A day when Hell was frozen
I was honoured to be invited to the annual regional conference for Norwegian journalists, taking place annually in a small town called ‘Hell’ (Try Earth Google 'Hell, Norway'). During this conference, I was asked to participate in a panel debate about the theme: ‘Climate – how should we [the media] deal with world’s most pressing issue?’ (my translation from Norwegian; by the way 'Gods expedition' means 'Cargo shipment' in 'old' Norwegian dialect).
This is the first time that I have been invited to such a gathering, and probably the first time that a Norwegian journalists' conference invited a group of people to discuss the climate issue. My impression was that the journalists more or less now were convinced by the message of the IPCC assessment reports. This can also be seen in daily press news reports where contrarians figure less now than ~5 years ago. But the public seemed to think that the scientists cannot agree on the reality or cause of climate change.
I find that the revelation of a perception of the climate problem within the climate research community that doesn't match that of the general public problematic. What I learned is that this also seems to be true for the journalists: it was stated that their perception of climate change and its causes were different to the general public too.
The panel in which I participated consisted of a social/political scientist who had investigated how media deals with the issue of climate change and the public perception thereof, a science journalist, an AGW-skeptic, and myself. Despite the name of the place, the debate was fairly civil and well-behaved (although the AGW-skeptic compared climate scientists to mosquitoes, and brought up some ad hominem attacks on Dr. Pachauri).
The science journalist in the panel advocated the practice of reporting on issues that are based on publications from peer reviewed scientific literature. I whole-heartedly concur. I would also advice journalists to do some extensive search on the publication record of the individuals, and consider their affiliations – are they from a reputable place? Also, it’s recommended that they consider which journal in which the article is published – an article on climate published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is less likely to receive a review of competent experts (peers) than if it were published in a mainstream geophysics journal. Finally, my advice is to try to trace the argument back to its source - does it come from some of those think tanks? But I didn't get the chance to say this, as the debate was conducted by a moderator whose agenda was more focused on other questions.
Short of telling the journalists to start to read physics in order to understand the issues at hand, I recommended the reading of Spencer Weart’s ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’. The book is an easy read and gives a good background about the climate sciences. It also reveals that a number of arguments still forwarded by AGW-skeptics are quite old and have been answered over time. The book gives the impression of a déjà vu regarding the counter arguments, the worries, politics, and the perceived urgency of the problem. I would also strongly recommend the book for the AGW-skeptics.
One reservation I had regarding the discussion is being cut off when I get into the science and the details. I had the feeling of taking part in a football match where the referee and all the spectators were blind and then tried to convince them that I scored a goal. The problem is that people without scientific training often find it hard to judge who's right and who's wrong. It seems that communication skills are more important for convincing the general public that scientific skills. Scientists are usually not renowned for their ability to explain complicated and technical matters, but rather tend to shy off.
I’d suggest that journalists should try to attend the annual conferences such as the European (EMS) and American (AMS) meteorological societies. For learning what's happening within the research, mingling with scientists/meteorologists, and because these conferences have lot to offer media (e.g. media sessions). Just as journalists go to the Olympics, would it not be natural for journalists to attend these conferences? – but I missed the opportunity to make this suggestion.
Hell seems to be fairly dead on a Sunday afternoon. I almost caught a cold from the freezing wait for the train – although the temperature was barely -3C. This January ranked as the third warmest in Oslo, and I have started to acclimatise myself to all these mild winters (the mountain regions, however, have received an unusually large amount of snow). Our minister of finance was due to attend the meeting to talk about getting grief, but she didn't make it to Hell due to a snow storm and chaos at the air port (heavy amount of wet snow due to mild winter conditions).
7 February 2008 at 10:29 AM
A better link for Spencer’s valuable book is here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
It’s the full text with hyperlinks.
Another (hopefully) useful resource for people writing about climate and other complex environmental issues is the 2005 Field Guide for Science Writers of NASW.org. My chapter in that book, on covering climate and the like, is available online here: http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2006/12/08/chapter.html
7 February 2008 at 10:37 AM
I would suggest that instead of including an AGW-sceptic in debates, journalists look for someone who disputes the economic value of mitigation measures or raises the China-India issue. These issues (particularly the latter) are now much more of public interest and concern values and politics rather than contesting simple science.
7 February 2008 at 10:46 AM
The paragraph (third from article bottom) in which you say “…people without scientific training often find it hard to judge who’d right and who’s wrong. …” should be emblazoned in gold, and be placed in full view of every science-based writer, who purports to communicate with others than his/her actual peers. The two sides of the ‘red herring coin” are writing about a topic the writer simply is not qualified to write about, and reading an essay that, in its pontifical erudition, defies understanding by anyone other than the writer.
7 February 2008 at 10:59 AM
PS. It was already evident Hell was freezing over again, with The Eagles putting on yet another reunion tour!
7 February 2008 at 11:26 AM
It isn’t just the Norwegian public who believe that scientists don’t agree on the causes of climate change - a survey of the UK public last summer indicated that 56% strongly or tend to agree that “Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change”: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2007/climatechange.shtml
It is clear that the media has played a role in this by giving greater prominence to voices of dissent, even when they offer no evidence to justify their views. But the problem is often at editorial level, rather than at the level of individual science reporters, who generally appear to be aware of the landscape of views on this issues. As an example, the editorial staff at the BBC (and the BBC trust) are in a bit of a muddle at the moment on this issue because they seem to think that impartiality means giving coverage to any point of view, if honestly held, regardless of its accuracy (see, for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/how_green_should_we_be.html). The media are generally much better at illustrating ranges of opinions, rather than at assessing to what extent different viewpoints are supported by the evidence.
7 February 2008 at 11:27 AM
As you say, the mountain regions have received a lot of snow, especially the high ice plateaus like Jolsterdals glacier, perhaps as much as 8-10 meters already this winter, and still more comes in every day with the “mild” westerly winds.
[Response: For snow conditions in Norway, see SeNorge.no (there is an English button on the page). -rasmus]
7 February 2008 at 11:54 AM
That book sounds like exactly what I need to better inform myself of the story of global warming. I’m going to order it today. Could you recommend any other books for skeptics? (I’m the sort that would really like to be convinced that the scientists are really doing everything right.) I guess the issue I’m most skeptical about is the quantitative utility of simulations–that is, being a physicist and knowing simulators and their results, I’m well-aware that complicated simulations never give reliable numbers. And we don’t do anything half as complicated as earth’s long-term climate, of course. I guess there’s less likely to be a book that will help me check that opinion; but hey, maybe there is?
Thanks for the nice, measured, informative [silly editorializing removed]
-Sam
7 February 2008 at 11:55 AM
And who was the AGW-skeptic?
[Response: Onar Åm. -rasmus]
7 February 2008 at 11:59 AM
MUST SEE VIDEO FOR JOURNALISTS
Global Warming Contrarians Exposed
An extremely informative, in-depth account of four of the major global warming “confusionists” is available free-online.
Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego Science Studies Program is currently giving a lecture about the people at the center of the denialist camp. It is exceptionally well researched back to the first scientists to raise a red flag about the rising CO2, and who have been proven to be correct with alarming accuracy in their projections of climate change.
She very powerfully dismantles the idea that “nobody could have predicted what we now know to be true”. The answer to that is: “Not only could they have, but they did”.
But people weren’t very concerned in the 50’s and 60’s, seeing the problem as one far off in the future.
After making an indisputable account of the scientific community’s knowledge before the eighties, she examines the people who have seemed to ignore what was known, and more importantly, why they continue to this day to argue that ‘the debate is not over’. This is the purpose of the lecture and video as the title is “The American Denial of Global Warming”.
“We think that the scientists are still arguing about it, because this is what we have been repeatedly told” (by the press) states Oreskes. Journalists feel a need to give balance to their work and rightfully so. But in the case of a handful of deniers against a couple thousand scientists, the need to hear from the very few is ridiculous and, as she explains, harmful.
The famed republican strategist who gave us such wonderful phrases as “The Clear Skies Initiative”, “No Child Left Behind”, “Healthy Forests Initiative” (which have all been proven to be spin) Frank Luntz wrote “…you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue”. Mr. Luntz has since given up that idea, but other republicans, sadly, have not, Oreskes says.
She uncovers revealing documents and some humorous facts about the deniers and their tactics. “The plan was never to debate fellow scientists in the halls of science, but rather in the mass media”, says Oreskes, with the main goal to confuse the public instead of proving a scientific fact.
It was the same tactic for confusing the public about the link between cancer and cigarettes, and ……… not surprisingly …….. it is some of the same people doing it now on the CO2 issue.
I highly recommend this video. It very clearly explains a situation that is causing much harm to the American public’s understanding of a very dangerous situation.
*************
The American Denial of Global Warming, 12/12/07, free on-line, 58 min.
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459
7 February 2008 at 12:07 PM
Interesting post, Rasmus. I have to say that I think that one of the reasons this debate has turned so nasty is that since the so-called sketics have no science on their side, they are left with little but ad hominem attacks and outright lies. And climate scientists, being human, tend to respond in a hostile manner. At the same time, we need to realize that some people stand to make a lot of money by prolonging this debate and by increasing the distrust on both sides. As long as the corporate mother ship sows the seeds of distrust in the minds of the denialists and tells them what they want to hear, the fact that the facts are on our side won’t matter.
7 February 2008 at 12:33 PM
Another HUGE problem in getting the science out to the public is this thing that news organizations have about publishing a story from another news organization (senseless copyrights).
For instance, in the past two years there have been over a dozen reports of research findings in newspapers around the world where the scientists gave some grim data on one part of the climate. But unless you have a ‘google alert’ for ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ you wouldn’t have seen it.
It seems to me that this type of ’selfishness’ should be suspended in this situation.
Here’s a list of just such articles with their stricking statements [you will notice that exactly one is from an American agency]:
Dec. ‘06 - Globe is Warming Faster Than Scientist’s worst predictions. Our worst fears are exceeded by reality.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2110651.ece
**************
Oceans
Jan. ‘07 - Earth is Losing its Ability to Absorb CO2?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/19/frontpagenews.climatechange
May ‘07 - … (the Southern Oceans) are beginning to release the CO2 they have stored.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=455735&in_page_id=1965
This link is not functioning. To retrieve this article you must enter “Ocean ‘less effective at absorbing climate change gases’”
into google’s search engine.
Oct. ‘07 - …the ability of (the Atlantic) ocean to absorb CO2 has dropped by half….
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008907686
Feb. ‘07 - World’s sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate. Sea levels are rising even faster than scientists predicted.
http://www.environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004718,00.html
May ‘07 - 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/05/86525.html
**************
Other Positive Feedbacks
Mar. ‘07 - Tundra Disappearing At Rapid Rate. “It’s like it waited until conditions were just right and then it decided to get up and run, not just walk.”…..This sets up a “positive feedback,” the same process that is associated with the rapidly decaying Arctic ice cap.
http://www.mbeconetwork.org/newsitem.php?news=2
Aug. ‘07 - Arctic lakes are beginning to release methane and CO2. A global tragedy of monumental proportions is unfolding at the top of the world…
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/08/13/008.html
Nov. ‘07 - The increase in forest fires in the boreal forests have weakened one of the earth’s greatest terrestrial sinks of carbon dioxide.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3115537.ece
**************
CO2
Feb. ‘07 - Carbon dioxide rate is at highest level for 650,000 years.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2211568.ece
This link is not functioning. To retrieve this article you must enter “Carbon dioxide rate
is at highest level for 650,000 years” into the Independent’s search engine.
Oct. ‘07 - New CO2 evidence means climate change predictions are ‘too optimistic’ Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing much faster…. than scientists have predicted….
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2719627.ece
**************
Glaciers
Jan. ‘07 - Glaciers (water supply) Melting 6 X Faster Than ’80s
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Melting_Glaciers_Show_Climate_Change_Speeding_Up_999.html
Sept. ‘07 - Glaciers are moving much faster towards the sea because of previously unknown factors. (Greenland ice is) advancing toward the sea at seven miles per year, compared with three and a half miles before.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ji-VBJ-GzgzCFcdspzNBU5kKAB3Q
**************
Polar Ice
Jan. ‘07 - The Pace of Arctic Global Warming is Staggering. “….the change “is happening so extremely fast, much much faster than we have seen in thousands and thousands of years. “Climate change in the Arctic is not coming. It is here.”
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Arctic_Region_As_Global_Warming_Barometer_999.html
Mar. ‘07 - … the Antarctic Peninsula is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, and glaciers are in massive retreat.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSSYD27511820070326
April ‘07 - …. the (sea ice) that we’ve observed is actually declining much faster than the models have shown.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/04/04/3916309-cp.html
Sept. ‘07 - ‘Remarkable’ Drop in Arctic Sea Ice Raises Questions
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/arctic_minimum.html
**************
Jan. ‘07 - Reduce CO2 in Ten Years, or Climate Will be Out-of-Control. ‘If we fail to act, we will end up with a different planet’.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2116874.ece
July ‘07 - No Link Between Cosmic Rays and Global Warming
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html
7 February 2008 at 12:51 PM
Bob Ward, I agree that the problem is more at the editorial level than with reporters who actually cover science, and I think the reason is as mundane as it is insidious. Editors are interested in selling papers, and conflict is more interesting than consensus. We see the same thing in politics all the time–if a candidate is rising in the polls, suddenly you start to see critical pieces written. If a candidate is falling (e.g. with John McCain this Summer) out come the “don’t count him out yet” pieces. At some point, editors will have to learn how to cover issues for which there is only one legitimate side. The science of climate change is such an issue. What to do about it…well, there we have plenty of room for controversy.
7 February 2008 at 1:03 PM
The paperback of Dr. Weart’s book is inexpensive, easy to read and flip back and forth. For someone with little science or technical background, the book might be a challenge. I encourage people to read a bit, put it down and stop to think what they just learned. The issues are complex and unfamiliar, readers need time and effort to assimilate the information. The link (and associated search engine) Andy gives in #1 is great to use later, searching back for particular ideas. ( & It has additionall material)
Also, see Field Notes from a Catastrophe, by Elizabeth Kolbert.
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Notes-Catastrophe-Nature-Climate/dp/1596911255
7 February 2008 at 3:17 PM
An aside: Just out of curiosity, what was the comparison of climate scientists and mosquitoes? It’s a head scratcher. (If so stupid you wish not to repeat it, O.K…)
7 February 2008 at 3:44 PM
RE “It seems that communication skills are more important for convincing the general public than scientific skills”
Not me. I’d take the word of bonafide not-so-articulate scientists over well-spoken others, with the caveat that the scientists if at all they are wrong or off-target would most likely be underestimating (not overestimating) the problem, due to scientific conservatism (avoiding false positives).
It’s ridiculous that some people trust Rush Limbaugh’s science over scientists’ science.
I respect the lengthy education, intelligence, and hard work that goes into science. That counts a lot more than armchair opinions. It carries weight.
7 February 2008 at 3:55 PM
> although the AGW-skeptic compared climate scientists to mosquitoes…
Great, those failing metaphors. As AGW continues, these and other mosquitoes will multipy…
7 February 2008 at 4:50 PM
I second J Althauser’s recommendation of Field Noted from a Catastrophe. It’s an excellent introduction to the general topic for newcomers.
7 February 2008 at 4:55 PM
I hope Andrew Revkin has tried to convince his own newspaper, the NY Times, to stop playing up contrarian arguments. I haven’t seen much along those lines from William Broad lately, but John Tierney is still at it. A while back John Tierney admitted that he was wrong about the reality of global warming, but apparently old habits die hard. To paraphrase the contrarian argument about “global cooling”, why should we pay attention to his critiques today, when he was—admittedly—wrong in the past? The thing that annoys me the most is that he is given prominence in of all places the weekly Science section. He writes well and is sometimes thought provoking, but he is by no means a scientist and not particularly skilled at separating the wheat from the chaff.
7 February 2008 at 5:01 PM
How can there be global warming, it’s freezing out!
I have to contribute while I don’t post often, I do read often. Almost every entry here at RC. I trust the variety of Atmospheric Scientists very well on this issue as time and time again they have allready proved themselves correct. The ones who differed in opinion simply got it wrong. There are even those on this very website that have made, short term predictions and been right about them based on blog discussions. For instance, one that keeps rattling my brain is a short-term prediction of the climate this winter by a participant here who related the artic sea ice loss and a extremely cold winter, which by all accounts has been seen compared to other years. This is most evident in the Eastern Hemisphere where deserts are getting snow fall.
A picture of a palm tree bending under the weight of snow. Well if that isn’t iery.
But hey, You have to get a laugh out of expressions such as mine above and the ever so dumbfounding “Oh, I’m loving these warm temperatures” when it’s 70 degrees in January in upstate New York. Love that. Keep up the great work everyone!
7 February 2008 at 5:03 PM
Re dbeck @ 9: “The American Denial of Global Warming, 12/12/07, free on-line, 58 min.
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459 ”
Thanks so much for this link. Much of the material in the video is already widely known, at least among those who frequent RealClmate, but Naomi adds quite a bit of new (at least to me) information on the key personalities, strategies and their cross links and pulls it all together in a cohesive and coherent presentation.
I especially liked the fact that it was GOP strategist Frank Lunz who advised framing the discussion by changing “global warming” to “climate change” because it sounded less threatening and urgent. I’ll have to remember that the next time a “skeptic” asks why the term was changed.
Actually, many so-called skeptics, even here, freely admit that the “debate” about climate change is really an anti-regulation political debate, and as Naomi concludes at the end, that’s exactly what it is.
7 February 2008 at 5:52 PM
Lynn (15), but you’re an exception one in a hundred thousand. For convincing the public, communication skills don’t even get a sniffle and win every time when up against scientists, or any other pure fact/logic-based entity. Look at the Presidential candidate debates. The analysis and “winner-declaring” is 97% on presentation and 3% on substance — and the latter usually only if it’s presented with a real cutsey sound bite.
7 February 2008 at 5:52 PM
What is amazing is that even at a conference at which coverage of climate change is discussed, the journalists can’t bring themselves to stop “balancing” the panels.
Thus, a panel consisting of: one person who isn’t a scientist, one person who is just wrong, and a scientist. The best case scenario is that what they learn is 66% right. What a great place to learn how to cover science!
Who is Onar Åm anyway?
7 February 2008 at 6:31 PM
rasmus, I promise not to consult the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons for my climate information, but you might consider consulting it or related journals about your chill theory of the common cold.
7 February 2008 at 7:21 PM
“I especially liked the fact that it was GOP strategist Frank Lunz who advised framing the discussion by changing “global warming” to “climate change” because it sounded less threatening and urgent. I’ll have to remember that the next time a “skeptic” asks why the term was changed.”
“Actually, many so-called skeptics, even here, freely admit that the “debate” about climate change is really an anti-regulation political debate, and as Naomi concludes at the end, that’s exactly what it is.
Comment by Jim Eager
“Climate change” is exactly how the average citizen of planet earth will experience and become aware of the reality of “Global warming”. Their average weather will change, the exact kind of change will depend on their local geography. Exact predictions will be exceedingly difficult and will always have a time scale associated with them. Changes will always have down sides for something or somebody.
The big money interests have the ability to side step the political debate and lend money to green energy projects and refuse to lend money to industries that insist on having large carbon footprints. It’s beginning to happen now and we can be optimistic that the people who make decisions for big money are starting to show some concern for their grandchildren’s planet.
7 February 2008 at 7:42 PM
I’d also like to express thanks for the link to the Oreskes video. Amazing! If you haven’t already seen it, it’s well worth the time.
7 February 2008 at 7:57 PM
May I suggest a solution to the problem of journalists and the public not being able to asses the relative weight and merit of professional opinion behind the various aspects of climate science …
We need a website that does the following :
* Lets the site administrators create a list of all scientific and pseudo-scientific journals, and allows them to give each a credibility ranking.
* Lets the administrators enter a list of all the major global warming assertions/theories/predictions.
* Lets climatologists log in and create an account.
* Lets them enter a bio on themselves and enter a list of all the peer reviewed climate science publications that they have published (or at least enter the number that they have published).
* Allows each member to enter credibility/likelihood/threat rankings against each assertion/theory/prediction.
* The site would then present reports that use this data to summarize the support within the climate science community for the various assertions/theories/predictions.
* It could be taken further by letting each member enter credibility rankings against the other members and/or for each publication.
With such a system, you would be able to see (to give a pretend example) that of the 900 members that ranked the plausibility of cosmic rays as an explanation of observed global warming - the average peer assigned credibility ranking of the 800 who considered it very implausible was 7.5/10, whereas the credibility ranking of the 10 who thought it very plausible was 2/10. You would also be able to see that of the 50 scientists with 10 or more highly ranked publications, none thought it was plausible, whereas of the 50 members with the lowest ranked publications 20 thought it was plausible.
Such a system would provide a very accessible and transparent means of assessing the true extent of support within the climatological science community for the assertions, theories and predictions that are on offer.
Now, I agree that it’s all very well for me to think up such a brilliant concept, but who is going to do it?! I’m busily teaching myself how to create PHP/mySQL websites, and if someone else doesn’t get to it first, I think I’ll be able to have it up and running within six months, depending on my other commitments. However, do the climatologists here think it’s a worthwhile idea, and do they think the climate science community would participate? If someone else wants to do it then, please, go ahead. It would have more credibility coming from with in the climate science community anyway.
7 February 2008 at 8:49 PM
Naomi did an earlier version of this talk a year ago at Stanford; it was good then, and the Scripps version seems even better. Highly recommended.
7 February 2008 at 9:14 PM
Andy Revkin has discussed media responses and responsibilities at length in several places, and see the ongoing discussions in his excellent new blog at http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ (hey, one good plug deserves another!)
There is by now a great deal of polling, and the bottom line is that 70% or more of the public now accept that global warming is a serious problem, which is about as many as you’ll ever get to agree about anything — BUT few Americans and not very many more Europeans rank it high among the things they think they need to pay attention to. Asked to name the world’s problems, they seldom bring it up, and even among environmental problems they will list water pollution, chemicals, etc. first. It has what pollsters call low saliency.
The only good in-depth study I’ve seen, a focus group study by American Environics (pdf),
recommends not bothering to argue about the reality or danger of global warming, but include it as an additional argument for reducing dependence on oil, promoting innovation in energy supplies, etc.
7 February 2008 at 9:36 PM
Doing science by debate-What a concept! How would that work? Would each side, say the Centrigades vs the Fahrenheits, take a thermometer into the lab and when one side says “Close the window,it’s only 20 degrees in here!” The other would say “Are you kidding it’s 68 degrees leave it open!”?
I think we should stick to doing science the old fashioned way.Collect data,analyze it, build models, digital or analog,graph and formulate the results and make recommendations based on the conclusions.
7 February 2008 at 9:56 PM
Speaking of journalists in Norway, there’s a very good reporter working for Reuters there, named Alister Doyle, and his recent reports from Antarctica’s TROLL STATION were very good. He is also has a blog up at blogs.reuters.com/environment
THE CLIMATE CLOCK is ticking: (but text only for now)
http://climateclock350.blogspot.com
7 February 2008 at 10:02 PM
Ray Ladbury,
Good post. But I think it’s important to note that editors are not interested in selling papers. They are editors, they edit the news, they choose the stories for page one, they write the headlines, they do many things in the newsroom but selling papers is not their charge. That’s for the circulation department, and of course, the PR people and the top CEO brass. Don’t load on the editors: they are former reporters who now edit the news, rather than write the news, and they also assign reporters to cover certain stories. So no, editors are not interested in selling papers. Please reconsider that comment. I think the public in general does not understand how a newspaper really works. Ask your journo pals.
– Danny B.
RE:
“I agree that the problem is more at the editorial level than with reporters who actually cover science, and I think the reason is as mundane as it is insidious. Editors are interested in selling papers, and conflict is more interesting than consensus.”
7 February 2008 at 11:22 PM
Yeah I just had this stuffed in my face as the ultimate appeal to authority. It’s like being caught in an echo chamber of falsehoods.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/214.pdf
7 February 2008 at 11:52 PM
Re catman306 @ 23: “Climate change” is exactly how the average citizen of planet earth will experience and become aware of the reality of “Global warming”.
Oh, for sure, catman, and “climate change” is definitely the more accurate term, but time and again I see “skeptics” bring it up and insinuate that the change was some kind of deliberate ruse to explain away perceived inconsistencies in AGW (severe winter storms and temperatures, lulls in hurricane activity and the warming trend, and such).
The best part is that they are right, it was a deliberate ruse, but it was THEIR deliberate ruse.
8 February 2008 at 12:11 AM
Re # 7 Sam Gralla “another book for skeptics”
I stumbled across a nice little book published by Oxford University Press, “Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction,” by Mark Maslin (ISBN 13: 978-0-19-284097-4; ISBN 10: 0-190284097-5). It is one of a series of “Very Short Introduction” books. It relies heavily on data and figures from the IPCC reports, but presents some interesting perspectives, such as a chapter titled, “Your viewpoint determines the future,” in which he draws on the work of Professor John Adams of Universitiy College, London, describing different mindsets for viewing the stability of natural systems (the “four myths of nature” and the “four myths of human nature”). I think it cost me about $10.00 U.S. It is a nice compact, readable, review of the evidence for AGW and its implications for society.
8 February 2008 at 2:37 AM
I really enjoy reading your blog, it always has great insight. But I am very frustrated with the fact that so few people are talking about presidential candidates and their thoughts on global warming. Now that it is down to just a few candidates I would think that this would be a bigger issue.
Live Earth just picked up this topic and put out an article ( http://www.liveearth.org/news.php ) live earth is also asking why the presidential candidates are not being solicited for their stance on the issue of the climate change. I just saw a poll on www.EarthLab.com that says people care a lot about what their next leader thinks of global warming. Does anyone know of another poll or other results about this subject?
Here is the page where I saw the EarthLab poll: http://www.earthlab.com/life.aspx. This is a pretty legit website; they are endorsed by Al Gore and the alliance for climate protection and they have a carbon footprint calculator. Does anyone have a strong opinion about this like I do? No matter what your political affiliation is or who you vote for this is an important issue for our environment, our economy and for homeland security.
8 February 2008 at 4:09 AM
Thanks Rasmus, for the practical advices for journalists.
When you come to journalists there are few aspects to consider.
“… journalists to do some extensive search on the publication record of the individuals, and consider their affiliations – are they from a reputable place?”.
Not all journalists have the tools nor time to do this research. They may be under pressure from editors to have report ready within the next few hours.And it’s now or never. And how to judge the reputation of a place? Can you give us some advice on this (ok, if it comes from MIT, that’s quite a reputable place, but there are hundreds other +/- reputable institutions)?
“…people without scientific training often find it hard to judge who’s right and who’s wrong.”
So true! And people without a background in sociology (as many scientists) have hard times to make judgments in controversial research into parenting. As soon as we move out from our experitise field we all become “people without training”. And you may be also relying on the media when they report in controversial epidemics threatening global security. Many journalists have to report about scientific themes building up a knowledge on the spot, in few hours or at best in few days.
That’s why scientists may greatly contribute to improve quality of reporting by speaking out, telling their personal view (but making clear what’s personal view and what’s scientific consensus), being aware of the short time span journalist have, trying to assess the background of the journalist and …reframing their views as it is suggested in this short but enlightening analysis by Mooney and Nisbet (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/316/5821/56) .
[Response: I think I’d recommend that journalists over time get acquainted with the subject and the community. A bit like a political journalist who actually know who’s the president and who’s not or a foreign corresponent who knows which countries are in Europe and which are in Africa. I think it’s important that journalists are not blank on the matters on which they report. There are many reputable places, yes. That’s why I recommend journalists attending conferences and talk to people in the community so that they are more prepared when they get their assignments. It’s all about investing time and effort for the future. -rasmus]
8 February 2008 at 4:16 AM
Read the paragraph “The Tyranny of Balance” in Revkin’s book chapter (http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2006/12/08/chapter.html) . I experience this tyranny on my skin. When reporting to english speaking media, I have to provide this balance between those saying one thing and the others. When reporting to italian media, I am not asked to be as balanced. This aspect of balance in reporting should be carefully addressed by journalists and editors - it fuels controversy even where consensus is there…
8 February 2008 at 5:12 AM
Re 25. The site could also allow individual climate scientists to post their individual guestimate of what they think the SLR by 2100 could be. There could be voting options, for example, in the range 0 to 20 metres in 0.1 metres intervals. The output of the voting could be in real time and the world would have a clearer message about the potential upper bound of SLR this century: a simple graph with x-axis ranging from 0 to 20 metres and the y-axis giving counts. The voting could be reset every, say, 3 months, as more evidence comes to light as to the nonlinear processes building up in the ice sheets, and experts revaluate the degree of lack of knowledge about the cryosphere and its interactions with everything else.
Having a voting system like this with clear display for the world would circumvent the problem of having to wait another 6 years for the IPCC to do another SLR report in which they avoid putting an upper bound on the SLR.
The voting system, which does not need to display the identity of the professional climate scientists against each vote would get around the rot of reticence that is prevalent amongst climate scientists.
The distribution of estimates of SLR from the climate scientists (hardly different to what is commonly done for technology futures, for example, where one doesn’t know the future) could then be linked directly to a measure, for example, of the number of nuclear reactors and other critical industrial plant at current coastline that could be submerged in the next few decades if we don’t mitigate.
Just because conventional studies do not give precise figures for something in the future, it does not mean that an accumulation of insights and expert knowledges should not be gathered into a simple and straightforward representation of a community’s estimates.
At present, the world does not know what the community of climate scientists think the 2100 SLR upper bound might be. It is pathetic given the global communication capability currently available and climate scientists should address the SLR communication gap as quickly as possible.
When will the first distribution of climate scientists’ estimates of 2100 SLR upper bound be available?
8 February 2008 at 5:50 AM
#30. Danny B - you’re joking right? Editors not interested in selling papers!? They choose the way articles appear in the paper, write the headline and the editorial - the whole editorial direction (= opinion) is their responsibility and you don’t think any of this influences who buys the paper or how many they sell???. The stance, the philosophy behind a paper heavily determines who buys a paper and how many it sells.
#5 The BBC may think they are winningly impartial, but many, many people in the UK consider the opposite - that they are biased towards ‘liberal’ points of view. Just check out a site called http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ for an example.
Which brings me to my third point - #11 - most of the stories you mention I have seen or heard of in the media (BBC most often).
Some examples:
May 07 - polar oceans soaking up less C02
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4596651.stm
Fire threat to forests May 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6665147.stm
Rapid sea level rise Aug. 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5303574.stm
Artic tundra thawing 2000 + 2004/2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1024585.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3975805.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4141348.stm
BBC horizon program dedicated to gulf stream current reduction evidence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/11_november/13/big_chill.shtml
and so on and on. From where I’m standing (member of the general public on this issue) there is no shortage of information out there in the media about what is happening.
8 February 2008 at 7:07 AM
Speaking of book recomendations and editors. If you can get them to read Sagan’s ‘Demon haunted world’ they would stand a better chance of distingushing the difference between an informed skeptic and a mischevious incalcitrant.
I have a BSc and I simply accept that people turn off to science and speed read over the details, accounting has the same effect on me. However almost everyone is interested in improving their in-built BS detector and Sagan’s book does an excellent job.
Another accessible skeptic is ‘The Great Randi’, I can’t recall the name of his book on magic and skepticism but it rescued me from Uri Geller’s BS as a young man. Whoda thunk that a paperback written by a magician could teach one more about what science is/isn’t than 11yrs of schooling.
8 February 2008 at 8:00 AM
The real problem is this.
The increased concentration of CO2 in the air, is strongly affecting the cognition of people–a problem not yet recognised by the scientific community; the symptoms of CO2 poisoning are: the denial of certain phenomena of nature, persistent illusory beliefs, escapist behaviour, and a strong tendency to lobby more vehemently for one’s cause. Many of these symptoms have been diagnosed by many reknowned doctors; but, unfortunately, this medical wisdom has not yet reached the rest of the world, who are still happily wallowing in their cognitive mists.
O! ’tis a great tragedy, but we must try to bear our lonely endeavour to enlighten the remainer of the world.
8 February 2008 at 9:42 AM
#27 Spencer Weart
got it 93% on the button.
People like me - no scientific training, centre-right leaning, well-educated (”voters” or “consumers” as we are sometimes known) are inclined to be sceptical about climate change because we are generally sceptical about prescriptive actions by governments or any interest or ideological group and yes, that’s including scientists who hold or who maintain they hold a particular belief and benefit from that in some kind (fame, notoriety, money, kudos, influence). We also know that movements, be it scientific (eg. eugenics, string theory, cigarettes providing a health benefit) or economic (eg. south sea bubble, dot-coms) can be subject to self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating confirmation, while outsiders, or here “sceptics” or “denialists”, are ostracised. Neither do we understand, when reading the impressive-sounding list of signatories on letters disagreeing with the phenomenon or even premise of AGW (eg. Bali dissenters, the Canadians not so long ago), why one scientist’s theory should be preferred over another, or rather, when one scientist’s theory should be dismissed out of hand by another, when both are professors in atmospheric sciences or somesuch.
Nor do we quite get the model thing. We understand models, and we also know that they are useful predictive tools but we are convinced that they do not supply “evidence” (a term creeping in on RC to describe model output) of future states or anything like it and we note that inherent and freely admitted possible significant errors are ignored conveniently or wilfully when that output is being discussed and nor are we convinced, or even that much surprised that models tend towards agreeing with each other.
We are sceptical also of weight-loss pills, hair-growth tonics, betting systems and carbon trading schemes. We understand that there is an element of social and political ideology behind many pronouncements of those who urge eg. immediate 80% reductions in our carbon emissions and probably none of us send goats to Africa. And we look out of our windows and believe neither that because it’s hotter than usual in June or colder than usual in February that this means anything other than we have a chaotic weather system.
So as Spencer Weart says, to appeal to the homus economicus in us makes the most perfect amount of sense. We really do believe that adaptation, if required, from a wealthier planet, will be be our best bet.
If we incidentally save the planet, well that’s fine by us also.
8 February 2008 at 11:09 AM
bennyben (42), interesting thought, but a pretty large stretch. Your reference wasn’t clear: Are you implying the symptoms show up in just the skeptics, just AGW protagonists, or both (and everybody else??)?
8 February 2008 at 11:34 AM
I recently applied for a reporting job in Alaska for a paper and was turned down for my politics. I asked, via email what personal politics had to do with reporting? I didn’t get an answer. I searched for past articles on climate and found none. Even though I was told I’d be called about the job it didn’t happen. Instead after boiling down all the candidates to me, (I found out through an internal cc mistake that came to me!) they readvertised the job. I have a journalism and environmental biology degree from Cal State and a long history of working for government agencies. I used Andy revkin as an example of the reporting I would like to do on the subject.
8 February 2008 at 12:04 PM
Speaking of Hell freezing over, you folks will need to look at and make responses to the following editorial about the proposal that from roughly now on, the sun’s output will reduce and lead to a climatic cooling effect. (The claim is ironic in light of prior claims that GW resulted from recent increases in the sun’s radiation.)
Here is the IBD Editorial,and the opening excerpt:
The Sun Also Sets
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore’s mythical “consensus.” Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun’s magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
…
8 February 2008 at 2:48 PM
Texas Rep. Joe Barton, who has long been in the pocket of big oil had this op-ed piece in the Dallas Morning Newspaper.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-barton_08edi.ART.State.Edition1.44fe35f.html
It irked me enough to reply with a letter to the editor but I figure there maybe some here more eloquent then I.
Here is some highlites to get you riled:
“Keep in mind that CO2 is not a pollutant. It performs the desirable work of making life possible by regulating planetary surface temperatures. And it is everywhere.
I hope that if Congress’ global warmists are going to have their anti-carbon dioxide legislation, they will accommodate some discussion first. Here’s my modest opener:
Electricity must be available and affordable; keep the lights on, please
“
8 February 2008 at 3:19 PM
Alan K., Now hold on just a wee bit. Do you think you become famous and powerful in science by going along with the crowd? Do you think for one minute that if someone could disprove anthropogenic causation that he would not be lionized in the scientific community? Do you really think that all scientists are leftist ideologues? Sir, you have a profound misunderstanding of what science is and how it works!
In science, evidence and explanatory power reign supreme. Yes it is political, but if you don’t have the evidence behind you, you will not succeed for long. All the evidence points to anthropogenic causation It is only partly a scientist’s insight that makes him or her influential. There is also the willingness of individual scientists to put aside their own preferences and agendas when the evidence runs against them that makes one scientist or group of scientists more trusted or influential. How many papers in refereed climate journals have the so-called Bali dissenters published? I believe the number is somewhere between zero and bupkis. Moreover, I think you will find most denialists are not atmospheric scientists, but in some tangentially related field–oceanography, geography, geology, etc. Now compare that to the hundreds of climate scientists who are generating more evidence that supports anthropogenic causation every day and the thousands of physicists, chemists, meteorologists, science academies, etc. that have looked at the science and found it to be credible. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus
But the thing I find most astounding about your post is that you seem to be making your acceptance of the science contingent upon whether it supports your political or economic philosophy. I would contend, rather that by rejecting sound science, you abdicate your position at the negotiating table where solutions are adopted, thereby ensuring that your views will be ignored.
As Thomas Huxley said: “My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonise with my aspirations.”
8 February 2008 at 3:22 PM
Alan K writes:
[[Neither do we understand, when reading the impressive-sounding list of signatories on letters disagreeing with the phenomenon or even premise of AGW (eg. Bali dissenters, the Canadians not so long ago), why one scientist’s theory should be preferred over another, or rather, when one scientist’s theory should be dismissed out of hand by another, when both are professors in atmospheric sciences or somesuch.]]
That’s true, you don’t understand. If you were to look carefully, you would see that the vast majority of people who sign those statements are NOT climate scientists. And you might want to think about the fact that science is not done by press release, nor by petition, but by research and publication in peer-reviewed journals. The letters you’re referring to are meant to influence public opinion; they are an act of politics, not an act of science.
[[Nor do we quite get the model thing. We understand models, and we also know that they are useful predictive tools but we are convinced that they do not supply “evidence” (a term creeping in on RC to describe model output) of future states or anything like it]]
True, you don’t get the model thing. The models are not predictions of the future, they are predictions of what the future will be like given a certain profile for future emissions. We don’t know how much carbon dioxide will increase; we do know that if it doubles you can expect about a 3 K rise in mean global annual surface temperature.
[[ and we note that inherent and freely admitted possible significant errors are ignored conveniently or wilfully when that output is being discussed]]
I don’t believe that’s correct. Name a case where a “significant error” was “willfully ignored.”
8 February 2008 at 3:31 PM
mg@39: When will the first distribution of climate scientists’ estimates of 2100 SLR upper bound be available?
I don’t know. When will you have coded it up?
8 February 2008 at 4:16 PM
Alan K wrote: “People like me […] are inclined to be sceptical about climate change because we are generally sceptical about prescriptive actions by governments”
With all due respect, that makes no sense whatsoever. You have an aversion to or dislike of “prescriptive actions by governments”. Fine. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether climate change is real.
The facts are: anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are causing global warming, and that anthropogenic global warming is causing climate change; the present excessive levels of CO2 and consequent climate change are already dangerous, and if the process continues unabated, the results will be disastrous and catastrophic for human civilization.
If you don’t like government interventions you are certainly free to propose “free market” solutions or other solutions that you prefer. But denying the reality of the problem because you dislike some of the solutions that some people have suggested is insane.
8 February 2008 at 4:42 PM
Re #46 [Neil B, citing “The Sun Also Sets”
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY] If it turns out to be true that solar activity is about to decline fairly sharply (and whether or not there is actually any good reason to believe this at present), then let’s be clear, that will be very good news: it could give us more time to halt the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which we know is warming the earth rapidly. However, it won’t help with the other big problem carbon dioxide build-up is causing: acidification of the oceans.
8 February 2008 at 5:42 PM
Re 52(Nick Gotts)
Don’t you love the irony of the denialists touting someone who thinks that the sun will start to show signs of a grand minimum, Real Soon Now, while saying that a couple dozen teams building computer models based on thousands of peer reviewed papers is too shaky to be believed?
8 February 2008 at 5:54 PM
Re Mark York @ 32: “Yeah I just had this stuffed in my face as the ultimate appeal to authority. It’s like being caught in an echo chamber of falsehoods.”
Yep, another go at “it’s the sun, stupid,” complete with all the usual false assertions about increased solar activity [sic], CO2 not causing warming as the ice age ended [sic] and therefore does not cause warming now [sic], 80% of the rise in CO2 occurred since 1940 [sic] yet there was 20 years of cooling from 1945 [sic], mysterious–and variable, mind you, long-period solar cycles, and on, and on, and on. All stuff that has been debunked many times over.
8 February 2008 at 7:45 PM
Re, IBD, WSJ, Telegraph and other rags not worthy to wrap a fish:
Don’t they kind of remind you of Cubs fans? I mean every year is THE YEAR, unless they are already eliminated, when next year is THE YEAR. Of course, even if we were to see a downturn in solar irradiance, it would not invalidate the physics of the greenhouse effect. And since a downturn in solar activity lasts for perhaps 80 years at most, while CO2 persists for centuries…
The math is pretty simple…why are economists so reluctant to do it?
8 February 2008 at 8:04 PM
Rasmus,
I do think that you are missing the point.
It is generally agreed that it is impossible for Hell to freeze over. Yet you have shown that the impossible can happen.
Everyone believes that it is impossible for mankind to destroy the World, and they believe that progress will save us. Your vision of Hell covered in snow leads me to doubt that such general opinions are always correct.
There is a proof that Hell is exothermic and so will not freeze over given here http://w-uh.com/posts/040517-hell_exothermic.html On the other hand there is a report of experimental evidence which disputes that hypothesis. See http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2002/hell-p1.php
You wrote:
“The science journalist in the panel advocated the practice of reporting on issues that are based on publications from peer reviewed scientific literature. I whole-heartedly concur. I would also advice journalists to do some extensive search on the publication record of the individuals, and consider their affiliations – are they from a reputable place?”
But that is no guarantee of the truth. We were all wrong believing that Hell does not freeze over, and as I have shown there are conflicting views on whether Hell is exothermic from equally authoratative sources.
Lord Kelvin proved that the Earth was only ten million years old, showing that even the most prestigious authorities can be wrong. When some of the big problems in climate science are still unanswered, such as the tropical lapse rate, polar amplification, and abrupt climate change then insisting that the journalists should only listen to those who have failed to come up with the answers seems rather illogical.
Cheers, Alastair.
[Response: Good point about Lord Kelvin. He was a great man in many respects. But scholars of his age did not possess the same information, beit empirical data and physical understanding, as we have today. Science evolves, and I presume it moves in the direction from less informed to more informed. Thus we are getting closer to the truth as we make more discoveries and increase our understanding. We do not know if we know the truth, but the scientific consencus is - the way I see it - the most convincing view. And a reputable scientific establishments have earned its esteem through scientific mertis - often in taking part in shaping the established scientific knowledge. It’s important that the advancement of our understanding follows scientific principles (reproducable results , objective testing of hypotheses, transparancy, peer rviewed publication, etc). -rasmus]
8 February 2008 at 9:44 PM
Ray:
“As Thomas Huxley said: “My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonise with my aspirations”
I’m sad for you. A mans reach should exceed his grasp.
But now I understand you.
8 February 2008 at 11:11 PM
Hello Rasmus,
Thank you for your posting, and for confirming that there is indeed a Hell on Earth. (Though according to Wiki, hell in Norwegian means cliff or overhang). You say “The problem is that people without scientific training often find it hard to judge who’s right and who’s wrong.” I am not a public speaker or any climate expert, but I think if were, I would put this back to the audience. You and I know that climate change is proven, so really, you’re job is not to prove the science to the audience, but lead them to prove it for themselves. That’s not science or politics really, but education. Couldn’t you say something like this:
8 February 2008 at 11:13 PM
“The Bali dissenters”. Yeah, and then there is Courtney, whose real credentials still appear so mysterious, that only he seems to know what they are…
8 February 2008 at 11:18 PM
Re # 57 stevenmosher
I am sad for you, as you seem not to understand science.
8 February 2008 at 11:21 PM
In reply to Neil B. The link in your comment is not correct (a few errors.). The following is an explanation as to how it is hypothesized that solar changes affect planetary temperature.
The majority of the solar affects to planetary temperature in the 20th century are attributed to solar magnetic cycle changes, not changes to the Total Solar Irradiation (TSI). The changes to the solar magnetic field cycle effects the planet’s temperature by modulating the amount of planetary cloud cover. More clouds higher albedo, cooler planet and visa versa, less clouds will result in a warmer planet. There is not agreement in the scientific community as to specifically how much of the 20th century warming is attributable to solar magnetic cycle changes and how much is due to GHG.
The solar cycle 24 magnetic field cycle appears to have failed to start which would indicate there will be an abrupt drop in the solar magnetic field cycle and an extended period with few sunspots. (A period when there are few or no sunspots is called a Maunder minimum. Named after the Discover of specific 75 year period when there were no sunspots.) A Maunder minimum is believed to be caused by processes that interrupt the mechanism in the sun that creates the solar cycle magnetic fields.
The proof that there was solar cycle magnetic cycle interruption at the end of solar cycle 23 is the following paper. As noted in the paper, there were no solar X flares at the end of cycle 22. At the end of 23 cycle, there where 34 X-class flares (3 more X-ray flares in 2007.). Normally x flares are created by the large magnetic fields that are created at the highest point in the solar cycle. The solar magnetic field ropes are created at the interface of the solar radiative zone and convection zone. The magnetic ropes created at the solar tachocline float up through the convection zone to the solar surface where they form sunspots. The interruption in the tachocline is believed to be due to barycentre motion of the sun by the large planets. This motion causes an oscillation in the sun which interrupts the formation of the magnetic field ropes. When the tacholine is interrupted there are a few regions that have a magnetic seed in them before the interruption. These regions continue to build a magnetic rope, except the rope no longer releases and builds to the strength required to create x ray solar flares which explains why there were 37 x ray flares at the end of solar cycle 23.
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~hhudson/drafts/xclass/unpredictability.pdf
From the paper:
“The expectation for the years 2004-2006, if based on the previous-cycle years of approximately 1993-1995, would have been zero further events – not a single X-class flare occurred during these three late years of the previous cycle, although one old-cycle event did occur in 1996 (Kosovichev & Zharkova 1998; Hudson et al. 1998). To our surprise as many as 34 X-class flares occurred over 2004-2006″
Comment:
There was a paper published in 1998 that predicted a Maunder minimum based on the paleo record. A paper in 1987 predicted an imminent solar magnetic cycle interruption based on solar barycentre motion. There is evidence of a series of these solar minimums throughout the paleo record.
8 February 2008 at 11:54 PM
Unfortunately, the reality of Global Warming is very much like the prospect of Nuclear Annihilation that those of us older than 20 lived with throughout the Cold War. It’s really scary. End of the world kind of stuff. So the average joe while readily acknowledging its real (because everyone says it is) simply pretends its not happening - at least not today. It’s easier that way. Joe has plenty of terrible things to worry about already, wars, disease, globalization, bills, diabetes due to lack of exercise or proper diet. So until the leaders (religious, political, et al) step up and convince enough of the general public to demand that their elected officials do something, the scientists will be viewed as simply doomsayers because currently the mitigation strategies outlined so far seem (regardless of reality) to rely on economic hardship or magic.
In the regular world rather than the world of science, no one wants to hear about problems - they only want to hear about solutions. But they won’t listen to the radical solution(s) required until they’ve believe the problem is near and severe - hence the struggle for these many years.
The scientists need to continue to work on the religious and political leaders to help them understand the need for motivating the public into demanding action. More importantly, the engineers and scientists need to outline what can be done and how, to give the political leaders something to sell. Meanwhile, the rest of us conversant in science need to continue gently working on our neighbors, friends and co-workers on how serious this really is and that things need to be done - at the very least we need to ramp up the science and technology research. And so maybe magic will save us.
Or not. Personally, I think we’ve already effed it up and the suffering is going to be one huge slow motion train wreck. Human civilization will survive but our descendants will regard us with deserved contempt. But at least we’ll get to know the answer to that all important question - just how many people can we jam on the planet before the ecosystem collapses.
8 February 2008 at 11:58 PM
Re #46: The lack of any direct quotes of Tapping in the IBD editorial seemed suspicious, as did the fact that it was an editorial (i.e. with no journalistic standards) rather than an article. I emailed Tapping earlier today asking him to clarify and haven’t had a reply yet, but subsequently came across this article (from the previous day) that was obviously the raw material for the editorial. This recent paper on which Tapping was lead author makes it clear that he is entirely in the solar science mainstream and does not hold the view that there might be major effects from a repeat of the Maunder Minimum (to the extent the MM doesn’t just turn out to be more observational artifact than real).
So now of course this sleazy piece of disinfomation is winging its way around the denialosphere. Rush Limbaugh picked it up (h/t Roy Spencer?), which means it’ll be everywhere over the weekend.
Right now I’ll bet poor Tapping is on his way back from the SORCE conference and has no idea about any of this. Won’t he be surprised.
9 February 2008 at 12:54 AM
Re #57: “I’m sad for you. A mans reach should exceed his grasp.”
You are confusing socio-economic ‘facts of life’ with the physical laws of nature and are likely failing to understand either.
9 February 2008 at 2:36 AM
The question, Mosher, is which do you misunderstand most? The quote, or climate science?
Or perhaps you’re trying to tell us that you’re sad for Ray because, unlike you, he doesn’t try to make facts harmonise with his aspirations? Having observed your vile behavior at a variety of blogs, I know that your aspirations include demolishing of climate science in the arena of public opinion, regardless of the facts, after all.
9 February 2008 at 3:33 AM
Contrarian journalism usually relies on scientists having impressive credentials, never read an article disparaging a scientist not having a huge luggage full of peer reviewed papers, credentials outweigh reviews by a magnitude of importance. Pitting one scientist against another is by far common practice which is a waste of time. Fortunately climate science is not so abstract, the reader can be involved by personal memories vs active weather. There is not enough of this engagement bringing out reasoning as a means to convince. Relativity was made famous by Gravitational lensing observed during a solar eclipse, not well before when Einstein wrote his theory. Its the effects which become wildly understood and not esoteric papers. Hansen et Al. prediction of a world wide warming did not get the same attention as the 1919 solar eclipse observations, and it is probably because
science reporting has seriously lapsed in personality wars, rather than appreciating great achievements.
I challenge individuals to think as often as I can when talking climate, I have yet met an elderly person denying that their climate has not changed, but everything gets nebulous when trying to explain why it is getting warmer. Demonstrating no other source of heat but by GHG’s is not so tricky. The only other likely source is the sun having heat radiation outside the scope of individual perceptions, somehow there must be more information about the sun preferably given away on a regular basis, along with forecasts for instance. Confusion strives on ignorance and emotional arguments.
9 February 2008 at 3:53 AM
Ken Tapping responds:
Hi Steve,
The article is rubbish.
I believe that global climate change is the biggest problem facing us today. As yet we have no idea of exactly how serious it can get or where the tipping point may be.
The lateness of the start of the solar activity cycle is not yet enough to be something to worry about. However, even if we were to go into another minimum, and the Sun dims for a few decades, as it did during the Maunder Minimum, it could reduce the problem for a while, but things will come back worse when the cycle starts again.
We are looking at the downside of the freedom of the web. Its freedom extends to bad information being circulated.
Regards,
Ken
9 February 2008 at 4:21 AM
Secular Animist (51) and BPL (49) take issue with Alan K and quite reasonably so. However, I think Alan K has given a pretty clear indication of how “people like me” think and therefore defined the gulf that has to be bridged. In that sense, his is a positive contribution.
RC is certainly helping to build the bridge but getting a good foundation on the other side depends on understanding the Alan K’s. The climate scientists and the media all play a role in this.
If Alan spends a bit more time reading this site he might come round to thinking like the people here and get a bit of an appreciation of science in the process. But, there will still be many millions like him.
9 February 2008 at 7:55 AM
Steve Mosher, Your rejection of the realism in Huxley’s admonition speaks volumes.
9 February 2008 at 10:31 AM
Steven, your ad hom attack on Ray in #57 seems to be in response to his #55. Your attack makes no sense to me. What is it you do not understand about Ray’s statement? Can you not see that, whatever else may be going on that might temporarily drop global temperatures, the forcing due to CO2 buildup will continue to increase as long as we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere. Then, when the temporary negative forcing disappears (e.g., aerosol cleanup), or goes back positive (cyclical forcing), we will be in worse trouble than ever. You seem to imply that if anything happens to cause temperatures to drop, then that’s it - global warming is over, and any other understanding is somehow delusional. Ray’s pooint is that the laws of physics will continue to apply.
9 February 2008 at 11:32 AM
William Astley, So, perhaps you would care to tell us the mechanism by which changes in the heliomagnetic field affect climate–because I have yet to hear one that even tangentially intersects reality.
9 February 2008 at 12:08 PM
(68) I think that was a very good point, that was how I interperted the comment.
Along similar lines: trying to rate scientists/journals to separate wheat from chaff is probably not going to work. The people we are trying to convince are used to lots of different ratings scales, such as degree of support for conservative politics equals goodness, that they will believe the journals are simply fronts for liberalism. That brings up a second motivator besides libertarian anti-regulationism, the political cum cultural war in the US. Partisans can instantly detect whether a finding or argument tends to support a right or a left interpretation. The immediate reaction is to support any argument which leads in the proper direction, and disparage any argument that leads in the wrong direction. This sort of thinking is far more common among the populance than logically weighing data/theories etc. Naturally they project the same style of thinking onto scientists. And it is well known that AGW is a left issue.
9 February 2008 at 12:53 PM
Ron Taylor, It appears that Steve is not alone in perpetuating Bishop Berkley’s idealism. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
“In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.””
And their magical thinking is not confined to politics–it evidently extends to physics as well.
9 February 2008 at 12:57 PM
Some of the media are pro climate change here in the UK. The Guardian and Independent newspapers have a left wing bent and are pro climate change. The Telegraph and Times newspapers are more right wing and hence allow for contrarian opinion in their columns although they do also reproduce IPCC and other pro climate work.
I think that politically the left are convinced but the right especially the far right are not. This is what makes it so interesting to the USA as the right are very well organised and have managed to fight a steady fight over the years and as yet we have not managed to get anything resolved there.
[Response: I don’t think anyone is ‘pro’ climate change…. - gavin]
9 February 2008 at 1:25 PM
In reply to Ray Lambert’s comment.
The solar magnetic cycle affects cloud cover by two mechanisms 1) Changes to the solar heliosphere which in turn changes the number of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) that strike the earth’s atmosphere and 2) Electroscavenging where solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. The following is a summary. See this paper by Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu “Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate” for details.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
General
The net effect of planetary clouds (all levels) is a reflection into space of 27.7 W/m2 (i.e. Clouds cool the planet by 27.7 W/m2.) [Hartmann, 1993] A mechanism that increases or decreases the total amount of planetary cloud cover will change the planet’s temperature.
Cloud Modulation by GCR
Microscope cloud nuclei are created by the electrons that are produced when the GCR strike the upper atmosphere. (GCR create muons. The muons reach lower levels in the atmosphere and create free electrons.) Svensmark has confirmed the processes in a lab test. Two additional tests are planned. One in a deep under ground mine, to test the process in the absence of natural muons and the second with CERN, where CERN will be used to create a known modulated artificial GCR source.
GCR Modulation by Solar Heliosphere
Pieces of magnetic flux from the sun are carried out into the solar heliosphere. The solar heliosphere stretches out about 20 light hours (near the orbit of Uranus.) The pieces of magnetic flux deflect GCR so that deflected GCR does not strike the earth. As the solar cycle progresses there is an observed change in the amount of Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) particles that strike the earth. Tracking the change in the number of GCR is a change total planetary cloud cover. This is shown by satellite data in Palle’s paper and also in Tinsley and Yu’s paper (figure 2.1.).
Electroscavenging
High speed solar winds that are created by coronal holes (for example) remove cloud forming ions by the process of electroscavenging. The high speed solar wind creates a space charge in the earth’s ionosphere. The charge differential in the ionosphere creates a potential difference between the ionosphere and the lower atmosphere which removes cloud forming ions, from the lower atmosphere. (See figure 3.1 and figure 5.3 in Tinsley and Yu’s paper.) The ionosphere space charge is latitude specific (see figure 5.3.) Palle’s satellite analysis shows a significant reduction in clouds at the latitudes, as predicted by Tinsley and Yu.
The planetary cloud cover closely tracks GCR through two solar cycles. Around 1999 there is a gradual reduction in the earth’s total cloud cover and a reduction in the earth’s albedo based on the earthshine albedo data and satellite data. This reduction in cloud cover occurs when there is an increase in solar wind bursts due to coronal holes moving to the solar equator at the end of the solar cycle.
9 February 2008 at 1:45 PM
William Astley–there is no evidence that cosmic ray fluxes are changing, and your second mechanims is too feeble to have much effect.
Pete Best and Gavin:
“[Response: I don’t think anyone is ‘pro’ climate change…. - gavin]”
Actually, I’ve been thinking about it, and the Russians might be. After all, much of their economy now revolves around fossil fuel exports, they have always coveted a warmwater, year-round port, and they have vast areas of unproductive tundra that they may think (rightly or wrongly) that it can be rendered more productive by higher temperatures (despite the short growing season).
This brings up a question: What does the international community do if every nation is on board with the necessity of reductions–except those few who think they stand to benefit from a warmer world?
9 February 2008 at 2:26 PM
Ray Ladbury quotes Ron Suskind quoting a senior adviser to President Bush thusly: “… when we act, we create our own reality … we’ll act again, creating other new realities … we’re history’s actors …”.
Ray Ladbury calls this “magical thinking”.
I would disagree. We are all “history’s actors”. Every act creates “new realities”. That much is true.
The question is, how shall we choose to act, in order to create what sort of new reality? That question has two distinct parts.
The first part is the question of what sort of “new reality” do we wish to create? What are the values that we wish to realize when we act to change the present reality to a new reality?
The second part is the question of what specific actions will effectively bring about the desired new reality — and that’s where being “reality-based”, where making a “judicious study of discernable reality”, where relying on science, becomes important. If we act according to good, accurate information and a correct understanding of what the effects of our actions will be, then we have a better chance of creating the reality we desire than if we act according to ignorance, incorrect information, and faulty beliefs about the effects of our actions.
With regard to anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change, we in the “reality-based community” must become “history’s actors”. We must have a clear understanding of the values we wish to realize, of the nature of the “new reality” that we wish to create. And we must act — we must act urgently and above all effectively, and effective action can only be based on solid scientific knowledge, ie. the “judicious study of discernable reality”, in order to understand the present reality we are dealing with and how our actions will change it.
The problem with the point of view expressed by the “senior advisor” that Suskind quotes lies partly in the sort of realities that the Bush administration has sought to create, and also (even if one agrees with creating those realities) with reliance on incorrect information and poor understanding of the likely effects of their actions.
The problem with AGW denialists lies partly in the sort of realities they may wish to create (eg. a reality in which accelerating consumption of fossil fuels continues to enrich giant corporations with tens of billions of dollars a year in profit until fossil fuels are depleted, or a reality in which everything is left to the “free market” and government “intervention” to promote efficiency and renewable energy and limit emissions is anathema), but the even greater problem is a refusal to base actions on accurate information about reality and about the probable effects of our actions on that reality.
The problem is that they don’t like the actions that a “judicious study of discernable reality” suggests are urgently needed to address AGW, so they make up their own reality in which such actions are not needed.
A bull in a china shop creates new realities too: wreckage and debris where once there was beauty.
9 February 2008 at 2:57 PM
Gavin Schmidt: “I don’t think anyone is ‘pro’ climate change…”
Ray Ladbury: “Actually, I’ve been thinking about it, and the Russians might be…”
There’s an interesting discussion from something called ClimateIntel here: http://climateintel.com/2007/11/30/the-russian-federation-and-the-un-climate-conference-a-case-of-no-news-being-news/
It discusses a communique from the Russian Federation (linked to 3rd para 2nd line) and rather neatly matches my understanding. I see the Russian Federation Stance as ambivalent, aware of risks, but eager primarily to seek opportunity. Their most pressing concern is the societally extensive aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It seems to me that they’re busy trying to manage a (potential?) disaster, so possible future problems will take a back seat (unlike in the stability of the EU core member states).
We all know that Russia weren’t just being nationalistic for the sake of it when they placed that flag on th North Pole. Thinner Arctic winter ice, with an ice free summer will be key for ocean drilling rig operations, as I understand it. Vladimir Putin’s regime and his internal rivals are all Cold-War animals: The pressures of climate change and peak oil/gas conjoined may create international tensions such as the cold war did. I think we may find Putin a model of the future rather than (as he is often judged) a relic of the past. Placed as they are between China and the EU, the Russian Federation are ideally placed to monopolise Eurasia’s gas/oil supply later this century, if they can just find enough reserves.
Russia is very interesting… however that’s geo-political not climatological.
9 February 2008 at 3:10 PM
Bomb them…
Seriously, Eli Rabbett had a very sane proposal for that: tax carbon not only at the plant, but at the border. Most countries are somewhat dependent on export, and import duties graded by carbon footprint would stop the regime from ‘leaking’ too much.
[Response: Actually this is being talked about even at the WTO, based, ironically, on the sea turtle case the US brought against Thailand. There the US successfully argued that environmental concerns justified increased tariffs. This could well be a precedent for carbon emission-based trade rules as well. - gavin]
9 February 2008 at 3:17 PM
Ray, you convince the Russians that no matter how much their own climate may benefit, the economic impacts on the rest of the world will leave them significant worse off. In our post-colonialism world, nations don’t become richer at the expense of other nations, they become richer by trading with other rich nations.
9 February 2008 at 3:47 PM
Re #76, Yer we can all make it to 4C and go and live in Siberia for a few millenia. Another group who are pro climate change are “end worlders”. Plenty in the USA I hear.
9 February 2008 at 4:02 PM
Re #58 John Monro, a small technical correction: I seem to remember that Rasmus is a Norwegian national living in or near Oslo, and probably somewhat fluent in both Norwegian languages
9 February 2008 at 4:11 PM
A new Danish documentary should be of interest to many in this discussion: Klimamysteriat, The Cloud Mystery, centered around Henrik Svensmark but also prominently featuring Eigil Friis-Christensen (also of the Danish National Space Center), Nir Shaviv (Hebrew U. of Jerusalem), Jan Veizer (U of Ottawa), Richard Turco (UCLA) , Eugene Parker (U of Chicago), Paal Brekke (Norwegian Space Center), and others that I may have missed.
Cosmic ray deniers will enjoy a cameo appearance by Sir John Mason of the UK Meteorological Office, despite the applause given Svensmark by the lecture audience when Mason’s views are characterized as being “one extreme”.
Filmmaker Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen has been shooting film of Svensmark for years, including footage of the SKY experiment being constructed.
Youtube’d in 6 parts, part 1 being at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkgEUN_TyoA&feature=user
Search youtube for Svensmark to find it easily.
The website for the film
http://www.thecloudmystery.com/The%20Cloud%20Mystery.html
the trailer can be viewed at
http://www.mortensenfilm.dk/videoplayer%20The%20Climate%20Conflict.html
[Response: This appears to be a straight retelling of the “Chilling Stars” book. In my review of the book, I pointed to the ridiculous overstatements of importance that were being made for this work, and I see it continues here. Apparently, “The film records ten years of effort by the small team in Copenhagen that, in the end, solved the mystery of how the Galaxy and the Sun interfere in our everyday weather.” Well, nice to know there are no mysteries any more. Svensmark and colleagues would do well to note that most of the criticism they have received is because of these continuing exaggerations, not because of any “challenge [to] the belief of most climate theorists” about CO2. How can their results say anything about the trends in recent decades when there is no trend in cosmic rays? - gavin]
9 February 2008 at 4:20 PM
Secular Animist,
While I agree that we are all history’s actors, we are constrained in the actions we can take and the outcomes we can achieve. The denialists and other magical thinkers tend to deny physics, while many on the left tend to brush economic reality lightly aside when proposing solutions for climate change. And while history does not repeat itself, the same themes manifest throughout. Then we have human psychology. If we seek effective action, we need to study the problem, be cognizant of the realities and constraints. We need to understand why things are the way they are before we can change them, and those changes that make the least change while still achieving the desired result will be most likely to succeed. Utopia technically means “nowhere”. There’s a reason for that.
9 February 2008 at 4:26 PM
SecularAnimist> The problem is that they don’t like the actions that a “judicious study of discernable reality” suggests are urgently needed to address AGW, so they make up their own reality in which such actions are not needed.
While it is clear who you mean by ‘they’ above, your statement can be applied to both sides of the mitigation vs. adaptation debate that I think stevenmosher was addressing.
Most commenters here seem to see a reality where it is easier to change human nature to give up an energy intensive lifestyle (or aspirations to it if they don’t have it yet). This view may be encouraged by believing it is also the better moral approach.
The opposite view of reality is that it is easier to use human ingenuity to modify nature (non-fossil energy technology, moving cities inland, geo-engineering, if necessary) than to modify human nature. This view may be encouraged by believing it is also the better moral approach.
9 February 2008 at 5:19 PM
Certainly, any lay piece with Henrik Svensmark at the center will appear much as Chilling Stars would; please note I’ve not read it, preferring the journal articles of the principals involved.
Gavin exaggerated even the filmmaker’s words, who makes no claim there are no climate mysteries left, only that the mystery of how “how the Galaxy and the Sun interfere in our everyday weather” has been solved. Even RealClimate has agreed there is an effect, the argument is over how much.
Nir Shaviv has estimated that the current climate is 2/3 natural effects, 1/3 AGW, plus or minus 1/3. There are plenty of mysteries left to work on.
The global temperature (record cold southern hemisphere and now northern hemisphere winters, a general stalling of measured warming since 1998) does not at all seem to be following the “hockey stick” projections of the past, and the GCR record does seem to be well correlated with historic temperatures, even in this past century.
Finally, it would seem to this almost layman (who abandoned Physics, after earning a BS, for electrical engineering) that the high energy neutron flux would tend not to correlate well over the short term to GCR modulated by the sun’s magnetic field (I believe this is the dominant effect claimed by Svensmark) since, iirc, uncharged particles tend to not be affected by magnetic fields. C14 AND Be10, as proxies for GCR,