Weather vs. Climate: A Brief Tutorial
I’ll keep this one short and straightforward so even the most die-hard anti-science adherent can understand. I promise to use simple words and concepts…
As expected, there has been a flurry — bordering on a blizzard — of discussion about how the recent cold snap (mid-January 2024) absolutely proves that Climate Change is a hoax.
From the frozen NFL playoff games to this morning’s enlightened statement from the Colorado-3 U.S. Representative who is concerned that her guy’s voters may not make it to the polls tonight in Iowa (she has to be, hands-down, the most scientifically-astute member of the House Republican caucus), the current woes in the mid-west are perfect for Climate Change deniers to use as fodder in their never-ending need to prove that they know more than the actual scientists who study this stuff.
We are further told that the only way to save ourselves from radical left wokeness, illegal immigrants, and George Soros is to vote for whatever politician happens to be preaching at the time. “And I’ll put an end to all this changing climate nonsense.”
I’ve already touched on Climate Change (and why I firmly believe that it is real) in earlier posts. Feel free to review these for some background if you wish.
What I have not done is define a couple of the important terms: Weather and Climate. Probably a serious omission on my part, and something that — all by itself — should be enough (it won’t) to clear the air about why the Dolphins — who are used to practicing and playing in a warm climate — had such a cold, anti-global warming reception in Kansas City.
I spent much of the 60s in the L.A. Basin and was a rabid Rams fan. It used to drive me baileyboobonkers how my team would always seem to end up playing the Vikings in Minnesota during the playoffs, at -20° in a blizzard. It didn’t seem fair…
We all know that it is warm and dry in Los Angeles, and that January in Minnesota is cold and wet. That’s what “climate” is all about: the average conditions that can be expected in any given area.
But while expected, those “climatic patterns” are not guaranteed, day-in and day-out. Susie and I used to chuckle at the show CSI, which took place in Las Vegas — another arid clime. It seemed like Grissom and Willows were always hurrying to wrap up a crime scene before the rain pouring from the sky washed away all of the critical evidence. So much for a hot and dry climate!
But that’s what “weather” is all about.
It’s real simple: “Climate” is what the atmosphere is usually doing (and what it is expected to be doing), while “Weather” is what may be happening at any given time. These definitely do not have to match: it can rain in Las Vegas (or Death Valley, or the Sahara), and it can be a warm summer day in Iceland (or Greenland, or even Antarctica).
But these daily fluctuations in weather do not change the climatic patterns: Death Valley still has a dry climate, and Iceland will continue to be cold and snowy.
That’s why it’s called “Climate Change” and not “Weather Change” (or global warming)!
I wish the deniers would spend their time and energy on figuring out ways to reduce human impact and also on ways to adapt rather than denying it exists as it certainly is changing!
No doubt. But that’s not gonna happen anytime soon. Doing what you suggest would require two things that many of them — apparently — are incapable of supplying: 1) hard work to craft a solution (simply finding fault is an easy response we can all embrace without any effort whatsoever); and 2) an acceptance that the continuing denials are misguided.
I don’t remember where I saw this (it’s probably the Buffalo’s fault), but all of us will walk through fire before we accept — and publicly acknowledge — that we were wrong…
As always, Linda, thanks for your input!
From where I stand, most of my “denier” acquaintances actually believe in being good stewards of our planet and the environment. What they’re opposed to is the corrupt seizure of the ‘climate awareness’ movement by multi-billion dollar globalist entities, collecting dues from member nations to theoretically distribute to impoverished nations for clean energy projects. It has been shown that little of those billion$ actually gets to the people. For all that money, we see the long-range planning failures of these globalists to switch from petroleum-based energy to alternate forms seemingly overnight (i.e. EVs and their multitude of limitations). And then, the ceaseless predictions of ‘doom in ten years’ coming and going for decades now.
Somewhere in the middle of this controversy is a reasoned, common sense solution that doesn’t alienate both sides.
Excellent points (I submit the sale of “carbon credits” as a possible example).
I, too, know many like your acquaintances: they accept the reality of Climate Change, but — although for the most part already caught by the system, whether they know it or not — deny that the long-term trend of humanity toward indulgence and hypocrisy needs to continue. This overriding human trend is surely in evidence on all portions of the political and social spectrum, and one more instance where I, personally, have real trouble separating the wheat from the chaff.
As I’ve mentioned on several occasion on these pages (and repeatedly in class while holding forth in front of a room full of teens and/or twenty-somethings), while it may be in large measure too late for the current generation of world leaders to support and affect a meaningful change in direction, our kids (and grandkids) will hopefully have a better chance of maintaining their focus in the face of the ever-present comforts and lures of our me-first global lifestyle and economy. One can only hope that they do a better job as stewards than we did.
I hear you.
You have a unique field, beyond your family, in which to till and sow seed (the classroom). There’s bound to be at least one or two who will remember you and your words. I still think about one particular 7th grade teacher who planted something in me that’s become a foundational part of who I am. So, I know it can happen.
Thank you, and I have little doubt that my version of insanity has infected at least one or two over the past forty years (I do try to keep my eyes on the audience to make sure my delivery remains appropriate).
But… there are those who would argue that my radical wokeness is the root of the problem. Thank the maker that we (still) live in a democracy!
As always, Red, thanks for your insights and wisdom.