Considering Climate Change After Sandy
by Christine Stuart | Oct 30, 2012 2:30pm
(20) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Energy, Environment, Weather
Last year’s one-two storm punch already had officials wondering if climate change was to blame for what has been described as a 100-year event. Now, as pictures of damage from Hurricane Sandy begin to pour in, the question of climate change is being raised again.
It’s something to which the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has been paying attention. The DEEP issued a draft report on the topic in 2011.
“This raises real questions about historic assumptions and 100 year storms and whether or not we’re going to see them at a frequency that is more often than 100 years,” DEEP Commissioner Daniel C. Esty said Monday after a briefing in the Emergency Operations Center.
It has been 25 years since the last hurricane and now that the state has seen two in a row, it “gives rise to concern both about the frequency and the storms we need to prepare for going forward,” Esty said.
The storms have consequences with respect to the types of infrastructure investments the state plans to make going forward, he added.
Esty said he gives credit to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the Two Storm Panel, which already has flagged this as an issue for the future both in the draft report issued by an advisory panel and in the energy strategy document released by Malloy a few weeks ago.
He said the siting of sewage treatment plants and other public infrastructure, which have existed in the state since the 1950s, may no longer be seen as good locations based on the history of the storms. He said the electrical equipment at new sewage treatment plants is being stationed up a flight of stairs now so there’s less of a risk it will be compromised by flooding.
Esty was careful to say the storms, including Sandy, are not necessarily “evidence of climate change.” However, “what prudence argues is what the climate scientists believe is potentially happening is the increased intensity and frequency of wind storms, including hurricanes in Connecticut, and that a thoughtful state government would take that into account and plan for it.”
Sandy came ashore in New Jersey as a Category I hurricane, but Esty said the state is going to need to plan for bigger, more frequent storms in the future.
A draft 2011 report from the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection found the maximum wind gust from Tropical Storm Irene was 66 mph. An estimated 2 to 3 percent of trees within 50 feet of the center line of state roads were felled by the storm.
Things could have been much worse.
The draft report found that if it was a Category I hurricane, an estimated 180,000 trees would fall resulting in about 150,000 trouble spots and nearly a complete outage of the state requiring 67 days for full restoration. If it were a Category III hurricane, 420,000 trees would fall resulting in about 350,000 trouble spots and a 100-percent outage of the state requiring 157 days for full restoration.
Tropical Storm Irene and the October snow storm each knocked out power to more than 800,000 customers, far exceeding any storm in recent history.
“However, they pale in comparison to the damage that will be inflicted on Connecticut by a Category 3 hurricane with sustained winds between 100 to 120 mph,” the recommendation from the Two Storm Panel states.
Testimony provided to the Two Storm Panel by meteorologists from the National Weather Service stated that Connecticut is overdue for a major hurricane and data from the Northeast Regional Climate Center indicates a major increase in precipitation over the last 40 years.
According to a report entitled “Severe Weather In North America” and published by Munich Re, a reinsurance company, “Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America.”
“The study shows a nearly quintupled number of weather-related loss events in North America for the past three decades, compared with an increase factor of 4 in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, 2 in Europe, and 1.5 in South America,” according to a press release about the report.
Climate change affects the formation and intensity of heat-waves, droughts, hurricanes, cyclones, and other extreme weather events.
But whether it’s real or not is still being debated.
In 2009, Rep. John Piscopo, R-Thomaston, introduced a bill to repeal Global Warming legislation. It would have forced the state to leave a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative compact, which “creates a regulatory structure for incentives and penalties designed to reduce carbon emissions.” It died in committee on a voice vote.
Tags: climate change, connecticut, Sandy, storm, weather, global warming, john piscopo, dan esty, Malloy, Environment, dh
(20) Comments
posted by: ConnVoter | October 30, 2012 4:05pm
This is silly. We have a planet that is over 3 billion years old, and we’re sitting around talking about whether 100-year storms are happening more and more often? This storm was no more substantial than 1938, and we didn’t do anything after that one, but the glboe cooled off until the 90’s. We should follow that example.
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | October 30, 2012 4:12pm
Cheshire Rep. Adinolfi voted against a CT Greenhouse Gas Initiative because “there a lot of greenhouses in Cheshire.” (He also voted against the medical marijuana bill because he had a friend who smoked so much marijuana that he didn’t know that his ear was falling off.)
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | October 30, 2012 5:45pm
@ConnVoter.
What if you were to take the ancient ooze in a planet’s crust and set it on fire? What if you were to blow the tops off the planet’s mountains, scrape off the crusted matter inside, and then set that crusted matter on fire? What if you were to inject kerosene at high pressures deep into the crust of that planet, collect the gasses that bubble closer to the surface, and then set those gases on fire?
@ConnVoter. You seem to be a deep thinker. Would these activities effect that planet’s climate? Would the fact that the planet had survived 3 billion years without this fiery activity make any difference at all? Just asking.
posted by: UConnHoop | October 30, 2012 8:53pm
There is no doubt that the climate is changing. It’s changed in the past and it will change in the future. But, if anyone believes that the climate changes because of human activity, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you as well as some land in FL.
posted by: gutbomb86 | October 30, 2012 10:46pm
@connvoter & @uconnhoop - yeah you two are right on top of this stuff! Clearly you’re both qualified to dismiss thousands of studies and lifetimes of work by Ph.D.s - why? Because you heard it on WTIC or Fox!
Spout away, gentlemen. You’ll be forced to accept it soon enough.
posted by: dano860 | October 30, 2012 11:18pm
@gutbomb86- those ‘studies’ that were to have been the credible ones somehow forgot to include the data supplied by the Russians. Of course had they included it the whole charade would have been uncovered. In order to get the results you want in any study all you need to do is fudge the data. Easy sneezy and no Fox News involved!
posted by: stellathecat | October 31, 2012 9:09am
We asked scientists to study things like climate and when a very large majority say humans are having an effect on climate and a handfull say humans are not I tend to go with the large majority. If I don’t like what I’m hearing I might say I dont know but I would never say I am sure they are wrong. I am pretty sure that people residing on ocean shore property are living in la-la land if they think their property is not at risk.
posted by: ConnVoter | October 31, 2012 9:19am
Not that Michael Brown, you are assuming facts not in evidence, so to speak. Using shock talk and not knowing what you’re talking about.
A question for you: if equally powerful hurricanes struck in 1938 and in 2012, isn’t our response in 1938 relevant to how we should respond in 2012? No one ran around blaming things like “climate change” or anything like that. Here’s the deal: the climate is always changing and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Gutbomb, what studies are you talking about? Do you realize that I could cite just as many studies and lifetimes of work by more credible Ph.D.s which indicate that “climate change” is something that has happened for the planet’s entire history, no matter what?
I’ll tell you what, instead, maybe you can just tell me how the Grand Canyon was formed.
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | October 31, 2012 9:58am
@dano860
Yea. I heard that from Al;ex Jones too.
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | October 31, 2012 1:30pm
@ConnVoter
I understand your “evidence.” I also know that you believe that scientists have not, and cannot, observe a connection between climate change and weather. And I get the impression that you think humans have an insignificant effect on the planet, if any at all. You think we need another 3 billion years of data. Right.
But I have no idea why you are asking me to explain how the Grand Canyon was formed.
posted by: gutbomb86 | October 31, 2012 1:46pm
@dano - “those studies” ... you mean the thousands of different studies concluding climate change is a real phenomenon and which our carbon emissions are impacting? Those are the ones I meant ... so it’s just a REALLY BIG conspiracy then I guess.
As I understand it, the folks at Fox are saying the Grand Canyon wasn’t created by erosion, but was instead the result of a giant hand that came down from god to destroy the gay people living there with the dinosaurs.
posted by: ConnVoter | October 31, 2012 2:13pm
Mike Brown, perhaps you should look up the words “climate” and “weather” in the dictionary. “Climate” is generally defined as “the generally prevailing weather conditions of a region.” “Climate” and “weather” are necessarily intertwined.
I don’t think humans have an insignificant impact on the planet, not at all. That’s not what I said.
The point that needs to be made is this: anyone who believes in “climate change” (whatever the heck that means) and talks down to people who don’t feel like hopping on board their manic bus has an incredible ego, because he or she is effectively saying, “I know everything there is to know about the 3+ billion years of the planet’s climatic history based on the last 100 years of recorded history and I have the power, the right and the ability to stop any changes to it.” See how ridiculous that sounds?
posted by: ALD | October 31, 2012 2:55pm
Gutbomb, Your comment:
“As I understand it, the folks at Fox are saying the Grand Canyon wasn’t created by erosion, but was instead the result of a giant hand that came down from god to destroy the gay people living there with the dinosaurs. “
Which of course only clearly explains why your understanding of everything else is just as distorted. Yesterday you played the race card, today you play the gay, and God card. You liberals will label anything, and will play any card you can….. Just leave the poor dinosaurs out of it. They are not responsible for global warming just because they died off and became fossil fuels. I assume you understand that, but to be perfectly honest I really am not sure!!!
posted by: gutbomb86 | October 31, 2012 3:48pm
Well I call ‘em like I see ‘em, ALD. That’s what I see in the climate naysayers. Mainly because that’s the kind of stuff that they offer in place of science. You can criticize me all you want for pointing the ridiculous things that conservatives have said, are saying, and continue to believe. But I’m going to keep doing it until conservatives stop making fools of themselves.
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | October 31, 2012 4:37pm
@ConnVoter
You’re a real moving target, but thank you for at least admitting that there is a connection between ‘weather’ and ‘climate.’
But then you make this statement, ” . . anyone who believes in “climate change” (whatever the heck that means) . . .” So I guess you are saying that the climate isn’t changing. See how ridiculous that sounds? And as for your hypothetical quote from the hypothetical “he or she” . . . well that’s just silly. You made that up.
If the eruption of volcanoes tends to raise the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, isn’t at least a good probability that burning fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas at ever increasing rates also raise the CO2 levels on the planet?
posted by: ConnVoter | October 31, 2012 5:24pm
You guessed wrong. I am not saying that the climate isn’t changing—in fact, I’m saying the opposite. The climate is changing, because it has always changed, and will always continue to change. Also, no, my quote wasn’t silly, it was dead-on. People actually think they have the power and jurisdiction and ability to stop the climate from changing. That takes some big cojones, as Madeleine Albright might have said.
Before you spout off on CO2 emissions, perhaps you should realize that (a) they have been plummeting in the U.S. for the last 5-10 years and are now as low as they’ve ever been since 1990, and (b) a large baboon emits more CO2 than a SUV does. You seem to enjoy knee-jerk reactions without recognizing what you’re knee-jerking about. (Sadly, and dangerously, you are allowed as many votes as I am, under the Constitution.)
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | October 31, 2012 5:43pm
@ConnVoter
Ok. So NOW you admit that “climate change” means the climate is changing You said “whatever the heck that means” earlier. (See what I mean by a moving target.)
Now. In your august opinion, does CO2 added to the atmosphere have an effect on climate?
posted by: ALD | October 31, 2012 9:32pm
Gutbomb, You say:
“You can criticize me all you want for pointing the ridiculous things that conservatives have said, are saying, and continue to believe. But I’m going to keep doing it until conservatives stop making fools of themselves.”
I say fair enough…... Then grow up, and stop being part of the problem. Both sides are making fools of themselves, and until we voters say enough is enough, it won’t stop. So try being an adult with your arguments. You liberals have a very interesting take on reality. I guess as you see it two wrongs make a right….. Oh so very with it!!!!
Can you point out specifically for me who besides you, said God created the Grand Canyon to get rid of gays and dinosaurs? Did you really see that on Fox? Or did you perhaps see that on MSNBC as something one of their countless, clueless, divisive, liberal, hate spewing, talking heads, claimed some obscure conservative said? Honestly you just cannot make grade school stuff like this up. Come on guy, if you want to affect positive change, then be part of the solution, not part of the problem, like Murphy and McMahon.
Yeah two great choices this sort of play ground nonsense has given us CT voters to chose from for our newest senator…..
posted by: ConnVoter | October 31, 2012 9:59pm
Mike, you asked whether I believe in “climate change.” Of course I believe in the fact that the climate changes, because it is a fact. That’s not the question here.
To answer your question, yes, I believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has an impact on climate. After all, it is the most essential nutrient to nearly every plant.
posted by: stellathecat | November 1, 2012 11:23am
Take evolutionary theory out of the text books.Repudiate stem cell research and deny that mans negative impact on the environment has any effect on weather patterns and I would call you a conservative. I have no problem with your thinking that way I just feel you are wrong on all counts