Nature Climate Change volume 10, pages35–41(2020)Cite this article
Abstract
For generations, climate scientists have educated the public that ‘weather is not climate’, and climate change has been framed as the change in the distribution of weather that slowly emerges from large variability over decades1,2,3,4,5,6,7. However, weather when considered globally is now in uncharted territory. Here we show that on the basis of a single day of globally observed temperature and moisture, we detect the fingerprint of externally driven climate change, and conclude that Earth as a whole is warming. Our detection approach invokes statistical learning and climate model simulations to encapsulate the relationship between spatial patterns of daily temperature and humidity, and key climate change metrics such as annual global mean temperature or Earth’s energy imbalance. Observations are projected onto this relationship to detect climate change. The fingerprint of climate change is detected from any single day in the observed global record since early 2012, and since 1999 on the basis of a year of data. Detection is robust even when ignoring the long-term global warming trend. This complements traditional climate change detection, but also opens broader perspectives for the communication of regional weather events, modifying the climate change narrative: while changes in weather locally are emerging over decades, global climate change is now detected instantaneously.
The rest is paywalled.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It has occasionally occurred to me that there is a way to tell whether temps are changing. It is the frequency of records. Taking individual records at fixed locations on the same day each year, do the new records, whether high or low, increase in frequency or decrease. If the rate of increase is itself increasing, there is a movement in that direction. If new records are set further and further apart, that means no significant change. The data is there already, it just takes someone who knows how to do it statistically to do all the work..
Event attribution to detect the climate-change component is statistically invalid simply because they are only looking at big events after the fact. For example, in hurricane season they might test to see how much stronger hurricane Michael was because of global warming, but they never test the opposite influence to see if a strong hurricane could have developed somewhere in the ocean without global warming. Perhaps excess warming in the wrong place caused nice weather instead of a potential strong hurricane. That’s why the only way to detect the influence of climate change is to look at long-term trends.
ctm,
I did not see that anyone mentioned the Texas sharpshooter cartoon.
You get a gold star for that.
Nice. A single point can now be extrapolated into a 3-D surface extended forward infinitely in time. Next, how to sharpen knives by putting them under a pyramid.
Have you guys even read the title? I haven’t read the paper either. But have you ever considered that “at global scale” may mean something different than in your backyard? Why don’t you start by naming a date of in the last 5 years in which the global average near-surface air temperature was colder than on any day in the 1950s or 60s. And guess what, there is more than the weather in your backyard.
And guess what? There’s no such thing as “global average temperature”.
Cherry picked comparison baseline + clever abuse of autocorrelation = A Nature paper for the authors.
Junk science.
Readers may note this is the same article referred to in a post on WUWT five days ago.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/03/climate-signals-detected-in-global-weather/
The abstract posted here today gets the same response from me: Word salad.
Reality itself is a climate change denier. Therefore, we need to replace reality with the models. Then we will have a robust predictable climate catastrophe we can be proud of, designed and maintained by humans, rather than one subject to the whims of the so-called natural world. Wait, what?
If you’re a rubbish scientist and not good enough for proper science, go in for ‘climate change’ – the way to go! 🙂
Still no tropical hot-spot, catastrophe averted.
Back in the day when the scare was called “Global Warming” rather than “Climate Change”, record low temps were dismissed as being just short term local “weather”.
Now short term local weather IS “climate”?!
“…and conclude that Earth as a whole is warming.”
Groundbreaking stuff.
From the earliest days of computer processing, this is known as “Garbage In-Garbage Out.”
This is a full set up for a straw man argument. The Figures shown demonstrate it is all models, and the usual GISS or NOAA global temperature curve. It is circular reasoning and nothing else can come out of this stuff.
Quoting Paul Courtney: “A medical doctor can take your temperature, but only a climate scientist can adjust it. They can average it with the other patients, find “gaps”, infill, and find that you are catastrophically warming.”
This paper is exactly that.
The weather here right now is about 54 F (30 C) colder than it was six months ago. If “global climate change can be detected instantaneously”, based on this trend, the temperature here will reach absolute zero (-273 C) within the next 5 years, and all life here will die.
Never mind the fact that the sun was much higher above the horizon six months ago, and will be at that same angle six months into the future. Global climate change can be detected instantaneously. (sarc).
There are still no CO2 warming signals responsive to changes in CO2 at any time scale.
There are however CO2 signals responsive to (therefore coming before) global warming and cooling AT ALL TIME SCALES…down to months.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/
In related news, Michael Mann could not recreate the AMO or PDO in the “control runs” (no “forcing”) of his climate models. He has therefore concluded that these oscillations are not real.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w
Atlantic and Pacific oscillations lost in the noise
Manns models only produce hockeysticks, what else will Mickey Mouse find ? 😀
Are they using raw temperature observations?
Their “science” will fail as soon as the temperatures start decreasing.
But they could solve that by increasing the adjustments:
https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/
HOGSWILL!
Please excuse me for shouting.
They pulled this similar kind of attribution when they did a study of recent Canadian forest fires.
They only matched fires to temperatures when the temperatures are increasing and called it “attribution”. Then they did a similar stunt with Arctic ice.
William M. Briggs took a look at this paper a few days ago. He was unimpressed.
https://wmbriggs.com/post/28978/
As Briggs said, all the paper does is measure deviations from “normal”. You can expect 5% of all days to be in the 5% of extreme warmest, 5% in extreme coolest, extreme wettest, extreme driest, etc,, Theyve discovered weather “variability” rather than detecting climate change in daily temperatures,
The Climate Alarmists search for proof of any sort continues apace and has now reached greater heights of desperation and absurdity.
Pull the other one…
I think that finally the Western World has finally realised that the UN, the mostly 3 rd World members are in it for the money from the once rich nations.
Now while the Western politicians still make the talk to keep the Green voters happy, less and less money is actually going the UN way.
MJE VK5ELL
Redistributive change, diversity (e.g. racism), democratic gerrymandering, and [political] climate change.
Heck, why not from one thermometer somewhere, read once a day?