21 March 2017, The Guardian, Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’ Earth is a planet in upheaval, say scientists, as the World Meteorological Organisation publishes analysis of recent heat highs and ice lows. The record-breaking heat that made 2016 the hottest year ever recorded has continued into 2017, pushing the world into “truly uncharted territory”, according to the World Meteorological Organisation. The WMO’s assessment of the climate in 2016, published on Tuesday, reports unprecedented heat across the globe, exceptionally low ice at both poles and surging sea-level rise. Global warming is largely being driven by emissions from human activities, but a strong El Niño – a natural climate cycle – added to the heat in 2016. The El Niño is now waning, but the extremes continue to be seen, with temperature records tumbling in the US in February and polar heatwaves pushing ice cover to new lows. “Even without a strong El Niño in 2017, we are seeing other remarkable changes across the planet that are challenging the limits of our understanding of the climate system. We are now in truly uncharted territory,” said David Carlson, director of the WMO’s world climate research programme. “Earth is a planet in upheaval due to human-caused changes in the atmosphere,” said Jeffrey Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona in the US. “In general, drastically changing conditions do not help civilisation, which thrives on stability.” The WMO report was “startling”, said Prof David Reay, an emissions expert at the University of Edinburgh: “The need for concerted action on climate change has never been so stark nor the stakes so high.” The new WMO assessment also prompted some scientists to criticise Donald Trump. “While the data show an ever increasing impact of human activities on the climate system, the Trump administration and senior Republicans in Congress continue to bury their heads in the sand,” said Prof Sir Robert Watson, a distinguished climate scientist at the UK’s University of East Anglia and a former head of the UN’s climate science panel. Read More here
Category Archives: The Science
10 February 2017, Carbon Brief, Guest post: Why NOAA updates its sea surface temperature record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is one of a number of climate agencies that pieces together global temperature from thousands of measurements taken each year across the world’s land and oceans. Last weekend, an article in the Mail on Sunday sparked interest in the way NOAA constructs its temperature record. The claims in the article, widely rebutted shortly after its publication, focused on the most recent version of NOAA’s sea surface temperature (SST) record. I have been involved in the development of this dataset since 2011 and it is due to be updated again shortly. However, an early draft of the journal paper about this update appears to have been circulated amongst media without the permission of the authors (including myself). I have, therefore, decided to make some observations here in a personal capacity that may help make better sense of how the dataset is produced and what it shows. Peer review The status of the new version of our dataset – nominally labelled “ERSSTv5” – is that we have submitted a paper to a journal, and it is undergoing peer review. As is the academic norm, the authors wish to respect the review process and did not give their permission for the draft to be shared with the media. To be clear, the authors have expressly not given permission for the draft to be used or quoted in the media. To be equally clear, at this juncture, copyright of the paper remains with the authors. The peer review process on the paper has only just begun, therefore it is premature and incorrect to analyse the dataset in detail before the paper is published. Peer review is an essential step towards eventual acceptance of any new research. It is highly unusual – and, in my view, undesirable – to discuss the specifics of submitted manuscripts in a public manner before this process has concluded. Peer review will, inevitably, point out ideas which shall serve to strengthen any given analysis. I shall, therefore, not be discussing specific scientific aspects of the draft paper and shall refer to it below only to the barest extent required. If and when the paper is published, this will be the appropriate time to discuss its findings in depth and I would be delighted to do so. Read More here
11 January 2017, The Conversation, Getting a scientific message across means taking human nature into account. We humans have collectively accumulated a lot of science knowledge. We’ve developed vaccines that can eradicate some of the most devastating diseases. We’ve engineered bridges and cities and the internet. We’ve created massive metal vehicles that rise tens of thousands of feet and then safely set down on the other side of the globe. And this is just the tip of the iceberg (which, by the way, we’ve discovered is melting). While this shared knowledge is impressive, it’s not distributed evenly. Not even close. There are too many important issues that science has reached a consensus on that the public has not. Scientists and the media need to communicate more science and communicate it better. Good communication ensures that scientific progress benefits society, bolsters democracy, weakens the potency of fake news and misinformation and fulfills researchers’ responsibility to engage with the public. Such beliefs have motivated training programs, workshops and a research agenda from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine on learning more about science communication. A resounding question remains for science communicators: What can we do better? A common intuition is that the main goal of science communication is to present facts; once people encounter those facts, they will think and behave accordingly. The National Academies’ recent report refers to this as the “deficit model.” But in reality, just knowing facts doesn’t necessarily guarantee that one’s opinions and behaviors will be consistent with them. For example, many people “know” that recycling is beneficial but still throw plastic bottles in the trash. Read More here
21 December 2016, Climate Central, The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year. In a politically divisive year, there’s been one tie that has bound most of the U.S. together. We all live in the United States of Warming (USW! USW! USW!). In all likelihood, the U.S. is going to have its second-hottest year on record, trailing only 2012. Every state is slated to have a top 10 warmest year and even at the city level, unrelenting warmth has been the main story in 2016. Climate Central conducted an analysis of more than 1,730 weather stations across the Lower 48 that include daily temperature data up until Dec. 15. A paltry 2 percent are having a colder-than-normal year. That leaves 98 percent running above normal. Not only that, 10 percent of those weather stations are having their hottest year on record. Those record-hot places can be found from coast to coast. They include medium-sized cities like Asheville, N.C., Modesto, Calif., and Flint, Mich., as well as lesser-known locales like Neosho, Mo., Callahan, Calif., and Climax, Colo. While some of the heat was driven by the super El Niño earlier this year, that alone doesn’t explain all the records being set, particularly in the latter half of the year after El Niño faded. Climate change has caused the U.S. average temperature to increase about 1.5°F since the 1880s. Read More here and to access graphics