Heat Dome (climate edition)
2021-06-29
Well. Here we are, the unpleasant and divisive portion of the heat dome.
We have to talk about global warming, because of course we do
The explanation for this phenomenon really is that it was a freak occurrence. People tried to find simple explanations, but the truth is that the stars aligned and gave us a once-in-a-million heat wave.
Whenever the weather gets warm or cool, it brings out a cadre of people i can only describe as climate zealots. A cold season brings cheers of "so much for global warming!" and a warm season brings sneers of "still think global warming is fake?" I’ve written at length about sources and reasons for climate skepticism, and warned against fabricating claims and using junk science to overstate the effects and weave a narrative about climate change. This of course, leads more skepticism because more bullshit is being pushed.
Weather is not climate. A cold season doesn’t disprove global warming any more than a warm season proves it. El nino is not an annual occurrence, it’s a pattern that occurs sometimes. The heat dome is a truly freak event. Cliff Mass, who i have cited extensively as a great climate communicator, put it like this;
Our region has warmed by up to 1-2F during the past fifty years and that will enhance the heatwave.
But consider that the temperature anomalies (differences from normal) during this event will reach 30-35F. The proximate cause of this event is a huge/persistent ridge of high pressure, part of a highly anomalous amplification of the upper-level wave pattern. There is no evidence that such a wave pattern is anything other than natural variability (I have done research on this issue and published in the peer-reviewed literature on this exact topic).
So without global warming, a location that was 104F would have been 102F. Still a severe heat wave, just slightly less intense.
When i mentioned my frustration to an acquaintence with how the heat dome was being used by climate change believers to sneer about how they were right, he said "but… you’re not a denier right?" This response underscores the problem; his reaction to being told that "his side" was greatly overstating its case, with no scientific basis or backing, was to make an admission of faith, and demand one from me. Faith isn’t good enough.
If someone is to claim that the heat dome was the result of climate change, I’d need to see some thought process. The dome was a localized high-pressure region of air, being pressed against mountains and ground with nowhere to escape, causing massive compressive heating. It released after a week. How does a 1C rise in global temperatures do that? Walk me through it, I want to see a believer’s explanation for why this wouldn’t have happened without the greenhouse effect. If you’re truly on the side of "science", you must have some reasoning for it.
I say these things because I hate to give points to skeptics. While they’ve generally got a surprising amount of good science on their side, a lot of the skeptics just don’t trust institutions and think everything is a lie, and don’t care about evidence. They’d go down with the Titanic and insist that the existence of an iceberg was proof that global warming was fake.
If you’re going to say you "trust the science", you aren’t being scientific. And if you claim to have science on your side, you’d better be able to explain (even in broad strokes) how your hobby horse caused this phenomenon.
