Climate change: Don't wait until you can feel it

Apr 25, 2014
Credit: NASA

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence for the impending dangers of human-made climate change, policy decisions leading to substantial emissions reduction have been slow. New work from Carnegie's Katharine Ricke and Ken Caldeira focuses on the intersection between personal and global impacts. They find that even as extreme weather events influence those who experience them to support policy to address climate change, waiting for the majority of people to live through such conditions firsthand could delay meaningful action by decades.

Their findings are published by Nature Climate Change.

Nearly every year, such as heat waves and hurricanes spur the discussion of climate change in the media and among politicians. This can create a window of opportunity for those seeking to enact policy aimed at reducing . But this window of opportunity could be delayed by decades due to the vagaries of weather.

"When support for doing something about climate change is based on personal observations of , policymaking may end up being dictated by the roulette wheel of natural climate variability," says Ricke.

Ricke and Calderia's modeling studies show that within 50 years nearly every country in the world will experience the kind of extreme weather that can be a policy trigger. However, local natural variability in weather means that majority of people in each nation, particularly large countries like China and the United States, could personally experience these extremes for themselves either tomorrow or many years from now. If citizens do not support emissions reductions and other efforts to fight climate change until they experience extreme events firsthand, naturally-driven variations in weather could delay action by decades, Ricke and Caldeira found. They find that sound science should guide policy rather than the vagaries of weather. "Local weather is anecdotal information, but is sound science," Caldeira said. "Good politics can be based on a good anecdote, but good policy needs to be based on sound science."

Explore further: Linking storms to climate change a 'distraction', say experts

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

13 hours ago

As a conscripted soldier during the Contra War of the 1980s, Esteban Ruiz used to flee from battles because he didn't want to have to kill anyone. But now, as the 47-year-old farmer prepares to fight for ...

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

Dec 20, 2014

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

User comments : 40

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
2.1 / 5 (21) Apr 25, 2014
We were told of the environmental doom that was just around the corner... just 5 to 10 years away..... IN THE EARLY 1970's. ..... we need to Tax and spend Trillions of dollars, etc. etc.

In the 90's we were told Global Warming doom will destroy the earth in 10 years....we need to Tax and spend Trillions of dollars, etc. etc.

In the 2000's we were told Climate Change doom will destroy the earth in 10 years...we need to Tax and spend Trillions of dollars, etc. etc.

In 2010 we were told Climate Change doom will destroy the earth in 10 years.... we need to Tax and spend Trillions of dollars, etc. etc.

Truth is, the earth in the western world is far better than it was in 1970's.... but I digress. DOOM

In 2014 we were told Climate Change will destroy in 10 years.... we need to Tax and spend Trillions of dollars, etc. etc.
Modernmystic
3.5 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2014
Freethinking,

I agree that the environmental movement, especially the reactionaries that treat it like it's a religion (and there are many) tend to exaggerate claims and make grandiose statements. That being said, I do think that with so much evidence for AGW it's worth looking past the fringe and paying attention to the problem. I find it difficult to accept that anyone who understands that CO2 does trap heat very well (look at Venus for a blatant real world example) and knows we're putting out CO2 in copious amounts that it would be better to not even take the chance.

IMO the policy wonks are off the rails with their proposals, taxes, and power grabs. I ask you to look beyond that and really think about the issue aside from the policy.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2014
Yes, hurry up and let these deceitful, greedy buggers, tax you into oblivion. That, I guarantee, you will feel.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2014
How does Venus compare to earth?
The atm is 96% CO2 at a pressure 92 times that of earth with a surface temperature at 462C.
Now the peak temperature of a black body curve at 4.25 um is 682K = 409C.
So the 4.25 um absorption band is capturing more energy from the sun.
How does this compare to the earth?
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2014
Freethinking: Please give us links to the quotes from the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc... that you seem to claim are from the climate scientists. If you have quotes they are probably from non-technical people who don't understand the science. Based on the science things are going to get very interesting for our grandkids. No need to spice it up. However, there are folks on both sides of the discussion who fall back to exaggerations (such as the 10 year deadlines you are talking about). Please give us the links to all of these short-term prognostications of doom you seem to be so sure came from scientists.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2014
"After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. - New York Times - January 30, 1961 "
"The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages. - New York Times - July 18, 1970 "
"Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. - Science 1970 "
"An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. - New York Times - January 5, 1978 "
http://www.1299.com/
gregor1
2 / 5 (12) Apr 26, 2014
Perhaps we should walt until we have some evidence
thermodynamics
3.6 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2014
Rygg2: Do you have some papers to quote instead of, mostly, news papers? I am glad to see you included a Science article, but the New York Times is not a technical journal.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2014
How does Venus compare to earth?
The atm is 96% CO2 at a pressure 92 times that of earth with a surface temperature at 462C.
Now the peak temperature of a black body curve at 4.25 um is 682K = 409C.
So the 4.25 um absorption band is capturing more energy from the sun.
How does this compare to the earth?

Utter bollocks ryggy....
If the amount of solar units hitting Earth is 100 units, then based on the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun, it receives 193 units. Yet Earth absorbs 70% of these units and Venus absorbs 30% of these units.
Earth absorbs:
100 X 0.70 = 70 units
and Venus absorbs:
193 X 0.30 = 58 units
Thus, based on the distance from the Sun AND the albedo of both planets, Venus should be COLDER than Earth because it actually absorbs a lot less solar radiation.
Here's the rub. The average temperature of Earth is 15°C, while the average surface temperature of Venus is........480°C!
http://www.wunder...vs-venus
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2014
Perhaps we should walt until we have some evidence

What evidence would satisfy you? inundated cities?
And with what money will you then start mitigating climate change? All of it will be spent on damage control.

An ounce of prevention...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
Rygg2: Do you have some papers to quote instead of, mostly, news papers? I am glad to see you included a Science article, but the New York Times is not a technical journal.

Don't newspapers report the science accurately?

Rummy thinks it a coincidence that a black body at 409C has its peak at 4.25 um, a major IR absorption line/band for CO2 which comprises 96% of the atm of Venus.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
An ounce of prevention...

That's the rub.
What is the prevention?
More historical data shows CO2 lags temperature increases, which makes sense.
Punishing liberty, innovation and prosperity for a questionable mitigation plan is stupid, or being instigated for nefarious purposes.
Effective prevention methods would include more robust housing built away from coast lines. The gov of California is now nullifying some laws to allow home owners to cut back dry materials from their houses to limit fire risk. Examine ALL such stupid laws that limit ones ability to protect their property from natural disasters.
Creating tools and techniques to adapt has been the effective, proven human response to changing climates for tens of thousands of years.
Why do AGWites want to mess with what has enabled humans to survive and thrive?
Could it be AGWites do NOT want humans to survive and thrive?
Yes, it could be since many are on record so stating.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
"On April 26, environmental groups are planning events in several Montana cities intended to encourage support for eliminating coal, oil and natural gas from Montana's and the nation's energy portfolio."
"Where would we get the energy to replace coal, oil and natural gas? According to U.S. Energy Information Administration data, fossil fuels accounted for 84 percent of American energy consumption in 2013. Nuclear provided 8 percent and renewables, including hydropower, the remaining 8 percent."
"And if we can't replace fossil fuel energy, are these groups suggesting that we severely cut back on the energy we use? Should we ration electricity to just a few hours a day? "
"Currently 1 billion people in the world live without electricity, and another 2.5 billion people live with what is considered inadequate energy."
"are environmental groups proposing to relegate almost half of the world's population to permanent energy poverty?"
http://www.flathe...question
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2014
"The World's Resources Aren't Running Out"
"I nowadays lean to the view that there are no limits because we can invent new ways of doing more with less.

This disagreement goes to the heart of many current political issues and explains much about why people disagree about environmental policy. In the climate debate, for example, pessimists see a limit to the atmosphere's capacity to cope with extra carbon dioxide without rapid warming. So a continuing increase in emissions if economic growth continues will eventually accelerate warming to dangerous rates. But optimists see economic growth leading to technological change that would result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would allow warming to level off long before it does much harm."
http://online.wsj...156.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
How can this be?
"Some corals adjusting to rising ocean temperatures, Stanford researchers say"
http://news.stanf...414.html

But the obligatory AGWism:

"Palumbi cautioned that corals' heat-adaptive characteristics do not provide a magic bullet to combat climate change. They can't respond to indefinite temperature increases and they could be compromised by stressors such as acidification and pollution. "
Egleton
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
Somebody please write a peer reviewed paper explaining to the climatologists where they went wrong and claim your Nobel Prize so we can all become good little consumers again.

Capitalism is Great. Rah, Rah, Rah.

Pay, little consumer, for the too-big-to- fail banks on welfare support. Pay Taxes to the Mighty Capitalist Church of Money.

Naughty Bad Climat Scientists for spoiling the party. Naughty, naughty, naughty.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
Don't newspapers report the science accurately?
@rygg
depends. newspapers don't have peer review, and tend to publish stuff like
Leduff, Charlie (June 9, 1996). "Saturday Night Fever: The Life". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-23
from the article
In the "Saturday Night" piece, which appeared five years later, drawings were used rather than photos, and the story carried the disclaimer: "Everything described in this article is factual and was either witnessed by me or told to me directly by the people involved. Only the names of the main characters have been changed."
a fabricated story that became a movie that is now in the library of congress
In 2010, Saturday Night Fever was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress and slated to be preserved for all time in their National Film Registry.


if it aint a peer reviewed study with empirical data, its worth is at best corroborative, at worst circumstantial
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
Rygg2: Do you have some papers to quote instead of, mostly, news papers? I am glad to see you included a Science article, but the New York Times is not a technical journal.

Don't newspapers report the science accurately?

Rummy thinks it a coincidence that a black body at 409C has its peak at 4.25 um, a major IR absorption line/band for CO2 which comprises 96% of the atm of Venus.


Err, my friend ryggy.....
It's not going to be ~15um is it? as that corresponds to ~15C.

Given the surface temp of Venus is ~460C then a lot of energy will (obviously) be emitted at wavelengths corresponding with that - which simply makes CO2's absorption/emittance band at ~4.3um the peak, as you say, of a mostly CO2 atmosphere.
Coincidence or not - it is just radiative physics and may be why the GHE there is strong as energy will be back-emitted at that peak efficiency to Venus's surface.

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
More historical data shows CO2 lags temperature increases, which makes sense.


ryggy - that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, as unless there is a vast outpouring of CO2 from vulcanism then mankind is the "experiment" that's bloody well putting CO2 first.

It does both - leads and follows.Due to the Carbon cycle AND the fact that it is a GHG.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Oh, let me guess.

http://en.wikiped...on_cycle
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2014
How can this be?
"Some corals adjusting to rising ocean temperatures, Stanford researchers say"
http://news.stanf...414.html

But the obligatory AGWism:

"Palumbi cautioned that corals' heat-adaptive characteristics do not provide a magic bullet to combat climate change. They can't respond to indefinite temperature increases and they could be compromised by stressors such as acidification and pollution. "


ryggy baby...
Did you notice the word "some" in there?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2014
Some is not ALL, which is what AGWite fanatics proclaim, "ALL will die from changing climate."
12,000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered with ice.
Climate change and many species flourished.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
"Willett, Hurd C. "DO RECENT CLIMATIC FLUCTUATIONS PORTEND AN IMMINENT ICE AGE? 1." Geofísica Internacional 14.4 (1974)."

"We are now living under interglacial climatic conditions, the Present Interglacial or Flandrian Interglacial Age. It will certainly be followed by the Future Ice Age. The major cold/warm changes seem to have a cyclicity of 10,500 yr. We have been in the second cycle (characterized by cooler climate) after the Last Ice Age for 2200 yr and will continue to be so for another 8300 yr. "
http://www.scienc...72900567

Seek and you can find, Stump.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
Some is not ALL, which is what AGWite fanatics proclaim, "ALL will die from changing climate."
12,000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered with ice.
Climate change and many species flourished.

And many did not.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
"Willett, Hurd C. "DO RECENT CLIMATIC FLUCTUATIONS PORTEND AN IMMINENT ICE AGE? 1." Geofísica Internacional 14.4 (1974)."

"We are now living under interglacial climatic conditions, the Present Interglacial or Flandrian Interglacial Age. It will certainly be followed by the Future Ice Age. The major cold/warm changes seem to have a cyclicity of 10,500 yr. We have been in the second cycle (characterized by cooler climate) after the Last Ice Age for 2200 yr and will continue to be so for another 8300 yr. "
http://www.scienc...72900567

Seek and you can find, Stump.

Now there's a novelty ... ryggy quoting a quote as science.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
Some is not ALL, which is what AGWite fanatics proclaim, "ALL will die from changing climate."
12,000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered with ice.
Climate change and many species flourished.

One day ryggy baby you will realise that there are extremists (on both sides) who distort climate science for their own ends.
The sensible take up a position in the middle.
And you?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
The sensible take up a position in the middle.

In the middle of what?
Science is or is not.
The 'middle' is 'we don't know'.
That would be a change for runny or any AGW to acknowledge "they don't know".
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2014
Some is not ALL, which is what AGWite fanatics proclaim, "ALL will die from changing climate."
@Rygg
you are not only WRONG, but you are being BLATANTLY WRONG as well as mind-numbingly stupid with this assertion. NEVER ONCE have I made the above proclamation, nor has Runrig, Maggnus, Tim Thompson, Thermodynamics et al since I have been here.

Please provide PROOF that the above mentioned made such a proclamation, and skip your slag political BS... you are NOT arguing with a polarized political faction here, but with science minded people who follow the evidence, who follow empirical data.

BRB
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
http://www.scienc...72900567

Seek and you can find, Stump.
@Rygg
First thing: good job digging up a study to make a point... Thank you
ok, now... what point are you trying to make here with this November 1972 article? I need to know, it is important

I would also like to point out that all we can see is the abstract. I can understand the abstract but at this point, how many other articles that are far more modern with more data refute this point? or show where the human interference with our atmosphere have destabilized the current normal climate patterns and have upset the normal pattern of behavior for the climate...
THIS is essentially what he been addressed by Runrig, Maggnus, Thompson, Thermo and others here for the past year time and time again... the only thing you are doing by linking this is showing HOW MUCH we have advanced in knowledge in the past 37+ years.

PS your title "DO RECENT CLIMATIC FLUCTUATIONS PORTEND AN IMMINENT ICE AGE? 1."
doesn't match the link
jackjump
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
Two decades of no warming tending toward cooling (actually a repeat of the 60s and 70s) is more than a spate of weather running contrary to AGW . . . it's evidence that natural climate cycles can negate or even overwhelm the feared anthropogenic warming. Combine that with the fact that the known cycles of glaciation indicate we're poised on the edge of descent into another glaciation and it makes the AGW enthusiast's recommendation to dump fossil fuels in favor of wind and solar power appear a suicide pact. A warmer world isn't scary . . . we have two frozen poles that would thaw and earth's temperate zones would just move north. A colder world would permanently remove much arable land and we would not be able to sustain current population levels. The plea to hurry up and do something because time is running out (just ignore those natural climate cycles behind the curtain) really is the desperation it sounds like. The warmists are losing the argument.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
Two decades of no warming
@jackjump
empirical data supporting this conjecture? please see: http://science.nb...say?lite
& http://onlinelibr...abstract
it's evidence that natural climate cycles can negate or even overwhelm... anthropogenic warming
personal conjecture without evidence: Links? proof?
the fact that the known cycles of glaciation indicate we're poised on the edge of descent into another glaciation
personal conjecture without evidence: Links? proof?
A warmer world isn't scary
personal conjecture without evidence
The plea to hurry up and do something because time is running out (just ignore those natural climate cycles behind the curtain) really is the desperation it sounds like. The warmists are losing the argument
big claims require big proof!
seriously lacking in your post. sorry.
re-post with empirical data and we'll talk
thanks
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
it's evidence that natural climate cycles can negate or even overwhelm the feared anthropogenic warming.

Even if they could: You never know which way the variability will swing. If it swings in synch with antropogenic warming then we're in double trouble. You can't count on variability always working in your favor.

If you shift the baseline in a system with natural variability then you still have a net effect. If that effect means an average increase in temperatures then you get exactly what climate science predicts: More extremem weather conditions (read: damage, flooding, droughts, storms, ... )
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
You can't count on variability always working in your favor.

How do you predict natural variability?
How do you know that efforts to 'cool' the climate won't trigger an ice age?
To paraphrase a advert line, "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
what point are you trying to make here with this November 1972 article?

If 'peer' reviewed 'science' was wrong in 1972, why is 'peer' reviewed 'science' correct today?
Unless it is know WHY something was incorrect in 1972, like poor computer models in "Limits to Growth", you have no confidence any science is correct today,
Also, you don't seem to have any research skills and don't want to find out how wrong the 'watermelons' were on the first Earth Day (on Lenin's birthday).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
"Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special 'contact group'. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by '45 or 50' government officials.

He said almost all of them made clear that 'any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.'"

" Climate change hysteria provides a perfect excuse for higher taxes and more regulations, combined with a pseudo-religious cause around which left-wingers can rally with a sense of supreme righteousness. They even feel confident in trying to outlaw dissent, because if you try to debate the latest climate-change fatwa, you're threatening the very survival of the Earth. Sure, every single one of their doomsday predictions has been wrong thus far, but we can't take the chance they'll be wrong with the next twenty predictions, so shut up and pay up."
http://www.breitb...aBlog/20
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2014
How do you predict natural variability?

By historical analysis.

That doesn't give you a day-by-day forecast of how it will affect temperatures but it gives you an mean and distribution. That IS how we figured out that warming is man made - by noticing that the natural variability does not account for what we're seeing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
Like financial data, the past is no guarantee of future performance.
Data suggests CO2 lags warming climates and if CO2 is not the cause, what was?
At best, mitigating CO2 will be expensive and impoverish more people.
At worst, mitigating CO2 will trigger an unexpected climate change.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
Sounds like the USSR or DDR.

"EPA Chief Promises To Go After Republicans Who Question Agency Science"

Read more: http://dailycalle...0EPuhcCZ

This is what AGWites want, no?
State coercive 'science'?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2014
Like financial data, the past is no guarantee of future performance.

No, but it is a good indication. It is certainly better than 'random'. And financial data is much more random than climate, as it has arbitrary influence factors which are added/removed (e.g. via laws, treaties, monetary unions, artificial increase of money volume, reduction of sumtotal value of property via natural disasters, etc. )
Climate is a very simple system by comparison: energy in, energy out.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2014
Climate is a very simple system by comparison: energy in, energy out.

Do you know all the sinks and sources of energy?
Do any GCMs explain the MWP or the LIA or any previous warming periods throughout history?
Is it a coincidence that warming periods, like the MWP, enabled significant population growth and prosperity.
Maybe some don't think raiding Vikings created prosperity, but they were great traders and expanded trade and prosperity from Constantinople to Iceland.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2014
Do you know all the sinks and sources of energy?

Sources: The sun and geoenergy (basically the molten stuff under our feet).
Sinks: radiation into space

Anything else is just buffer systems (i.e something we can't count on for saving our behinds). We are effectively emptying a buffer system (fossil fuels) into the atmosphere where it creates another buffer system (one unfortunately opposed to what we might wish for) by retaining heat longer than usual. So while this is happening we are shifting the balance of "in vs. out" towards "less out".

Maybe some don't think raiding Vikings created prosperity, but they were great traders and expanded trade and prosperity from Constantinople to Iceland.

The world has changed somewhat since then. We have something called 'cities' and a lot more people. Comparing our situation now then is disingenuous. Climate change will threaten our food supply - not augment it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.