• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

  • Start here
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics
  • Surface temperature graphics
You are here: Home / Archives for Communicating Climate

Communicating Climate

BAU wow wow

30 Jan 2020 by Gavin

How should we discuss scenarios of future emissions? What is the range of scenarios we should explore? These are constant issues in climate modeling and policy discussions, and need to be reassessed every few years as knowledge improves.

I discussed some of this in a post on worst case scenarios a few months ago, but the issue has gained more prominence with a commentary by Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters in Nature this week (which itself partially derives from ongoing twitter arguments which I won’t link to because there are only so many rabbit holes that you want to fall into).

My brief response to this is here though:

How to judge the importance of scientific critiques? Use a necessary edits scale:

4* Big deal: All papers to be rewritten from scratch
3* Important: Major revisions in many papers
2* Notable: Some sections reframed
1* Inconsequential: A sentence or two edited

— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) January 30, 2020

Mike Mann has a short discussion on this as well. But there are many different perspectives around – ranging from the merely posturing to the credible and constructive. The bigger questions are certainly worth discussing, but if the upshot of the current focus is that we just stop using the term ‘business-as-usual’ (as was suggested in the last IPCC report), then that is fine with me, but just not very substantive.

References

  1. Z. Hausfather, and G.P. Peters, "Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading", Nature, vol. 577, pp. 618-620, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00177-3

Filed Under: Climate impacts, Climate modelling, Climate Science, Communicating Climate, IPCC, Scientific practice

Sensitive But Unclassified

6 Nov 2019 by Gavin

The US federal government goes to quite a lot of effort to (mostly successfully) keep sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information (like personal data) out of the hands of people who would abuse it. But when it comes to the latest climate models, quite a few are SBU as well.

[Read more…] about Sensitive But Unclassified

Filed Under: Climate modelling, Climate Science, Communicating Climate, Instrumental Record, IPCC

Just the facts?

9 Aug 2019 by Gavin

In the wake of the appalling mass shootings last weekend, Neil DeGrasse Tyson (the pre-eminent scientist/communicator in the US) tweeted some facts that were, let’s just say, not well received (and for which he kind of apologised). At least one of the facts he tweeted about was incorrect (deaths by medical errors are far smaller). However, even if it had been correct, the overall response would have been the same, because the reaction was not driven by the specifics of what was said, but rather by the implied message of the context in which it was said. This is a key feature (or bug) of communications in a politicized environment, and one that continues to trip up people who are experienced enough to know better.

[Read more…] about Just the facts?

Filed Under: Climate Science, Communicating Climate, In the News, Scientific practice

Absence and Evidence

25 Jun 2019 by group

Guest commentary by Michael Tobis, a retired climate scientist. He is a software developer and science writer living in Ottawa, Ontario.

A recent opinion piece by economist Ross McKitrick in the Financial Post, which attracted considerable attention in Canada, carried the provocative headline “This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather – so politicians attacked”.

In fact, the scientist referenced in the headline, Roger Pielke Jr., proved no such thing. He examined some data, but he did not find compelling evidence regarding whether or not human influence is causing or influencing extreme events.

Should such a commonplace failure be broadly promoted as a decisive result that merits public interest?

[Read more…] about Absence and Evidence

Filed Under: Climate impacts, Climate Science, Communicating Climate, Hurricanes, IPCC

Koonin’s case for yet another review of climate science

15 Jun 2019 by Gavin

We watch long YouTube videos so you don’t have to.

In the seemingly endless deliberations on whether there should be a ‘red team’ exercise to review various climate science reports, Scott Waldman reported last week that the original architect of the idea, Steve Koonin, had given a talk on touching on the topic at Purdue University in Indiana last month. Since the talk is online, I thought it might be worth a viewing.

[Spoiler alert. It wasn’t].

[Read more…] about Koonin’s case for yet another review of climate science

Filed Under: Climate modelling, Climate Science, In the News, Instrumental Record, IPCC, Scientific practice, skeptics

The best case for worst case scenarios

26 Feb 2019 by Gavin

The “end of the world” or “good for you” are the two least likely among the spectrum of potential outcomes.

Stephen Schneider

Scientists have been looking at best, middling and worst case scenarios for anthropogenic climate change for decades. For instance, Stephen Schneider himself took a turn back in 2009. And others have postulated both far more rosy and far more catastrophic possibilities as well (with somewhat variable evidentiary bases).

[Read more…] about The best case for worst case scenarios

References

  1. S. Schneider, "The worst-case scenario", Nature, vol. 458, pp. 1104-1105, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/4581104a

Filed Under: Climate impacts, Climate modelling, Climate Science, Communicating Climate, IPCC, Reporting on climate, Scientific practice

Decluttering

21 Jan 2019 by Gavin

Given some unexpected down time this month (and maybe next month too!), I’ve been trying to go through key old posts on this site. The basic idea is to update links to other sites, references and figures that over the years have died (site domains that were abandoned, site redesigns, deliberate deletions etc.). Most notably, the IPCC website recently broke all the existing links to elements of the reports which we had referenced in hundreds of places. Thanks guys!

Some folk have been notifying us of issues they found (thanks Marcus!) and I’ve been fixing those as they come up, but obviously there are more. Links to old blog posts from Deltoid, Scienceblogs, Pielke Sr. or Prometheus generally don’t work anymore though they can sometimes be found on the wayback machine. It turns out a lot has changed since 2004 and many hotlinked images in particular have disappeared.

It’s obviously not worth finding replacements for every dead link, but digital uncluttering and fixing up is useful. So, please use this thread to notify us of any useful fixes we can make (and if you have an updated link,, that’d be perfect). Additionally, please let us know if any of the old content is still useful or interesting to you. We know there is still substantial traffic to the back catalog, so maybe it should be highlighted in some way?

To those of you who might ask whether blogging still brings me joy… of course it does!

Filed Under: Climate Science, Communicating Climate

Let’s check your temperature

26 Dec 2018 by rasmus

The underlying mission of my job is to safeguard lives and property through climate change adaptation based on science. In other words, to help society to prepare itself for risks connected with more extreme rainfall and temperatures.

For many people, “climate” may seem to be an abstract concept. I have had many conversations about climate, and then realised that people often have different interpretations. In my mind, climate is the same as weather statistics (which I realise can be quite abstract to many).

To avoid miscommunication, I want to make sure that we are on the same page when I discuss climate. Maybe it helps if I talk about more familiar and specific aspects, such as the temperature, rainfall, snow, or wind?

[Read more…] about Let’s check your temperature

Filed Under: Climate Science, climate services, Communicating Climate, statistics, Supplemental data

4th National Climate Assessment report

23 Nov 2018 by Gavin

In possibly the biggest “Friday night news dump” in climate report history, the long awaited 4th National Climate Assessment (#NCA4) was released today (roughly two weeks earlier than everyone had been expecting).

The summaries and FAQ (pdf) are good, and the ClimateNexus briefing is worth reading too. The basic picture is utterly unsurprising, but the real interest in the NCA is the detailed work on vulnerabilities and sectorial impacts in 10 specific regions of the US. The writing teams for those sections include a whole raft of scientists and local stakeholders and so if you think climate reports are the same old, same old, it’s where you should go to read things you might not have seen before.

    Regional Chapters

  • Northeast
  • Southeast
  • U.S. Caribbean
  • Midwest
  • Northern Great Plains
  • Southern Great Plains
  • Northwest
  • Southwest
  • Alaska
  • Hawai‘i & U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands

Obviously, since the report was only released at 2pm today without any serious embargo, most takes you will read today or tomorrow will be pretty superficial, but there should be more considered discussions over the next few days. Feel free to ask specific questions or bring up topics below.

Filed Under: Climate impacts, Climate Science, Communicating Climate

Cracking the Climate Change Case

26 Oct 2018 by Gavin

I have an op-ed in the New York Times this week:

How Scientists Cracked the Climate Change Case
The biggest crime scene on the planet is the planet. We know the earth is warming, but who or what is causing it?
Emilia Miękisz

Many of you will recognise the metaphor from previous Realclimate pieces (this is earliest one I think, from 2007), and indeed, the working title was “CSI: Planet Earth”. The process description and conclusions are drawn from multiple sources on the attribution of recent climate trends (here, here etc.), as well the data visualization for surface temperature trends at Bloomberg News.

There have been many comments about this on Twitter – most appreciative, some expected, and a few interesting. The expected criticisms come from people who mostly appear not to have read the piece at all (“Climate has changed before!” – a claim that no-one disputes), and a lot of pointless counter-arguments by assertion. Of the more interesting comment threads, was one started by Ted Nordhaus who asked

I wonder who exactly the audience for this sort of thing is at this point… https://t.co/m977McdHZC

— Ted Nordhaus (@TedNordhaus) October 25, 2018

My response is basically that it might be old hat for him (and maybe many readers here), but I am constantly surprised at the number of people – even those concerned about climate – who are unaware of how we do attribution and how solid the science behind the IPCC statements is. And judging by many of the comments, it certainly isn’t the case that these pieces are only read by the already convinced. But asking how many people are helped to be persuaded by articles like this is a valid question, and I don’t really know the answer. Anyone?

Filed Under: Climate modelling, Climate Science, Communicating Climate, Greenhouse gases, Instrumental Record, Scientific practice

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Page 6
  • Page 7
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 28
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Search for:

Email Notification

get new posts sent to you automatically (free)
Loading

Recent Posts

  • Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Time and Tide Gauges wait for no Voortman
  • Lil’ NAS Express
  • DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Climate Scientists response to DOE report

Our Books

Book covers
This list of books since 2005 (in reverse chronological order) that we have been involved in, accompanied by the publisher’s official description, and some comments of independent reviewers of the work.
All Books >>

Recent Comments

  • patrick o twentyseven on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Nigel on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • patrick o twentyseven on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Piotr on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Mal Adapted on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Barry E Finch on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Atomsk’s Sanakan on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • John Pollack on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Barton Paul Levenson on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Barton Paul Levenson on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Barton Paul Levenson on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Barton Paul Levenson on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Ray Ladbury on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Barry E Finch on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Mo Yunus on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • MA Rodger on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Nigelj on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Geoff Miell on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Mo Yunus on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Geoff Miell on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Mo Yunus on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Keith Woollard on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Mo Yunus on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Piotr on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Radge Havers on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Piotr on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Radge Havers on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Radge Havers on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Susan Anderson on Unforced variations: Oct 2025

Footer

ABOUT

  • About
  • Translations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Page
  • Login

DATA AND GRAPHICS

  • Data Sources
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Surface temperature graphics
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics

INDEX

  • Acronym index
  • Index
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Realclimate Stats

1,383 posts

11 pages

247,468 comments

Copyright © 2025 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.