It is also unhelpful to keep referring to individual points like this as illustrative. It's hypocritical and provides ammunition to climate change deniers when they say things like "But this spring was really cold!" Weather is not climate and a year over year comparison of one calendar month is not a trend.
This is exactly the kind of nonsense article I would publish if I were a climate change denier.
I don't know if you're in the US, but this is untrue here.
Our most-watched media outlet spreads climate-change denial, as does the (minority) party that has controlled our federal -- and most state -- governments for the last few years.
One of their tactics is literally to say that there is still snow, so global warming can't be real[1].
Articles like this are the counterpoints to that narrative, and there is evidence that individual data points are convincing[2] to people who are not able (or willing) to understand long-term statistical information.
1. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/02/3-years-ago-...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/climate-chan...
The environmentalist movement has long been dogged by a sizeable aura of people who dilute the message with craziness and false claims. They are the major reason why progress is so slow - very few people trust them anywhere near anything important. I've yet to see an English-speaking Green party that I'd accept as competent to set policy even assuming they have the correct problems identified.
The trend is extremely scary, and we sure as hell should be scared:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
This kind of data is helpful for people who like to make evidence-based decisions in life. If an asteroid were heading for Earth would you want the news to ignore it?
Normalcy bias is a huge problem but if you're paying attention it is prudent to use information like this to decide where to live, whether to have kids, etc. it could have a huge impact on decisions like "Should I apply for job in Los Angeles, or Toronto?" So far, I haven't regretted moving from the place the article uses to illustrate hot weather to a cooler, wetter, more stable country.
I'm in my 40s and I've been seeing headlines like "hottest September on record" since my twenties. This is just the most recent one.
The "make people feel bad" will only affect the large amount of people who wouldn't do anything anyway and who wouldn't be convinced to do anything until there is much larger social pressure.
These kinds of articles might actually inspire that smaller group do do more because it's so so bad. The data is REALLY bad. That small group will create a larger group who would provide support (financial, etc). Once a critical mass is hit, the larger group who was turned away because of bad feelings will come around.
It's more important to focus on the people who would actually do something and who would provide support. These articles and stories don't turn away the people doing all the work, it actually inspires them more.
For example, I am one of those people and this article makes me want to do more and puts more urgency into it.
I don’t know why you are bringing this up. The article is talking about global temperatures and global records. Not a cold snap in your local town.
Let's say we stop publishing true facts like this, in order to maintain some sort of message control. What do you propose that message actually be?
I, personally, accept climate change on faith because I defer to the experts. However, it's shocking to me how inaccessible unbiased facts are. It is conceivable that record cold temps are being set just as often. It's conceivable that nearly everything is a record if global averages are just now being recorded by month (or if they have been rebaselined after a methodology change).
Articles like this raise more questions than they answer. They aren't going to convince someone who isn't already convinced, and they only demoralize those who already are convinced.
However, if you want people to find creative solutions to complex problems, a positive message works better. "Yes, we can!"
Instead, we have vote for president. That vote may affect the actions on climate change, but it may not be in the way you want. And it has lots and lots of related side affects.
Let us say that the president who would take more steps to curb global warming would also cause growth in a non US country that is environmentally destructive. Or that they themselves would make so many deals and compromises that the deal that gets passed is actually a long term net loss.
I am totally not saying that will happen, but making things too black and white can lead to surprises.
We know the problem here. We have some solutions. We just need to act!
If we cut by 50% and the temperature is still rising year over year do we need to cut more? How far do you want to go and how much needs to be risked Before you’re satisfied that our carbon levels are acceptable. Sorry that you feel the world isn’t following your desires and expectations but they need more than a promise that things may get better to enact policy that will dramatically alter their entire economy, way of living, and social order.
Edit: sure downvote me and throw insults. That’s a good way to promote healthy discussion.
Cutting human carbon emission to zero today would still result in temperature increases over the next decade or so, because there's a planet-sized throughput delay in the system. Can't turn the oil tanker around that quickly.
The IPCC suggested target is 1.5-2C over the next century as being both reasonably achievable while not having too drastic an impact on the environment and agriculture.
Otherwise increasingly severe floods, droughts and storms will dramatically alter the economy, way of living and social order for billions of people anyway.
Likewise, I don’t know how close the world temperature is to the equilibrium for the current level of greenhouse gasses. If levels remain constant, is the global average temperature going to go up 0.5C? 0.01C? Or is equilibrium reached faster than the seasons change?
That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time.
In every case where I've replaced carbon with something else, it's turned out to be preferable. Cleaner, quieter, lighter, longer lasting.
To me, there are lots of other reasons for cutting carbon than the environment. The environment is just a big plus. If we cut all carbon fuel and ended up with longer lasting, more efficient products, but global warming increased, why would I think cutting carbon had been a waste?
Personally, I'd like to see some state where there was a hypercompetitive market of many different energy sources, rather than being dominated by carbon. I'm not sure what that would eventually look like — maybe carbon would be a part, maybe not — but it would be better.
But no, turning off the taps or turning down the taps a tiny bit isn't going to suddenly bring a halt to warming temperatures.
Interestingly though we have some people wanting to bring emissions to a halt for climate change reasons. But, with things like Chess you have to think a few moves ahead. Has anyone thought ahead past a drastic cut in emissions? If everyone stopped consuming (as if) and temperatures still went up, how would that work out? It would be a bit like Covid where lockdowns happen but the pandemic is not brought under control, maybe just slowed down for a bit.
I have been reading the news on this climate chaos for decades so I am not naive enough to think that the planet will be magically restored to perfect tranquillity the minute the last burger eating SUV driver throws away their car keys and goes vegan. We all know we must cut emissions and go carbon negative but Covid has given us a glimpse as to how much work this really entails and how long we can sustain change for.
