Should We Blame Climate Change for the Moore Tornado?
Was Oklahoma's massive storm an inevitable side effect of higher atmospheric temperatures, or was it simply a bad storm, like so many before? Here's a survey of opinions so far. Unlike climate change itself, there is legitimate debate on the role warmer temperatures may have played in events like Monday's tornado in Moore, Oklahoma . Was the massive storm an inevitable side effect of higher atmospheric temperatures, or was it simply a bad storm, like so many before? What follows is a quick survey of opinions from around the web, from sources of varying respectability. We assigned the rhetorical strength of each claim judged on a scale from 0 to 400 parts-per-million of atmospheric CO 2 . Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island: Blame climate change On the Senate floor Monday, Whitehouse used the storms as part of a litany of disasters for which America on the whole needs to pay. As transcribed by the Daily Caller : Believability: 80 ppm. Whitehouse doesn't appear to have made a strong case for the link, no matter how you feel about his argument for economic foresight. Bill Nye the Science Guy: Blame climate change Nye, known more for his advocacy these days than for the TV show that produced his name, took to Twitter to promote his appearance on CNN. In that tweet, he made the case. Back to CNN midnight @ piersmorganlive . Tornado 2 miles wide. More energy in the atmosphere- means more trouble. Believability: 300 ppm. Format of the message notwithstanding, Nye makes a key point for those who think there might be a link. The entire point of atmospheric warming is that the temperature in the atmosphere increases. And increased temperatures, you may remember from science class, means more energy, the little atoms of nitrogen and oxygen and carbon dioxide whipping around faster and faster. That energy can manifest in on-the-ground weather though whether or not that includes tornados isn't clear. Head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Don't blame climate change At least, not yet. Emphasizing the need for more data, Rajendra Pachauri expressed skepticism to reporters Tuesday . Believability: 300 ppm. Pachauri appears, in part, to be exercising a classic hedge against linking weather events to climate change: it's nearly always impossible to say this event couldn't have happened without increased warming. Remember the classic example of the dog going for a walk . Climate change is manifested through long-term trends more than individual events. And as The Atlantic 's Alexis Madrigal noted Monday , so far there's no trend toward more or more powerful tornadoes. Climate scientists: Maybe The Huffington Post spoke with scientists from Princeton University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Brooks also made another point: When it's too warm now, there aren't more tornadoes. During last year's heat wave, there were fewer than normal. Believability: 380 ppm. This is precisely the sort of measured response one would expect from scientists. And as the people who study this stuff, they deserve a little more deference. The Guardian 's Harry Enten: Maybe Enten, a reporter and statistics expert, notes that there wasn't much unusual about Monday's weather conditions. Making the question: will we see more such "looks" in the future? Maybe. "[W]e'll never know whether larger global warming factors were at play in Monday's storms." Believability: 120 ppm. Enten's analysis syncs with the science, but it's hard to assign too much weight to analysis alone. Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: Blame climate change (in part) Scientific American interviewed Trenberth, who works for the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Trenberth notes that a little more warming can have a big effect on weather systems. But, he warns, "climate change does not change the weather or patterns of weather (much)." In other words, you might be able to blame the storm's strength on climate change, but not the storm itself. Believability: 350 ppm. The government pays this guy to know about the climate, so we'll defer to his expertise. American Meteorological Society president Marshall Shepherd: Don't blame climate change Time 's Bryan Walsh points to this tweet, from an exchange he had with Shepherd. @ detroitmark @ bryanrwalsh climate change is real issue but can we not dilute the issue with that right now. No links to tornadoes Believability: 330 ppm. Shepherd, who is also a scientist with NASA and climate science professor, is definitely in a position to have an informed opinion. Houston Chronicle 's SciGuy: Why not both? As the SciGuy (Eric Berger) notes, we were recently talking about how few tornadoes we'd seen. Which may mean that tornadoes will be like rainfall: bigger storms and more drought . Believability: 240 ppm. It's an unusual prediction derived from experts, so make of that what you will. Confused? Don't be. The main point is this: It's possible that climate change will result in more storms like the one that demolished Moore. It's also possible that the atmospheric energy will only manifest in exceptional droughts and massive floods. It's sort of like a Choose Your Own Adventure , in which each ending isn't one you'd choose. Correction: An earlier version of this article misrepresented Marshall Shepherd's expertise. Photo: A soldier walks through a devastated neighborhood. (AP)