LULL in the conversation? You can safely bring up the weather 鈥� no matter who you鈥檙e chatting with, no matter where in the world you are. Unless you鈥檙e talking to a climate scientist, that is.
Unlike the rest of humanity, climate researchers have long avoided discussing what鈥檚 going on outside the window 鈥� be it a heatwave or cold snap, drought or deluge. Their studies have revealed that the weather will change dramatically over the long term, but they shy away from what it鈥檚 doing right now.
That鈥檚 changing. Thanks to advances in climate modelling, researchers can now assess how much more or less likely climate change has made individual extreme weather events. With enough computing power, this could even become part of your daily weather report (see 鈥�And now the weather, featuring climate change blame鈥�).
Advertisement
Those driving this effort hope that discussing climate change in the context of today鈥檚 weather, rather than last year鈥檚, will help make it more tangible to a largely confused or indifferent public. Will it? You could argue that when describing a system as complex, variable and chaotic as Earth鈥檚 climate, it鈥檚 a good strategy to avoid sweating the small stuff and focus on the big picture: the ample evidence that pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm, in turn causing the climate to change 鈥� with profound consequences (New 杏吧原创, 7 December 2013, page 34).
The problem, of course, is that this picture has failed to stir much of the public to action: 鈥済lobal warming鈥� still appears far down the list of US voters鈥� priorities, for example. Climate change, as it is usually presented, falls squarely into the category of problems we find it hard to engage with 鈥� a seemingly remote threat calling for immediate sacrifices (16 August 2014, page 24).
The effects of the weather, on the other hand, are far more visceral: we don鈥檛 need much persuasion to take an umbrella out when clouds loom. In fact, in recent years public opinion has been quick to attribute freak weather events to climate change. This may or may not have been warranted, but it does suggest that many people would be receptive to meteorologists revealing human fingerprints on the weather.
How much of this laypeople will really understand is a different question. Talk of climate change 鈥渋ncreasing the likelihood鈥� of a weather event, rather than simply 鈥渃ausing鈥� it, is potentially confusing, but blurring the distinction would be disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
It will provide fodder for scepticism, too, of both the naive and calculated varieties. The unfair but enduring dictum that the weather forecast always gets it wrong is likely to be aired frequently, while those motivated to deny climate change will seek to highlight 鈥渁nomalies鈥� in the hopes of muddying the water, just as they gloat meaninglessly over every cold snap now. Lawyers, politicians and businesses will weigh in as and when it suits them.
All this potential for sound and fury should not obscure the value of talking about climate change in everyday contexts. In fact, the potential to reinvigorate the conversation is its value. Empty 鈥渄ebate鈥� over the actuality of climate change has nothing to offer, so it鈥檚 time to find a fresh topic. How鈥檚 the weather where you are?
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淪tormy weather ahead鈥�
