Met Office Climate Scientist: “Apocalyptic Predictions” Of Climate Change Can Impede Understanding Of Long-Term Warming Trends
17 February 2009
Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the UK Met Office Hadley Center, has called upon scientists and journalists to guard against extrapolating short-term accelerations in otherwise steady warming trends, as well as projecting the specific timing of climatic “tipping points” such as the disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice based on such extrapolations.
News headlines vie for attention and it is easy for scientists to grab this attention by linking climate change to the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction. But in doing so, the public perception of climate change can be distorted. The reality is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and climate combine with long-term climate change. This message is more difficult to get heard. Scientists and journalists need to find ways to help to make this clear without the wider audience switching off.
—Dr. Vicky Pope, Met Office
| “When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living, we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply, it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.” —Dr. Vicky Pope |
Pope pointed out as an example that while 1998 was one of the hottest years on record, as long-term anthropogenic warming combined with a naturally occurring strong El Niño, temperatures from 1990 to 1998 alone cannot accurately be extrapolated to project future warming. At the same time, the difference in temperature between 1998 and the cooler 2008 year, which was affected by a La Niña, does not show an overall cooling trend; 2008 was still the tenth warmest year on record.
The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.
A study by Switzerland’s Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology noted that mainland Europe has warmed about 1 ºC since the 1980s, an increase that is fully half of the 2 ºC warming that is most commonly cited as the threshold of dangerous climate change, as compared to pre-industrial times. The study found that anthropogenic aerosols which reflected sunlight have declined by as much as 60% since the 1980s, as measured at sites in Switzerland and Northern Germany, and that the “solar brightening” from those aerosols had produced an amplifying effect on surface forcings. With aerosols now at historically low levels, future warming on a decade-by-decade scale is more likely to hew closer to the projected long-term warming trends.
Long-term climate models typically project greater than normal fluctuations in extreme weather events as a warming climate is driven to a new equilibrium. Given the complexity and inertia of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, as well as uncertainty about the rate of future emissions, that process is projected to play out across centuries. A recent study estimated that even in the absence of future anthropogenic forcings, stabilization of global surface temperatures would take a millennia or more. (Earlier post.)
While “tipping elements” (earlier post) such as the shutdown of the ocean’s thermohaline cycle (popularly referred to as its “conveyer belt”), dieback of the Amazonian forest, or thawing of permafrost are of significant concern to scientists, modeling such events has proved difficult. Assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not included projected effects of such events in their projections.
One potential tipping element is the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet. While the amount of ice that Greenland lost last summer was nearly three times what was lost in the previous year, (earlier post) recent measurements show that the acceleration in the rate of melting has stopped across the region.
This has been picked up on the climate sceptics’ websites. Again, natural variability has been ignored in order to support a particular point of view, with climate change advocates leaping on the acceleration to further their cause and the climate change sceptics now using the slowing down to their own benefit. Neither group is right and all that is achieved is greater confusion among the public. What is true is that there will always be natural variability in the amount of ice around Greenland and that as our climate continues to warm, the long-term reduction in the ice sheet is inevitable.
For climate scientists, having to continually rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme is all due to climate change is, at best, hugely frustrating and, at worst, enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening. Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades.
—Vicky Pope
Vicky Pope is responsible for providing Climate Change advice from the Met Office Hadley Centre to Government. She has specific responsibility for delivering the Integrated Climate Programme, which is funded by the UK government’s Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Ministry of Defence, together with some smaller contracts for other government departments and the European Union.
Pope earned her PhD in Meteorology in 1990 from the University of Reading. She joined the Met Office in 1982 and became a manager of stratospheric research in 1991 and of climate model development in 1996. She has been a program manager in climate research since 2002.
Lets not frighten the women and children, shall we.
This reminds me of the bit in Monty Python's Holy Grail: It's only a flesh wound.
Posted by: dursun | 17 February 2009 at 09:17 AM
.
Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice
Nice... It's about time that they publish their big $$$$ link right up front. This person rakes in money by talking about Global Warming®, now rebranded Climate Change® since human caused Global Warming® has been shown to be false. Climate Change® can be anything, so, one is always correct. How awesome is that?!?!
It's also nice that the editorial piece talked about the 1980's and not the 1930's which were as hot as the 1980's, without the CO2 that we have today. Thanks for leaving that out. Information helps to ruin the AGW cause so certain information must be suppressed.
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 17 February 2009 at 09:55 AM
Goracle
Your are so pityful in your blind denial and your hate for the facts when they are agaisnt your own stupid beliefs.
Again this site is for people who care about AWG , peak oil, polluting emission of cars and who are interested in technical solutions to mitigate these risks. And I ould like to thanks Green Car Congress for the wonderful work in carrying valualble and extensive informations.
Again if you are a Green hater, Global warming naysayer, california hater, peak oil denier or all of this together like Goracle and Stan Peterson (who are probably the same person)
What are you doing on this site ?
Posted by: Treehugger | 17 February 2009 at 10:34 AM
Oh, we had high temperatures during the 1930s but CO2 levels were lower. I guess that disproves AGW does it?
Why are there so many morons at this site?
Posted by: Marcus | 17 February 2009 at 10:47 AM
Suggestion: All skeptics and cultists go to the 2008 Weblog Best Science Site and get some real scientists talking about real climate facts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
More refreshing than a cold winter day...
Posted by: sulleny | 17 February 2009 at 12:11 PM
.
Name calling is always the best argument for AGW ("hater," "moron"). Thank you for that. It's comforting to see that the tactics have not changed. Name calling = science in the AGW world! :)
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 17 February 2009 at 12:24 PM
Goracle
You didn't answer my question : what are you doing on this site firing on every article of Green Car Congress that aim to report about AGW and associated risk? maybe is that you like to be insulted ? then why are you complaining.
Again this site is for people who are intersted in discussing about solutions to mitiate risk of AWG and other emissions induced by transportations as well as reduction of oil dependancy, you have no interest in all this then walk away.
Posted by: Treehugger | 17 February 2009 at 02:30 PM
Bad form boys.
"What [is The Goracle] doing on this site ?"
You answered it yourself.
He's "firing on every article of Green Car Congress".
If every one of these articles is not posted for comment, why are they.
Why do you feel empowered to decree that “this site is for people who are interested in discussing about solutions to mitigate risk of AWG and other emissions induced by transportations as well as reduction of oil dependency”
If you enter another post, you might run your finger up the screen and read
“Disagreement is fine; insults, abuse or wild diversions are not.”
Further research would reveal “Green Car Congress’ mission is to provide timely, high-quality editorial about the full spectrum of energy options, technologies, products, issues and policies related to sustainable mobility.”
Why are there so many morons at this site?"
In this case because you didn't use one of the prohibited words.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 17 February 2009 at 07:26 PM
There are outright insults and then there are insults to one's intelligence. I would argue the latter are just as offensive.
Posted by: Marcus | 17 February 2009 at 07:40 PM
Of course climate is changing. It always did. And there is no doubts that global climate warmed in 20 century. No doubts also that CO2 concentrations increased, at least for last 70 years. No respected scientist doubts that increased CO2 in atmosphere warms the Earth. Most scientists agree that combustion of fossil fuels is major reason for increase of atmospheric CO2. Renowned climate scientist and outspoken critic of climate catastrophism, Dr. Sherwood Idso (host of CO2science.com) is exactly of such opinion. Remarkably, he is the one who performed analysis of “natural experiments” to determine climate sensitivity. His conclusion, described in this simply worded and incredibly interesting article, is that Earth climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm is less than 0.4 degree Celsius:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
The real questions are to what degree CO2 warms the climate, and how warming climate will affect biosphere and humanity. The simple answer is: we do not know. But we do know that catastrophic predictions are pure speculation. And we do know that climate change and its consequences are very slow (like ice shields melting).
Posted by: Andrey Levin | 17 February 2009 at 10:10 PM
.
Treehugger said: "Again this site is for people who are intersted in discussing about solutions to mitiate risk of AWG...
Your question was answered by more than one post. Also, you made multiple false statements in various posts. Some have been pointed out already. One is that I am "firing on every article of Green Car Congress." Please do your research (is it as bad here as your AGW research?) and you will see that I post to maybe one in ten articles. I post to most diesel/biodiesel articles. Also, I post to the articles that have very little to do with green cars: yes AGW articles.
Treehugger - if you are the moderator, ban me because I dispute the big money (taken from tax payers, normally) dumped into Global Warming and would prefer that it be spent wisely on energy independence and cleaning up pollution. My opinions are not that of yours and we all know that some people are intolerant of differing views.
Also, since this is a "Green Car" site, unless you walk everywhere I am probably more green than you. I drive a VW diesel running on waste vegetable oil and get 50 mpg. So, do you walk? Do you also get 50+ mpg using fuel that would have been wasted? Or, do you burn the eeeevvviiilllll Big Oil product - gasoline?
I have no lawn (wooded lot) so don't pollute with an IC engine lawn mower - terrible pollution emitting devices. I assume, being the superior "green" person that you are, that no IC engines are used to maintain the land around your place of residence, correct?
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 18 February 2009 at 08:11 AM
Goracle
Because you only make valid statement...truly laughalble
anyway, I didn't write "firing on every article of Green car congress" I wrote "firing on every article of Green car congress reporting on AGW and associated risk" please don't distort my words.
I don't care what you drive, but it you are interested I drive a Honda Accord that I drive very conservatively, I commute regularly biking (20 miles yes), I don't eat red meat,I don't own a house so no grass (water wasting and boring) no lawn mawner (noisy and polluting), I don't drive at all during vacation (because I am sick of driving) practice sailing and windsurfing instead, I recycle glass and plastic, and my next car will be a full hybrid soon, so your oil powered diesel jetta still pollutes waayyyy more than my ultra-efficient recumbent bike.
Posted by: Treehugger | 18 February 2009 at 09:03 AM
Because you only make valid statement...truly laughalble
My only language is English so I'll have to let your above statement go without comment.
I drive a Honda Accord
You support Big Oil and kill the planet because your car is not green. Hypocrite.
sailing and windsurfing
Majority petroleum product (sail and hull - unless you strictly use hand cut and carved boats as well as non-machine harvested, hand sewn, cotton sails as well as ropes). You support Big Oil by sailing. It is "killing the planet." Hypocrite.
You play the holier-0than-thou game but it turns out that you are killing the planet with your lifestyle choices. You are a hypocrite. But that's OK as long as you lambaste people not on the politically correct side of an issue, right?
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 18 February 2009 at 11:24 AM
Goracle
Your Jetta with vegetable oil is even more an hypocrisy because we know that this not a solution, just a distraction at best to make you think you are better than the rest of the world, but you are not, this is just a strategy of the head in the sand.
And I didn't start the "greener than you hypocrite" game. As a matter of fact you did. I just said that you are not welcome on this site if it is just to fire on any article that report on AGW or oil depletion and related topic (and on which you should better educate yourself by the way cause you are pretty ignorant)
Posted by: Treehugger | 18 February 2009 at 06:24 PM
"I just said that you are not welcome on this site...blah blah, blah"
Sorry tree. Your true colors are just too filled with hate to ignore. No offense. Are you familiar with Attila the Hun?
Posted by: sulleny | 18 February 2009 at 06:48 PM
Sulleny
What hate are you refering too ? except in your post and in Goracle's post I don't see any
Posted by: Treehugger | 18 February 2009 at 09:49 PM
"Neither group is right and all that is achieved is greater confusion among the public. What is true is that there will always be natural variability in the amount of ice around Greenland and that as our climate continues to warm, the long-term reduction in the ice sheet is inevitable.
Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening. Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades.
Pope earned her PhD in Meteorology in 1990."
Go Vickey !
I heartily agree when we see the petty bickering as I've just read.
Gotta laugh, the denialists are a pretty organised group, not really interested in anything more than spoiling.(by trying to distract the conversation from the topic using personal attacks and many obnoxious bullying behaviours)
One would hope that everyone could learn from the articles and get a feel for the situation.
Treehugger the other understanding we glean is the paid or otherwise aspect of human nature and groupism, where dogma and holier than though attitudes against any perceived "weakness?" makes the whole issue a fair target.
This is no different to racism or an anti - intellectualism where the holder of these ideas are simply unable to conceive of a world where maybe they aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer and others may hold valid views.
Then they try to re find immense satisfaction they otherwise only find by keeping a mouse on a very short string.
Posted by: arnold | 19 February 2009 at 12:17 AM
Arnold
As you said, the denialists are pretty well ogranized group, just like the creationists in their fight against evolution theory more than 150 years after it was discovered. They use the same type of strategy by the way, as you point out : trying to distract the conversation by personnal attacks but also focusing on weaknesses in the theory to try to disproof the all things.
Posted by: Treehugger | 19 February 2009 at 10:19 AM
.
by trying to distract the conversation from the topic using personal attacks and many obnoxious bullying behaviours
Thank you for pointing out what Treehugger, Marcus, and, well - yes, you have done. Rather than discuss the topic at hand you all start name calling (yes, if you can read you can scan down through the posts and see who has been using "hater," and "moron." When it comes to a logical discussion regarding Global Warming (please name one person that claims that Earth's climate in not changing and/or has never changed - there is not one) the AGW people have no choice but to resort to name calling. Or claim that the "science" can not be discussed - so "shut up." Strong argument, huh? LOL!!
Not on person has responded to (other than, once again mock the statement) the 1930's being as hot as the "record" 1990-2000 years while CO2 levels were lower.
The AGW are the "distraction" people with their name calling and changing the subject (stop posting!) as can bee read in these posts.
Feel free to call me names, attempt to mock me off of this board, etc. I think rather than emote so your childish tantrums will not work. Your emotional screeds will work on many - for a time. Then they will realize that you are wrong and leave you behind for actual science.
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 19 February 2009 at 01:53 PM
Goracle, let's start with temperature:
http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3070.aspx
Posted by: Kelly | 19 February 2009 at 09:32 PM
Goracle
Ah because being a AGW denialist means you are a top scientist who knows more than others, interesting but not really convincing...
And if you are trying to disproof AGW with your hot temperature of 1930, first you are in bad shape, 2nd you should do your resarch because AGW is a long term trend and can't be discarded with temporary warm or cold periods (unfortunately).
Again you are free to believe that AWG is wrong like you can believe that intelligent design is true, nothing wrong with that, but then don't try to be seen as top knowledgable scientist.
Posted by: Treehugger | 19 February 2009 at 11:25 PM