In the realm of climate science, a significant transformation is underway. Scientists are advocating for a change in how we discuss and study climate change’s impact on extreme weather events. Instead of continuously questioning whether human influence is present, they suggest starting from the assumption that fossil fuel-driven climate change affects all weather events.
In a recent comment published in Nature Climate Action, researchers propose a shift in climate attribution science. This sub-field of climate science has traditionally focused on assessing the extent of human influence on extreme weather events. However, given the pervasive impact of fossil fuel-driven climate change on the climate system, scientists argue that it’s time to change the default approach.
The altered climate system, encompassing the atmosphere, oceans, and land, has been significantly reshaped by decades of fossil fuel use. The atmosphere, now warmer, retains more moisture, intensifying the global water cycle. Changes like the poleward shift of the westerly jet streams and an expanding Hadley Circulation have altered weather patterns, especially in the U.S. Oceans, absorbing 92% of the added heat due to fossil fuel-induced warming, are experiencing more frequent and intense marine heatwaves worldwide.
Understanding Climate Attribution Science
Climate attribution science has evolved over two decades to assess how much more intense or frequent extreme events have become due to human-induced climate change. Hundreds of studies document that human-caused climate change has exacerbated extreme heat, rainfall, and conditions conducive to wildfires.
The latest IPCC report confirms, “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land… climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe.” This acknowledgment suggests a shift from questioning human influence to understanding the extent and mechanisms of its impact, and determining actionable steps to mitigate these effects.
Historical Context: Lessons from Big Tobacco
The fossil fuel industry’s role in perpetuating doubt mirrors the tactics used by Big Tobacco to obscure the link between smoking and lung cancer. A report highlights how Big Oil, aware of the climate impacts of fossil fuels since the late 1950s, chose to sow doubt about climate science to continue profiting.
This strategy involved spreading misinformation and promoting junk science, similar to how tobacco companies spread doubt about health risks. In the 1980s, climate change was already well-understood, and political figures like George H. W. Bush advocated for climate action, leading to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
However, the fossil fuel industry countered by questioning climate science’s validity and emphasizing the economic costs of transitioning away from fossil fuels. This misinformation has hindered scientific progress and climate action.
The Future Direction of Attribution Science
The recent NPJ Climate Action comment emphasizes moving away from revalidating established climate change conclusions, a tactic favored by fossil fuel interests. Instead, analyses should start from the understanding that all weather events occur within a fossil fuel-altered climate system.
This shift allows scientists to innovate and focus on impact and source attribution studies. Impact attribution assesses the additional deaths or economic damage from extreme weather due to climate change, while source attribution quantifies individual oil and gas producers’ contributions to climate trends. These studies are crucial for informing litigation against fossil fuel companies.
As fossil fuel-driven climate change’s impacts accelerate, breaking through industry-driven disinformation is crucial. By updating attribution science norms, the field can better address the climate crisis and contribute to a sustainable future for generations to come.
Original Story at blog.ucs.org