By Larry Kummer. Posted at the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: News stories, in both local and national media, tend to describe climate change as a simple and omnipresent phenomenon. It’s not. Here we look at the surprising trends in US temperature and precipitation, and northern hemisphere snowfall.
There has been global warming during the past two centuries. But activists tend to attribute everything, anywhere, to warming. That’s not accurate. Warming is a complex phenomenon, not an omnipresent force.
Look at the history of the continental US, with one of the longest and most accurate records in the world. It has warmed during the era of human-dominated warming (“more than half of the observed increase in {temperature} from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in {greenhouse gases}”, per the IPCC’s AR5) at a rate of 0.30°F per decade (0.17°C) — oddly similar to the 0.33°F per decade (0.18°C) since the record began in 1895. But it has not done so smoothly, as activists often imply.
See this is graph of February temperatures, with the blue line showing flattish trend during the 25 years from 1983 to last month…
What does this graph tell us?
- Temperatures are volatile from year to year over small areas (the 48 states are 1.6% of the Earth’s surface). Both sides play the game of Record HIGH here! Record LOW there! Let’s be too smart for that.
- Ditto for temperature trends. Neither the flattish US February trend for 1983-2017 nor the steep cooling in February 1998-2017 of -0.61°F per decade (-0.34°C) proves global cooling. Nor does the steep warming of 9.7°F per decade (-5.4°C) of February 2010-2017 warn us of imminent incineration.
- Climate change is complex. That’s why we have the iPCC (almost forgotten by journalists) and the major climate agencies to explain to us what is happening.
Another example of our complex climate.
As the world warms do we get more snow and rain — or less? Alarmists spin simple stories attributing all droughts to climate change. But precipitation in the US has increased: “Over the 121-year period of record (1895-1915), precipitation across the CONUS has increased at an average rate of 0.16 inch per decade.”
Looking at the season just ended, Winter 2017 (Dec-Feb) in the continental US was the eighth wettest on record. Winter snow extent in the northern hemisphere was the ninth largest since 1967, and has been increasing at roughly 2% per year since 1967 — as shown on this graph.
What does the IPCC’s AR5 report say about droughts?
From the Summary for Policymakers…
“Increases in intensity and/or duration of drought since 1950: low confidence on a global scale, likely changes in some regions. Assessment of a human contribution to observed changes: low confidence.”
Conclusions.
Climate change is not a simple phenomenon, as often described by activists and journalists. They attribute all kinds of local or regional changes — such as in agriculture, diseases, animal populations and migrations. What they seldom do is show that the responsible factor (e.g., temperature or precipitation) has actually changed. That would often ruin the story.
Global warming is not a universal explanation for weather. There are large variously in climate change from region to region, due to poorly understood reasons. Extremes of weather are even more difficult to understand — they are a constant of history, with large decadal and even century-long cycles. Reducing these to simple stories is propaganda, not science.
For More Information
For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change and these posts about the propaganda of climate change…
- Important: climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
- How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
- A story of the climate change debate. How it ran; why it failed.
- Science into agitprop: “Climate Change Is Strangling Our Oceans”.
- Ignoring science to convince the public that we’re doomed by climate change.
- Put the stories about record 2016 warming in a useful context.
- A look at the future of global warming. Our political response depends on its trend.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good overview on model predictability at the Reference Frame:
The models: “They’re not proposing and separately testing any actual laws or statements. People who are doing these things just play with some complex mushed potatoes and when they have a sufficient number of moving parts, it’s unavoidable that for some choices of these moving parts, a good enough agreement – within any pre-agreed error margins – will be achieved for some of them.
You know, the point is that the qualitative features of these theories or models are being “assumed” and they’re not actually being tested or falsified. These pseudoscientists are just constructing computer-aided “stories” that make the initial assumptions look plausible. But they’re not actually producing any evidence that the assumptions are intrinsically correct – i.e. capable of making reliable predictions of the future. They are just adjusting the other moving parts so that the whole package passes some tests.”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2017/03/selection-of-climate-model-survivors.html
Too late, going to get hotter.
“… it is even possible that this mechanism…”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314081612.htm
Somebody has “discovered” bioturbation.of sediment warming the earth. Fascinating critters, nevertheless. Wait until they really get down into the mud. They may even discover real acidification.
Anthony,
Second paragraph from the bottom: “There are large variously in climate change from region to region…” Variously ===> variations ?
Clyde,
Thanks for catching this. I eagerly await better spell catcher software!
Fabius Maximus argues that more funding for climate science is needed.
I argue the exact opposite, for the reasons elucidated by Dr Lindzen in his letters to the Trump White House.
The state of US (other countries) climate science is beyond broken, it is corrupt. Dr. Judith Curry quit the field because of the corrupt attacks on her academic work and they denial of research grants, likely coordinated by a corrupt White House OSTP unduly influencing NSF granting decisions. More evidence were the unethical attacks on Dr Roger Pilkey, Jr. work on that mostly went on without real push-back from his colleagues, they were cowards.
The climate research field was and is corrupted by the very flow of money that Al Gore and his followers began funneling into the field to get the science they wanted and to suppress the science they didn’t want. More money is not the answer. Fabius Maximus is dead wrong in this regard (of “send more money”). That is the Progressive answer to everything. Never enough. Spend more.
Many times, counter-intuitively, the best approach is to do nothing and pull back. Indeed as Dr Lindzen wrote, pulling back Climate Change research funding is what is needed, just like what is being proposed the the beyond repair, corrupted EPA. The researchers in the climate field today are too heavily corrupted. Even those who remained silent – their silence enables. Their intramural and extramural funding is at stake; so too their collective reputation in the public eye after 2+ decades of twisting and manipulating data and hiding the statistics of uncertainty. For these reasons, it is unrealistic for an objective, reasonable person to expect the climate research field to have an epiphany and come clean and rejoin ethical science.
joelobryan,
I agree about the state of climate science. We can debate about how to best fix it, but it is all speculation.
US history suggests (only suggests) that fixing vital institutions is easier when reformers can offer more money. Cutting funding to impell reform often leads to institutional collapse. We have the State Dept as a cautionary example — damaged during the 1950s Who Lost China political wars, it has never recovered, unbalancing US foreign policy.
Also, slashing funding — which means losing people — hoping for reform, after which funding will hopefully be restored — is at best slow. At worst its relying on hope.
I suggest put in strong leaders to NOAA and NSF, get NASA out of climate research (they can focus on getting the sats up), and adequately fund climate science. Give them both carrots and sticks.
For example, fixing the global temp datasets won’t be done by wishing. It’s will take lots of cash. No matter if the Earth warms or cools in the future, we need to know — with as much warning as possible.
How could you possibly think that spending more money would be beneficial when every idiot with a pocket protector is on the gravy train already? How many more Michael Manns do we need to sort this out. If we need more anything it’s politicians with brains and backbone and some serious prosecutors.
john harmsworth,
“How could you possibly think that spending more money would be beneficial…”
Try reading what I said. I even explained in two different ways (in the excerpt Joe quoted, and in my reply to him), just to avoid your kind of reply.
The author says:
Please tell me this is sarcasm, because it sounds like he actually believes it …
w.
I find endless entertainment in the IPCC’s and the major climate agencies’ efforts “to explain to us what is happening.” /Sarc
“That is why we have the IPCC and the major climate agencies to explain to us what is going on”. That’s like the guy in prison for income tax evasion saying, “that’s why I asked my idiot brother- in- law to help me with my taxes”!
What happens to the winter Northern Hemisphere snow extent trendline if one normalizes the 1981 data? Since 1980 and 1982 show no similarity to 1981 I would say that 1981 is an anomaly and in no way related to any significant long term climatic change. I suspect that without the low extent of 1981 this trendline would be about flat as the proverbial pancake.
Climate Change! The mildest catastrophe the world has ever seen!!!
John,
“What happens to the winter Northern Hemisphere snow extent trendline if one normalizes the 1981 data?”
Great question. Regression lines are sensitive to start and end points. Not so much to individual outliers. But that’s just a guess.
“in no way related to any significant long term climatic change.”
I don’t understand your objection. I don’t see that the graph as it is shows “any significant long term climatic change.” It especially doesn’t say “global warming” to me.
It’s a flattish trend. Probably an even less impressive trend if shown with error bands and in a long-term historical context (i.e., showing other random-ish short trends just like this one).
I understand what you are saying. It is a “flattish” trendline- but still a rising trendline. To me it says natural variation and random but to some it will say “here is more proof that temperatures are rising”. These trendlines with or without cherry-picked start and end dates are pretty much always deceptive and prone to abuse and obfuscation. Factor in the adjusted past temps. and UHI changes and area homogenizations and they are generally completely useless.
John,
“but to some it will say “here is more proof that temperatures are rising”.
Yes, comment threads are filled with rodeo clown school drop-outs. Just ignore them.
“These trendlines with or without cherry-picked start and end dates are pretty much always deceptive and prone to abuse and obfuscation. ”
That is one of the generic comments given by both sides in the climate wars. it’s absurd. Esp when referring to trend lines covering the full instrument data era, from start to end. They’re just a useful way to look at data. They’re not deceptive. They’re not Scripture.
Sorry! Talking about temps there instead of snow extent. Never mind, Lol.
“It has warmed during the era of human-dominated warming” It is true that mankind has been causing CO2 levels in our atmopshere increase but there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The AGW conjecture is full of flaws. For example, the radiant greenhouse effect upon which the AGW conjecture is based has not been observed anywhere in the solar system.
willhaas
“there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate”
If there was, what would it look like?
“If there was, what would it look like?”
More a question of what it wouldn’t look like.
The rate of change of temperature wouldn’t effectively stall during the period of maximum rate of CO2 increase for a start.
The lapse rate is a measure of the insulating effects of the atmosphere. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. As it turns out the lapse rate in the troposphere is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient. It has nothing to do with the LWIR aborption properties of the so called greenhouse gases. In the troposphere, convection and conduction are domanant over LWIR absorption band radaition so the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases matters very little in the troposphere. At the tropause the pressure is low enough so that the so called greenhouse gases begin to matter in terms of heat energy transport but at that altitude they have virtually no effect on the Earth’s surface and act as radiators to space. Remember that a good absorber is also a good radiator.
Some have alledged that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the effective altitide of radiation to space but they have never come up with a formula that describes just what the effect is. If they had such a formula and can verify that is does describe what happens then they woudl be able to nail down the climate sensivity of CO2 but such has not happened yet.
The IPCC published the exact same wide range of guesses as to the climate sensivity of CO2 in both their first report and their last report. In part the IPCC’s work with models was to generate some evidence that CO2 affects climate but to date all their models have been wrong and have predicted warming that has not happened. If over the last two decades the IPCC had found some real evidence they would be able to narrow the range of their guesses but such has not happened. The IPCC is ignoring the logic that the climate sensivity may well be some number a lot less then the range of their guesses, for fear of losing their funding.
Larry
Some 18 months ago I carried out an analysis of the 350 year long central England temperature.
There are various graphics that demonstrate the trends for each season over that period.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/25/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperature/
However what I was especially interested in was that no one born this century in britain would have experienced warming. The trend has been determinedly downwards during that period and there has been a flat trend since around 1993
However it must be said that relates to the continuation of historically high temperatures with the closest parallel being to the 1730’s which, until the 1990’s was the warmest decade in the record
Tonyb
Tony,
That’s probably true of anyone born anywhere on earth outside of some urban areas or other restricted localities. Even Arctic dwelling children and teenagers probably have not experienced sustained warming in their young lives.
Tony,
“no one born this century”
That sounds grand. But it is only 17 years. Means almost nothing. But nice rhetoric, suitable for the cacophony that the climate policy debate has become.
Editor
I make no claim other than it is 17 years and the flat trend is 24 years, both of which are surely interesting, but about as meaningful as continually relating temperatures/sea level/arctic ice to the satellite era when the upwards trend has been happening for some 300 years.
My main point, as I am sure you realised, is that by applying a global average we are missing the much more interesting nuances, which is that some places are bucking the warming trend and seasonality is part of this.
Similarly as the trend is warming there must be some places with trends far above the average and some static
The reasons for these apparent contradictions rarely get highlighted.
tonyb
This is all basically the Roger Pielke, Sr. argument. He argues that, when it comes to precipitation, land-use/land-cover is the most important anthropogenic effect … not carbon dioxide(with natural cycles being more significant).
Basically, changing land from farm-land to city or from wilderness to farmland has a significant effect on precipitation. Lower precipitation tends to lead to lower temperatures.
Ask a “climate scientist” about this and they will say, “there is a calculation for the effect on carbon dioxide from land use changes” — thereby completely missing the point.
I’m reminded of the inconvenient truth unknown to Algore, ie that shrinking ice on Kilimanjaro is due to cutting down the forests on its slopes, not to global warming. There has been no warming around Africa’s highest mountain.
Chimp,
That’s a great example. Now that you point this out, I should have given examples of warmista’s doing this. You give a perfect high-profile example!
You will still find people who swear that Kilimanjaro is ice free due to carbon dioxide induced climate change — not many scientists.
Gentlemen,
Even Lonnie Thompson, who first alerted the ignoramus goon loon Algore to Kilimanjaro, is honest enough to admit that he was wrong and the shrinking glaciers are due to deforestation, not to nonexistent “climate change” around the mountain:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/al-gores-global-warming-claims-on-kilimanjaro-glacier-finally-dead-and-buried-in-the-climategate-2-0-emails-even-phil-jones-and-lonnie-thompson-dont-believe-it/
Lorcandonda,
“This is all basically the Roger Pielke, Sr. argument.”
I don’t believe the point of this post is at all similar to his perspective (with which I agree, Pielke Sr. being one of my major sources of insight on cli sci).
My point is much simpler: activists (on both sides, more often warmistas) point to trends over small areas and blame global warming (or climate change) — without showing that warming (or cc) occurred over that area during the relevant period. As i said in the opening paragraph:
Fair enough — my point is that “warmists” tend to link everything climate related in terms of carbon dioxide. That is such a narrow approach that I can’t believe “scientists” fall for it — but they seem to all of the time.
When I point out that the drought during the Great Depression was due to aggressive changes in farming practices (due to the precipitous drop in the value of crops), those changes (along with natural cycles) caused the dust-bowl droughts. Those droughts led to the warming that we saw in the United States during that time. Most people seem to think that CO2 causes warming and warming causes drought — but the cause and effect is backwards.
Our drought wasn’t really solved until we changed our farming practices.
The same thing is happening in Syria. Assad aggressively over-farmed his lands to “prove” the benefit of his regime. This aggressive farming (along with natural cycles) led to drought, which caused local warming. Now, many people blame the civil war on climate carbon dioxide induced climate change — but, once again, the logic is backwards. Yes, local climate change contributed to the drought in Syria (which contributed to teh civil war), but it was not carbon dioxide induced climate change.
You would think we would understand this relationship by now. After all, we changed our practices by the end of the 1930s. Yet, “scientists” seem too quick to blame carbon dioxide.
Lorcanbonda,
” my point is that “warmists” tend to link everything climate related in terms of carbon dioxide.”
Yes, they do. Writing that up would be a great article, but more complex than this one. It would be a useful contribution to documenting another aspect of the full spectrum propaganda barrage climate activists have laid down on America since 1988 (to pick an arbitrary start date).
Your comment on land use change reminded me of something I read on the Mayan civilization. Through pollen analysis it was found that by 800 or 900 AD there was just about zero forest- all the trees had been chopped down to create farmland. About the same time, there was a prolonged drought. The elimination of the forests may very well have helped CAUSE the prolonged drought.
Buuuh … buuuuh …… buuuuh ….but …. Step right up.Extra, extra, read allllllll about it!!!
Climate channnnnnnnnnnnge maaaaaaaaaking us sickerrrrrrrrrrr!
Read all about it!
James,
Sad but true. Journalists have discovered that climate porn gets clicks, creating an unholy alliance between them and activists.
Interesting subject. Too bad Larry knows relatively little about it. There is a big difference between lack of precipitation and drought. Drought takes into account evaporation and well as precipitation. When temperature or wind is unusually high, more water evaporates from the soil and the leaves of plants with roots in the soil (transpiration). So you can have a drought even with normal amounts of precipitation. So GW alone will produce an increase in drought, unless it is fully compensated for by an increase in precipitation.
Total precipitation is expected to increase in a warmer world (and shift from drier regions to wetter ones). AOGCMs predict a 7%/degC increase in absolute humidity, but only a 2%/degC increase in precipitation. This is because rate of upward convection is predicted to slow. This counter-intuitive prediction is needed for climate sensitivity to be high.
Frank,
Thank you for injecting a bit of humor into this thread! Try reading it first, however. The relevant point is that activists can’t just wave at droughts and chant “anthropogenic climate change”. They need to point to relevant factors.
Also, temperatures have not risen much since 1950. Which is why our droughts result from a decrease in regional rainfall, with higher temperatures intensifying the effect.
As for your guessing about what has and will happen, I’ll stick with the IPCC. Which is why i quoted them (part of their longer and more comprehensive analysis of droughts).I suggest you do so as well.
You might read my articles about droughts. The quotes from the peer-reviewed literature and IPPC might teach you something: https://fabiusmaximus.com/tag/drought/
There are literally hundreds of indices of drought. The two most popular these days are the PDSI (Palmer Drought Severity Index) and the PHDI (Palmer Hydrological Drought Indicator.) All of the drought indices have weaknesses — in particular, the PDSI does not account for mountain runoff as it was designed for the plains of the midwest (where Palmer started.) There is an adjusted PDSI which is supposed to help compensate for these weaknesses, but few studies make it clear which one they are using. The PHDI remains a better overall drought index, particularly in mountainous areas, like California.
You are correct that transpiration is a major component of drought. This is why land-use is so significant. Mature plants (like forests) tend to transpire more than growing plants because the growing plants need to retain a more significant portion of their water in order to grow. Droughts (and floods) are also basin effects — meaning that they tend to occur in multi-year increments. An area in drought, tends to have less natural plant growth which means less transpiration and less rainfall. Drought also tends to lead to an increase in average (local) temperature possibly because of reduced cloud cover. Converting forests or farmland to cities also has a significant effect on local droughts.
Long-story short, “climate scientists” have started using PDSI to correlate drought to climate change even though PHDI is a better measure of hydrological moisture balance of a region. The reason being that PDSI has a temperature component in its determination. That means it is not an independent variable from temperature. In fact, when the temperature component is removed from PDSI, there is no longer a correlation between temperature and drought. The result is that these scientists are only proving that as the temperature increases, it gets hotter.
At the end of the day, you need to understand the drought indices to understand the discussion on droughts.
I wonder if anyone has any ideas about an odd problem I’ve noticed.
On numerous occasions authors have given quotes from various IPCC documents. In every instance, when I searched the document I could not find the quote.
.
Exactly the same has occurred here. The author gave a link to the SPM and provided a quote. I’ve searched the document from the link, and none of the phrases appear. In fact, the word “drought” does not appear at all!
.
Does anyone have an explanation? The most obvious explanation is that the IPCC quietly removes any inconvenient references in the original documents.
.
Any ideas?
Chris
Chris,
Click on the link I gave to the SPM quote about droughts. The quote is from the table on page 7. Search for a few words, since the table breaks up the quote.
“In fact, the word “drought” does not appear at all!”
The word “drought” appears six times on that page.
“The most obvious explanation is that the IPCC quietly removes any inconvenient references in the original documents.”
No, I don’t believe that is the most obvious explanation.
The same blue line in changes to min and max temps divided by calculated clear sky solar forcing at the stations measuring the temperature changes.
Outside of the tropics, this is where the step came from. The rest of the extratropics shown here https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/