Recently, Oxford University launched a new initiative called Climate.Basics. This Internet site provides a nice explanation and simple illustrations on what is meant by ‘climate’ and how the climate system works. The Climate.Basics site is a collaboration with the climateprediction.net project, which is the world’s largest climate prediction experiment. We think this is quite good, but as always, let us know if you think something could be explained better
Technical Note: We have moved the share bar to the left, where it floats. Please let us know if that works better or if you want other sites highlighted.
We here at RC continue to be disappointed with the tendency for some journalistic outlets to favor so-called “balance” over accuracy in their treatment of politically-controversial scientific issues such as global climate change. While giving equal coverage to two opposing sides may seem appropriate in political discourse, it is manifestly inappropriate in discussions of science, where objective truths exist. In the case of climate change, a clear consensus exists among mainstream researchers that human influences on climate are already detectable, and that potentially far more substantial changes are likely to take place in the future if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates. There are only a handful of “contrarian” climate scientists who continue to dispute that consensus. To give these contrarians equal time or space in public discourse on climate change out of a sense of need for journalistic “balance” is as indefensible as, say, granting the Flat Earth Society an equal say with NASA in the design of a new space satellite. It’s plainly inappropriate. But it stubbornly persists nonetheless. More »
The November 17th issue of Science has an interesting exchange of letters between Christy and Spencer; Mears and Wentz; and Sherwood and Lanzante (ref here; subs required for substance). The context of this discussion is the tropospheric temperature record; see Et tu LT and The tropical lapse rate quandary for two RC posts that discuss the issue, and in particular three papers in the August 11th issue of Science.
There is an interesting article in this month’s Global Environmental Change journal. The paper, Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change (subscription only at the moment) by L. Antilla, documents the way in which the mainstream media (at least in the U.S.) tends to present climate science as more controversial than it actually is. A major focus of the paper is an analysis of the way in which climate science is “framed” (in the journalistics sense of “highlighting certain aspects of a story so as promote a particular interpretation”). In a recent Scientific American article (here), a similar argument is made with respect to the health industry; in this case the writer, David Michaels, is quite blunt that the “framing” is the purposeful fomenting of doubt by powerful industry lobbyists, rather than innocent errors by naive journalists. Antilla doesn’t go so far, but she does give some striking examples, such as an Associated Press piece about the impact of soot on the albedo of snow, which AP titled “Scientists blame soot for global warming”. As if the title weren’t misleading enough, the article goes on to say that “Many scientists believe the burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, triggering … the greenhouse effect.” Whether purposeful, or merely due to careless writing, this kind of statement casts the science (and the opinion of scientists) as far more uncertain that it is in reality — in this case implying that there is doubt that CO2 levels are increasing, something which actually has zero uncertainty. More »
Further to our post about whether 2005 will be a year of record warmth, Jim Hansen has put out a brief discussion on the Washington Post report and some of the subsequent discussion. One minor clarification to his statements is that the reporter involved (Juliet Eilperin) did in fact leave messages for the relevant people at GISS (including me) prior to publication, but sometimes people can just be difficult to track down. Oh….and for those who are counting, with the preliminary October data in, 2005 has pulled ahead of 1998 in both the GISS land based met. station index (0.76 to 0.73°C) and the GISS land-ocean index (0.59 to 0.58°C). All previous caveats still apply….