Guy McPherson's interview with Mike Ferrigan on Extinction Radio #11 contained an important update
Climate
change update from Guy McPherson
Scientific
paper indicates there has been no climate change “hiatus” since
1998
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus
Thomas
R. Karl1,*, Anthony Arguez1, Boyin Huang1, Jay H. Lawrimore1, James
R. McMahon2, Matthew J. Menne1, Thomas C. Peterson1, Russell S.
Vose1, Huai-Min Zhang1
Abstract
Much
study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease
in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a
phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here
we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that
reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC,
especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the
rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at
least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do
not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global
surface temperature.
NOAA
global surface temperature changes with new analysis, old analysis,
and with and without time-dependent bias corrections. (A) The new
analysis (solid black) compared to the old analysis (red). (B) The
new analysis (solid black) versus no corrections for time-dependent
biases (cyan). Source: Science; Karl et al. (2015) Source: Science;
Karl et al. (2015)
Reassessment
of historical data and methodology by US research body debunks
‘hiatus’ hypothesis used by sceptics to undermine climate science
What
you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
The
study shrunk the surface warming slowdown and drew out the
anti-science conspiracy theorists
8
June, 2015
Last
week, a
paper out of NOAA concluded
that contrary to the
popular myth,
there’s been no pause in global warming. The study made headlines
across the world, including widely-read Guardian stories by John
Abraham and Karl
Mathiesen.
In fact, there may have been information overload associated with the
paper, but the key points are relatively straightforward and
important.
1. Rapid Global Warming Continues
Arguments
about short-term temperature changes only deal with the Earth’s
surface temperatures, which account for just 1–2% of the overall
warming of the planet. More than 90% of that heat goes into the
oceans, and as my colleagues and I noted in a
paper published 3 years ago,
if anything that warming is accelerating, building up heat at a
rate faster
than 4 atomic bomb detonations per second.
If
you carefully cherry pick start and end dates, you can find a period
around 1998–2012 during which the warming of surface temperatures
slowed a bit due to temporary natural cooling factors (like more La
Niñas), just like it sped up a bit during the 1990s due to temporary
natural warming factors (like more El Niños). But these are
just wiggles
on top of the long-term human-caused global warming trend.
As Michael
Mann put it,
there never was any “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming. There is evidence, however, for a modest, temporary slowdown in surface warming through the early part of this decade.
2. The Surface Warming Slowdown is Probably Over
This
is a tough pill to swallow for those who have misused the short-term
slowdown in global surface warming to argue against climate policies,
but it’s likely over. 2014 was the hottest year on record, and 2015
looks likely to break the record again.
These
slowdown-based anti-policy arguments have been made by everyone
fromRepublican
presidential candidates to political
think tanks to science-denying
blogs.
It’s a simple argument – if we pretend the surface warming
slowdown can continue indefinitely, then global warming is less of a
concern and we don’t need policies to stop it.
Since
we’ve always known the slowdown was temporary, these were never
credible arguments, but they nevertheless helped to delay efforts to
curb global warming. After the publication of this NOAA paper, and
possibly two consecutive record hot years, it seems unlikely that
these arguments will be considered credible any longer.
3. The Most Common Denial Response: Conspiracy Theories
Social
science research has shown that conspiracy
theorists are more likely to reject scientists’ conclusions about
climate change. It’s a logical connection – given that 97%
of climate scientists and their
research agree
on human-caused global warming, the easiest way to deny that reality
is to accuse all those scientists of being part of a vast conspiracy.
Otherwise it’s difficult to justify rejecting the conclusions of
97% of experts.
Thus
it’s not surprising that those in denial are accusing the NOAA
scientists of conspiring to fudge the data to make the slowdown
disappear. For example,Anthony
Watts,
who runs a climate science denial blog, wrote an email to one of the
authors of the NOAA paper, telling
him,
In my last telephone conversation with you, I stated (paraphrasing) that “I believe you folks aren’t doing anything fraudulent, but you are doing what you feel is correct science in what you believe is a correct way”.
After seeing the desperate tricks pulled in Karl 2015 to erase “the pause” via data manipulation, I no longer hold that opinion. You needed it to go away, so you prostituted yourselves, perhaps at the direction of higher ups.
In
fact, accusing the NOAA scientists of fraudulently ‘manipulating
data’ for the benefit of the Obama administration was a common
theme in the climate science-denying blogosphere.
But there’s a glaring flaw in this particular conspiracy theory.
4. The Adjustments Reduce Global Warming Estimates!
This
is clear from the bottom frame in this figure in the NOAA paper.
According
to the raw, unadjusted data, global surface temperatures warmed about
0.9°C from 1880 to 2014. According to the new NOAA analysis, they
warmed about 0.8°C during that time. That’s a bit more than in the
previous version of NOAA’s data set (0.75°C), but the net effect
of these adjustments is toreduce the
overall estimated warming as compared to the raw data!
5. The Adjustments are Important
Contrary
to the conspiracy theories, climate scientists process the raw
temperature data for an important reason – to remove biases that
don’t represent real temperature changes. The big one in the new
NOAA analysis deals with changes in the ways ocean temperatures have
been measured. They’ve been measured from water samples in
insulated buckets, uninsulated buckets, from valves in ships’
hulls, and from instruments on buoys. As
Zeke Hausfather explains,
A
number of studies have found that buoys tend to measure temperatures
that are about 0.12°C colder than is found by ships at the same time
and same location. As the number of automated buoy instruments has
dramatically expanded in the past two decades, failing to account for
the fact that buoys read colder temperatures ended up adding a
negative bias in the resulting ocean record. This change is by far
the largest single factor responsible for changing global
temperatures in the past 17 years compared to temperatures found in
the prior NOAA record.
While
this adjustment happens to have reduced estimates of the 1998–2012
surface warming slowdown, it’s important to account for changes in
the way ocean temperatures have been measured. It’s not a
conspiracy, it’s science.
6. The Slowdown and Anti-Policy Arguments are Fragile
The
latest changes to the NOAA data set were quite small (compare the
black and red lines in the top frame of the figure above). As NASA
GISS director Gavin
Schmidt noted at RealClimate,
if such minor changes are all it takes to make the so-called ‘hiatus’
go away, then it was really quite fragile to begin with. As were any
hiatus-based anti-policy arguments.
The
bottom line is that the Earth continues to warm dangerously rapidly,
and short-term wiggles in global surface temperatures are no reason
for complacency. When those who believe otherwise are forced to
resort to baseless accusations of fraud and conspiracy theories, it’s
time to stop listening to them
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.