This is the latest graph for the UAH sattelite (lower tropospheric) temperature anomalies.
I added the orange line to make it easier to see how the latest result compares with past results.
As I’ve explained before, other data sets may be better than this one but I like to point at this one precisely because in principle it is the record more favoured by global warming denialist/contrarians. In reality they tend to shop around for whatever data set suits their argument of the day but the UAH set has the advantage of not being based on ground weather stations and is maintained by Dr Roy Spencer who is sympathetic to their viewpoints.
To recap: the denialist narrative was that 2015/2016 was just a natural occuring cyclical blip of high temperatures caused by a El Nino. The empahsis is on the “just” – in reality that was a powerful El Nino event but global warming contributed. What’s the difference between the two claims? The denialist predicted that there would then be a massive drop big enough to bring those average temperatures down to historically normal levels. As we can see that isn’t what happened – after temperatures peaked there was a decline but the new ‘low’ is comparable with old ‘highs’.
Does that mean there might not be further falls in temperature? No, temperatures will fluctuate but the long term trend keeps going up and ‘natural cycles’ just don’t work as an explanation of that trend.
In his last attempt to disprove global warming, John C Wright has pointed out that he doesn’t know who discovered global warming.
” Again, who is the scientist who discovered Global Warming?” http://www.scifiwright.com/2017/07/last-crusade-unearned-laurels/
Arguably it isn’t the most illogical argument he has used in his on going struggle against reality nor even is it his silliest. It requires both a simplistic view of science, where each discovery has one and only one owner and an elevation of his own ignorance to the status of a counter-argument.
So, firstly, mapping single individuals to distinct discoveries is a simplification, intended to make the history of science easier to follow. Yes, Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of Species and hence is a central figure in the theory of evolution by natural selection but his genius was not solitary.
Still, maybe global warming is still somehow unusual in this regard. Maybe Wright has some sort of point that the theory just popped out of nowhere. Yeah, but no. It really is as simple as Wright being intentionally ignorant and then claiming that his own ignorance demonstrates a flaw in global warming as an idea.
So, who did ‘discover’ global warming, given the basic caveats of all such discoveries being upon the shoulders of giants/research communities. Well, firstly what is the thing being discovered? It can be broken down into several parts:
- the Earth’s surface is warmer than would be expected (i.e. there is some kind of ‘greenhouse’* like effect)
- the atmosphere is what makes it warmer
- some gases in the atmosphere must be ‘greenhouse gases’ and play a role in keeping Earth warm (of which water vapour is the biggest culprit)
- Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
- If you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then average surface temperatures should increase all other things being equal
- This is actually happening
- 1820s Joseph Fourier – noted the discrepancy in surface temperatures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
- 1850s John Tyndall – investigated the way atmospheric gases absorbed radiant heat (i.e. infra red ) from which he found water vapour was a greenhouse gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
- 1890s Svante Arrhenius found that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and hypothesised that additional CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to temperature increases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
- 1950s onward David Keeling’s measurements of atmospheric CO2 demonstrated that levels where increasing
So, in the unlikely event that John C Wright ever reads this, now he knows who ‘discovered’ global warming.
*[No, greenhouses don’t work that way exactly – the name is a metaphor]
It is deeply saddening that the anti-science attitude has become so entrenched on the right and in the government. However, it is nice to find all your targets standing in a row.
- Vox Day announces that “modern science is non-science” http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/modern-science-is-non-science.html and links to…
- Breitbart, which announces ‘Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method’ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/j-scott-armstrong-fraction-1-papers-scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/ and cites…
- Climate-denial ‘think’ tank, The Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0i3HnA0TI4 specifically…
- “Wharton School professor and forecasting expert” J. Scott Armstrong’s and Kesten C Green’s presentation “Are Forecasts of Dangerous Global Warming Scientific?”
The minor good news is that watching the presentation and recognising the names, I’d already debunked this nonsense. https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/dont-forget-climate-change-chapter-12-climate-science-venus-market-researchers/
Yes, this is the same warmed over nonsense I tackled when I went through a climate change denial book last year.
From the presentation:
What I found then was that Armstrong and Green, to reach a conclusion that a forecast of global cooling was more ‘accurate’ than global warming, had to make the following errors:
- Use only ONE warming scenario
- Use a cooling scenario smaller in magnitude to the warming scenario
- Use a retroactive forecast using the warming scenario that does not actually correspond with the warming hypothesis (specifically using modern rates of warming for the mid 19th century)
- Ignore more recent data (specifically from 1975)
What was even more notable was that some of these problematic steps were in violation of their own ‘principles of forecasting’.
There’s more, but I’ll come back to it later.
You didn’t imagine it – February was warm.
The Washington Times, that august organ of the Unification Church, has a breathless headline: Hundreds of Scientists Urge Trump To Withdraw from UN Climate Treaty: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/23/hundreds-scientists-urge-trump-withdraw-un-climate/
Climate change contrarian Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to Donald Trump saying
We urge the United States government, and others, to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We support reasonable and cost-effective environmental protection. But carbon dioxide, the target of the UNFCCC is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth. Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign — much less than initial model predictions.”
Interestingly (presumably because Lindzen accepts a lot of the basic science) it doesn’t claim zero warming but rather that the warming will be ‘benign’. And Lindzen has 300 scientists to back him up! Including this guy:
RØMCKE Nils Håkon Swedish emailer who wished to sign the petition
I’m not joking. That is the literal entry. Many of the entries have no particular qualification listed (although ‘Nils’ is the only one with ’emailer’ listed as a qualification gawd bless ‘im).
Twenty of the signatories are from Sweden and another 19 are from Norway. Which is odd, given that otherwise, the petition is mainly an anglophone thing. There six French signatories (I believe – there are some people whose nationality is unclear) and three from Germany. There don’t seem to be any Danes. This disproportionate number of Swedes and Norwegians seem to be centred on a group calling itself clumsily ‘CLEXIT’ – that is ‘climate legislation exit’. Perhaps the petition started life in Sweden/Norway or perhaps it found its way there and one passionate Swede made an extra effort. I only counted eight people with obvious UK ties – and one of those was the infamous Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
Australia manages to still maintain its own cadre of climate contrarians – 17 by my count, so still outnumbered by Swedes. One of whom is a senator for the far right, anti-immigrant party One Nation. Malcolm Roberts’s UN climate conspiracy theory was once described by rightwing commentator (and fellow climate contrarian) Andrew Bolt as ‘utterly stupid’.
Having said that, the bulk of the signatories are probably Americans. I count 200 who are either clearly from the US or at leats not obviously from somewhere else. Not that there is a problem with non-Americans petitioning the US President (e.g. I’m happy to suggest to him that he resigns) – it’s just that this petition neither does ‘US scientists’ well nor ‘World scientists well’ but is just what you might expect: the usual names and lots, and lots, and lots of padding. Even with Niles-the-Swedish-emailer, it struggles to get to 300.
Yet, be prepared for various people to cite this as evidence that scientists are rebelling or whatever against what we already know to be true: the Earth is warming, it’s because of us, and that’s bad news.
The January UAH Satellite temperatures are avaialble:
The fall from the El Nino highs is still slower than you might expect.
Elsewhere, the right is throwing up claims of temperature records being cooked. Here’s four different temperature records based on different data sets from 1980 to current.
The baseline for the anomalies are different and there is some variation in exactly what they are measuring and even the trends are a bit different but the message is the same whichever way you look at it. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980
It is getting warmer. The whole planet. The impacts on everybody will be substantial and long lasting. Our children will inherit a very different world.
Time to wander down another global warming denial rabbit hole. I was presented with a video of Judith Curry (who’s been covered here before) bemoaning the funding of climate science. It is political, she claims, because too much goes to research into the human causes of global warming and not enough into natural causes. This is bullshit. It doesn’t even require a great deal of investigation to see that it is bullshit we just need to apply what we know about global warming science.
Let’s take her claim literally. It is true that changes in climate can occur for non-human reasons and as a result of human actions. However, Curry’s characterization requires us to imagine a bizarro world of climate research in which some people are just looking at possible human causes and others are looking at natural causes. In reality, there isn’t a great deal of mystery about human causes as such – the main one is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and of those the big culprit is CO2. It isn’t as if the bulk of researchers out looking for some alternative human causes (not that nobody is looking at other human impacts – it’s just not the main focus).
The reality is that people investigating anthropogenic global warming NECESSARILY investigate natural drivers of climate. You can’t investigate the one without the other. The very nature of trying to find the impact of human action on the climate involves trying to distinguish between natural variability and changes from human action PLUS the interaction between the two. Worse, Curry knows this.
Ah, but that isn’t what Curry means exactly. What she is cross about is that more money goes to researchers who think humans are impacting the climate than ones who don’t. The problem here is that what she is actually asking for is not less politics in the funding but more. After all, NORMALLY in science funding you’d expect more funding in mainstream positions and less in fringe positions. That doesn’t mean no fringe position ever becomes mainstream or that fringe positions are necessarily false – it just means that funding tends to go to places where evidence and expert opinion suggests that the answers are.
It gets worse though.We know that the bulk of active climate scientists genuinely believe that global warming caused by anthropogenic global warming is real. So to achieve the supposedly unpolitical increase in research of alternative hypotheses, Curry would need the more fringe views to receive disproportionate funding.
It gets even worse. What exactly would get funded? While proportionately small compare with climate science as a discipline, there are number of scientists of one kind or another who dispute the more generally accepted position. I’ve covered several here and given their views some airing. The problem is that while they have strong things to say about how they disagree to some extent with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis they have very little in the way of alternative hypotheses. What these other approaches amount to tends to be very had wavy speculation and a vague appeal to more data.
Nor is the government the only source of funding. Interestingly all those conservative think tanks paying out cash on the topic global warming prefer to spend it on people claiming the data is wrong somehow rather than pooling their resources into alternative hypotheses. Some private funding from conservative sources (e.g. the Koch brothers) has helped aid some serious climate-science though, just not very often. Curry herself participated in one such project – the BEST study of the temperature record. I’ve discussed it before. It was widely promoted by conservative climate blogs when it started…but when the results came in and the BEST study confirmed that yes, things have got warming and yes it looks like we are to blame, it suddenly got less popular in certain quarters.