Category Archives: Communication

Trump on climate change: what he should have said

If I followed up every time Donald Trump opened his mouth on climate change with a blog post pointing out where he was wrong, I’d have no time left to do anything else – but this one is a bit more special. This week, Trump visited the U.K., and part of that visit involved a conversation with Prince Charles – an advocate of organic farming and fighting climate change. They couldn’t really have more opposing views, so what did POTUS have to say about climate change afterwards?

The following are quotes lifted from a BBC News article (as of 5 June 2019).

“I believe that there’s a change in weather and I think it changes both ways,” Mr Trump told Piers Morgan in an interview that aired on Wednesday.

This would make more sense if he said a “change in climate”, as weather changes all the time. This one sentence encapsulates the President’s inability to grasp the difference between weather and climate. He’s correct in what he says – weather changes both ways! Indeed, some places do have a cooling climate – e.g. the North Atlantic warming hole – whilst it’s possible that global warming may lead to all kinds of extreme weather including cold weather extremes due to changes to the jet stream.

What he should have said: “I accept that there is solid scientific evidence for climate change, which, whilst it doesn’t necessarily rule-out some short-term increase in cold weather extremes, indicates there will be a long-term shift to overall more warmer weather.”

“He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate as opposed to a disaster and I agree.”

Ah yes, “good climate vs. disaster climate”. He says he agrees… but does he? The following quote suggests he considers creating “good” climate to have nothing to do with greenhouse gases…

What he should have said: “Prince Charles, like many, is fighting to ensure future generations, and all plants and animals, can thrive on this planet even more than we do now. I want to join him in that.”

But Mr Trump once again placed the blame on other countries, namely China, India and Russia, for worsening air and water quality while claiming the US has one of “the cleanest climates there are”.

This is a great example of Trump seemingly getting confused between air quality, climate change, and greenhouse gas emissions. No one refers to a “clean” climate. That doesn’t make sense. If this statement was about greenhouse gases, it’s wrong – with US emissions placed 2nd to China globally.

What he should have said: “The US is one of the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, and we need to do something about that.”

“Don’t forget, it used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change, now it’s actually called extreme weather because with extreme weather you can’t miss,” the president said.

[insert WRONG! Trump GIF]

This is a fallacy which Trump keeps repeating. Global warming (the rise in Earth’s average temperature) drives climate change, which is defined over long time periods. It is manifest in an increased frequency of extreme or record-breaking weather events. I actually believe Trump doesn’t understand that, rather than repeating the falsehood for other reasons.

What he should have said: “Global warming leads to climate change, and now we’re starting to see the effects of this with extreme weather events around the world.”

Mr Trump pointed to past examples of weather disasters to refute the idea that “extreme weather” is becoming more common due to climate change.

“I don’t remember tornados in the United States to this extent but then when you look back 40 years ago we had the worst tornado binge we ever had. In the 1890s we had our worst hurricanes.”

Some serious cherrypicking here. And what’s a tornado binge? There’s also some implication in these words that people have suggested the recent US tornado outbreak is due to climate change, and that they have said so purely because of short-term memory. That’s a load of garbage. Moreover, tornadoes and hurricanes are among the more contentious when it comes to the effect of global warming on their frequency. Tornadoes and hurricanes are also very US-centric, suggesting the President doesn’t care about increases in severe weather in other parts of the world…

What he should have said: “I took an Advanced Statistics class at college, and I know that, in order to see whether there is a long-term change occurring, I need to perform many forms of statistical analysis – including significance tests on linear regression and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, to determine if my data is showing climate change, and not to randomly pick outliers in the past to prove my agenda. I also need to account for changes in data acquisition and homogeneity over time before making any conclusions. And a good example of this is the catastrophic loss of Arctic sea-ice since the late 1970s, when reliable records began.”

A “winter heatwave” in a warming world

The final week of February 2019 has been characterised by anomalously warm, record-setting conditions over NW Europe. The United Kingdom broke its all-time maximum record temperature for February on several occasions and at several stations – the previous record of 19.7C from 1998 was obliterated, replaced with a new record of 21.2C (a huge difference of 1.5C, which were it to be replicated in August would see the UK experience 40C). For the first time, the UK experienced 20C during a winter month, and this moved the date of the first recorded 20C forward from March 2nd to February 26th. This was by all counts a “winter heatwave”, in magnitude and duration, and widely produced temperatures which wouldn’t be out of place in summer.

At the University of Reading, we also saw a new all-time (since 1908) record maximum for February – the previous record of 17.4C (which was first tied on Feb 25th!) was replaced with 19.5C on Feb 26th.

sunset.jpg

A classic “heatwave” sunset on February 27 from Whitley Wood Road, Reading, after temperatures reached 17.9C. A touch down on the previous day’s 19.5C, but still 0.4C above the old record!

Why was it so warm?

This is a difficult question to answer, but there’s several components which seem to have been required in order to get the atmospheric configuration such that high temperatures were possible over the UK. Here I present a few that I’ve noticed, but there’s likely other finer components, too (these are not necessarily in any meaningful order):

  • Rossby wave train: evident in Figure 1, there is a pattern in the 200 hPa height anomalies suggesting a Rossby wave train propagating out of East Asia and the Pacific has been evident for the last week. This provides the enhanced meridional flow associated with blocking weather regimes. Figure 2 also shows anomalously weak 250 hPa zonal flow in the mid-latitudes, suggesting reduced propagation speeds of weather systems allowing for (and associated with) extended blocking regimes.
200z_reanal

Figure 1: 7-day (20-26 Feb) mean 200 hPa height anomalies from NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis. Apparent Rossby wave trains are shown with superimposed black arrows.

uwnd.jpg

Figure 2: 250 hPa zonal-mean zonal wind anomalies from NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis for 20-26 Feb 2019. Note the anomalously weak zonal winds in the N Hemisphere mid-latitudes.

  • Extreme eastern USA jet streak & cyclogenesis: the record-setting jet stream winds seen on Tuesday 19th preceded the development of the blocking ridge. This may be associated through the downstream impacts of such extreme winds (Figure 3) – decelerating an unusually strong jet requires a very active jet exit region, leading to strong (anti)cyclogenesis. A series of deep cyclones (Figure 4) developed in the jet exit region, and when combined with other factors aiding their meridional track, the cyclones likely acted to build the downstream ridge, with positive feedbacks, helping to amplify the pattern. HYSPLIT trajectories also suggest some of the air over the UK originated within the extreme jet streak prior to undergoing strong descent, which may have been aided by its unusually strong nature driving unusually strong descent.
jet.JPG

Figure 3: 250 hPa winds on Feb 19th showing a possible downstream impact of ridge amplification over NW Europe.

 

highres.png

Figure 4: MODIS view of a 938 hPa cyclone in the central North Atlantic on Feb 20, 2019.

  • Strong adiabatic descent: HYSPLIT back-trajectories shown in Figure 5 reveal the airmass over the UK originated near the tropopause a few days prior, before descending through the depth of the troposphere. This not only adiabatically warms the air (on top of its warm source region), but also dries out the entire column, allowing for strong insolation needed for the sensible heating to generate strong surface warming.
183836_trj001

Figure 5: Ensemble of 84 hour backwards trajectories for air at 1500 m AMSL over London at 12Z Feb 25th based on GFS 0.5 degree data.

  • Anomaly persistence: once established, the block lasted for several days. This allowed for further descent of air which also underwent diabatic warming thanks to the intense radiation under cloudless skies – recirculating around the anticyclone (a similar pattern existed during the summer 2018 European heatwave).

These are the weather components which contributed. They describe the prior and contemporary state of the atmosphere. To relate this to the climate, I’ll draw an analogy. You exeperience a car crash. Why? What I have presented so far would be equivalent to saying “You ran a stop sign”. Now we naturally ask, “what about climate change?”. In my analogy, this is asking, “Were you intoxicated?”. Being intoxicated doesn’t mean you will run a stop sign, and you certainly can do so without being drunk, but it will increase your risk of doing so.

There is no doubt that the configuration of the atmosphere during the last week has been extreme, and primed for producing these warm temperatures. However, in a stationary climate we do not expect to break records with the frequency that we are doing, especially given a lengthening record (e.g. Kendon 2014). Now that we have warmed the mean temperatures, an extreme dynamical perturbation to the mean state (e.g. a monster blocking ridge) will produce an even more extreme temperatures than we would have seen beforehand.

This mechanism is supported by looking more closely at the University of Reading’s weather data record (Figure 6 & Table 1). Similar events, even with similar sunshine, have historically produced cooler temperatures. The recent frequency of extremely warm February temperatures is also evident, and you can also see recent cases of very warm temperatures with much less sunshine than older cases that matched the temperatures but only with strong solar forcing – suggesting, as I mentioned earlier, that it doesn’t take as much of a ‘push’ to equal temperatures which were once close to a “theoretical maximum”, such that now we can obliterate those records with sufficiently unusual large-scale anomalies.

sun_tmax_feb

Figure 6: Data from Reading University Atmospheric Observatory 1957-2019 showing daily maximum temperatures above the monthly 95th percentile and associated sunshine hours. Red indicates February 2019, grey indicates pre-2000, black post-2000. The 2019 record is shown with a red star. Tmax exceeding 16C is selected for further analysis in Table 1.

tmax

Table 1: Data corresponding to the points within the box in Figure 6 plus the 2019 record value.

But sunny, warm weather in February is nice!

Indeed it is – it was my birthday on February 24th, and I never expected to be celebrating it sitting outside! This event didn’t have the same severe impacts as a summer heatwave, but to me it almost felt more disturbing – the knowledge of what this might mean should a similar extreme be generated in the summer months, and that climate change was “eating away” at winter’s very existence. Unusual late winter/spring temperatures mainly impact the natural world which is highly sensitive to temperature and sunshine at this time of year (e.g. Figure 7), and this is why we should care – this could have many wide-ranging impacts on the ecology which supports our existence.

IMG_2605.JPG

Figure 7: Blackthorn blossom, complete with Honey Bee (if you look closely), on Feb 23rd in Reading. This blossom is more likely in March and April.

NCEP/NCAR anomaly plots credit https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/.

Not all SSWs were created equal

Non-downward propagating SSWs? 

Major stratospheric sudden warming events (SSWs) attract widespread attention because they are now known to have significant impacts on the tropospheric circulation (e.g. Baldwin and Dunkerton 2001, hereafter BD01). Anomalies in the stratospheric circulation (often expressed as the Northern Annual Mode (NAM) index, or polar cap geopotential height anomalies) propagate downwards through the stratosphere into the troposphere, rather like “dripping paint” (such as BD01 Fig. 2). A major SSW is associated with the development of a negative NAM in the stratosphere; the “typical” response is the development of a negative NAM (or the associated NAO/AO) in the troposphere ~10-14 days after the central date of the SSW (when the 10 hPa 60N zonal-mean zonal wind becomes easterly) which can persist for several months.

However, not all SSWs were created equal – and some SSWs do not strongly couple to the tropospheric circulation. A recent study by Karphechko et al. (2017) classified major SSWs as “downward propagating” (dSSW) or otherwise (nSSW) based on the 1000 hPa NAM index following the event, and found 43% were nSSW – i.e., not followed by a strong and persistently negative surface NAM. This is not a small fraction of SSWs, and the atmospheric evolution following the two types was found to be significantly different. 

Our perception of SSWs in recent years has been highly influenced by a relatively unusual clustering of vortex-split, downward-propagating events (Jan 2009, Feb 2010, Jan 2013 and Feb 2018) which all had similar tropospheric impacts (all 4 of those events were followed by an outbreak of snow/cold in the UK, for example). The most recent nSSW occurred in Feb 2008. Thus, the announcement of a major SSW – particularly on social media – has become synonymous with a specific weather pattern.

In the nSSW cases considered by Karpechko et al., the composite (their Fig. 1c) actually shows intermittently positive NAM in the troposphere following the SSW – with the sign of the NAM opposing between the lower stratosphere and the troposphere for ~40 days following the central date. This is very different to the picture of dripping -NAM anomalies into the troposphere that BD01 made famous (which is consistent with Karpechko et al.’s dSSW).

Composites of all major SSWs are influenced by the higher frequency of dSSW and the stronger circulation anomalies induced, but this work suggests we need to be wary of these stratospheric events which don’t strongly influence what happens beneath. However, forecast models often struggle to predict the downward propagation – so forecasting these events is troublesome. It also presents a communication problem, which current forecasts (see below!) suggest we may be about to run into: a major SSW could mean a significant reversal of the normal tropospheric circulation (with the potential for “Beast from the East”-type events in the UK), or it could mean very little (e.g. January 2002 following the non-downward propagating Dec 2001 SSW). Predicting these differences, and understanding the mechanisms involved, is an area of active research – and something I hope to address in my PhD work.

Do current forecasts suggest nSSW or dSSW?

As I write this, we’re in a tentative stage – the main stratospheric heat flux event has occurred, and the 60N zonal-mean zonal wind has reversed to easterlies in the upper stratosphere. However, at 10 hPa we’re still decelerating – with the event expected to become ‘major’ around Jan 1 (Fig. 1 & 2) if current forecasts are correct (inter-model agreement has substantially increased now the upper-stratospheric reversal is in the observations).  The event looks very likely to be first driven by a wave-1 displacement of the vortex towards Eurasia, with an increasing likelihoodo of a vortex split (wave-2) to then occur, with the dominant daughetr vortex over Eurasia and a smaller vortex over N America (interestingly, this is opposite to what happened in Feb 2018). However, agreement on the split evolution remains lower than the displacement.

gefs_27-12-2018

Figure 1: Forecasts of the 10 hPa 60N zonal-mean zonal wind from 00Z December 27th. There is a good agreement between the GFS and its ensemble of a major SSW occurring around Jan 1st.

ecmwf10f144

Figure 2: ECMWF operational forecast from 12Z December 26th for 12Z January 1st showing a major SSW. Source: http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/winterdiagnostics/. 

So, predicting the tropospheric impacts is a challenge when the stratospheric forecasts don’t agree! The spread in the GEFS forecasts beyond 10 days is very large – with some members showing a quick return to stratospheric westerlies whilst others flirt with record-strong easterlies. There’s even some indication of bifurcation in the ensemble at longer ranges (perhaps relating to whether or not a split occurs), which may render the ensemble mean of less use.

Despite the uncertainty, one aspect that has been relatively persistent is the absence of a signal for downward propagation in the deterministic GFS (Fig. 3) and the longer-range models such as CFSv2 (Fig. 4). Comparing Fig. 3 here with the nSSW composite in the Karpechko paper is striking – there are many similarities, including the weak -NAM before the main event and the ~day 10 tropospheric +NAM development. On its own, this screams nSSW – but of course is just a single deterministic forecast from one model.

gfs_nh-namindex_20181226

Figure 3: GFS NAM analyses and forecasts from 00Z December 26th. Source: Zac Lawrence’s website (www.stratobserve.com). 

The CFSv2 initially trended strongly towards a -NAO for January 2019 as the SSW signal grew – but this has since decayed and transitioned more towards an Atlantic ridge pattern (Fig. 4). The model clearly picked up on a major SSW occurring – but, like all forecast systems this time, has struggled to predict the type of SSW. There is currently no indication (Fig. 5) from the CFSv2 forecasts of a widespread hemispheric cold outbreak (a “warm Arctic-cold continents” pattern).

cfs_gif

Figure 4: CFSv2 forecasts from Dec 1 – Dec 27 for January 2019 700 hPa geopotential height anomalies. Note the initial trend away from a +NAO towards a strong -NAO, before trending towards an “Atlantic ridge” pattern.

cfs

Figure 5: CFSv2 2m tempertaure anomaly forecast for January 2019 from an ensemble of forecasts launched between Dec 16-25. Base period 1999-2010. Source: http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/. 

My advice would be not to hold your breath for a “Beast from the East 2019 Edition”. But as predictability typically increases once a major SSW has occurred, we should gain a much better picture in the first few days of 2019.

Takeaway message: the impacts of SSWs are more complex than whether it is a displacement or a split, and the mere reversal of the 10 hPa 60N zonal wind doesn’t mean you’ll be shovelling snow 2 weeks later.

References

Baldwin, M. P., and T. Dunkerton, 2001: Stratospheric Harbingers of Anomalous Weather Regimes. Science, 294, 581-584, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1063315.

Karpechko, A. Y., P. Hitchcock, D. H. W. Peters, and A. Schneidereit, 2017: Predictability of downward propagation of major sudden stratospheric warmings. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 1459-1470, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3017.

The Stratosphere – why do we care?

I study the stratosphere, the layer of atmosphere that extends above the troposphere from about 10-50 km. Friends and colleagues of mine often joke (I hope…) that “nobody cares about the stratosphere” *, primarily because it contains no real ‘weather’ – such as what happens in the troposphere. With little to no water vapour, it can’t be seen on visible satellite imagery – unlike the huge and beautiful weather systems in the troposphere. To visualise the stratosphere, we rely primarily on computer-generated graphics – and it’s not like you can walk outside and experience it, either. So, why do we care? What follows is a relatively simple (I hope!) explanation.

Weather forecasts, particularly on TV, often explain that our weather is “all down to the position of the jet stream” (the band of fast flowing air high in the troposphere that forms on the boundary between warmer and cooler airmasses). Now, that’s almost always true in the UK, but it’s particularly potent in winter – when the temperature contrasts either side of the jet become enhanced thanks to the Polar Night. One of the main driving factors behind the speed and position of the jet stream (particularly the Atlantic jet stream) in winter is… the stratosphere!

Rather like the jet streams we know and love/loathe in the troposphere that guide the development and evolution of weather systems, in the stratosphere there exists another jet stream – the Polar Night Jet (Figure 1). This encircles the Stratospheric Polar Vortex (SPV). Both of these form as the pole tilts away from the Sun in winter, leading to intense cooling. The strong temperature gradient then forms a jet stream and cyclonic vortex, which isolates the air within the vortex, and it cools further…etc. The Polar Vortex is a normal phenomenon which forms each winter – nothing sensational like some headlines suggest.

ZMZW_00Z_04022018

Figure 1: GFS zonal wind analysis from February 4th 2018. Reds indicate westerly winds. A strong Polar Night Jet exists in the stratosphere, associated with a strong tropospheric jet.

Through a process known as stratosphere-troposphere coupling, the stratosphere and the troposphere beneath can ‘talk’ via the influence of planetary/Rossby waves. These very large waves in the mid-latitude westerly flow can propagate vertically from the troposphere into the stratosphere and influence the circulation there – a process known as wave-mean flow interaction. Sometimes, this is strong enough to strongly disrupt the SPV, and when that happens, the isolated reservoir of cold air is broken down and the temperature sky-rockets… by as much as 50C in only a few days. This is known as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW). Very strong SSWs – called major SSWs – occur in approximately 6 winters per decade, and result in a reversal of the Polar Night Jet to easterlies. The Polar Vortex is either displaced, split up, or destroyed (2018’s SSW is shown in Figure 2).

2018_SSW_full.gif

Figure 2: The February 2018 Major SSW, as told through daily analyses from the GFS of 10 hPa wind (filled) and geopotential height (contours). This is classified as a ‘split’ SSW, for obvious reasons.

This has implications for our weather, because anomalies in the strength and position of the SPV and the Polar Night Jet can propagate downwards and influence the tropospheric jet stream. A stronger than normal SPV is associated with a strengthened tropospheric jet stream – and for us in the UK, that means Atlantic westerlies and generally mild winter weather. In contrast, following a major SSW, the easterlies propagate downwards (Figures 3 and 4) – resulting in a reduction in strength of the Atlantic westerlies. Sometimes, there can be a complete reversal of circulation – this happened in March 2018 with the infamous ‘Beast from the East’, bringing cold and snowy weather.

ZMZW_00Z_17022018.png

Figure 3: As in Figure 1, but for February 17th, following the major SSW. Note the weaker tropospheric jet and surface easterlies as the ‘Beast from the East’ developed in response.

Thus, being able to predict the state of the Stratospheric Polar Vortex is a source of skill for wintertime forecasts. Moreover, because there tends to be some lag between the events in the stratosphere and their maximum impact at the surface (~2 weeks), stratospheric predictability can provide increased predictability on the sub-seasonal timeframe (~15-30 days). Additionally, anomalies associated with a major SSW tend to persist in the lower stratosphere for even longer – which again, is a source of skill.

JFM_stratosphere.jpg

Figure 4: Anomalies in geopotential height for January-March 2018. Note how anomalies associated with the major SSW (red blob in the centre) propagate downwards like ‘dripping paint’.

And that is why we care about the stratosphere!

Further reading:

Kidston et al., 2015: Stratospheric influence on tropospheric jet streams, storm tracks and surface weather. Nature Geoscience, 8, 433-440.

*A tongue-in-cheek quote from Reading Meteorology’s weekly ‘Weather and Climate Discussion’ a few years ago that stuck with me was “the stratosphere – nothing of interest lies therein”. I plan to use that in my thesis…

“They get it wrong 90% of the time”

I was on a long train journey a few days ago, and ended up in conversation with the person next to me. When I explained what I’m doing (a PhD project looking to improve sub-seasonal forecasting), I was greeted with the all-too-familiar response of “oh, that’s good because they get it wrong 90% of the time”. Doing my utmost to supress just how much that sentence annoyed me with its factual inaccuracy, I responded with a comment about how there is still so much to learn about the atmosphere-ocean system, and ‘things can only get better’ (perhaps that song by D:Ream should be the soundtrack to NWP – or is it still too tainted by Tony Blair?). I also recently saw a post on Reddit’s ‘showerthoughts’ saying “Forecasting the weather is the only job where you can get it wrong every day and still have a job” – I refrained from responding to that!

Of course, “they” don’t get it wrong 90% of the time (you could easily argue the reverse is true) and a forecaster won’t still be in the job if they’re getting it wrong every day.

In the last few days we have seen a spectacular example of what NWP is capable of with the forecast of Hurricane Florence. We knew days in advance that the storm would reach category 4 status. The track into the Carolinas is now without doubt (though the exact motion when the storm makes landfall remains uncertain). So how is it that a forecast of a huge, turbulent, dynamic vortex can be so incrediby accurate to an extent that even amazes meteorologists – and yet the general public can have such a different opinion about their experiences of weather forecasts? How is it that this perception is so ubiquitous?

I had noticed over the summer that there were noticeable issues with app forecasts – and noticeable failures – but there is often good reason. Showers are difficult to predict to postcode-level accuracy, and, sometimes, “shit happens”. A great example of the latter occurred earlier in 2018 in Reading, in perhaps the only time I’ve really experienced the forecast go completely wrong. The forecast: a dry, cloudy day. However, the inversion mixed out, resulting in clear, sunny skies. That in turn lead to unexpected solar heating and thus unexpected instability, which generated a heavy (but very isolated) shower over Reading (perhaps its localised nature was a response to additional urban heating – yet another complexity!). A wonderful non-linear response – and something which as a meteorologist made sense. However, to a member of the public, it was unexpected rain that may have left them irritatingly soaked – and perhaps fostered a resentment of weather forecasters.

Forecast accuracy has come on in leaps and bounds over the last 30 years, but it seems public’s trust has not increased accordingly. I think part of this is how quickly one adjusts to a ‘new normal’ – I can draw a parallel to Internet connection speeds (remember when 1 Mbps was fast, yet now seems painfully slow?). I think a large part comes down to a lack of understanding as to why a forecast may go wrong. Rather like a medical diagnosis, it may make logical sense as to why a Doctor misdiagnosed, but the patient’s response may be filled with anger and confusion. And part of that comes down to the human body seeming naiively simple (because we all have one!) in the same way forecasting the weather may seem simple (just some fancy graphics and looking at clouds, right?). Both are hugely complex, but its usually only the experts who truly comprehend that.

Thus, it’s my conclusion that the more meteorology we can get out there, the better the public will trust the forecasts we make.

Edit: after writing this post, I received a wonderful tweet which showed that, for some, the incredible accuracy of weather forecasts is understood.
 

Why deny climate science?

Imagine you are an astronaut who has just returned from the International Space Station and you meet a Flat-Earther… how would you even go about that argument? 

Climate science and evolution are two sciences denied by many. In the case of evolution-denial, a creationist view is faith-based. Those who believe that God made the Universe 6,000 years ago (or equivalent) at least get a religious ‘kick’ out of it. I’m not saying that belief is a good thing (far from it – I think evolutionary science is an incredible human achievement and filled with beauty), but at least I can somewhat understand the mindset that leads to it (or the root of the belief – a religious text).

I cannot say the same for climate science denial. I just don’t understand what motivates it. What is the benefit to the individual? Does it make you feel good to think that all the experts are wrong?

Now, I do what I can to help the environment. I could do much more – I’m aware of the scale of the problem. But I don’t refuel a diesel car or use a petrol lawn-mower and feel riddled with guilt. My scientific opinion on climate change doesn’t follow me around like a dark cloud. I don’t overuse fuel in order to save money, primarily.

When the World Health Organization listed bacon (and other processed meats – of which you probably consume more than you think!) as definitely carcinogenic, I didn’t deny it – I’m not a medical scientist, and I’m sure good science was done in order to reach that conclusion. Equally, when we meteorologists and climate scientists announce that greenhouse gases are causing global warming, I don’t expect non-experts to take issue with that. Whether you act on it is something else, but don’t turn around and say, “Ha! Have you even considered the urban heat island?“. An every-day equivalent would be responding to an F1-trained mechanic informing you that your car needed a new engine by saying “Really? Did you check the oil?”. 

Of course they checked the oil.

In truth, what deniers say to climate scientists is often hurtful, and sometimes very difficult to respond to, purely because of the extent of the misunderstanding – not because we can’t support our science. It’s also plain baffling what some deniers say. When you’re just an excited or concerned scientist doing your thing, experiencing people thowing wild accusations at you is just…bizarre.

So, to all climate scientists – from those currently braving the harsh Antarctic winter, to those dealing with difficult questions from the media, to those who have been sitting coding for two days straight (or more!) – I salute all of you, for everything you deal with.

Going Viral: Some thoughts one week later

Sunday, July 22, 2018, 9:31 PM BST. I put out a relatively simple tweet comprising of two NASA GISS global temperature anomaly graphics – one for June 1976, and one for June 2018. After listening to the media and meteorologists alike comparing and contrasting the current UK heatwave with that of 1976 (something which I had earlier written about here), I felt it necessary to put it into some global context: the planet as a whole is far warmer than it was in 1976 – meaning that regardless of the final ranking of the 2018 heatwave in the UK, it occurred with a different climate background. The heatwave, alongside record-breaking heatwaves across the Northern Hemisphere, is symptomatic of climate change. It has a different meaning in today’s world.

I did not in any way expect the response the tweet gained – with close to 14,000 likes a week later. Initially, I thought it might rile up a few ‘climate change deniers’ (I had a genuine interest in what might get said in response…) but after it surpassed by previous highest like/retweet count within a few hours, I knew something special was happening! I have no real idea of how far and wide the comparison went, as some didn’t relay any credit back to me for the original idea (e.g. a BBC News special “Feeling the Heat” which aired on July 26, and Met Office blog post using their HadCRUT data). Not that it bothers me – they are NASA’s graphics, after all, and I’m just happy to get a conversation going. Special thanks to Leo Hickman of Carbon Brief for helping me keep track of the various media appearances!

I’ve been looking at NASA’s GISS maps for years – the plotting tool on their website is a fantastic way to play around with climate data. Seeing a comparison like 1976 vs 2018 wasn’t surprising to me, but it occurred to me that the public don’t regularly see imagery like that – especially in such a relevant and meaningful way. It told a story. Telling the general public that the globe is X degrees warmer than it was 100 years ago, or showing them a line graph doesn’t really work – hence the success of my tweet and other novel visualisation ideas, such as the ‘climate spiral’ and ‘warming stripes’ by Professor Ed Hawkins – the original climate science viral sensation from the University of Reading! As I stated in the tweet thread, graphics like those I posted shouldn’t be surprising – global warming isn’t new, and the planet has been much warmer (relative to normal) than it is currently (try plotting February 2016 for a real shock).

Perhaps initiated by my tweet, or perhaps a coincidentally, the media – and scientists – quickly began widely discussing the relationship between climate change and the heatwaves across the Northern Hemisphere. The tweet seems to be the reason why the phrase ‘global heatwave’ gained so much use – I have seen it used before my tweet, but my use of that as a hashtag seems to have made it mainstream. It is not meant to suggest everywhere is under heatwave conditions – just that this heatwave is part of something bigger; that the planet itself is warmer than normal (i.e., a ‘heatwave’). It’s perhaps a bit of flippant phrasing which I can understand disagreement with.

However, whilst this has been the best-reported and most clear-cut example of linking climate change to ongoing weather, it did strike me that in some cases it was reported as though this was, in some way, new. A BBC News article from August 2003 (“Heatwave part of global trend”) could have been extracted word-for-word and used in 2018. The story then: a heatwave in the UK, but also deadly heatwaves around the world as global temperatures rose. 15 years later, and the story is the same. Yes, we have come a long way in 15 years in terms of our understanding of the climate, but the story is the same and the expectations are (broadly) the same. How long until it is accepted that the future we predicted is now happening? How long until we stop speaking of ‘heatwaves are expected to become more common due to climate change’? Climate change isn’t something we should continuously speak of in the future tense – it has happened and it is happening.

If you’ve read this far and are still with me, I added some of my ‘in the moment’ thoughts on July 24 to my first post on Reading’s Meteorology PhD blog site, “The Social Metwork”.

Right. What do I tweet next?