Bill Nye Explains That the Flooding In Louisiana Is the Result of Climate Change (qz.com)

Reader mspohr writes: Our favorite science guy has an interview (and video) in Quartz where he explains how Louisiana flooding is due to climate change:
"As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands," Nye explained. "Molecules spread apart, and then as the sea surface is warmer, more water evaporates, and so it's very reasonable that these storms are connected to these big effects."
The article also notes that a National Academy of Sciences issued a report with the same findings: "Scientists from around the world have concurred with Nye that this is exactly what the effects of climate change look like, and that disasters like the Louisiana floods are going to happen more and more. According to a National Academy of Sciences report published earlier this year, extreme flooding can be traced directly to human-induced global warming. As the atmosphere warms, it retains more moisture, leading to bouts of sustained, heavy precipitation that can cause floods."

Comments

He's right.

[KermodeBear]

He's right. It was a bright, beautiful day. Then the climate in Louisiana changed and it rained a lot.

Re:But of course

[pollarda]

Absolutely correct. What people forget is that the Mississippi used to have flood plains all along its path. When there was heavy rain anywhere along its course, the waters would raise and it would overflow its banks depositing rich soil and silt all along the way. Now, we've replaced the flood plains with housing developments and mini-malls. The rich soil deposited by the Mississippi is under asphalt. (Well, not all of it.) Additionally walls, dams, and other barriers have been constructed by various municipalities and the US Army Corps of Engineers to keep the Mississippi from overflowing its banks. This creates a situation where additional water has no where to go other than to cause the water level to raise and for the river to run faster (such as water flowing through a pipe.) When it gets down to coastal LA, it is traveling much faster than it would naturally and is causing massive erosion. Additionally, it causes major floods as the pent up water finally has a place to go. Government planning at it's best. (Thanks US Army Corps of Engineers!)

There he goes again

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye the politics guy.

Re:Followed by:

[ranton]

Or more accurately Bill Nye says "it is reasonable that these storms are connected to [climate change]", and the media cannot understand the difference between drawing a probable conclusion and drawing a definitive conclusion. Bill Nye never said this was absolutely because of climate change, just that climate change most likely had a significant impact on the magnitude of the rain. But that is too reasonable and we need a more inflammatory headline.

Re:Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. I think it was gender inequality, religious intolerance, racism, and income disparity that caused the flooding.

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

Well, to be honest with you, I don't have much time for either side. I think the Liberals, but more particularly the Left have done a lot of damage to AGW acceptance simply by trying to integrate into their own economic mumbo jumbo, and trying to beat conservative elements over the head with it. They've made one of the supreme challenges of humanity at this point of time and politicizing it for their own ends). The conservatives, on the other hand, are often just people easily manipulated by large commercial interests who want to delay significant responses to AGW long enough to maximize profits. That's why the fossil fuel companies fund crap "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute, because they serve to give conservative and libertarian types a pack of memes to trot out every time the topic of global warming comes up. A pox on both their houses, I say. Both groups are populated by idiots and demagogues.

To my mind, the time has come to simply look at the best way of dealing with the problem. For me, the simplest way and the way that it is the most market oriented is carbon pricing. Start upping the price of fossil fuels, thus allowing market forces to concentrate investment on alternatives. I don't even care if governments pocket the cash. The whole point isn't reinvestment of carbon taxes, but rather to create an artificial scarcity. This solution should be eminently favorable conservatives and libertarians, because it favors their economic approach, but of course, it will cost the likes of the Koch Brothers money, so the game goes on.