Climate Change Denial

[nwdiver]

Go ahead and miss me with that hashtag *sugar*.

Nope, what I’m saying is the way to bring attention to and get people working toward fighting climate change is not through illegitimate events or occurrences.
You want to convince the naysayers and the skeptics? Use actual evidence rather than events that occur for reasons that have very little to do with climate change.

??? Which if these has 'very little' to do with climate change?

-Fire in California … climate change
Warm air causes vegetation to dry faster... so... yeah... climate change.

-No rain in the southwest desert.. climate change
The poles are warming faster than the equator causing weather patterns to shift AND warm air dries out land faster... so... yeah... that's climate change.
California running out of water because of overpopulation? Nope it’s because of climate change!
Look at the Colorado river. Precipitation in the watershed is only down ~5% but river flow is down ~20%. Why? Because water evaporates faster with warmer air. Physics. Climate Change.

-too hot? Climate change
Yep. Average global temps are rising. Climate Change

-Too cold? Climate change!
Yep. The jet stream divides the cold polar air from the warmer equatorial air. The stronger the jet stream the straighter it is and the farther north the colder air stays. That strength is driven by the difference in temperature between the pole and the equator. As the poles warm faster than the equator the jet stream gets weaker and wavier allowing cold air to dip farther south than has ever been possible. Climate Change.

Fools fuel is like many other harmful addictions... the symptoms are wide and varied.

 

[ohmman]

You want to convince the naysayers and the skeptics? Use actual evidence rather than events that occur for reasons that have very little to do with climate change.

At least some of your earlier examples are probably poor choices for this point, but the point has validity. That is, when people have a belief, they're likely to avoid the body of evidence and find things to confirm their belief. So it's important to avoid exaggerating claims. That's probably one of the issues with climate change messaging - it's hard to say "this has a probabilistically real chance of being attributable to climate change" without having people roll their eyes. Nobody wants statistics or probabilistic models - they want to believe something is or isn't.

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman believes that this, among other human traits, means we're doomed on climate action until it's too late. I don't know that I disagree.

 

[AMPd]

At least some of your earlier examples are probably poor choices for this point, but the point has validity. That is, when people have a belief, they're likely to avoid the body of evidence and find things to confirm their belief. So it's important to avoid exaggerating claims. That's probably one of the issues with climate change messaging - it's hard to say "this has a probabilistically real chance of being attributable to climate change" without having people roll their eyes. Nobody wants statistics or probabilistic models - they want to believe something is or isn't.

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman believes that this, among other human traits, means we're doomed on climate action until it's too late. I don't know that I disagree.

yes! Thank you that was my point indeed.

 

[nwdiver]

So it's important to avoid exaggerating claims.

Can you provide a specific example? Every claim @AMPd gave has been very closely linked to rising CO2 levels often by only 1 step. Which claims are exaggerated? Look at the coverage of the Kentucky Tornado outbreak.... ~every report I saw was very cautious in making an attribution to climate change because unlike 5 of the 5 examples @AMPd listed... there isn't yet a definitive link. We ARE avoiding exaggerating claims.

Even more abstract stuff like the Syrian Civil War if you dig a couple layers deeper likely would not have occurred without the climate disruption brought by shifting weather patterns. A better term would be 'Global Weirding' than 'Global Warming'.

When you add the energy equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs every second unevenly across the planet... yeah.... lots bad things are gonna happen. Earth is big but every system has limits.

 

[FlatSix911]

You don't think reduced snowfall in the west has anything to do with it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/12/03/snow-water-resources-california/

Must be climate change...

The nearly 17 feet of snow in California's Sierra Nevada is crushing records. It's still not enough | CNN

Heavy snow is falling in the Sierra Nevada in California -- enough to break records.

www.cnn.com

 

[JRP3]

One event, month, or even season does not change the trend. It also does not and cannot change the physics of of green house gas molecules. Until you can show the physics that CO2 and methane do not allow light waves to pass while trapping heat you don't have an argument.

 

[nwdiver]

Must be climate change...

The nearly 17 feet of snow in California's Sierra Nevada is crushing records. It's still not enough | CNN

Heavy snow is falling in the Sierra Nevada in California -- enough to break records.

www.cnn.com

View attachment 749443

Actually... yes. Trying thinking.

What does snow require? Moisture? Water Vapor in the atmosphere? Where did the water that fell as snow originate? What evaporates faster? Warmer water or colder water? Is the Pacific Ocean now colder or warmer? What holds more moisture per cubic foot? Warmer air or colder air? Is the atmosphere now colder or warmer? So.... would you expect MORE or LESS precipitation?

A weaker jet stream allows MUCH colder air to plunge farther south. The strength of the jet stream is dictated by the difference in temperature between the poles and the equator. What's warming faster? The North pole or the equator? So... would you expect large dips of the jet stream => large drops in temperature to be more or less frequent?

Incursions of cold polar air and extreme precipitation are two events directly associated with higher CO2 levels. Would not those two lead to events like this being more likely?

 

[JRP3]

Warm temps and rain in Alaska 67 degrees in Alaska? Climate change continues to topple temperature records.

 

[ohmman]

Can you provide a specific example? Every claim @AMPd gave has been very closely linked to rising CO2 levels often by only 1 step.

As I mentioned in my response, I didn't think those examples were good choices. As a better example, I'd argue that the current effect size of climate change on hurricanes is less than much of the media has historically suggested. The effect is real - there are slightly more Category 3 and higher Atlantic hurricanes on the timeline, but not as marked an increase as articles typically seem to suggest.

One reason for that, I'm guessing, is that the causal effect seems obvious - warmer waters, more evaporation, warmer air with higher carrying capacity = stronger hurricanes - but as the linked NOAA piece says,

However, using the CMIP3 and CMIP5 multi-model climate projections, the hurricane model also projects that the lifetime maximum intensity of Atlantic hurricanes will increase by about 5% during the 21st century in general agreement with previous studies.

The other reason is because hurricanes are big, obvious, and harmful events that cause a lot of emotional response. It's tempting to take the science and focus on the effects a bit whenever we have an event. There are a lot of clicks to compete for when these events are occurring.

To be clear, I am not saying that Atlantic hurricanes are not affected by climate change. There are metrics that are definitely affected. I'm just saying that it seems regularly overstated to me. But I also think that climate's effect on wildfires in the West is often poorly explained to the point of being understated. And I'm happy to see attribution science making a little more headway into some of the articles about climate's effect.

 

[MontyFloyd]

Since there is no way to quickly reduce population....

Available on Amazon.

 

[JRP3]

It's also necessary to pay attention to other weather influences as they can have short term impacts on weather. Recent heavy rain and snowfall in the west are likely the result of La Nina La Niña is coming. Here's what that means for winter weather in the U.S.

 

[ohmman]

It's also necessary to pay attention to other weather influences as they can have short term impacts on weather. Recent heavy rain and snowfall in the west are likely the result of La Nina La Niña is coming. Here's what that means for winter weather in the U.S.

If you want to dive a little deeper into why California is getting cooler, wetter weather with La Niña (as opposed to the alternative, which is typical), this blog post does a great job explaining it. The high pressure ridge that normally sits off the coast has stationed itself in the Gulf of Alaska, and it's redirecting that air back down south, bringing cold air and the storm track with it.

Specifically:

The pattern this entire season (since early autumn) has (for the most part) been characterized by a strong, persistent ridge of high pressure over the northeastern Pacific. This is a classic moderate-to-strong La Nina pattern, and one that had been well-predicted by the seasonal models. However, in recent weeks, this ridge has shifted a bit westward (into the Gulf of Alaska, rather than along or just west of the West Coast). While this shift is quite modest in the large-scale scheme of things, it is hugely consequential for weather conditions along the West Coast and California. Instead of completely blocking the storm track and sending Pacific weather systems directly into BC or AK, this new ridge alignment and retrogression is allowing strong meridional flow to develop over the far eastern Pacific–causing modified Arctic air to move southward off the west coast of BC and the PacNW. This pattern will amplify further in the coming days–bringing even colder and unsettled conditions across BC/the PacNW and probably, to at least some extent, California as well.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

One event, month, or even season does not change the trend. It also does not and cannot change the physics of of green house gas molecules. Until you can show the physics that CO2 and methane do not allow light waves to pass while trapping heat you don't have an argument.

WELL SAID!

 

[MontyFloyd]

Nope, what I’m saying is the way to bring attention to and get people working toward fighting climate change is not through illegitimate events or occurrences.
You want to convince the naysayers and the skeptics? Use actual evidence rather than events that occur for reasons that have very little to do with climate change.

Question: How can one be certain an event is or is not due to changes in weather pattern within 1 hour time, let alone 24.
(Some can, most will be difficult).

I fully agree with the desire for accuracy, but that is the enemy of expediency.
Granted this is messy, simply driving the same message of "likely caused" or even "is caused" by climate change will eventually break down the naysayers and the skeptics sub consciously, stop arguing when everyone is believing it is climate change.
Brute force is messy but sometimes necessary.

Oh, and even if science and stats do prove a handful of incidents are not directly CC related, the overall message is still same, that most events are due to CC, so the message is still valid.

 

[nwdiver]

As I mentioned in my response, I didn't think those examples were good choices. As a better example, I'd argue that the current effect size of climate change on hurricanes is less than much of the media has historically suggested. The effect is real - there are slightly more Category 3 and higher Atlantic hurricanes on the timeline, but not as marked an increase as articles typically seem to suggest.

One reason for that, I'm guessing, is that the causal effect seems obvious - warmer waters, more evaporation, warmer air with higher carrying capacity = stronger hurricanes - but as the linked NOAA piece says,


The other reason is because hurricanes are big, obvious, and harmful events that cause a lot of emotional response. It's tempting to take the science and focus on the effects a bit whenever we have an event. There are a lot of clicks to compete for when these events are occurring.

To be clear, I am not saying that Atlantic hurricanes are not affected by climate change. There are metrics that are definitely affected. I'm just saying that it seems regularly overstated to me. But I also think that climate's effect on wildfires in the West is often poorly explained to the point of being understated. And I'm happy to see attribution science making a little more headway into some of the articles about climate's effect.

... and I haven't seen much attribution of climate change on Hurricane category. What IS being attributed to climate change is severe precipitation. When Hurricane Harvey hit Texas the severity in terms of wind wasn't generally attributed to the climate change but the ~48" of rain it dropped and the fact it stalled for days was. There's talk of reconsidering how Hurricanes are categorized since a Cat 1 Hurricane can now cause outsized damage by bringing 4 feet of rain thanks to a warmer ocean and atmosphere.

My point is that this idea the effects of climate change are being generally exaggerated is nonsense. More fires, droughts, floods, civil unrest, famine, etc, etc, etc. Yeah.... that's fairly attributed to CO2 being >400ppm.

 

[David_Cary]

I was scrolling down to post exactly what nwdiver did.
The hurricanes have more moisture and move slower. The 5% figure was on "max intensity" which is a useful metric but not the most important one.
When 2020 was the most active season ever and 2021 was the third, it is a pretty easy leap to make.
2017 costliest.
The other issue is that wildfires can sometimes be blamed on direct human activities other the fossil fuels. Things like foresty management, power lines - which could be carrying renewables, and just plain arson. Hurricanes have zero chance of any of that. The damage can be made worse by human activities other than FF, but not the number of storms and rainfall amounts.
And of course, it isn't just rainfall amounts, the number is climbing quite significantly with us being over trendline since 2000 or so. That would be the gradual increasing 100 year trendline - not a stable trendline. Sort of like being over the 90 day moving average when it comes to stock prices. The last 20 years are over the 100 year moving average - which I feel is a strong buy signal.

 

[ohmman]

The hurricanes have more moisture and move slower. The 5% figure was on "max intensity" which is a useful metric but not the most important one.
When 2020 was the most active season ever and 2021 was the third, it is a pretty easy leap to make.
2017 costliest.

Note that I did say:

To be clear, I am not saying that Atlantic hurricanes are not affected by climate change. There are metrics that are definitely affected. I'm just saying that it seems regularly overstated to me.

From the NOAA piece I linked in my original post:

In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.

That is incorporating the increase since the 1970s.. if you read through their methodology, you'll understand why.

I know that AGW is causing many weather related issues, migration problems, etc. and that attribution science is getting a lot better at determining the probabilities associated with those causes. The work I do is effectively aimed at climate adaptation in my region, so we see firsthand the changes that have occurred and are active in mitigating future effects. My point is that the hurricane effect size isn't as large as my perception of what the media has historically suggested.

 

[nwdiver]

My point is that the hurricane effect size isn't as large as my perception of what the media has historically suggested.

You're splitting hairs. The vast majority of media reports (aside from fringe crackpots) are careful to articulate what is and is not attributable to climate change. And rapid intensification IS attributed to climate change even if that doesn't necessarily mean more hurricanes since some of the changes allowing rapid intensification can also weaken a hurricane. So is it 'overstating' it to attribute the rapid intensification of a specific storm to AGW even if the overall number of severe storms is statistically the same?

And it's not like our actions should be any different. We're still doing FAR... FAR..... FAR.... FAAAR.... FAAAAR. FAAAAAAAR less than we need to. FAR less. If you hear you neighbor yelling 'My entire House is on Fire!' but it's clearly only the kitchen and a few bedrooms is that 'overstating' it? Would the required actions be any different?

 

[MontyFloyd]

I think Denver area is now a believer.

Colorado Wildfires: Tens of Thousands Flee as Colorado Wildfires Burn Hundreds of Homes (Published 2021)

The fast-moving blazes swept through suburban areas of Denver, destroying at least 500 homes. Winds were mostly dying down late Thursday, giving firefighters a break.

www.nytimes.com

 

[CyberGus]

If people understood statistics, there would be no casinos