Is Climate Change Accelerating? Leading Scientists Clash On The Issue

Famed climate scientist James Hansen worryingly says
climate change is accelerating, but other top
scientists aren't so sure about that. 

Two of the nation's top climate experts are clashing politely on a subject that will deeply affect all of us

Are things bad, or really bad?

More specifically, is climate change accelerating, or is it still a steady, dreadful uphill climb?

Either option is of course sub-optimal  for us, to say the least. 

 If the world keeps warming at the pace it's been for the past several decades, we can expect more and longer deadly heat waves, worse storms, rising sea levels and politically destabilizing climate mass migration.  

If the pace of climate change is increasing, all of the above problems will be that much worse. 

This all started last week when famed former NASA scientist James Hansen said that the pace of climate change has steepened by 50 percent since 2010.  

Hansen, you might recall, first alerted the American public and put climate change front and center in the nation's conversation during dramatic Congressional testimony he provided back in 1988.

Hansen's main argument now is there is more sun energy in the atmosphere after 2010 thanks to efforts to cut pollution. The downside of less pollution are less sooty particles - known as aerosols - to bounce the sun's heat back out to space, so warming increases. 

As the Associated Press reports:

"Hansen's study said from 1970 to 2010, the world warmed at a rate of 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade, but projects that would increase to a rate of at least 0.27 degree Celsius per decade after 2010. NOAA data shows that 0.27 degrees is the rate since September, 2010."

So much goes on in the atmosphere, both via climate change and natural processes, it's easy to get into the weeds. It's hard to parse out what's a temporary thing, what's climate change, what's some other influence. 

There are bursts in which the global climate warming accelerates, and we are in one now. El Nino boosts global temperatures.  A record breaking volcanic eruption in Tonga back in January, 2022 threw an unprecedented amount of water vapor high up into the stratosphere. 

So, climate change, El Nino, and to a much lesser extent Tonga and new sulfur pollution rules are boosting this year's global temperatures  to what will be the hottest on record. 

Michael Mann, one of the world's leading climate
scientists, respects James Hansen but is highly
skeptical of Hansen's assertion that climate
change is accelerating. 

Another very strong El Nino occurred in 2015-16 and that boosted global temperatures to what were then record levels.

 El Nino transitioned to a cooler La Nina in the late 2010s and the first couple years of the 2020s, so the rate of warming temporarily leveled off somewhat during that period. 

After Hansen's study came out  another titan of climate change science, University of Pennsylvania scientist Michael Mann posted a rebuttal to Hansen. While careful to note he has deep respect for Hansen, Mann thinks Hansen's hypothesis is overblown.  

The Washington Post reports:

"Mann argued that the ocean's heat content is growing steadily, but  - in contrast to Hansen and his co-authors - is not accelerating. Mann also cited data showing that there does not appear to be a sudden shift in pollution from aerosols  over the past few years. Other researches have found a decline in aerosol pollution from cleaning up shipping would only shift global temperatures by 0.05 to 0.06 Celsius."

That said, Mann did note, "It has always been risky to ignore (Hansen's) warnings and admonitions." However, Manns also but also said of Hansen's new research: "The standard is high when you're challenging scientific understanding.....And I don't think they've met that standard, by a long shot."

Mann isn't exactly relaxed about the whole business of climate change though. The steady state increase  without an acceleration of the pace "is bad enough," he said. 

Another key difference between Hansen and Mann is that Hansen tiptoed into the realm of policy advocacy in his recent study. That's not typically what scientists do. Scientists will say "this is happening" and leave it to politicians, the public and the world in general to decide what to do about it. 

Hansen suggests some geo-engineering - namely deliberately putting those aerosols back up into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight. 

Mann is still old school. He doesn't believe scientists should put policy recommendations in their peer reviewed studies. Mann also thinks Hansen's geo-engineering ideas are actually dangerous and could backfire on humankind. 

All this must seem like a gossip column about scientists, or some weird click bait that gets views by highlighting conflict.

But the dispute between Hansen and Mann is in an odd way reassuring. It's how science is supposed to work. Scientists do fresh studies, other scientists question those studies. That yields further studies in an attempt to see who's right. All this is done without screaming matches or manufactured outrage. 

It's two respected scientists who respect each other, but disagree on one aspect of their work. That the two are trying to find more answers to climate change is good, even if the subject they're studying is very, very bad. 

 

Public Pressure Reverses Twitter Plan To Throttle Very Useful Severe Weather Warnings. We Think

An example of one of the automated Tweets from
the National Weather Service that were 
threatened until Twitter abruptly change
course on their decisions last weekend. Note
this is NOT a current warning. It's just an
example of an automated alert.

 I've been hating on Twitter for an increasing number of reasons, ever since our buddy Elon Musk took over last fall.  

For this blog, given it's all weather and climate geekdom, recent news that Twitter would limit automated tweets that distribute alerts for dangerous weather like tornado warnings was pretty dismaying,

So it's relief that, over the weekend, Twitter appears to have hastily reversed course and will allow an unlimited number of automated warning Tweets from National Weather Service offices all across the nation. 

Late last week, meteorologists were up in arms about the proposed changes. 

As the Washington Post explained a few days ago: 

"When tornadoes, flash floods and thunderstorms strike, or threaten to, the National Weather Service and broadcast meteorologists warn their followers using automated tweets, among other methods of dissemination. 

Twitter has long allowed users free access to systems that allows them to program such posts in response to external sources of information, be it the Weather Service's alerts, the movement of Musk's private jet or entries in the dictionary."

The automated tweets are handy because, since they're, well, automated, meteorologists don't have to squander precious seconds and minutes laboriously typing out tornado warnings and such. On this automated system, they're just blasted out on Twitter with no effort. 

As, the National Weather Service said in a statement, for every single warning, "seconds could make the difference between life and death."  Which means the automated warnings Tweets are a great help. 

As soon as a NWS meteorologist figures out a tornado is looming, they need to get the warnings out now if now sooner.  

Yes, people can get weather warnings from sources other than Twitter. But Twitter's immediacy and far reach meant it became an important source for people who need to be apprised of incoming tornadoes, flash floods or other dangerous events. 

The automated Twitter warnings became a favored way of warning the public. I have to say those warnings Tweets are a lot better than Facebook.  That social media site's algorithms seem to think I'm interested in a flash flood warning that expired over a week ago for a remote Utah canyon 2,500 miles from my home. 

Yeah, not helpful.  The Twitter automated alerts, on the other hand, were great because they blasted out in the moment, then seemed to disappear forever when the threat was over.  

Late last week and This past weekend, National Weather Service offices across the nation, broadcast meteorologists and others flooded Twitter with messages saying these warnings would go away, so Twitter would no longer be a go-to place to receive warnings of dangerous weather. 

But maybe Twitter will remain a good source of warnings  after all. As CNN Meteorologist Jennifer Gray reported:

"Twitter originally said there would be no exceptions to its ruling to limit the number of automated tweets. But in a surprising move over the weekend, Twitter has reversed course, saying in a tweet 'Twitter will allow the National Weather Service accounts to continue Tweeting weather alerts without limits.'  The move highlights the importance of weather alerts. Weather warnings save lives."

Despite the welcome reprieve, you could see a hint of why Musk doesn't like these automated systems. What's really driving Musk's attitude is cold, hard cash. 

Twitter has told users that it would limit automated tweets. They would allow 1,500 of them per month free. That sounds like a lot, but the National Weather Service and broadcast meteorologists burn through many more such tweets routinely when severe weather occurs. 

Musk's crew said there will be no exceptions to this policy, even for potentially life saving things like tornado warnings. 

But no worries!  Musk had another offer: For the low, low price of just $100 per month, you could get as many as 50,000 tweets.

Spoiler: The National Weather Service and other organizations weren't  going to bother with that stupid fee structure. Which is why it is such a relief that Twitter apparently is letting the National Weather Service go on with unfettered automated Tweets.

According to Gray at CNN, Daryl Herzmann is a systems analysts for Iowa Environmental Mesonet and helped create the automation software used by Twitter.

Herzmann is still unsettled and worried by Twitter's erratic moves on this issue and others. 

"'I am glad Twitter reversed course and made an exception for the vital services provided by the National Weather Service,' Herzmann told CNN after he heard the news. 'It does continue to be a concern that Twitter can make wild changes like this and not fully consider the implications of their changes.'

'Since Elon has basically gutted all the employees, it's impossible to interact with them at a technical level,' explained Herzmann. 'It's very frustrating."

Looking at the big picture, Twitter might still become a not so reliable source for life and death weather warnings, because Elon Musk is so erratic. 

Twitter had become a somewhat reliable source of news, and now that reliability is diminishing quickly under Musk. There's been all kinds of incidents, including removing the New York Times verified badge and labeling NPR "government funded media" even though only 1% of its budget comes from the government and NPR's news content is not subject to any government oversight or control. Twitter jus did the same to CBC, the Canadian news broadcaster.

Even though Twitter did the right thing this past weekend when they reversed course and allowed the automated warnings, I have still lost trust in Twitter.

When there's a risk of severe weather, don't just rely on Twitter for warnings. Make sure you have multiple ways to receive critical weather alerts.