Robert Grumbine points out that the recent derecho that hit Washington DC demonstrates the folly of thinking we can simply adapt to climate change:
I live in the national Capitol area for what is supposed to be the richest and most technologically advanced country on the earth. ; And many, large population, counties around me are among the wealthiest in the country. ; If any area should be well-adapted to current weather, forget to climate ;change, it is this area. ; Let’s just consider events already in hand.
- Killed power for half the national Capitol area (1.5 million of about 3 million people lost power)
- Took down 911 (emergency — life-threatening emergency — phone service) in some counties
- Took down land line phone service in parts of the area
- Took down cell phone service in parts of the area
- 24 hours after the storm hit, about half of those who had lost power still didn’t have it back
- The restoration of electricity to everybody is expected to take a week
- Registered only about 50 mph (about 22 m/s, 80 kph) winds in a span of 30-60 minutes at the official recording station (DCA), with gusts about 40% faster. (different figures in other parts of the country that were hit).
One observation about those facts, is that none of them are exceptional for this area. ; The last time such a thing happened was … August 2011, due to rain fromIrene ;(which was not hurricane force in our area, hurricane force being 74 mph / 34 m/s). ; Thunderstorms do ordinarily pass 50 mph winds. ; They don’t do it as often in this area as Chicago, but it’s still a normal thing.
This wealthy area of a wealthy country is not adapted for weather it already gets on about an annual basis. ; It’s nonsense to claim that “we’ll adapt to climate change”.
Climate change adaptation is piffle. ; Pie in the sky nonsense. ; We are not adapted to weather we already get routinely.
When it comes to any adaptation vs mitigation arguments, I always fall back to to John Holdren’s comments: There is mitigation adaptation and suffering, the question is what the ratio between the three will be.
As it stands now I am not at all happy about the ratio we are picking.
UPDATE: More from Robert Grumbine:
we had about 1 hour of winds averaging 50 mph (22 m/s) in the recent storm. Such winds are highly abnormal, in that the average is 5-10 mph. But there are 8766 hours in a year. It is normal, I believe (haven’t pulled down the full data set), for at least 1 hour in the year to average 50 mph here. One sense of normal is the arithmetic average. Another is ‘what are the winds you see less than 1% of the time’? That would be the 99th percentile winds — you get that or faster 87.66 hours per year. 99.9th percentile is 8.766 hours, which I think is about right for 50 mph in this area. 99.99th percentile is something you expect to see about 50 minutes each year (maybe this is where we were). In other words, it is normal to be that abnormal.