I expect most of people who are moved by arguments that a cold snap (in places with confirmed rising average temperatures that have been experiencing record hot weather extremes at other times) disproves global warming are already climate science deniers who do not merely use the things that climate scientists get wrong to justify rejecting everything climate science gets right but are happy with justify with misleading and made up "alt-facts" as well.
Given we are seeing highest ever average temperatures as well as highest ever emissions the real world is going to hit us with too many new extremes to be squeezed into "false and exaggerated" framing. And the proportion of people who know that it is real and serious and who support strong commitments to emissions reductions will keep growing.
Mainstream politics handing the issue off to fringe politics - in "you care so much, you fix it" style, as much to frame it as fringe as evade responsibility for dealing with it - may have begun as the way to NOT address it; it shouldn't require popular opinion for those holding the highest Offices of responsibility and positions of trust (with duties of care) but I think the real world impacts will only strengthen public demands that it is addressed.
And we are better placed than ever before to commit to low, potentially zero emissions energy at large scale - solar, wind, storage, BEV's all exceeding the mostly pessimistic predictions. Not just massive rates of installation of RE but heavy investment in new solar, wind and battery FACTORIES. IEA estimates are for near 1 TW pa of solar panel production (doubling) within the next two years - at 20% capacity factor that is like 200 1GW coal (or nuclear) plants every year. That much that quickly - and battery factory investments exceed solar and wind combined.
For all the causes for pessimism there remains some real cause for (cautious) optimism - that at least we will evade worst case global warming scenarios. Isn't the taking of the high emissions pathways out of contention due to the unexpected successes of RE?
This seems to be a benefit of warming....a reduction in severe cold events. Has there been any serious analysis of how much a reduction in severe cold events offsets an increase in severe heat events?
This seems to be a benefit of warming....a reduction in severe cold events. Has there been any serious analysis of how much a reduction in severe cold events offsets an increase in severe heat events?
One of the biggest problems with global warming is desiccation of the soil. Where we grow food this is immediately noticeable. After the crops have failed the floods come to wash everything away including your home.
One advantage of banging your head on a brick wall is you feel better when you stop.
Thank you the links. The Nature article looks like an exercise in p-hacking and selective site selection. The authors even write that their theorized correlation only is significant in the Eastern US, not central or Western US. Still, I appreciate your post, I just would like to see more acknowledgment that there is plenty of BS to go around, even from the "good guys".
I had heard, at some point, that global warming had affected high pressure systems that blocked polar air from travelling southward as often or in as large an amount. As those systems weakened, polar air could get through more often. Is there anything to that theory? (And forgive me if I'm mangling the theory - I heard it a while ago!). Thanks.
I referenced a book for an engineering report I prepared a good ten years or so ago. The book was written in the late 1950’s- early 1960’s that discussed climate change and distinctly used the term “climate refugees”. (I need to dig out that report.) The book concentrated on the water impacts, drawing down water tables and dumping storm water into the ocean. The book wasn’t as well researched as it should have been because it over estimated the water resources that were the focus of my study, but it showed that climate change isn’t a new social phenomena. I feel like a frog croaking as loud as I can as the water starts to boil.
I expect most of people who are moved by arguments that a cold snap (in places with confirmed rising average temperatures that have been experiencing record hot weather extremes at other times) disproves global warming are already climate science deniers who do not merely use the things that climate scientists get wrong to justify rejecting everything climate science gets right but are happy with justify with misleading and made up "alt-facts" as well.
Given we are seeing highest ever average temperatures as well as highest ever emissions the real world is going to hit us with too many new extremes to be squeezed into "false and exaggerated" framing. And the proportion of people who know that it is real and serious and who support strong commitments to emissions reductions will keep growing.
Mainstream politics handing the issue off to fringe politics - in "you care so much, you fix it" style, as much to frame it as fringe as evade responsibility for dealing with it - may have begun as the way to NOT address it; it shouldn't require popular opinion for those holding the highest Offices of responsibility and positions of trust (with duties of care) but I think the real world impacts will only strengthen public demands that it is addressed.
And we are better placed than ever before to commit to low, potentially zero emissions energy at large scale - solar, wind, storage, BEV's all exceeding the mostly pessimistic predictions. Not just massive rates of installation of RE but heavy investment in new solar, wind and battery FACTORIES. IEA estimates are for near 1 TW pa of solar panel production (doubling) within the next two years - at 20% capacity factor that is like 200 1GW coal (or nuclear) plants every year. That much that quickly - and battery factory investments exceed solar and wind combined.
For all the causes for pessimism there remains some real cause for (cautious) optimism - that at least we will evade worst case global warming scenarios. Isn't the taking of the high emissions pathways out of contention due to the unexpected successes of RE?
This seems to be a benefit of warming....a reduction in severe cold events. Has there been any serious analysis of how much a reduction in severe cold events offsets an increase in severe heat events?
Lots of work has been done on this. Here's a post on heat-related vs. cold-related mortality: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/unraveling-the-debate-does-heat-or
This seems to be a benefit of warming....a reduction in severe cold events. Has there been any serious analysis of how much a reduction in severe cold events offsets an increase in severe heat events?
One of the biggest problems with global warming is desiccation of the soil. Where we grow food this is immediately noticeable. After the crops have failed the floods come to wash everything away including your home.
One advantage of banging your head on a brick wall is you feel better when you stop.
"I should note that I have colleagues that I respect who disagree with this. "
That's part of the problem getting larger acceptance of the reality of AGW - the excessive hype of a real problem.
If those colleagues can't back up those beliefs with models they don't deserve your respect.
If they DO have the models that show MORE cold record events then your plot is cherry picked data. N'est-ce pas?
They have arguments that they're right (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9167, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02992-9), they just have not convinced the scientific community. Perhaps the evidence will build up and eventually people will be convinced, but we're not there yet.
Thank you the links. The Nature article looks like an exercise in p-hacking and selective site selection. The authors even write that their theorized correlation only is significant in the Eastern US, not central or Western US. Still, I appreciate your post, I just would like to see more acknowledgment that there is plenty of BS to go around, even from the "good guys".
I had heard, at some point, that global warming had affected high pressure systems that blocked polar air from travelling southward as often or in as large an amount. As those systems weakened, polar air could get through more often. Is there anything to that theory? (And forgive me if I'm mangling the theory - I heard it a while ago!). Thanks.
I referenced a book for an engineering report I prepared a good ten years or so ago. The book was written in the late 1950’s- early 1960’s that discussed climate change and distinctly used the term “climate refugees”. (I need to dig out that report.) The book concentrated on the water impacts, drawing down water tables and dumping storm water into the ocean. The book wasn’t as well researched as it should have been because it over estimated the water resources that were the focus of my study, but it showed that climate change isn’t a new social phenomena. I feel like a frog croaking as loud as I can as the water starts to boil.
Observations, models, and theory show that cold extremes are decreasing. But beyond that, you're right, there's nothing.