getting the jobs bill past will be controversial enough with plenty of Republican and tea party crazy talk to go around. With the campaign in full swing it is much easier, relatively speaking, for the President to paint Republicans as the anti-jobs / anti-economic recovery party then to hammer them on the climate issue they are so infamous for denying. Everyone knows the Republican position on climate change is completely ignorant and crazy but it is now accepted as a normal part of their character, like Jim’s belief in superstition and the supernatural in Huckleberry Finn.
As for global weirding, I prefer not to use the term because it is not descriptive enough. No mention of climate. The global economy is pretty weird too. That said, it is a catchy turn of phrase.
Weird how Texas weather has been overwritten by the BONANZA burning map intro.
Global Wronging? One thing I like about “weirding” is that people already a little against science DO admit things are weird, only they are more inclined to ask their preacher about it than a scientist. How about this, we jump on the term “global weirding” and then point out the science going all the way back to Joseph Fourier in the 1820′s through the the current work, and translate it back into global warming. That is to say, use the term “global weirding” at the start of a piece or conversation because people might respond, and explain why we finish an argument with the correct term “global warming.”. ( Although if I get credit, I might start using Global Wronging.
I like the term “optional global suicide”.
“Global weirding” isn’t too bad. It draws attention, and the little bit of puzzlement about what Friedman means helps the phrase stick in your mind once you find out what he means, IMO.
Climate chaos and climate destabilization are probably more accurate, but global weirding is the one which seems to have established itself.
One thing we should avoid doing is changing terminology endlessly. It’s more important that a term be widely known than than totally accurate, IMO.
from bloomberg news
WH Aides Questioned on Failed Solar Firm
Solyndra, promoted by the Obama administration as a successful example of the
use of stimulus money to spur development of a clean-energy industry, filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 6, and two days later its offices were raided by the FBI. http://www.newslook.com/videos/350418-wh-aides-questioned-on-failed-solar-firm?autoplay=true
I’m not fond of weirding for climate, but weird is just dandy for weather.
Climate disruption = weird weather. (Weirder weather on the way.) Also covers early spring, heavy snow, all those oddities.
Weirding also brings ‘Dune’ to my mind.
A year after enduring the most devastating flooding in its history, Pakistan is again experiencing historic floods. An unusually heavy and late-lasting monsoon has brought torrential rains to Pakistan’s southeast Sindh Province, which borders India to the east and the Arabian Sea to the south, and includes Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi. The heavy rains began in the 2nd week of August, and have continued into the 2nd week of September, accumulating to 2 1/2 times more than average. According to Dr. Qamar-uz-Zaman Chaudhry, Pakistan’s Federal Advisor on Climate Affairs, this is the highest 4-week monsoon rainfall total ever recorded in Sindh province, amounting to more than 37 million acre feet of water, “which is unimaginable.” The “unimaginable” rains occurred after a 12-month period where the province received no rain and was under severe drought conditions. At least 226 people have been killed in the new flooding, 1.2 million houses have been damaged or destroyed, and 280,000 people made homeless. There were already 1 million people needing food aid and 800,000 families without permanent shelter due to last year’s floods, making this year’s renewed flooding particularly disruptive. According to the India Meteorological Department, by September 1, the monsoon usually begins to retreat from northwest India and southeastern Pakistan. That hasn’t happened this year, and the monsoon rains are forecast to continue at least for the remainder of this week–well into the 3rd week of September. This very unusual monsoon season also started a week earlier than normal.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1929#commenttop
Colorado Bob, I have been repeatedly asking what impact Arctic ice meltback has on global tele-connections of wind patterns. Only a few recent papers have suggested the meltback could affect the timing and intensity of Asian monsoons.
I’m sure we’ll get around to studying the impacts of meltback and give that more attention than placing bets on next year’s Arctic ice extent. No. Second thought, I don’t think so. Record-breaking is more sexy.
“Had enough yet?”
I don’t think we have to get too hung up on vocabulary unless it’s entirely misleading. “Global weirding” isn’t really, and catchy helps in a political fight.
So long as we keep the science ultimately front and center.
Rhe weirding term implies that there is something mysterious and inexplicable about it, like an episode of the X files.In fact we know it’s very easy and simple to understand when the scientists explain it in layman’s terms.
I prefer Climate Chaos. It’s accurate, descriptive and easily understood. It carries no unworldly connotations.
I agree. No Climate Weirding. It’s as contrived as “New Coke”.
Joe, ask citizens in Burlington or Binghampton if they believe the climate is weirding.
I believe they will all say they experienced “climate chaos” that went off the charts.
Some comments seem to dislike weirding because it is more descriptive of weather than climate. But what people experience in their daily lives is weather, and the weirding of weather is a consequence of global warming. So why not start with what they are experiencing? It then leads naturally into a conversation about more water vapor and energy in a warmer atmosphere, and all that implies, the consequences of the loss of arctic sea ice, etc. I have found that approach to be fairly successful. Plus, “global weirding” really is catchy with a non scientic public.
Yes. Climate change results in weird weather. We don’t know what “normal” weather is anymore.
I remember seeing a report that Texas had 400 firefighthers on the lines, as if that was a lot. 400? I think that California would have thousands. Somebody should look into whether Texas’ low tax heaven has resulted in too few resources to fight these fires at a maximum level. Here in the PNW we have hundreds of firefighters working on a fire that is a tiny fraction of what Texas is facing. And we sent some firefighters to Texas as well.
I think it was Krugman who wrote that Perry cut state assistance to volunteer fire companies from $113 million to $84 million last year, right in the middle of the worst drought on record. (I did not check, but I believe those numbers are right.) Talk about something weird…
I’m a fan of Global “Weirding.” Reasons:
1. It’s more representative of what we are seeing than Global “Warming.” When people see record floods, droughts, fires, etc., this matches what they are seeing better.
2. It is simple enough language that the common Joe (no offense) can understand it.
3. It is somewhat visceral. (Which has more impact.) Quite different from the bland “climate change.”
4. People know it’s related to Global Warming (I think), which is scientifically sound.
Just my 4 cents.
I use the phrase “climate chaos” to describe the wierding we see.
“Chaos” is a word which has a specific technical meaning in climate science and using it to describe the whole problem will lead to almost as much confusion as “global warming” does.
John Holdren’s suggestion of “climate disruption” remains the best option around. It’s unambiguous, and carries the whole brunt of the concept of “dangerous artificial interference in natural climate patterns and its consequences”, which is what we are trying to wrap our heads around.