Here is the World Weather Attribution program’s website. I’ve linked to their “about” page for convenience, but their other pages are easy to access, too, including their “analyses,” where they look at specific weather events and determine the extent to which human activity played a role.

One of the things they are able to do is compare the likelihood of an event occurring with or without human-produced emissions—which means they can measure the impact humans are having, not just on a nebulous, intangible concept of “climate change,” but on specific weather events that we experience and remember.

This allows them to make definitive statements, such as: “there is at least a 175 times increase in likelihood of hot March months because of the human influence on the climate. [. . .] As the seas warm because of our effect on the climate, bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef and other areas within the Coral Sea are likely to become more frequent and more devastating.” (See their Great Barrier Reef Bleaching analysis; I included this example because it was the one I first heard about in relation to their work.)

Or consider: “we find that the chances of seeing a February as warm as the one experienced across the Lower 48 [States of the USA] has increased more than threefold because of human-caused climate change. The record-warm February of 1954 was, at the time, a very rare event (probability about 0.5% per year) but similar events should now be expected every few years.” (See their U.S. Heat analysis).

Etc.

As these studies continue to be published, and as we are increasingly able to point to specific weather events as being directly, measurably, influenced by human activity, will we be able to finally get the US’s climate change politics to side with the science? Or are certain interests too deeply entrenched to let go of their lobbying hold? (Or a third option? Fourth?) What’s your take?

Topics: science, politics, environment, weather, global warming, climate change, Earth, climate