The Crisis Report - 04
The Crisis Report - 04
How 1.2C became "the number" for the amount the Earth has warmed.
Part Two:
In my previous post. I discussed how difficult it can be, to figure out how agencies like NOAA and GISS arrived at 1.2C as “the number” for the amount of Global Warming since 1850. Their explanation seems so convoluted as to be incomprehensible.
What you need to know:
The major thing to understand, is that they shifted from measuring warming from 1850, when the “Industrial Period” had been agree upon as starting, to 1880. Or, as GISS nebulously likes to say “ the late 19th century”.
This is highly significant.
1880 was the hottest year of the 19th century. By a lot.
Using 1880 as your Y-Axis on a Climate Chart shaves about 0.5C off of the total amount of Global Warming since 1850.
I wanted to know why they did this. I was trying to understand why their explanation of how much warming there has been made no sense. So, I started digging.
They don't make it easy.
For one thing, they never mention this shift directly.
The GISS and NOAA never refer to this shift anywhere that I find publicly available. I spent days looking. So, what do they say about how they decided 1.2C was the “OFFICIAL” number for where we are with Global Warming?
Deconstructed their position is that the global temperature has increased 1.2℃ since the “late 19th century” and they have all sorts of studies, data, and analysis that proves it. Since they never directly say that “late 19th century” means 1880, you must glean that from their graphics.
Which, since they don’t show the entire 19th century, do not make clear that 1880 was the hottest year of the entire 19th century.
Still, they are not lying. If you start in 1880, the world has warmed up 1.2℃, the science on that is clear. That wasn’t the question though. The question was, why the switch from 1850 to 1880 as the baseline?
That’s the question they never answer.
One answer for this “policy change” comes surprisingly from an article in Forbes; “Exactly How Much Has the Earth Warmed? And Does It Matter?” published September 2018. I encourage you to read it.
Written by a University of Houston Energy Fellow it is the climate equivalent of the post 2000 election, “you need to just move on” statement. The basic argument deconstructs as follows:
Both sides are biased — Those making the argument for a higher number claim it is important because it shows we are already closer to the targets of 1.5° and 2.0° above preindustrial temperatures established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and therefore greater cuts in future carbon emissions are necessary. Those supporting the lower figure believe the 1.5° target can be met with less stringent reductions.
1850 was an arbitrary choice — The debate exists in part because the UNFCCC did not define preindustrial when setting the targets. What does “preindustrial” mean anyway? You can make an argument that it should be 1740, or 1820, or 1880. Each of these dates shifts the goalposts. We should pick a date all of us can agree on.
Many people don’t agree with 1850 — There was no “worldwide” network of weather stations in 1850. So, the temperature measurements from 1850–1880 are uneven in both number and quality. Attempts to “fix” the data are always going to be biased and using it typically adds 0.4℃-0.6℃ to the amount of global warming that has occurred. We cannot move forward until we have a starting point that everyone agrees with and “many people” will never agree with 1850.
An exact value doesn’t matter — Although there are some out-of-the-mainstream views to the contrary, there is strong evidence the Earth has warmed about 1° C since preindustrial times. Uncertainties in the data and lack of agreement on a reference date make it impossible to give a precise value.
1880 is a baseline we can all agree on — By 1880, a global network of weather stations using standardized equipment had been established. This makes it the most logical baseline for measuring global warming from CO2. Which, we can then agree, is 1.2℃. It’s unfortunate that 1880 was the hottest year of the 19th century but that’s the year we started getting solid measurements. Being able to agree on the data and stop arguing about it is the most important thing at this point.
We need to work together, using 1880 lets us do that — This shift is actually good for those who subscribe to the belief that fossil fuels are the primary or sole cause of this warming. If you really believe that it is urgent to reduce fossil fuel usage, then you understand how important that it is to stop fighting each other over a “few tenths of a degree that no one cares about” and start doing the real work of making that happen.
Not agreeing with 1880 as the baseline makes you part of the problem at this point.
Now image it’s 2017, the Trumpublicans have come to power, and you are the head of GISS. What’s your “Prime Directive”?
Preserving the organization is your prime concern.
You do not want to be the director who gets the organization defunded and disbanded. If your organization collapses on “your watch” you are a failure. Credibility can be regained, if you get defunded there’s no coming back.
You do what it takes to keep your organization alive, to ensure organizational continuity. That’s a director’s job, their real mission statement.
Agreeing on 1880 as a baseline date and setting global warming at 1.2℃ can be seen as a compromise. Some people wanted it higher; some people wanted it lower. You can look at this as “splitting the difference”.
Elections have consequences.
The Trumpublican win in 2016 gave them the power to set the baseline year for measuring global warming and by doing so, set the number for the amount of global warming, “since the late 19th century”.
If you thought it would be more “science based” you are being naïve. Science is done by people and is funded by even more people. People are social, political creatures.
There is always a political component in science just like everything else. The Climate Deniers and Climate Action Resistors in the Trumpublican party took advantage of their power to force the Climate Change narrative into something that “low-balled” the amount of warming that has occurred.
They used the credibility of the GISS to make sure it was accepted by the mainstream media.
The scientists who vehemently disagreed with this, left the agency. Like hundreds of others who resigned at dozens of other agencies during the Trump years.
Science ranks grow thin in Trump Administration
When scientific agencies get politicized. Some people get upset and quit rather than compromise their integrity.
However, politics is also about getting things done.
The argument that it’s more important to start taking action to decarbonize the US economy “right now”. Rather than continuing to fight about it, is a powerful one. Doing something, even if it is inadequate, is better than continuing to do nothing. You can always “ramp up” in the future as the threat becomes more apparent.
If you are the director of GISS going along with this, was not the worst thing in the world.
The organization was preserved. They lived, “to fight another day” and everyone now has a number that they can accept and work with.
That’s how “global warming” was set at 1.2℃.
The numbers in the IPCC report are generated in a similar manner. Which is why Gretta Thunberg is not completely wrong when she calls them “bullshit”.
They systematically understate the degree and severity of the problem because they represent political compromises. Compromises controlled, for the most part, by people who want to minimize social disruption and maximize the length of time required for the transition to a post fossil fuel economy.
Which is why global warning probably looks more like this:
Which is based on NOAA’s old statements that the Earth’s temperature has risen by roughly:
0.07° C per decade on average between 1850–1980
0.18° C per decade between 1981–2010
and, 1.1℃ since 1980.
Viewed this way. It’s clear that there has been almost 2℃ of warming since 1850 when we started dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Than the GISS version.
Which is based on the confusing statement by NOAA and GISS that;
Warming between 1880 and 2020 was 0.08℃ per decade “on average”.
With actual warming of 0.18℃ per decade since 1980.
So that, 2/3 of “global warming” has occurred between 1980 and 2020 and the total amount of global warming is between 1.0 and 1.2℃ above “the late 19th century”.
As a reality check, what does the paleoclimate data suggest the amount of warming will be?
The atmospheric burden of CO2 is now comparable to where it was during the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when CO2 was close to, or slightly above 400 ppm. During that time, sea level was about 78 feet higher than today, the average temperature was 7℉ or 3.89℃ higher than in preindustrial times, and studies indicate large forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra.
Which chart do you think is more accurate?
This is what I see.
This is my analysis.
This is my “Crisis Report”.
-rc