Aren't we clever? Or so the latest crop of bright-eyed Warmists seems to think
The story below is that global average temperatures are not a good index of global warming. That seems to me to be a contradiction in terms but let logic go by for now. The claim is that we should look at the occurrence of extreme events instead. And we should look at them not in terms of overall averages but rather at what occurs in different parts of the globe. The logic of that is also suspect (It's called "cherry-picking") but let that go by too.
So with the benefit of much indulgence, we have a large claim that global warming began much sooner that is usually said. But on what is that claim based? If we go back to the original academic journal article -- a pesky habit of mine -- we find more limited claims. And, most crucially, we find that the whole thing is just a modelling exercise, not a survey of real world data. I think we just need to know one sentence from the journal article. Here it is -- from the "Conclusions" section of the paper:
"This study suggests that for much of the world, the anthropogenic emergence of temperature extremes has already occurred as of the present date, at least in model simulations"
It's just computer games for grown-ups. No Warmist model has predicted anything accurately yet so let that be a guide to you in assessing this article
We Could Have Discovered Climate Change As Early As the 1940s if We Had Just Looked
The signs of global warming are hitting us over the head today — if you’ll remember, the fire and drought-ridden summer of 2015 was the also hottest in recorded history — but how long has our planet actually been feeling the heat? In parts of the tropics, anthropogenic climate change has been tinkering with the thermometer since the 1940s.
That’s the surprising conclusion of a new modelling study published today in Environmental Research Letters. Running 23 global climate simulations that combine historical trends (beginning in 1860) with future emissions scenarios, researchers at the University of New South Wales estimated when the very first fingerprints of climate warming — extreme temperatures and shifts in the mean annual temperature — would have become measurable across the world, had we been paying any attention. Near the equator, the writing was on the wall decades before the concept of anthropogenic climate change had been realised.
“Remarkably our research shows that you could already see clear signs of global warming in the tropics by the 1960s but in parts of Australia, South East Asia and Africa it was visible as early as the 1940s,” said lead study author Andrew King in a statement. (That’s decades before the the fore-thinking researchers at Exxon discovered global warming!)
Climate change is hitting high latitude ecosystems the hardest — the Arctic, for instance, is warming twice as fast as the world at large. For that reason — and the fact that most big research universities are located in countries with seasons — what’s happening in the tropics has been largely ignored. But as the new study shows, tropical ecosystems may offer an even better long-term thermometer. Lacking a distinct summer and winter, the tropics have a much narrower distribution of temperatures year-round, which makes it easier, statistically speaking, to spot small deviations and outliers years.
And while the tropics are experiencing smaller levels of warming than, say, boreal forests, climate change stands to wreak even more ecological havoc around the equator....
SOURCE. The paper is "The timing of anthropogenic emergence in simulated climate extremes" by A.D. King et al. It is such useless stuff that I will not reproduce any more of it.