NOAA satellite photo of Sandy

Today, in an editorial, the Los Angeles Times took on a question that many of us have been pondering – did climate change cause super-storm Sandy? The newspaper didn’t try to answer the question, but instead made a strong case for how global warming made Sandy more intense:

In part, it's because Sandy involved a highly unusual confluence of weather events, some of which may have resulted from a widely documented rise in global ocean and surface temperatures…But more important than the exact causes of Sandy's fury is the fact that it was so predictable.

The newspaper observed how climate scientists have long warned about the side-effects of climate change – the increase in extreme weather events like Sandy, and rising sea levels that would allow storms to sweep into low-lying places such as Manahattan and erode coastal areas like the Jersey shoreline.

Warned the Times: “These predictions aren't just theoretical worries about the future; they appear to be happening now.”

As for those who complain that combatting climate change is too expensive, the newspaper pointed to the $20 billion projected costs of cleaning up after Sandy, and made this conclusion:

The question isn't whether we can afford to clean up our energy sources, it's whether we can afford not to.