Willing a World Without Warming

Watching George Will try to get to grips with the science of climate change is a little like watching a drunk trying to fit his keys into the lock. Oh, occasionally he'll get close, but you know that he doesn't really know what he's doing, even though he thinks that he does.

His latest contribution, published in the Washington Post on Thursday, returned to his favorite theme: That because the hottest year on record was 1998, which was eleven years ago, global warming must be a myth.

To be fair, he used in his defense - indeed as the central thrust of his column - an article by Andrew Revkin of the New York Times that asserted that some scientists are concerned that an apparent "plateauing" of surface temperatures over the past decade, (and even the possibility that such a plateau may continue for several more years - or that there may even be a cooling over the next decade or so) may confuse the lay audience and make it harder for push for reductions in fossil fuel emissions.

Will proceeds to confirm those concerns by taking those statements, demonstrating his utter confusion over climate science and implying the lack of need for reductions in fossil fuel emissions.

Ay, but here's the rub. There are some real problems with Revkin's piece, not the least of which is whether many scientists do in fact believe that global temperatures will plateau or decline in the short term. Joseph Romm over at Climate Progress addresses those problems in a more skillful, lengthy and detailed manner than can I, and for the point by point rebuttal I recommend you check out his blog.

But there's another point, which Romm also raises, and which rather takes the legs out from under Will's claim that there has been an "absence of significant warming since 1998."

The graphic at top is from the Hadley Center for Climate Protection and Research, part of the United Kingdom's Meteorological Office. As you can see, it does indeed show 1998 as the warmest year on record, followed closely by 2005. But what, to a denier like Will, might look like a plateau, looks to me more like expected inter-annual variability, while on a decadal time scale, the temperature increase is significant and clear. The folks at Hadley have even thoughtfully color-coded two-decade blocks; I'm colorblind and even I can see the message. The really, really red years: They're the hot ones, and they're recent. The 15 hottest years on record have been since 1991, and eight of the ten hottest have been since 2001.

Now here's where it gets really interesting. The lower graph is from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which also maintains a record of global temperatures. Its measurements differ slightly from the Hadley Center's, because Hadley does not include the Arctic Ocean basin, where temperatures have been rising the most (but where there are of course no permanent weather stations), whereas NASA kinda guesstimates Arctic temperatures based on the nearest land measurements.

You add that into the equation and things look a little different. According to NASA, the hottest year on record is 2005, followed by 1998 and 2007. The past decade is set to be approximately 0.2 degrees C warmer than the last decade, whereas the 1990s were "only" 0.14 C warmer than the 1980s.

In other words, warming is accelerating. Well, how 'bout that?

Will, of course, does not mention this. Nor does he mention that, according to the National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the surface of the ocean was warmer this August than in any recorded August before, and that the averaged June-July-August temperatures were the warmest ever recorded for that time period.  

What's especially comic or tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that Will issues a clarion call for a national commission to hear the evidence on climate change - which, bizarrely, he thinks those of us who are rational on the climate change issue "alarmists" would oppose because it would tear our position to shreds. (Hey, give him this much: He seems to genuinely believe that which he spouts).

But, as the Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out in a retort to Will's column, just this past June, the federal government produced a report on the impacts of global climate change in the United States. Among its key findings: Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced; climate changes  are underway in the United States and are expected to grow; and widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.

Don't expect the mountain of evidence contrary to their positions to prevent Will and his ilk from continuing to cherry-pick data that they assert disproves the hardening consensus on global warming. With a climate bill forming in the Senate, and the Copenhagen treaty negotiations looming, the cries of denial are only going to grow louder.