The Frog has been quiet for a while. But big things are afoot.
I’m excited and proud to announce I have a new partner on rescuethatfrog.com. Dr. Howard Creel is a scientist and co-worker. Like me, he is not a climatologist, but he has spent a number of years directing substantial attention to developing a scientific understanding of climate change. I first became aware of Howard in 2006, when he organized a series of technical presentations, called Scary Futures, at the company where we both work. Featuring lectures by globally-recognized scientific experts on subjects such as water resources, food production, global pandemics (yes!), and climate change, the series was an eye-opening exploration of how human civilization is straining Earth’s natural systems and resources on multiple fronts, with potentially scary consequences. It may not surprise you that the 2006 lecture on the potential for a global pandemic, probably originating in Asian bats, seems to have been remarkably prescient.
Like I have, Howard has long made a sort of hobby of informing himself about the science of climate change. Unlike me, Howard has actually spent a good bit of his career working on technology for renewable energy. In the photo above, he is speaking at a renewable energy professional conference. The tie he is wearing is a hand-painted tie made by Dr. Lawrence Kazmerski, Executive Director of Science & Technology at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who does a tie thing.
Howard “walks the walk” — his family home has rooftop solar panels that not only provide renewable energy for his family, but give electricity to the grid when the sun is shining on his roof and they’re not using it all. He loves sharing with me and other friends his solar power output graphs on sunny days. Howard also leads a technical club of scientists and engineers at our workplace that gets together to discuss climate change and technology and societal solutions for its manifestations, and educate other people about those topics.
So, as you can see, this represents a substantial level-up for the Frog Blog.
I know Howard will provide what you have come to expect from rescuethatfrog.com: solid, no-B.S., scientifically referenced information about our changing climate. Read more about Howard and what has inspired him on the About us page. And look for his posts. I know he’s already working on a couple you won’t want to miss.
Neither Secretary Pompeo nor President Trump has provided any significant evidence, measurements, expert reports, computations, graphs, tables, or numerals to back up their opinions based upon which they are busy making globally consequential decisions on behalf of all Americans.
In other news…
On Tuesday, a group of 11,258 scientists from 153 countries jointly published in the journal, BioScience, an open letter not-so-subtly entitled, “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” I recommend reading the entire letter, which is just 4 pages long and straightforwardly written.
“Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to ‘tell it like it is.’ On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”
“Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament … The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected … It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity … Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points and nature’s reinforcing feedbacks … that could lead to a catastrophic ‘hothouse Earth,’ well beyond the control of humans … These climate chain reactions could cause significant disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable.”
Unlike Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Trump, the scientific authors of this open letter present an abundance of data supporting their arguments. Arguing that simple global surface temperature alone is an inadequate measure of humanity’s progress on the climate (a reasonable argument, since inertia in Earth’s climate system will ensure that the excess CO2 already in the atmosphere will continue to warp Earth’s geologic state for decades and longer), the authors present a suite of 15 graphical “vital signs” measuring various aspects of human activity that affect the climate (Figure 1, reproduced below).
Figure 1 from the open letter. Panels quantitatively showing global changes in 15 measures of human activity since 1979. Sources and details about the data are provided by the authors in this supplemental file.
Similarly, they present 14 graphical panels documenting measured impacts on, or responses of, Earth’s climate system (Figure 2).
Figure 2 from the open letter. Panels quantitatively showing 14 measures of Earth’s climate responses since 1979. Sources and details about the data are provided by the authors in this supplemental file.
Finally, the authors propose 6 “critical and interrelated steps” that humanity must take to avoid the worst consequences of climate change:
Energy – Rapidly reduce CO2 emissions by leaving remaining fossil fuels in the ground and moving to renewable energy sources and improved energy conservation practices as quickly as can safely be done.
Short-lived pollutants – Vigorously reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants like methane, black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which the authors tie directly (with evidence) to the saving of millions of lives over the upcoming few decades.
Nature – Rapidly reduce ongoing losses in Earth’s biodiversity, including forests, sea grasses, and microorganisms that store large amounts of carbon. Take on reforestation efforts at large scales, which could accomplish a third of emission reductions needed to meet the 2030 Paris agreement targets.
Food – Eating more plants and less meat, particularly ruminant livestock meat (beef), would result in substantial emission reductions while simultaneously freeing up cropland currently used for feeding and grazing livestock to instead grow food for people and plant carbon-sequestering trees.
Economy
“We need a carbon-free economy that explicitly addresses human dependence on the biosphere and policies that guide economic decisions accordingly. Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality.”
Population – Strengthen policies like provision of and easy access to family-planning services, improving gender equality, and making primary and secondary education of girls ubiquitous — policies that have proven to lead to stabilization of population while simultaneously improving human rights.
“We are encouraged by a recent surge of concern … Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change, and many countries, states and provinces, cities, and businesses are responding … The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual. We believe that the prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.”
I wonder, how shrill will the warnings of scientists need to become, how strongly worded their opening paragraphs, how unambiguous the titles of their studies, how many scientific signatories will their papers require, how voluminous the data and inventive the graphical methods will they they need to employ, just how complete will their consensus need to become? How many schoolchildren will feel compelled to strike from school and how many tears will they need to shed before parliaments and international governing bodies in their efforts to call attention to the science?
How much all of that?
Before we will stop tolerating government representatives who stand in front of bouquets of microphones trolling scientists and making vapid statements about “unfair economic burdens” and “the reality of the global energy mix” while themselves living conspicuously unburdened economic lives and transparently being on the take from the similarly economically unburdened purveyors of the “current energy mix?” Before we will stop entertaining the crackpot ramblings of this or that radio personality or pseudo-scientist on Fox News questioning mainstream climate science, as if he represents an actual dispute among real scientists when real scientists author papers with hundreds or thousands or over 11,000 signatories and while the land-based ice on Greenland is quite obviously melting in great torrents and California burns? Before we will listen instead to the scientists and our own schoolchildren, who are striking because they realize they will own the consequences of the decisions we make right now and the real-world effects of climate change are so glaring as to be easily apprehended by any fourth grader?
How much evidence will be required? Before we will vote out the idiots and the profiteers, and vote in the pragmatists, the scientifically literate, the inspirational and justice-minded leaders ready to set to work on the difficult choices that need to be made and the hard but rewarding work that needs to be done?
Left: Image credit, Andrew Harnik/AP. Excerpt of President Trump’s speech announcing his intention to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. Right: Image credit, NASA.
Figure 1 from Santer, et al. (2019). Signal-to-noise ratios used for identifying a model-predicted anthropogenic fingerprint in 40 years of satellite measurements of annual-mean tropospheric temperature. The blue, red, and green lines are signal-to-noise ratios of tropospheric temperature data derived from microwave sounding units on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) polar-orbiting satellites since 1979 by three different research groups: Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), the Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR), and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). The 3σ line represents a temperature 3 standard deviations above the average temperature of early measurements; based on random variation alone, a single measurement greater than 3σ from the average would only occur 3 times in every 1000 measurements. The 5σ line represents a temperature 5 standard deviations above the average of early measurements; based on random variation alone, a single measurement greater than 5σ from the average would occur no more than once in 3.5 million measurements. Two of the data sets had surpassed the 5σ threshold by 2005, and all three data sets had surpassed the 5σ threshold by 2016.
Well, the chances are just a little bit less than that.
On Monday, a group of 11 scientists from the United States, Canada, and Scotland published a paper in the peer reviewed and competitive journal, Nature Climate Change, reviewing key accomplishments in the past 40 years of climate science since 1979.
The first was the 1979 publication of a 22-page report by the National Research Council, known informally as the “Charney Report” after the meteorologist, Jule Charney, who chaired the “ad hoc study group on carbon dioxide and climate” that produced the report attempting to synthesize all available climate research to date, identify gaps in understanding for further study, and make preliminary predictions about the extent and effects of expected global warming. Though many gaps in understanding were identified, the group’s essential prediction has aged quite well, being consistent with both earlier 1956 calculations by the physicist, Gilbert Plass (using some of the world’s first computers), and current predictions (see figure below).
Basic scientific prediction of global warming over 6 decades: • “The most recent calculations of the infra-red flux in the region of the 15 micron CO2 band show that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6°C if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled…” (G. Plass, 1956) • “We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ± 1.5°C.” (National Research Council, 1979) • “The equilibrium climate sensitivity [global average surface warming with doubling of CO2 concentration relative to pre-industrial] is likely in the range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C, extremely unlikely less than 1°C, and very unlikely greater than 6°C.” (IPCC, 2014)The claim often made or implied in popular discourse, that scientists have “changed their story” on climate change (e.g., which is it, climate change or global warming?…), is belied by the decades-long consistency of the above basic prediction, initially made simply based on a physical understanding of the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 gas.
The second accomplishment reviewed in the article was the 1979 publication of a landmark paper by Klauss Hasselmann entitled, “On the signal-to-noise problem in atmospheric response studies.” Ideas in this paper led scientists afterward to test the “fingerprints” of various hypotheses about the external causes of observed climate change signals versus random noise in the climate system. From these initial ideas sprung an entire discipline of climate science that has resulted in the testing of numerous proposed hypotheses of external climate influence vs. random variations in observed climate data.
The third accomplishment reviewed was the implementation, since 1979, of microwave sounding units on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites which measure microwave emissions from oxygen molecules in earth’s atmosphere that are proportional to temperature. The results over decades from three independent research groups, analyzing this data, are shown at the top of this post.
In the new paper, the authors note the confluence of these 3 events 40 years ago. The Charney report of 1979 analysed the best available scientific data to date and made a bold prediction about future global warming on a “business as usual trajectory,” admitting significant uncertainties. The Hasselmann paper of 1979 suggested an approach of comparing various hypotheses and their expected resulting temperature changes with those due to random noise in the climate system. The activation in 1979 of satellite systems capable of measuring atmospheric temperature provided this framework with data.
As of Monday, this work has come to fruition in a compelling way. Using methods derived from Hasselmann’s, scientists analyze the satellite temperature data, showing that random climate noise alone would generate a single measurement of the past 3 annual measurements, from 3 independent research groups, at most one out of every 3.5 million times. This is a level of certainty known in science as a 5σ threshold. Unless you’re a big time gambler, this is a pretty sure thing.
And, as I’ve posted on before, explanations other than anthropogenic global warming fail to fit the climate data at all well. The only explanation that does fit the data, which we now know would occur randomly less than once in 3.5 million times, is this — we burn fossil fuels, which introduces ancient carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere, which increases the atmosphere’s retention of reflected infrared radiation from the sun.
The prediction has remained consistent for over 6 decades, even as the evidence supporting it has piled up to the point of statistical certitude. The reason for the success of the early prediction, based only on math, a knowledge of carbon dioxide’s infrared absorption, and the world’s first computers, lies in the fact that carbon dioxide, practically alone, drives the climate change we have experienced since the Industrial Revolution.
“We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human activities have changed the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. And we know that these human‐caused changes in the levels of greenhouse gases make it easier for the atmosphere to trap heat. This is not rocket science. It is simple, basic physics.”
“An anthropogenic fingerprint of tropospheric warming is identifiable with high statistical confidence in all currently available satellite datasets … In two out of three datasets, fingerprint detection at a 5σ threshold — the gold standard for discoveries in particle physics — occurs no later than 2005, only 27 years after the 1979 start of the satellite measurements. Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals.”
–Benjamin D. Santer, Celine J. W. Bonfils, Qiang Fu, John C. Fyfe, Gabriele C. Hegerl, Carl Mears, Jeffrey F. Painter, Stephen Po-Chedley, Frank J. Wentz, Mark D. Zelinka & Cheng-Zhi Zhou, authors of the paper
“We think that this is the most extreme version and it’s not based on facts … It’s not data driven. We’d like to see something that is more data driven. It’s based on modeling, which is extremely hard to do when you’re talking about the climate.”
–White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, speaking at a White House press briefing Tuesday about the Trump Administration’s assessment of the Trump Administration’s recently released climate report
Wow! If that’s true, it’s no wonder President Trump doesn’t “believe it!”
Well, gee, let’s just have a look at that over the next few days, shall we? After all, the report is publicly available:
Claim:Global climate is changing rapidly compared to the pace of natural variations in climate that have occurred throughout Earth’s history. Global average temperature has increased by about 1.8°F from 1901 to 2016, and observational evidence does not support any credible natural explanations for this amount of warming; instead, the evidence consistently points to human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse or heat-trapping gases, as the dominant cause. –Volume II, Chapter 2: Our Changing Climate, Key Message 1
Data: Oh, look, here’s some! It’s right at the beginning of Chapter 2!
The black line in the graphs is made up of the average values of the global temperature measurements from thermometers scattered around the globe. Numbers from measurements are what we refer to in science jargon as “data.” (I’ve discussed the origins and measurement methods of that data in detail here.) Looks like the temperature has been going up since 1880, when we started really systematically burning fossil fuels.
In the top graph (a), the yellow line is a model of what scientists calculate the temperature would have been accounting only for natural processes that might change it. Volcano eruptions, tiny changes in solar energy output and Earth’s orbit. Lots of data — measured aerosol particle counts from volcanic eruptions that have occurred, and so on — go into the calculation of the yellow line, which is done with a model (that model, itself, is informed by laboratory measurements of radiation scattering by aerosol particles, etc.) There’s a pretty big difference between the black line and the yellow line in recent years — looks like natural causes can’t explain our temperature data.
The middle graph (b) considers the modeled temperature effects of all the human activities that might influence global temperature. Again, lots of data (more below) goes into these calculations. The red line is the modeled expected temperature based on all the anthropogenic (human-induced) effects and neglecting all natural causes. Not perfect, but it fits the black measurement data from our thermometers much better then the yellow line in (a).
The bottom graph (c) considers all the natural and human-induced effects to make the orange calculated line. The orange line pretty much sits right on top of the black measurements.
Sarah:“modeling … is extremely hard to do when you’re talking about the climate.”
Well, she’s right. The model isn’t perfect, and that’s why there’s an orangey cloud around the orange line in (c). The cloud represents a scientific assessment of the uncertainty in the model.
The graph above is a summary of tons of data, much of which is laid out in some detail in Volume I of the administration’s climate report, released in 2017. For example:
the global temperature has been going up since the Industrial Revolution and not really before that; and
it’s explainable mainly by emissions of greenhouse gases, and not at all explainable without accounting for greenhouse gases …
with perhaps a teeny, weeny little bit of help from a natural increase in solar irradiance.
In fact, the claim at the top appears to be nothing if not “data driven!”
Sarah seems to doubt the veracity of the model — the orange line and uncertainty cloud in graph (c) — for making forecasts about the future. I mean, it’s not perfect. Maybe Sarah doesn’t like the way the black line squiggles down while the orange line squiggles up around the year 1910. Point taken.
But, assuming the quality of life of my children and grandchildren, and the future survival of human civilization on Earth, might well depend on decisions we make right now, the question is, is the orange model good enough to make those decisions?
Sarah “would like to see something that is more data driven.” Well, we could wait and go on with business as usual, as Sarah seems to suggest, until we just make more temperature measurements clear out to the year 2100 and beyond. Then, we would have all the data. Our conclusions about fossil fuel combustion and the climate would be precisely and perfectly “data driven!” No models required! Great idea!
“This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”
President Johnson was concerned about the dangers of CO2 emissions, enough to address Congress about it, having been briefed by two scientists, Charles Keeling and Roger Revelle. If you’ve followed my Brief History of Climate Science, you’ll recognize their names from Episodes 3 and 4. This is what Charles Keeling’s curve of his direct measurements of global atmospheric CO2 concentration looked like back then:
It was a subtle rise, but I have no doubt Keeling and Revelle explained to the President that it was statistically significant, consistent with calculated fossil fuel usage, and linked to measured increases in global temperature that had long been theoretically predicted to result from such CO2 increases. Apparently, President Johnson was convinced.
As a result of Johnson and other presidents believing scientists — both Republicans and Democrats — we have done a lot of constructive things over the past 5 decades. We’ve conducted research and development to create more sustainable ways of harvesting the sun’s energy. These sustainable methods are now developed to the point of economical viability. We (the United States) have led the world in inadvertently causing this challenge, recognizing this challenge, and moving to develop superior technologies to address this challenge.
Now, the evidence looks like this:
“Keeling Curve,” a plot of weekly atmospheric CO2 measurements made by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at Mauna Loa, Hawaii from 1958 to present. The curve was plotted by me using Scripps weekly data from the Mauna Loa observatory, downloaded here.
We also know it’s even worse, because data from ice cores shows the CO2 increases were already well underway before Keeling started his direct measurements. And the matching temperature record looks like this:
