If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes. If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no — at least not yet.This neatly sums up the first of two reasons why I think that the current debate over whether greenhouse gas emissions caused/exacerbated/influenced recent disasters around the world is a fruitless debate. It is not a debate that can be resolved empirically, but rather depends upon hunches, speculation and beliefs. Debates that cannot be resolved empirically necessarily involve extra-scientific factors. There is nothing unusual such "post-normal" situations, as they are common, but like Gavin Schmidt we should be clear about when we are in such a context.
While I have no illusions that the inane debate over causality of specific physical events will continue as long there is weather, there should be no ambiguity in the fact that researchers who have looked for a signal of increasing GHGs in increasing disaster losses (whether measured in dollars or in lives) have yet to see such a signal. It would be scientifically incorrect to claim that GHGs have been shown to account for any portion of the damage or suffering resulting from recent events.
The second reason that the present debate is fruitless is that it has no practical significance. Consider the options.
Imagine that there was a scientific consensus that no signal of greenhouse gases could be seen in today's weather extremes. In such a world would we be able to forget about mitigation and adaptation? Absolutely not. The reasons why action makes sense on decarbonizing the global economy and building resiliency have a much broader basis.
Similarly, if there was a scientific consensus that a clear signal greenhouse gas emissions could be seen in recent events, it not would support a reordering of policy priorities for exactly the same reasons. The simple fact is that any action on greenhouse gases would be a horribly slow and indirect way of trying to modulate disasters, as the effects could not even be seen for many decades. This is not an argument against trying to stabilize greenhouse gases, but it is an argument against suggesting that reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be an effective tool of disaster mitigation.
The debate over global warming and extremes has been well characterized as "climate porn." And like porn it is not going away anytime soon (the image of the top of this post is from five years ago), and perhaps nor should it, as everyone really seems to like it. However, at the same time, it is important to recognize that the enjoying of and participating in the making of climate porn does nothing (and maybe less) to advance climate policies. But it is sure hard to look away.
