The big front page story in the Seattle Times today, both online and in print, is about how climate change has caused the death of a 72-year old pine tree in the University of Washington arboretum. Unfortunately, the underlying premise of the story is false, representing another unfortunate example of exaggerating the impacts of global warming.
The writer of the story, Lynda Mapes, could not have been more explicit:
The cause of death was climate change: steadily warming and drier summers, that stressed the tree in its position atop a droughty knoll.
So, lets check the data and determine the truth. My first stop was the nice website of the Office of the Washington State Climatologist (OWSC), where they have a tool for plotting climatological data. Here is the summer (June-August) precipitation for the Seattle Urban Site, about a mile away from the tree in question. It indicates an upward trend (increasing precipitation) over the period available (1895-2014), not the decline claimed by the article.
Or lets go to the Western Region Climate Center website and plot the precipitation for the same period, considering the entire Puget Sound lowlands (see below) using the NOAA/NWS climate division data set and for June through September. Very similar to the Seattle Urban Site. Not much overall trend, but there is some natural variability, with a minor peak in the 70s and 80s.
What about the period in which the poor lived (it was planted in 1948)? As shown below, temperatures actually COOLED during that period.
You get the message, the claim that warming summer temperatures produced by "climate change" somehow killed this pine is simply without support by the facts.
So the bottom line of all this is that the climate record disproves the Seattle Times claim that warming and drying killed that pine tree in the UW arboretum. There is no factual evidence that climate change ended the 72-year life of that tree. The fact that a non-native species was planted in a dry location and was not watered in the summer is a more probable explanation.
The writer of the story, Lynda Mapes, could not have been more explicit:
The cause of death was climate change: steadily warming and drier summers, that stressed the tree in its position atop a droughty knoll.
So, lets check the data and determine the truth. My first stop was the nice website of the Office of the Washington State Climatologist (OWSC), where they have a tool for plotting climatological data. Here is the summer (June-August) precipitation for the Seattle Urban Site, about a mile away from the tree in question. It indicates an upward trend (increasing precipitation) over the period available (1895-2014), not the decline claimed by the article.
Or lets go to the Western Region Climate Center website and plot the precipitation for the same period, considering the entire Puget Sound lowlands (see below) using the NOAA/NWS climate division data set and for June through September. Very similar to the Seattle Urban Site. Not much overall trend, but there is some natural variability, with a minor peak in the 70s and 80s.
It is also important to note that summer precipitation is relatively low in our region--most our precipitation arrives in four months from late fall to midwinter. Looking at annual precipitation (see below), we find the same story: modest upward trend in precipitation.
So the claim that summers in our region are drying is simple false. Busted.
So what about temperature? Let's examine the maximum temperature trend at the same Seattle Urban location for summer (June through August). There is a slight upward trend since 1895 by .05F per decade. Virtually nothing.
What about the period in which the poor lived (it was planted in 1948)? As shown below, temperatures actually COOLED during that period.
You get the message, the claim that warming summer temperatures produced by "climate change" somehow killed this pine is simply without support by the facts.
So the bottom line of all this is that the climate record disproves the Seattle Times claim that warming and drying killed that pine tree in the UW arboretum. There is no factual evidence that climate change ended the 72-year life of that tree. The fact that a non-native species was planted in a dry location and was not watered in the summer is a more probable explanation.
Why is an important media outlet not checking its facts before publishing such a front page story? Lynda Mapes is an excellent writer, who has done great service describing the natural environment of our region. Why was she compelled to put a climate change spin on a story about the death of a non-native tree?
Now something personal. Every time I correct misinformation in the media like this, I get savaged by some "environmentalists" and media. I am accused of being a denier, a skeptic, an instrument of the oil companies, and stuff I could not repeat in this family friendly blog. Sometimes it is really hurtful. Charles Mudede of the Stranger is one of worst of the crowd, calling me "dangerous" and out of my mind (see example below).
A postdoc at the UW testified at the Environment Committee of the Washington State House saying that I was a contrarian voice. I spoke to her in person a few days later and asked where my science was wrong--she could not name one thing. But she told me that my truth telling was "aiding" the deniers. We agreed to disagree.
My efforts do not go unnoticed at the UW, with my department chairman and leadership in the UW Climate Impacts Group telling me of "concerns" with my complaints about hyped stories on oyster deaths and snowpack. One UW professor told me that although what I was saying was true, I needed to keep quiet because I was helping "the skeptics." Probably not good for my UW career.
I believe scientists must provide society with the straight truth, without hype or exaggeration, and that we must correct false or misleading information in the media. It is not our role to provide inaccurate information so that society will "do the right thing." History is full of tragic examples of deceiving the public to promote the "right thing"--such as weapons of mass destruction claims and the Iraq War.
Global warming forced by increasing greenhouse gases is an extraordinarily serious challenge to our species that will require both mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (preparing ourselves to deal with the inevitable changes). Society can only make the proper decisions if they have scientists' best projections of what will happen in the future, including the uncertainties.
Addendum: Why Do I Spend More Time Dealing with Exaggerators Rather Than Skeptics
Some folks have complained that I spend more time in the blog correcting "Exaggerators" and "Hypers" than "Deniers" and "Skeptics". Thus, they suggest I am a closet Denier or Skeptic myself. Let me explain. I deal with exaggerators more for two simple reasons:
1. I live in Seattle, WA. The media here (e.g., the Seattle Times, The Stranger, etc.), in concert with the left-leaning, environmental sentiments of the region, overwhelming tend towards exaggeration of the effects of global warming. Same thing with local politicians. If they went the other way (saying that global warming is nonsense), I would comment on it.
2. There are LOTS of scientists that are fact-checking skeptics but extremely few that are dealing with the exaggerators. There are a number of reasons for this, including the political leanings of many scientists.
_____________________
How will Northwest Weather Change Under Global Warming? Help Us Determine the Local Impacts of Climate Change
Society needs to know the regional impacts of climate change and several of us at the UW are trying to provide this information with state-of-the-art high resolution climate modeling. With Federal funding unavailable, we are experimenting with a community funding to build this effort. If you want more information or are interested in helping, please go here. The full link is: https://uw.useed.net/projects/822/home All contributions to the UW are tax deductible.
How will Northwest Weather Change Under Global Warming? Help Us Determine the Local Impacts of Climate Change
Society needs to know the regional impacts of climate change and several of us at the UW are trying to provide this information with state-of-the-art high resolution climate modeling. With Federal funding unavailable, we are experimenting with a community funding to build this effort. If you want more information or are interested in helping, please go here. The full link is: https://uw.useed.net/projects/822/home All contributions to the UW are tax deductible.
Post a Comment