Earth to Jacoby: I Got Your Global Warming Right Here

authordefault
on

Not to let himself be outdone by his skeptic colleague in good standing, George Will, The Boston Globeโ€™s Jeff Jacoby has penned an equally vacuous and misinformed column posing the thought-provoking question: โ€œWhereโ€™s globalย warming?โ€

Itโ€™s hard to know where to start. From the outset, I was tempted to just rehash my previous post about โ€œglobal coolingโ€ and climate variability or to mine Mitchellโ€™s George Will debunking posts for some good material. (This line, in particular, answers his question rather well: โ€œIn other words: if you want to see climate change, look out the window.โ€) In light of some of his other claims about global temperatures and Arctic sea ice, however, I thought Iโ€™d do some of my own snooping.

First, to give Jacoby his due, he is correct in stating that 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade and that the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) acknowledged a few weeks ago that an error in one of its satellite sensors had caused it to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles (500,000 square kilometers) by mid-February. And, yes, Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis did note in their study that the recent cooling period appeared โ€œunprecedented over the instrumentalย period.โ€

Jacobyโ€™s problem, and that of his fellow know-nothings, is that he never elaborates on these points. Take the NSIDC data. While he doesnโ€™t state it explicitly, Jacobyโ€™s intent in citing the error is to generally cast doubt on the reliability of satellites and other climate monitoringย technologies.

Itโ€™s certainly true that these advanced devices occasionally malfunction, which is why scientists regularly verify their progress, but, on the whole, they are very good at what they do. And though 500,000 square kilometers is not an insignificant figure, it bears repeating that the total Arctic sea ice extent for the month of February was 14.8 million square kilometers.

Nor did the error significantly affect the accuracy of NSIDCโ€™s time series numbers, as Bill Chapman, a University of Illinois climate scientist explained to The Loomโ€™s Carl Zimmer:

โ€œAs one check, we have been comparing our time series with those from the independent data source AMSR-E. They are just about identical so we are comfortable that our time series remain solid. Our time series and therefore the statement are unaffected by the recent satellite problems. If the sensor degrades a lot more, our numbers will be affected, but to date, they areย not.โ€

More important, unlike its critics, the NSDIC quickly recognized its error and released a detailed analysis explaining how the satellite sensor had erred and what its impact on the data was. Another critical point that the deniers ignore: This type of near-real-time data never makes its way into the peer-reviewed literature and therefore has no bearing on the validity of past and current studies. As the analysisย notes:

โ€œAs discussed above, near-real-time products do not undergo the same level of quality control as the final archived products, which are used in scientific research published in peer-reviewedย journals.โ€

Jacobyโ€™s claim that 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade also misses the point and perfectly illustrates deniersโ€™ tendency to cherry pick the data. As both Joe Romm and Greenfyreโ€™s Mike Kaulbars have pointed out, 2008 also happened to be the tenth hottest year onย record.

Indeed, Jacobyโ€™s point seems even more irrelevant when you consider that this has been the hottest decade to date so far according to NASA, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Hadley Center. Moreover, the six warmest years in NASAโ€™s record have all fallen within the last decade, and, as all scientists agree, global mean temperatures have been steadily increasing over the last 150ย years.ย 

The warmest year to date did occur in 1998, but that was largely due to the disproportionate influence of the El Niรฑo โ€“ Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal, as RealClimateโ€™s Gavin Schmidt noted last year.

Removing the signal, as Gavin did, tells a slightly differentย story:

โ€œThe basic picture over the long term doesnโ€™t change. The trends over the last 30 years remain though the interannual variability is slightly reduced (as youโ€™d expect). The magnitude of the adjustment varies between +/-0.25ยบC. You can more clearly see the impacts of the volcanoes (Agung: 1963, El Chichon: 1982, Pinatubo: 1991). Over the short term though, it does make a difference. Notably, the extreme warmth in 1998 is somewhat subdued, as is last winterโ€™s coolness. The warmest year designation (now in the absence of a strong El Niรฑo) is more clearly seen to be 2005 (in GISTEMP) or either 2005 or 2001 (in HadCRUT3v). This last decade is still the warmest decade in the record, and the top 8 or 10 years (depending on the data source) are all in the last 10ย years!โ€

Jacobyโ€™s complaint that the mainstream media has largely ignored the โ€œrecent cold phenomenaโ€ is hogwash, of course. As Joe and others have noted, it has actually been quite the contrary, with even The New York Times and The Guardian reporting on the โ€œunprecedentedโ€ย cooling.

He ends the column on this conciliatory note: โ€œDogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those arenโ€™t the tools we need.โ€ Good advice, Jeff. Now followย it.

Related Posts

on

As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau once said back in 2015, โ€˜the atmosphere doesnโ€™t care where carbon is emitted.โ€™

As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau once said back in 2015, โ€˜the atmosphere doesnโ€™t care where carbon is emitted.โ€™
on

Immad Ahmed explains how "human-centered design" is helping displaced people in South Sudan and Bangladesh overcome daunting odds.

Immad Ahmed explains how "human-centered design" is helping displaced people in South Sudan and Bangladesh overcome daunting odds.
on

Oil and gas majors are splashing the cash in order to have a presence at the flagship climate talks in Azerbaijan.

Oil and gas majors are splashing the cash in order to have a presence at the flagship climate talks in Azerbaijan.
Analysis
on

The flagship summit is at risk of turning into a tool for authoritarian petrostates.

The flagship summit is at risk of turning into a tool for authoritarian petrostates.