Changing Attitudes: Climate Change

[Earthshine]

I don't know if it's just me but I've definitely noticed far fewer climate skeptic/denial posts on Netweather.  It seems back in 2008-2012 you'd often see posts playing down/denying that the climate was warming and you'd often see people talking about a "mini ice age" due to solar activity.  That's almost completely disappeared now.  I wonder if the frequency of cold winters and cool summers perhaps influenced people's opinions then?

[John S2]

Deniers have changed their tactics, and unfortunately they are winning in the sense that national politicians continue to make very bad policy decisions.

Deniers haven't gone away, but rarely criticize the science these days. They focus instead on short term arguments about costs and jobs.

15 years ago I regularly posted counter arguments with evidence in response to deniers when they were criticizing the science in a Climate section that existed at the 'other place'.

My own belief about deniers is that their main issue wasn't with the science even back then, but an irrational hatred of the type of collective action necessary to combat it.

[Methuselah]

Aye, the attitude to AGW has changed, and for two reasons IMO:

1) Deniers have run out of alternative scenarios, such as undersea volcanoes, solar cycles, Milankovitch cycles etc. cannot possibly account for the current rate of warming, and making daft claims about carbonic acid not causing oceanic acidification have all turned out to be damp squibs. Quelle surprise!

2) Said Deniers have now turned the dark arts toward influencing government policy. After all being demonstrably out of their depth, when it comes to science, hardly benefits their cause. . . 

[SollyOlly]

 John S2 Exactly this, John. It's no even the climate issue per se, but the wider political and economic stuff...dark arts indeed. 

[Markus03]

The average temperature is rising. Of course, some winters might be colder than average but we can't only look on what happens during one winter. We need to look in the overall picture. These are my reasons for those who don't believe in climate change but really is warming:

1) UK recently had a new all time temperature record.

2) All of the Baltics are snow free which is just too early for this time of year. Temperatures nearly 15 degrees in some places possibly for after next week but that of course can change.

3) Sea has been record warm.

4) Winters have become shorter, that's mostly noticeable in Northern Europe, Russia and Canada. My grandmother told me that during her time winter lasted for 5 months a year most of the time back in the 1960s and 70s. Winters currently only last averagely for 3 months.

5) Most of the countries record new high temperatures more and more often each year.

[kold weather]

Bit hard to deny it at least on a weather forum when you've broken 63 heat records in just over 9 years and just 1 cold record in the same period of time, or when your getting a 10 year average February CET that is now higher than the old March average.

@John S2 I don't even think its an irrational hatred, people just don't want to have to undertake change, or don't like feeling like they 'have' to change and like to be in control of their situation. Governments coming in an imposing laws to make change rubs those types of people up totally the wrong way and they tend to be the type to rebel.

Edited February 25 by kold weather

[sundog]

There are plenty of deniers out there. Any fb articles I see on climate change,  the comments sections are filled with deniers comments calling it all bs  an agenda etc etc. Same on YouTube videos on the subject. 

 

Edited February 25 by sundog

[sundog]

The biggest problem for those that deny climate change is a deep mistrust of politicians and the media on any issue.  Unfortunately climate change is a victim of this mistrust.  The more evidence that is given the more they see it as more lies and a kind of dogma and anyone who believes it is being brainwashed etc. I think the recession over a decade ago is partly responsible for mistrust.  The richer getting richer poor getting poorer. Since then the cost of living gone up aswell etc. From that point of view I can understand their mistrust. They see it as a form of control. 

Then there  is their old argument that climate has always changed and that humans aren't responsible for the current situation. 

Edited February 25 by sundog

[Methuselah]

It's never been GW per se that's the real threat (at non-catastrophic rates, we'd have plenty of time in which to adapt) it's the rate of change (dt/dT?) that we need to address. . . But even that seems to fall on deaf ears: 

 

Edited February 25 by Methuselah

[WYorksWeather]

I think what has happened is that the shift on this forum has just followed wider society. A useful tool for thinking about this is the denial escalator, which looks like this:

1. The Earth isn't warming.
2. The Earth is warming, but we aren't responsible.
3. The Earth is warming and we're partly responsible, but it's mostly natural.
4. The Earth is warming and we're responsible, but the effects will be mostly beneficial.
5. The Earth is warming and we're responsible, the effects will be harmful, but it's not worth damaging our economy.
6. The Earth is warming and we're responsible, the effects will be harmful, and we need to make a bigger effort whatever the cost as the alternative is worse.

And of course option 7:

       7. The Earth is warming, we're responsible, the effects will be harmful, we should have made a bigger effort, but it's too late now! 

The main change over the last 30 years is that options 1 and 2 are becoming increasingly untenable. The sceptics traditionally occupied those options, and are now usually somewhere between points 3 and 5 on the escalator. Even hard-line sceptics usually have to concede that the Earth is warming and that there is at least some human contribution, though often they downplay it as a minor factor.

Mainstream scientists occupy option 6. Of course there are some, usually referred to as doomers, who believe we're already looking at option 7. I don't agree with that though, because however bad things get, mitigation could always prevent them getting vastly worse. Even if we blow past 1.5C, 2.0C, even 3.0C, a 3.0C world would still be preferable to 4.0C, and so on.

 

 

[Cheshire Freeze]

 kold weather given what we’ve seen over the past few years in terms of accelerated warming, I personally think it’s too late for any amount of change to have any effect. We’re locked into runaway feedback IMO and we’re watching it play out.

I think the money would be better spent mitigating the effects…giving people grants/access to cheap air conditioning etc.

Edited February 25 by Cheshire Freeze

[Cheshire Freeze]

 WYorksWeather Option 7 looks most likely to me. We’ve seen a drive to cut emissions over the past decade or so and the warming continues to accelerate. That to me says that we’re locked into a feedback of consequences and tipping point has been breached.

It’s too late IMO. Would be delighted to be proved wrong though. 

[WYorksWeather]

 Cheshire Freeze Unfortunately air con is in itself a feedback mechanism, as if the air con is fossil-fuel powered...

Obviously in many countries it's unavoidable, but we probably want to avoid making the problem worse. Nothing wrong with having some cooled buildings, but one of the things we really lack is a proper environment in our urban areas. We need lots more parks, big trees on the high streets in the major cities (which have a surprisingly large cooling effect, not just in terms of shade but actually cooling the air) and thinking about how we design houses.

On the absolute hottest days with temperatures in the upper 30s and lower 40s which will become increasingly common, you're right that air con use will be unavoidable though, particularly in the case of those who are vulnerable to heat. Flooding will be an increasing concern as well with higher winter rainfall being likely on average, though this is more uncertain.

I also think there are limits to adaptation. Both 1.5C and 2.0C are probably something we could adapt to, though with some difficulty. At some point between 2.0C and 4.0C, it becomes likely that multiple tipping points are triggered (some possibly before this, but the tipping behaviour would be quite slow at only 1.5C or 2.0C). The impact of these events, especially several of them in succession, is something that I'm not actually sure modern civilisation could survive in its present form.

[WYorksWeather]

 Cheshire Freeze I think when you say too late, that needs to be better defined. Too late to prevent significant negative effects from climate change? Definitely. But I don't think a collapse of global civilisation is inevitable, which would be the worst-case scenario.

In terms of emissions, there has been a global effort to cut emissions, but so far we've only slowed the increase down by a lot, and not reversed it, so the acceleration is what you'd expect, particularly given aerosol reductions.

1.5C is gone, that's for sure. 2.0C is probably the lowest that is possible with an optimistic but not silly optimistic view. 3.0C is maybe the reasonable view.

If I were a policymaker, and interested in the long term (which would get me thrown out of office pretty quick), I'd say that we should aim for 2.0C at a minimum from a cutting emissions point of view, but prepare adaptation based on 3.0C.

[Derecho]

43 minutes ago, Cheshire Freeze said:

We’ve seen a drive to cut emissions over the past decade or so and the warming continues to accelerate.

I think this is the biggest concern, positive feedback mechanisms which only serve to amplify the impacts we are having.

Sadly I think geoengineering is going to become the last resort option we will exercise. Otherwise there will be mass migration out of areas that are too difficult to live in (rising sea levels, extreme heat, drought) and warfare over water and food shortages.

I've looked at forum posts from around 15 years ago at times and they have aged so badly, there has definitely been an attitude shift. Numerous posts back then were hyping up a mini ice age or something along those lines.

Edited February 25 by Derecho

[WYorksWeather]

 Derecho The problem is that most forms of geoengineering don't deal with the secondary effects. For example, ocean acidification continues unless you actually remove the CO2 And presumably geoengineering would be an enormous undertaking, and would likely require the co-operation of multiple countries. Also, what if some countries oppose it? For example, there's a bit of a geopolitical race around the Arctic at the moment - some countries will benefit from ice-free shipping through the Northwest and Northeast passages, for example. It's easy to imagine political tensions as a result.

I agree that geoengineering may be tried at some point, but whether it will actually work in the intended manner is far from guaranteed.

[raz.org.rain]

 Derecho over the past 15 years we've seen much stronger hypotheses arise, such as Schellnhuber's hothouse trajectory theory and Nisbet's methane-fueled ice age termination event theory. Note that I've only listed the more vocal proponents of the theories here, their publications involve up to a dozen other scholars. All things considered, suggestions of a mini ice age are considerably more ridiculous than they were back then.

Edit: not to mention other theories that are touted to be the first "tipping points" to fall, such as an ice free Arctic.

Edited February 25 by raz.org.rain

[Derecho]

 WYorksWeather I agree totally but the fact I think we will resort to geoengineering sums up how bleak my view on climate change is. We are already geoengineering it to become warmer but I think out of desperation and an unwillingness to implement sufficient action, that's unfortunately what it will come to.

We all know how much of a joke the Paris agreement was. I have no confidence in politicians ability to deal with the matter.

[WYorksWeather]

 Derecho Yep, it certainly hasn't achieved a reduction in emissions. A slowdown yes, but as yet no decrease.

Here are the various scenarios from the highly useful Climate Action Tracker. I prefer to ignore the pledges / targets scenarios as we've seen a lot of countries rowing back on them. Current policies is probably reasonable, so I think we'll see 2.5C to 3.0C by the end of the century unless there's a massive policy shift in the next two decades. And there is more upside than downside to this projection. If James Hansen is right and climate sensitivity is currently being underestimated by 50%, then we're looking at nearer 3.5C to 4.5C by 2100.

 

[LetItSnow!]

While no scientist, I personally do think geoengineering is probably the only option we will have in mitigating the short term (relatively speaking) effects. It really aggrivates me when people talk about it in a future-sense when the problem is right now. While I'm not sure how true this is, I heard a general estimate of the cost of GE is affordable, but it's the unknown side effects of rainfall patterns and as mentioned above, ocean acidification. There's also the upkeep which even if affordable is subject to being used as warfare. Depriving an area of aerosols intentionally could create catastrophic spells of weather. If only it were as simple as being able to pick up and plop the earth a little further away from the sun. 

People who talk about exploration of other planets while we continually desecrate the one we're on make me laugh. What makes anyone think we wouldn't wreck another one. It's like we all know but don't realise how precious life is and how the tiniest change changes everything. 

[Arctic Hare]

 WYorksWeather That's so reminiscent of Sir Humphrey's four-stage approach from Yes Prime Minister:

Stage 1: Nothing is going to happen.
Stage 2: Something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3: Maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage 4: Maybe there was something we could have done... but it's too late now.

That dates from something like 35 years ago. The episode in question was about international diplomacy rather than the climate, but it does show how sadly predictable the lack of action has been.

Edited February 25 by Arctic Hare
got the date wrong; fixed

[WYorksWeather]

 Arctic Hare The idea of the climate escalator (which was invented years ago by multiple people online) is in fact directly inspired by it!

[Arctic Hare]

 WYorksWeather I really should have known that, but somehow I did not. Thanks!

[Wold Topper]

I will cavite my post with... i do not deny global warming is factual and happening, but... the attitude of some when people offer an alternative articulate argument is unhelpful to the debate and 'jumping' on those people whom may hold an alternative opinion is not constructive to the discussion!

Edited February 25 by Wold Topper
🙏

[Arctic Hare]

 Wold Topper I think it depends on what it is and how it's expressed, not just in its articularity (is that a word?) but in whether it's actually useful. (Speaking generally here, not meaning you or any other specific person, on NW or not.) There is a point at which alternative opinions are reasonable and should be given a fair hearing, and also a point at which they're just silly. For a non-CC example, anyone still pushing "the Earth is flat!" should not be treated like a serious-minded contributor to a debate on the planet's make-up.