published Sunday, August 18th, 2013

Raining our way to climate change

It’s mid-August, and Chattanooga already has seen a year’s worth of rain in 2013.

Just a fluke, you think? One of those cyclical teases by Mother Nature? Think again.

Late last year, the University of Tennessee released a first-of-its kind study to predict climate-change induced heat waves and rainfall for the top 20 cities in the eastern United States. The findings put the Tennessee Valley in the cross hairs of climate craziness — more intense heat waves and drastically wetter weather — over coming decades.

“Heat waves will become more severe in most regions of the eastern United States, and both the Northeast and Southeast will see a drastic increase in precipitation,” said Joshua Fu, a civil and environmental engineering professor who used Oak Ridge’s Titan and UT’s Kraken supercomputers to analyze historical weather data and future expectations for carbon fuels and the ozone they create.

Fu’s work calculated that Nashville will see heat-wave temperature rises of almost 5.8 degrees Fahrenheit higher than now, and Memphis will see heat wave temps up by almost 4 degrees.

But it is the rainfall impacts that may be most noticeable.

By his analysis, the Southeast will experience 35 percent or higher increases in precipitation. For Chattanooga, which normally receives about 53 inches of rain a year, that would mean another 17 inches of rain.

As of this week, we stand at about 19 or 20 inches above normal rainfall for this time of year. For the most part, we’ve escaped the scorching heat waves that other parts of the country have felt this summer.

So what? People and animals will adapt, right?

Maybe. But there will be losers. And winners. Mostly there will be lots of money to lose. Or make.

Fu’s research was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He was looking to predict the future potential for heat waves because they spark pest-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus.

TVA recently noted that the dams on the Tennessee River system saved Chattanooga from $44 million in flood damages just in July when the region was drenched with rain again and again. But with the Chickamauga Dam being more than 70 years old with a crippled lock and a new one stalled in construction because of congressional inaction, how many more floods can it withstand?

Meanwhile, across the region, garden crops have neared ripening only to suddenly rot under the constant dampness.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that 70 million people live in the Southeast, many along the thousands of miles of coastline. Those coasts will likely experience stronger hurricanes, storm surges and sea level rise. A two-foot increase in the average global sea level by 2100 would result in a 3.5-foot increase in sea level at Galveston, Texas, and New Orleans — significant sites of our nation’s oil refining.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused a loss of over 200 square miles of coastal land in Louisiana, and the 2005 hurricane season caused over 1,800 deaths and catastrophic damage to personal property and public infrastructure.

Most Americans have no trouble connecting the potential health and financial dangers of a water-covered highway or a tornado, yet we often can’t quite make that broader-picture connection to contemplate the consequences of climate change.

But look at it through the lens of prevention and preparation. Imagine the jobs that can be created to build or retrofit alternative energy plants that would allow us to abandon carbon polluting ones.

This week in Pittsburgh, Pa., U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle and Regional EPA Administrator Shawn Garvin brought together local labor and environmental leaders at the United Steelworkers headquarters to talk about industrial carbon pollution and its risks for public health and opportunities for jobs.

Fred Redmond, head of the Steelworkers, said preparing for climate change, if done right, “will fuel economic growth. [and] … Steelworkers have every intention to see to it that the President’s plan goes forward.”

It’s a rally the administration is carrying around the country to highlight a plan for EPA to set carbon standards for new and existing power plants to reduce carbon emissions by 3 billion tons by 2030. Some 40 percent of the carbon pollution emitted into the air in the U.S. comes from power plants, which have not previously been subject to carbon controls.

Here’s another idea. Consumers should help, too. Use less electricity. Don’t be a loser.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

The American public lacks the inner strength to willingly embrace carbon reduction. Any reduction in carbon usage will likely be related to declining purchasing power...which is certainly happening at a quickening pace. In a sense, poverty could help slow climate change.

The bumper stickers could read: Depression for a Healthier Planet

August 18, 2013 at 12:41 a.m.
conservative said...

I did not read the article because the woman is an extreme Liberal and therefore predictable.

I did a quick search for the words man and man made and global warming. Not found. I can only conclude that she implies and insinuates that YOU are causing climate change.

She hopes she can lead YOU to the conclusion that YOU are the cause of climate change.

Don't be one of her sheep.

August 18, 2013 at 7:10 a.m.
rick1 said...

How many ice ages were there before man was even on this planet? The climate is always changing but what the environmentalist want is to destroy capitalism they don't give a crap about the environment.

Where were all of these environmentalist when Obama was asking Brazil to drill for more oil and said we would be their best customer? Where were all of these environmentalist when Obama was asking Saudi Arabia to increase oil production? I thought the environment impacted the entire planet not just the U.S.

Even Dr. Patrick Moore former co-founder of Green Peace said man-made global warming is an anti-capitalist money-making scam.

August 18, 2013 at 11:11 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Patrick Moore, huh? Not exactly the world's most reliable opinion, especially regarding climate (he's an ecologist, not a climate scientist). But, his story is very interesting:

August 18, 2013 at 12:45 p.m.
nucanuck said...


Capitalism in in the process of destroying itself. The addiction to growth, energy,debt/leverage, and fractional reserve banking have just about sunk the capitalist ship.

The irony is that that will be a positive for reduction of carbon.

August 18, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
joneses said...

Is it Global Warming, Man Made Global Warming, or is it Climate change today? Regardless of what the liberal global warming alarmist, extremist call it you know they are lying. When it rains to much, they blame it on global warming, when it is to hot, they blame it on global warming, when it is to cold they blame it on global warming, when it is to dry they blame it on global warming, when there is a tornado, they blame it on global warming, when there is a hurricane they blame it on global warming. All these liberal extremist are doing is promoting global warming to progress their agenda of controling more of our lives through environmental regulations. These liberal extremist have a list of scientist that say there is man made global warming. However there is one list missing these liberal global warming alarmist extremist will not talk about. That is the list of scientist that do not believe this crab and who would not take a bribe under the guise of a research grant to put their name on something based on inaccurate scientific data. The earth has experienced weather variations since the beginning of time.

August 18, 2013 at 3:07 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Even Dr. Patrick Moore former co-founder of Green Peace said man-made global warming is an anti-capitalist money-making scam." - rick1

However noble his intentions in his past years, Patrick Moore is now certifiably a kook. So what if he denounces man-made climate change as an anti-capitalist scam? Like every other so-called "scientist" or pundit who denounces AGW he is not even a climate scientist and has not done any significant research on it whatsoever. You deniers keep listening to the paid-off shills and non-scientists who don't have a clue what they're talking about and all the while you completely shrug off the findings of the actual climate scientists, 97% of whom have stated over and over again that climate change IS real and it IS caused primarily by human activity. Furthermore, EVERY major scientific organization throughout the world has signed on in agreement attesting to the FACTS of human caused climate change. It is not even in dispute any more among the truly reputable climatologists who have researched it.

If you want to listen to someone who has some credibility when it comes to changing his mind about climate change, listen to what Dr. Richard Muller says about it. He is a professor of physics at the University of California and he used to be one of the most vocal critics of AGW.

This is a direct quote from him: "Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

It's also interesting to note that a large part of the funding for his latest studies came from the Koch brothers, who were assuming that he would find further evidence to support his former opinion that climate change was not real, or that it most definitely was not caused by human activity. So much for the insinuation that you deniers are always making - that climate scientists can't be trusted because they are dependent on their government funding. Any rational, halfway sensible person knows that is BS but such is the BS that you deniers keep spewing.

I'm sorry but anyone who flat out states that global warming is a liberal hoax is an idiot. It's getting old and stale and bordering on insanity, having to play this silly game of pretending that you guys make any sense and are worthy of debating. I feel stupid for even engaging in debate with someone so biased and opinionated that not only can they not at the very least remain open and skeptical about the issue, but they state unequivocally that is NOT real. Idiots, idiots, idiots.

August 18, 2013 at 3:13 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You are welcome to produce this list of climate scientists that don't accept climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible (that is two different hypotheses, by the way). We'll wait right here.

August 18, 2013 at 3:14 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

joneses, not every hurricane or drought or flash flood or extreme in temperature is attributed to global warming. But many anomalies are. The global warming that is taking place is making for erratic and wildly fluctuating variations in weather patterns and it will mean that some parts of the globe will experience unusually high temperatures while other parts might experience unusually low temps. Global warming means that the earth and the oceans are getting warmer but how that affects the weather can be very erratic and unpredictable. It doesn't mean that it's simply going to get hotter everywhere.

That list of scientists that you claim exists, who say that they do not believe "this crap" and have not taken "bribes," unlike EVERY climate scientist, world-wide, who no doubt is lying for the sake of taking government money....that list has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. It started out as a petition sent out to people who had any sort of degree in the scientific field, but it quickly degenerated to a wide-open and easily accessible survey that eventually appeared on the internet, where anyone could sign it. In the end, over 30,000 people signed it and the vast majority of those signees had no scientific credentials whatsoever. They were merely people who wanted to go on record as stating that they thought global warming was not caused by human activity. The number of actual climate scientists who signed that petition were a mere 1-2 percent. That is the list you deniers keep referring to of "scientists" who dispute global warming. And while you constantly refer to that list of know-nothings and shills you refuse to listen to the actual climate scientists themselves who no longer debate the reality of human caused global warming. The only thing they debate about it now is how fast it is taking place and the extent of the damage that will result.

August 18, 2013 at 3:38 p.m.
rick1 said...

"However noble his intentions in his past years, Patrick Moore is now certifiably a kook."

Now that Moore no longer agrees man made global warming or man made climate change he is a certifiable kook. This is the classic behavior of those who believe in climate change to attack those who do not.

Is the earth getting dangerously warm? Probably not, since the earth was warmer than it is now in 7000 of the last 10,000 years. By the way, does anybody know what the “right” amount of global heat is?

There is huge money for the scientist who have been hired to say there is man made global warming. Between 1990 and 2007 $50 billion has been given to research into global warming and has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one. yet in order to keep receiving money these scientist will of course say there is man made climate change. If they said other wise their paycheck would stop coming their way.

There is more then enough evidence to show this is all a hoax and as Joneses and I have said is nothing more then to destroy capitalism and for the government to control our lives even more through increased EPA regulations on private businesses.

Ike I was able to find an article from December 2007 that showed at that time 400 scientist spoke out against man made global warming.

August 18, 2013 at 4:21 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Hmmm... First link had a list? I am having some trouble finding it. It by the way was from 2007. Courier article was written by Bob Carter, who was paid quite a bit (just under $2k US) per month by the Heartland Institute to make his claims. Not very clean.

August 18, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Babble on, rick1. You are as pig-headed and lacking in critical thinking skills as any brainwashed Bible thumper. I have said more than enough on the subject and no amount of logic or facts or common sense is going to get through to you. You are so dense that the ice caps could all be melted tomorrow and you would still attribute it to "normal" climate fluctuations. Enjoy your delusions. Now, why don't you go sit in your car and rev your engine 'til it runs out of gas, just 'cause you can. That would serve to prove a point about as much as anything you've said so far.

August 18, 2013 at 4:39 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Third one was from 2007. Said there was a list but didn't link it (that I can see) Fourth was written by T.Dan Tolleson from the TX Christian Party. He does not appear to be a scientist. I suggest you go to They stay up to date.

August 18, 2013 at 4:40 p.m.
rick1 said...

Rickaroo, Have a very blessed day.

August 18, 2013 at 4:52 p.m.
conservative said...

I did another search of "I'm" and variations of "cause."

I have yet to find one gloom and doom Liberal admit to causing global warming or climate change.

It is always someone else, isn't it?

August 18, 2013 at 5:20 p.m.
rick1 said...

Ike here is the first link and it is from 2012.

Thank you, I did not know about the pay Carter was receiving but then you should have a concern with the scientist who have received money from organizations including governments that are promoting Man Made Climate change correct?

Since you are a former teacher I thought you may want to read this link.

Please see these links.

August 18, 2013 at 5:30 p.m.
conservative said...


I know that first article is very interesing and makes some valid points.

However, in my opinion you are wasting your time unless you paste some excerpts.

Prople set on gloom and doom will not to go to a source you provide to see their error. They are not interested in being proved wrong.

August 18, 2013 at 6:07 p.m.
rick1 said...

Conservative, thanks for the advise.

Maybe these leaked emails might have some people look differently at Man Made Global Warming/Climate Change.

“The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone… We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

“Try and change the received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.”

Michael Mann, for example, describes in one email his efforts to slur global warming skeptics Steve McIntyre and Doug Keenan:

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.”

August 18, 2013 at 6:26 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Anthony Sadar is an interesting individual, who write extensively, including PR pieces for power companies. He is a proponent of Intelligent Design and a professor at Geneva College. He is not a climate scientist, nor has he ever published any papers on climate. He has written book reviews and books of his own.

August 18, 2013 at 6:27 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sierra Rayne seems to be a Canadian hydrologist who does some Chemistry as well. She is extensively published in areas ranging from agricultural yields to drought and ground water pollution. I can't find a lot more than that.

American Thinker appears to be a conservative site, open to subjects of all kinds. The only thing that they specifically mentioned was Israel (pro), a rather odd thing to be the only stance mentioned in detail.

Might I suggest some sites on science?

August 18, 2013 at 6:39 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

lkeithlu, you exhibit much more patience with idiocy than I am capable of. You will not convince the deniers of anything other than what they already believe but good luck in your attempts.

Here is the way I look at it: I really don't understand how anyone today who is being even the slightest bit objective about AGW, given the overwhelming amount of evidence and scientific consensus among legitimate climatologists to support it, can come to any other conclusion but to believe what those scientists are saying and have been saying for years. But even if they don't fully believe them, I could at least respect their view if they showed any skepticism at all on both sides of the issue. But they don't. They don't just say that they have serious doubts about whether either side is telling the whole truth; rather they say EMPHATICALLY that ALL of the climate scientists world-wide are lying because they are taking government money and therefore they are publishing only what the "government" wants to hear. (The government of which they speak is comprised of just as many Republicans who disavow climate change as it is of Democrats who believe in it, but somehow the "government" is forcing these climate scientists to fudge their findings or something. Yeah, right). And at the same time they completely turn a blind eye to the many shills who are obviously paid off by big oil and related businesses who are doing everything they can to spread propaganda and protect their profits. Why do they not acknowledge that there is quite possibly at least as much tainted science on the part of those paid-off shills as there is on the part of climate scientists whom they say are "paid off" by the government? That is where they are deserving of the label of idiots. They are not using common sense or objectivity but just resorting to impassioned opinions based on their ideology of hating the government.

I am an admitted liberal but I have never looked at the climate change issue in a political way, or at least I have tried not to. For several years I have been following it, trying to learn the facts as best I can, and I have formed my opinions purely on what makes the most sense and who seems to be giving the most unbiased, scientific picture of things. I think it's really sad that this country has come to such a bleak period of cynicism on the part of so many people that they dare not even trust the scientists, the experts in their field, but look upon them instead as co-conspirators with an invasive, corrupt government. Granted, our government has become corrupted, mostly by our politicians who are owned by big business and the moneyed interests, but it is bordering on a sort of psychosis when so many people distrust EVERY aspect of the government, even down to the scientists who have even the slightest, most tenuous connection to it.

August 18, 2013 at 8:07 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I think the problem is that people don't understand how science is done, don't understand what consensus means, and don't understand that science is not about "proof". Here is one of the best descriptions of uncertainty in science, and how it pertains to those sciences that are "controversial" (except that they are not controversial to science, just to the public). I wish I had seen this while I was still teaching, as it is one of the best articulated explanations I have ever read:

The reason I think this is because climate change denial seems to go hand-in-hand with evolution denial. They have some of the same characteristics.

August 18, 2013 at 8:56 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

That is an excellent article, thanks for sharing. However I firmly believe that the resistance to science from so many people on the right is not so much from their lack of a complete understanding of it (which is certainly part of the reason) but rather from their impassioned, deep-seated hatred of the government. As long as they see scientists as just another arm of the government, no matter if only connected to it by even a small amount of funding, they are not going to believe a word they say, no matter if they provided 100% certainty and not just high probabilities. Whether it's climate change or evolution, they cannot seem to disassociate the science from some kind of insidious government agenda. That connection really doesn't even make sense but somehow or other they see a connection and they can't get past that.

And then, there are many on the right who are extremely fundamentalist in their religious beliefs and see all of science as the work of the devil. Those people will never be convinced of any truth in science as long as their minds are so clouded with blind faith and primitive dogma. Regardless, I'm afraid that we are in the midst of something reminiscent of the Dark Ages, where no value at all is placed on reason, at least among a large segment of our population that is bent on fulminating against it and is intent on issuing in either the rapture or a libertarian/anarchist society totally lacking in government that they think will be their new utopia.

August 18, 2013 at 9:39 p.m.
conservative said...

"Walking our way to weight loss and better health"

"Eating our way to obesity"

"Raining our way to climate change"

Do you get that?

The caption is saying that YOU are causing the rain that is causing climate change

Now we can all laugh together.

August 19, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
TheCommander said...

There goes Rickaroo with that word "consensus" again. I warned you about that before!!

There was "consensus" among ALL intelligence agencies leading up to the Iraq war that there was WMD there. How did consensus building work out in that case? Please study about the Delphi technique.

What the heck is a climate scientist anyway? Of course they are going to say the sky is falling (and warming); otherwise the money would dry up.

August 20, 2013 at 10:14 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You need to educate yourself on science and the scientific method. Start here: Consensus is important, and is not the same as congress "agreeing" about something.

August 21, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.