NASA GISS has released the estimated monthly temperature for December 2009, which closes out the year 2009, which closes out the decade of the 2000s. The result: 2005 is still the hottest calendar year, 2009 is the 2nd-hottest year ever, although it’s really in a statistical tie with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007.
Some claim that the hottest year on record is 1998, which it is according to the data from the Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit (HadCRU) in the U.K. But that’s because the HadCRU record omits the arctic (and other) regions; James Hansen explains why that makes a difference. He also expounds on the probable error in temperature estimates, and why so many recent years are in a “statistical tie” for 2nd place.
Of course, defining annual temperature based on the calendar year (January through December) is a rather arbitrary choice; a better idea is to compute 12-month moving averages so we can see the average for every 12-month period in the data record. Here are 12-month moving averages:
We can even take a close-up view of 12-month moving averages since 1995:
From this we see that not only is 2005 the hottest calendar year, Jan. to Dec. 2005 is the hottest 12-month period at 0.63 deg.C. We also see that Aug. 2006 to Jul. 2007 is the 2nd-hottest independent 12-month period, at 0.62 deg.C. In fact these two are in a “statistical tie” for 1st place, with the other years now clearly tieing for 3rd. Of course, the 12-month moving average is still on the upswing, so if the next several months are on the warm side then 2009-2010 may soon move into 1st place — but that remains to be seen.
NASA has also released the monthly data for each hemisphere separately. The calendar-year averages are here:
For the northern hemisphere the hottest year was 2005, but for the southern hemisphere 2009 set the new record. However, we may wish again to examine 12-month moving averages:
And of course, we can take a close-up view since 1995:
The hottest 12-month period in the northern hemisphere is not from 2005 at all, but from May 2006 to Apr. 2007, at 0.87 deg.C. For the southern hemisphere, 2009 is not longer alone in 1st place although it is in a “statistical tie” — the hottest is Sep. 1997 to Aug. 1998 at 0.49, but Jan. to Dec. 2009 is tied with it, also at 0.49. Again, a warm several months will move 2009 squarely into 1st place.
Bottom line: natural variation from year to year continues, as does global warming.
127 responses so far ↓
Deep Climate // January 19, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
Commenting on your simple model results four months ago, I speculated about a four-way statistical tie for second place. And so it came to pass, although I missed one of the years. IIRC, your regression model was only off by one or two hundreths of a degree.
19.5yo // January 19, 2010 at 7:08 pm |
“months will move 2009 squarely into 1st place”
should read
“months will move 2010 squarely into 1st place.”
good, clear, stuff…but those with cobwebs instead
of gray matter will still choose to believe the
denialomagogues.
BrianR // January 19, 2010 at 8:31 pm |
Nice, clear post as always.
What are the ideas out there regarding the apparent increased ’separation’ of hemisphere data since early 2000s?
David B. Benson // January 19, 2010 at 10:07 pm |
BrianR // January 19, 2010 at 8:31 pm — Too early to tell, but it is known that the deep ocean (ordinarily) exports heat from the SH to the NH.
RClark // January 19, 2010 at 11:00 pm |
Wasn’t there a year in the 30’s or 40’s that was close to 1998 temps??
[Response: No. Perhaps you're thinking of the data for the continental U.S. only. For the entire globe, not even close.]
t_p_hamilton // January 20, 2010 at 12:06 am |
BrianR: Water heats up slower than land.
GFW // January 20, 2010 at 12:43 am |
Brian, the southern hemisphere has more lag because it has more water. Land surfaces heat faster than ocean surfaces because the oceans circulate.
One really interesting feature of the southern hemisphere data is the much weaker and shorter mid-century cooling. The north shows a statistically significant cooling trend from 1940 to 1970. This is generally interpreted as the effects of sulphate aerosols from industry. As sulphates wash out over several weeks, they remain at higher concentrations in the hemisphere of emission.
billy t // January 20, 2010 at 12:44 am |
some ideas re hemisphere separation:
- humongous ice cube in the middle of the Southern hemisphere, with 500 cubic km net of melting each year (how much heat does that absorb?)
- Lindzen’s clouds steaming up out of those (bigger) oceans
- Arctic sea ice has really lost a lot of cover in the last decade
- more hot air from all the denialists in the Northern Hemisphere
GFW // January 20, 2010 at 12:46 am |
Oh wait, you already know the southern hemisphere has more lag. You’re interested in why that lag seems more apparent since 2000. You got me, but that’s a short enough timescale that one of the major ocean circulation modes could be the reason.
TCO // January 20, 2010 at 1:05 am |
I think the long term trend is what matters. Not records (and yes, there will be more records if the trend goes up…but the PARTICULAR record is still irrelevant and even the NUMBER of records is just a talking point…what matters is trend analysis.)
David B. Benson // January 20, 2010 at 1:41 am |
BrianR // January 19, 2010 at 8:31 pm — Also, whatever effect the ozone hole has in stabilizing Antarctic temperatures for the next several decades.
MapleLeaf // January 20, 2010 at 3:46 am |
This is somewhat on topic. The denialists are already gobbling this one up. That said, Schwartz et al. seem, on the face of it, to make some good points worth considering.
Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
Stephen E. Schwartz, Robert J. Charlson, Ralph A. Kahn, John A. Ogren, Henning Rodhe
Any thoughts?
Gavin's Pussycat // January 20, 2010 at 1:02 pm |
Note their definition of “as [e]xpected”. Nothing there for the denialists.
Gavin's Pussycat // January 20, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Eh, the abstract is here:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI3461.1
Ray Ladbury // January 20, 2010 at 1:23 pm |
MapleLeaf,
I’m afraid Schwartz is writing about a nonproblem. Co2 concentrations have increased about 38% over preindustrial values. Log(1.38)~0.33. We expect about 3 degrees of warming per doubling of CO2 and ln(2)~0.693. Thus, we expect about 1.43 degrees of warming for current levels, but that is the equilibrium value, and with CO2 rising exponentially, we are likely fairly far from equilibrium. It appears Schwartz if making the same mistake he did last time of grossly underestimating the time to reach equilibrium.
Magnus W // January 20, 2010 at 8:09 pm
However Schartz puts it this way: “Forcing by
incremental concentrations of long-lived GHGs over the industrial period (to 2005) is
about 2.6 W m-2, Figure 1, roughly 70% of F2×. Such a forcing, together with the IPCC
best estimate of ΔT2×, 3 K, would thus suggest that the increase in GMST should have
been about 2.1 K, well in excess of the observed increase (IPCC, 2007), about 0.8 K,
Figure 2. Forcing by incremental tropospheric ozone, estimated as 0.35 W m-2 would
contribute an additional 0.3 K to the expected increase in GMST, raising this to 2.4 K.
Possible reasons for the warming discrepancy are examined here.”
Deep Climate // January 20, 2010 at 4:33 pm |
Maple Leaf,
See this guest post at RC (by “Tamino” of Open Mind) about Schwartz’s estimate of climate sensitivity.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/
Magnus W // January 20, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Is there any good numbers on the expected time before the oceans are in equlibrium reguarding to this?
Magnus W // January 20, 2010 at 11:35 am |
Regarding HadCRUT temperaturs, this is relevant… http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html
Simmons, A. J., K. M. Willett, P. D. Jones, P. W. Thorne, and D. P. Dee (2010): Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature, and precipitation: Inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational data sets, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D01110, doi:10.1029/2009JD012442
Christian A. Wittke // January 20, 2010 at 3:04 pm |
Imagine, you sit in your car driving pretty fast up the autobahn; your cooling water temperature gauge moves closer and closer towards the red sector; you feel uneasy and after first ignoring it as casual as possible you are now tempted to stop and take a look; but then ‘what do I know’, so you consider to take the car into the next possible gas station to ask for advice, help… a solution.
This describes what an average intelligent person would go through watching that temperature gauge. But then there are those that travel with faith; they might make it, somehow!
Same for the ones deciding this stupid gauge to be the problem; and the practical ones wishing they had two or three measuring systems, preferably independent and separated from each other.
Well, mankind has many more gauges that all move towards dark red, either on the left for all kinds of diminishing resources or moving to the right monitoring “population”, “consumption”, “temperature” , “CO2” or similar.
Still, there is lots of discussion, mostly lousy, shallow, or hollow; no global consent in a globalised world; but then it was globalised for the single purpose of making the most out of it. And then…?
caw
Never-a-dull-moment // January 20, 2010 at 4:55 pm |
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/01/ams2010_data_gaps_and_errors_m.html
It transpires that the Europeans have opened up a new and significant lead over Americans in adding warmth to the temperature record.
Any chance of GISS tacking on 0.2C to 2009?
After all who will know!
Ray Ladbury // January 20, 2010 at 6:47 pm |
Always-a-dull-child,
Why not actually learn the science so you don’t make a complete ass out of yourself.
Deep Climate // January 20, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
As most know, there has been no update of HadCRU data since ClimateHack back in November.
A notice says:
Data pages are in the process of being rebuilt.
Does anyone know when HadCRUT is expected to be back online and brought up to date? Is it being rebuilt from top to bottom?
Deep Climate // January 20, 2010 at 5:48 pm |
The notice referred to above is at the CRU top level data page:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
dhogaza // January 20, 2010 at 6:11 pm |
It transpires that you have a severe reading comprehension problem.
No, GISTEMP already does extrapolation to cover the far north, which is why it provides a more accurate temperature product than HadCRUT.
This paper describes an effort to “catch up” to GISTEMP, in a sense, not vice-versa.
But we’re used to denialists getting stuff backwards. No surprise here.
David B. Benson // January 20, 2010 at 10:00 pm |
Magnus W // January 20, 2010 at 8:18 pm — Modeling indicates that for a pulse of 2xCO2 not even 13 centuries actually reaches equilibrium, but is clearly quite close.
Deep Climate // January 20, 2010 at 10:01 pm |
dhogaza said:
No, GISTEMP already does extrapolation to cover the far north, which is why it provides a more accurate temperature product than HadCRUT.
It appears to me that this is a separate issue. If it were to be addressed HadCRU trends would be adjusted upward even more.
In particular, the ocean problems during WW2 and after, due to the “warm” bias of previous data collection methods, appear to be present in both data sets. Proper rectification of this issue would no doubt result in a downward adjustment of ocean temperatures in that era and corresponding upward change in trends in both data sets. Or so it seems to me.
David B. Benson // January 20, 2010 at 10:47 pm |
Deep Climate // January 20, 2010 at 10:01 pm — On the other hand, it may make almost no difference. Notice the earlier flucuations in decadal anomalie averages from the GISTEMP global tempearute product (provided by BPL).
1880s -0.25
1890s -0.26
1900s -0.27
1910s -0.28
1920s -0.16
1930s -0.03
1940s +0.04
1950s -0.02
1960s -0.01
1970s +0.00
1980s +0.18
1990s +0.32
2000s +0.51
dhogaza // January 20, 2010 at 11:11 pm |
They don’t appear to be extrapolating ala GISTEMP, I was fibbing a bit, because they’re using a climate model to fill in the missing areas (some of? much of?)
The abstract says:
Hmmm, but I based my assumption on this:
Thinking the data gaps are spatial … but they don’t say that specifically.
My thinking was that they’re using the model to fill in these spatial gaps in NE Canada (arctic), Greenland (largely arctic), northern asia (if far enough north, arctic), leading to a more accurate (warmer) temperature reconstruction.
Similar though not the same as GISTEMP’s method of extrapolation to give arctic numbers.
Slioch // January 20, 2010 at 11:33 pm |
Returning to the reason for the increasing difference in N&S hemisphere temperatures:
Is it not the case that if the earth were at equilibrium, then the two hemispheres would have the same average temperature? So that the difference in temperature between them is a crude index of disequilibrium?
The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 has itself been increasing over recent decades, so we should expect that the Earth’s mean surface temperature is becoming ever further from equilibrium. Does that account for the increasing divergence of the two hemispheres’ temperature?
Ray Ladbury // January 21, 2010 at 1:00 am |
Hmm, that sounds as if it could have some merit, although you’d have to do some pretty complicated modeling to extract it given how currents flow.
deech56 // January 20, 2010 at 11:36 pm |
FWIW, Keith Briffa’s Yamal pages are back up.
David B. Benson // January 21, 2010 at 12:29 am |
Slioch // January 20, 2010 at 11:33 pm — It is ceretainly not that simple. Even in equilibrium conditions, the SH exports heat to the NH. When the euilibrium is perturbed, the two poles often do a see-saw, one’s tmperature going up while the other goes down. The best illiustration is during Younger Dryas, but a smaller demonstration is during MWP.
Lazar // January 21, 2010 at 1:19 am |
Finally! Thanks, deech.
MapleLeaf // January 21, 2010 at 4:07 am |
Thanks all for the comments on Schwartz’s new paper. I had a suspicion that something was up, but then again it did make it through peer review in an AMS journal.
What struck me as odd is that the widely accepted lower bound for climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is 1.5-2.0 K, yet Schwartz et al. are claiming that the IPPC’s math indicate that the planet should have warmed by 2.1 K by now, and that for only 38% or so increase in CO2 over pre-industrial levels.
So it seems that they (Schwartz et al.) have somehow inflated the expected current warming. Not only that, but if one looks at Tamino’s latest post, then it shows that the model predictions are very close to current global SATs. Those projections certainly do not indicate the global SAT being 2.1 K over pre-industrial global SATs.
So what gives? Did Schwartz et al. perhaps assume the upper bound of 6 K sensitivity in global SAT per doubling CO2 to arrive at the 2.1 K for a 38% increase in CO2? They clearly state that we should have experienced that amount of warming now, and we know that CO2 has increased by 38%.
If so, that would see a little contrived and misleading, when the current best estimate of climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is 3 K. I can;t think how else they would have arrived at +2.1 warming for a 38% increase. Nowhere have I seen it stated that we should have warmed by that much circa 2007.
Anyhow, I’m not sure is I have made my point clear or not. It seems a pretty obvious flaw that should have been caught by the reviewers, hence my reluctance at first to dismiss their findings.
PS: And yes, there also seems to be an issue with their time constant of 5 years being much shorter than the more accepted 15 years or so.
Ray Ladbury // January 21, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
MapleLeaf,
I agree that the Schwartz paper is ripe for debunking. I’m hoping Gavin or Tamino might take on the task. The paper isn’t really all that clear on its assumptions of methodology.
And Schwartz has once again failed to take into account equilibration time–one wonders if he’s suffering from some sort of amnesia.
BrianR // January 21, 2010 at 4:57 am |
Thanks all for the thoughts on my original question (third comment in thread) … I appreciate it.
Deep Climate // January 21, 2010 at 5:00 am |
dhogaza,
I admit I’m not sure of all the details. But I have seen how GISS fills grid cells all the way to 90N. It looks to me like HadCRU is just talking about filling gaps over land, not the Arctic Ocean. So a reasonable surmise could be that the change is a partial implementation of the GISS-style teleconnection.
David Benson -
Apparently, HadCRU is considering downward adjustments for the whole pre-buoy ocean data (especially the WWII bucket period). I have no idea how big a difference that will make, but it should be noticeable. For one thing, I expect it would smooth out the anomolous 1940s bump somewhat.
cce // January 21, 2010 at 6:51 am |
Somewhat related.
Now that the “Clear Climate Code” project has reached its first major milestone (an all Python implementation of GISTEMP), I hope that tamino and other statisticians will consider contributing to the project. It’s basically a port now, but eventually it will be rewritten top to bottom. Halfway comprehensible code should make it easier to create superior homogenization methods that can be swapped in or turned on an off.
http://clearclimatecode.org/
Ray Ladbury // January 21, 2010 at 3:17 pm |
Congrats to the CCC–putting the lie to denialist talking points, one line of code at a time!
Tom Dayton // January 21, 2010 at 3:50 pm |
Sorry for the OT, but cce, what happened to your site The Global Warming Debate? It seems to have vanished. I refer people to it often.
cce // January 22, 2010 at 12:44 am
The free host abandoned the server I was using. This wasn’t surprising, as the performance was increasingly lousy. I moved it to another site, but it won’t be ready for a while. I’ve been busy with other things and have run into an “enthusiasm shortfall.”
Tom Dayton // January 22, 2010 at 4:22 am
Sorry to hear about both things. For what it’s worth, I think your site is an extremely valuable and unique resource!
mike // January 22, 2010 at 4:16 pm
I’d just started going through that site. I like forward to its reappearance.
Nick Barnes // January 22, 2010 at 12:24 pm |
Thanks for the link, cce. CCC-GISTEMP is moving on swiftly from 0.2.0; I hope to deliver 0.3.0 in February, which will (a) be free of a lot of the code to deliver Fortran-compatible I/O; (b) have a great many functions rewritten for clarification. Step 1 and Step 2 have received a fairly thorough going-over already, as you can see if you browse the changes at googlecode.
We are getting close to the point at which domain experts can usefully comment on (for instance) the details of the peri-urban adjustment algorithm. Certainly within the next month or two we will be seeking assistance in clarifying statistical and algorithmic questions.
Riccardo // January 21, 2010 at 9:19 am |
Slioch,
given the different geography, different atrmospheric and oceanic circulation, diffent insolation, I can’t see any reason why northern and southern hemispheres should have the same average temperature or the same response to warming.
Christian A. Wittke // January 21, 2010 at 11:57 am |
I agree; the globe’s trial to reach its equilibrium is one that includes NH and SH just like day and night.
We interrupted that process, an interruption that will turn out to be irrelevant timewise but an essantial turning point in what is hopefully only human life.
Barton Paul Levenson // January 21, 2010 at 12:02 pm |
Slioch: Is it not the case that if the earth were at equilibrium, then the two hemispheres would have the same average temperature?
BPL: I wouldn’t think so, no. They have different albedos and cloud cover.
Slioch // January 21, 2010 at 1:00 pm |
Ray, David B. Benson, Riccardo
Thanks for your comments: certainly it would appear the heat transport between hemispheres (presumably mainly by the Atlantic) complicates matters, and the see-saw effect and Riccardo’s point about the equilibrium temperature of the hemispheres being different seem valid.
But I must confess I still wonder whether the difference in hemispheric temperatures might have some merit as an index of disequilibrium.
Christian A. Wittke // January 21, 2010 at 2:28 pm |
Basically population of the NH is a multiple of that of the SH (>4:1); soa certain human impact is programme. Monitoring the difference most possibly will show an increase; that in return will prove a growing im-balance of the whole.
Riccardo // January 21, 2010 at 2:02 pm |
Slioch,
I agree with Ray’s comment. In principle it could, in practice it is quite complicated. Just to recall Trenberth words, it’s a travesty that our measurements are not good enough to know exactly how the heat flows through the climate system.
Slioch // January 21, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
Yes, I guess you’re right as far as trying to model or quantify it is concerned. Though it might be interesting to look at paleoclimatic data to see if a large NH/SH difference correlates with times of rapid climate change, and a small difference with stable climate.
Ray Ladbury // January 21, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Sounds to me like a great thesis project!! It ought to be doable, and you could look at the effects of land distribution in the Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere as a factor for different epochs. Cool!
Slioch // January 21, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Thanks for that, Ray. It would be nice to think someone may pick it up.
dhogaza // January 21, 2010 at 3:15 pm |
Ah, yes, now I see what you’re saying. From the abstract alone it appears you’re right, they’re filling in missing gaps over land, only.
A step in the right direction, at least, towards getting a more realistic temperature product out of the dataset.
Mika Murtojärvi // January 21, 2010 at 7:05 pm |
I am not even sure what they are saying in the paper by Schwartz et al. They first calculate the expected warming based on the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the total forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases (not just CO2). At this point, the possibly substantial negative forcing by aerosols is not taken into account, so they use a forcing of 2.6 W / m^2. Later, they do note that the aerosol forcing could account for most or all of the difference between their expected and observed warming. They also claim that the effect of e.g. disequilibrium seems to be small. In any case, the “discrepancy” is based on considering only some of the forcing agents.
David B. Benson // January 21, 2010 at 8:42 pm |
Deep Climate // January 21, 2010 at 5:00 am — Fine by me. One might be able to pre-check such adjustment by looking at the NH & SH land-only temperature products.
Slioch // January 21, 2010 at 1:00 pm — The polar see-saw shows up quite dramatically during glacial intervals in the ice cores. This is especially true during
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_event
which are fast enough occurring that disequlilbrium may well apply. I think you are about right, but not the idea of the two hemispheres being at “the same” temperature.
Gilles // January 22, 2010 at 7:20 am |
Ray Ladbury :
I’m afraid Schwartz is writing about a nonproblem. Co2 concentrations have increased about 38% over preindustrial values. Log(1.38)~0.33. We expect about 3 degrees of warming per doubling of CO2 and ln(2)~0.693. Thus, we expect about 1.43 degrees of warming for current levels, but that is the equilibrium value, and with CO2 rising exponentially, we are likely fairly far from equilibrium. It appears Schwartz if making the same mistake he did last time of grossly underestimating the time to reach equilibrium.
Interesting; is there a simple manner to incorporate this time lag in temperature forecasts for the future : for example could we assume that the temperature growth curve is the equilibrium temperature, shifted by some delay, i.e. the equilibrium temperature computed at t – T , where T is a characteristic lag ? (which would be what in this case ?)
Ray Ladbury // January 22, 2010 at 12:47 pm |
Gilles, see Tamino’s post here
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/
That is effectively what he is doing.
Deech56 // January 22, 2010 at 4:36 pm |
The comments for the corresponding article at teh #1 Science Blog are an amazing read. Watt the hey? Coherence of argument, anyone?
The 12-month MAs really highlight the fact that 1998 stands out from the crowd.
Kevin McKinney // January 22, 2010 at 10:20 pm |
“Coherence of argument, anyone?”
A double helping, please–I’ve heard the chef here is outstanding.
David B. Benson // January 22, 2010 at 10:44 pm |
Gilles // January 22, 2010 at 7:20 am — How close to equilibrium is good enough for you? Strictly speaking, there is no easy way to estimate the time to equilibriate; an AOGCM is required. Using ModelE with a 2xCO2 sudden forcing, it seems that 13 centuries is quite close to equilibrium.
That said, most of the delayed warming comes rather earlier on as the vast and deep oceans begin to warm.
Joseph // January 23, 2010 at 4:36 am |
Sort of. But the lag is not fixed. For example, if you simulate an equilibrium temperature series as a sine wave, the lag depends on the period of the sine wave (but not the amplitude, interestingly.) I have some code that simulates this, using a simplified Newtonian cooling model.
I’ve looked at CO2 series, CH4 series and even SO4 series. In my estimation the Newtonian cooling model is:
R = r (T’ – T)
with the constant r roughly around 0.05 to 0.08, but I’m not saying this is a confidence interval – just some different best estimates I’ve observed. R is rate of temperature change in degrees C per year.
Gavin's Pussycat // January 23, 2010 at 9:15 am |
Kevin, he meant Watts — not a cuisine you have a taste for ;-)
Kevin McKinney // January 23, 2010 at 1:22 pm |
Oh, I followed, GP–hence the “here.” And by way of contrast with WUWT, of course!
Deech56 // January 23, 2010 at 2:12 pm |
I think I was being cryptic again. Sorry.
Michael Tobis recently wrote about incoherent arguments and the comments there are just all over the place. Warming isn’t happening. The warming is just the rebound from the LIA. UAH is the only reliable data set. Satellites are not reliable (that came after a post by Spencer).
Coherence of argument, as Michael notes, really is a hallmark of science. When someone argues that ice cores are unreliable but that CO2 lags temperature, that’s being incoherent, but the same person will sometimes pose these arguments (and coming from someone who believes the earth is 6,000 years old numbs the mind even more). Comments in sites like WU will often be incoherent, but this cognitive dissonance seems to go by unnoticed.
For them, science beyond what they can pick and choose to make their arguments is unimportant. I see that as a lawyer’s trick, not a scientific discussion.
And the chef here is outstanding.
Ray Ladbury // January 24, 2010 at 12:50 am |
I really am apalled that stupid has become a lifestyle. Joe Sixpack and Jane Winebox have decided that somehow objective reality just doesn’t apply to them–and there’s no consequence. You’re considered rude if you point out to them that they are being stupid. Their vote counts the same as that of somebody sane. I really don’t see how our country comes back from this.
dhogaza // January 24, 2010 at 4:56 am
With all due respect, I assume you haven’t spent much time studying history?
Gavin's Pussycat // January 24, 2010 at 9:50 am
Ray, it’s not the country, it’s the planet. Something similar happened in Rome towards the end.
Christian A. Wittke // January 24, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Ray
May I use that line of yours – it is spot on as this hammer and nail thing…
Christian
Ray Ladbury // January 24, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Christian, Not sure which line. The Joe sixpack and Jane Winebox apellation is stolen shamelessly from the Daily Show.
Actually, Dhogaza, I’ve looked at quite a lot of history. I do not recall a period in the history of any country where ignorance held so exalted a position–where experts were suspect simply because they were knowledgeable.
And there certainly has not been another period in history where ignorance had such grave consequences.
I find it rather ironic that we now have the greatest tool for the sharing of knowledge, and yet the ignorant have banded together and hijacked it to make it a tool for perpetuating their particular brand of ignorance.
I would be interested in how you think we reach a point where the stupid are no longer the decision makers–because I just don’t see it.
Christian A. Wittke // January 24, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Ray
Yes. Exactly that line.
The level of ignorance grows with democracy becoming more democratic as that’s where the circle closes down on all are equal, same and have the same rights, nobody is responsible but the society as a whole; next stop is socialism. My grandfather was right, he went through all of that, life goes round in circles.
Christian
Deech56 // January 24, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Ray wrote, “I find it rather ironic that we now have the greatest tool for the sharing of knowledge, and yet the ignorant have banded together and hijacked it to make it a tool for perpetuating their particular brand of ignorance.”
Well said. All we can do is continue to educate. BTW, I did get a LTE about the subject of Tamino’s post published our local rag (FNP); it’s is in print today and on line tomorrow. I was surprised when one of my more conservative friends (a prominent local land-use attorney) said that is was a good letter; he at least read it and it made him think.
We all need to find ways to reach people, and our host and others provide very powerful tools for us to use.
Kevin McKinney // January 24, 2010 at 7:18 pm
FWIW, I’m not convinced that the trend toward ignorance is all that clear-cut. (Though G.W. Bush trying to obscure his Ivy League degree as a political liability bemused me then, and supports Ray’s take now.) I recall lots of anti-intellectualism throughout my lifetime, and have read examples from throughout history. But of course it’s hard to quantify.
What’s really hard to argue with is Ray’s second point: “. . .there certainly has not been another period in history where ignorance had such grave consequences.” The power of humanity today–even just in the most straightforward measure of the energy we use–is quite unparalleled.
Arthur C. Clarke’s metaphor of childhood’s end has stayed with me: a child generally has limited consequences for mistakes made. Part of the tumult of the teen years is accepting that consequences are real, and must be thought about before acting.
We don’t have a control case at hand, but one might be forgiven for considering humanity today as a pretty unruly teen. We sure aren’t doing a great job of keeping our room clean.
Ray Ladbury // January 25, 2010 at 1:08 am
I think that the thing that I find so disheartening is that there is no consequence for stupidity. Before, one might be shunned in polite society. Now they offer you your own fricking TV show! What is WUWT other than a support group for stupid?!
Yes, in the ’50s, we had the John Birch Society, but they were never main stream. They didn’t broadcast on Radio or TV. They didn’t form public opinion–and aside from a few places where they stopped fluoridation, they didn’t determine policy
Guys, look at the latest exchanges with denialists over on RC, and tell me they’re educable? And that’s RC!!! They’ve hijacked every thread going back 2 months! Hell, they’ve even dumbed down NPR to the point where it’s hardly worth listening to. I mean, I’d really like my country back, but I’m not sure there will be much left of it when these guys are done with it.
Deech56 // January 25, 2010 at 10:49 am
Ray, the John Birch Society simply persevered.
I remembered a time when ties like these were considered scandalous. The revelations of public corruption by journalists like Lincoln Steffens led to real changes. Now politicians are bought and sold on the open market and nobody seems to blink. We’ve bought into the idea of the good life and heaven forbid anyone tell us that we are on the wrong path.
Igor Samoylenko // January 25, 2010 at 4:40 pm
There is also an impact on science.
Gavin has been quoted in a recent article in Nature:
One can see where his frustration is coming from. “Sceptics’” happily manage to misrepresent even the most well-established and non-controversial parts of climate science. As soon as they sense even as much a hint of a debate, they go into a frenzy often leading to RC (and others) having to publish a post on it (“yes, there is a debate but no, it does not mean AGW is not happening…”) and having to fend off thousands of comments from every Tom, Dick and Harry with their own colourful and often wild misrepresentations of what the debate in question is all about. Plus of course the usual, persistent gish gallop of long-debunked nonsense (Dr Latif’s despair following the continued misrepresentation of his research despite his repeated attempts at clarification is also completely understandable “I don’t know what to do. They just make these things up”)…
There is an interesting recent paper in Nature by Dan Kahan on Fixing the communications failure in climate science (h/t to Hank). The paper itself is pay-walled unfortunately but there is a free editorial (I am now thinking of subscribing to Nature just so that I can read this paper).
Ray Ladbury // January 24, 2010 at 7:39 pm |
Christian,
Another of my favorite quotes:
“History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes.”
Slioch // January 24, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Ray
And:
“Money doesn’t talk, it swears” Bob Dylan.
In Germany after the WWI there was a combination of two factors:
A sense of injustice following the Treaty of Versaille that required Germany to take full blame for the war and make punitive economic and territorial reparations.
A readily identified group of people, the Jews, to accuse of being in a conspiracy against the German people and to blame for the problems they were facing.
Thus arose in an otherwise cultured and educated population a mass hysteria that led to the democratic election of Adolf Hitler.
At the present time it is evident that a large number of people feel aggrieved that there is a huge conspiracy to steal their tax dollars/destroy their freedom/impose World government etc.
This time the readily identified group of people accused of being in a conspiracy and of being to blame for the problem are called “warmists”. Already there are frequent calls for the imprisonment of their leaders.
Let us hope history does not repeat itself, or even rhyme.
Eli Rabett // January 23, 2010 at 10:44 pm |
Mika, putting in the line about aerosols looks like something one of the referees insisted on, but they did it in a way that hides it.
vibenna // January 25, 2010 at 7:40 am |
I think the problem here is that the climate community, once it started trying to persuade the public, moved out of its area of expertise and made some serious mistakes in sales and public relations.
In sales, an objection is seen as a buying signal. Salespeople are taught to check they understand the objection, validate the concern, and then overcome the objection. That’s how they get closer to making a sale. Instead, the climate community has often responded to objections with “trust me” or “you don’t understand” or even “you are ignorant/irrational.” Can you imagine a politician persuading the swinging voters that way? Or selling a car, or life insurance? No way.
The climate community also needs to appeal to more than just arguments to authority – our modern world was created out of an intellectual revolt against arguments to authority, and the distrust still runs deep. Rightly so.
As marketers used to say in the 1950s: “Remember, the consumer is not an idiot. She’s your wife.”
Ray Ladbury // January 25, 2010 at 1:57 pm |
Vibena,
First, the position of the climate scientist is less that of salesman trying to make a sale and more that of doctor trying to convince a patient to quit smoking or lose weight or exercise… In both cases, an action is needed now to forestall a risk that will manifest mainly in the future.
Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong with argument from authority. It is not a logical fallacy, and it recognizes that if one spends one’s life studying a subject, it is likely one will have greater expertise than the average ignorant food tube. No one can be expert on every subject. The problem climate science faces is not that it has argued from authority, but rather that the public has decided it would rather listen to cranks, frauds and charlatans who tell them what they want to hear.
Science or Law or Economics can only be dumbed down to a certain extent. Beyond that, people have to be sufficiently knowledgeable that they can choose between dueling “experts” or at least spot a charlatan when he tells them Antarctica gets dry-ice snow.
Mike // January 25, 2010 at 4:52 pm |
Ray, I totally sympathise! I have just been having this very debate, with a slight variation along the “experts have a vested interest in telling you only their viewpoint” line.
So my frustrated response was “fine, if your family doctor ever tells you he thinks you need to get a cardiologist opinion for a possible heart problem, why don’t you just consult a boilermaker instead? At least their opinion on whether you need a pacemaker, stent, or heart valve replacement won’t be biased. And their time will be far cheaper!”
The argument of how much weight to put on expert opinion is regularly distorted by sceptics into “we simply cannot and should not ever trust the opinion of experts in a specialist area”, which is pretty bloody silly and impractical when you think about it.
Andrew Dodds // January 26, 2010 at 9:35 am
But this is the core of the whole postmodern project.. that rejects the whole concept of professional expertise and asserts that a person’s statements on any subject are entirely driven by their ‘personal narritive’, and no concrete reality exists.
It started in the late 1960s/early 1970s, and has brought us such wonderful delights as monetarist economics, creation science, the resurgence of ‘alternative medicine’, HIV-AIDS denial, and, of course, AGW-denial. Whenever there exists a scientific reality that runs contrary to an interest group, be it economic, political or religious, you will see the pre-prepared argument form wheeled out.
(You can even see this argument set wheeled out by some environmental organizations when asked about nuclear power.)
If you want to know why this goes on.. my hypothesis is simply that we in the west have not faced a genuine emergency since the 1940s; war, famine, and pestilence have been practically abolished. Technically the USSR posed a threat, but that was more theoretical than day-to-day. Without these threats, people have freedom to believe all sorts of rubbish without mortal consequences.
Ray Ladbury // January 26, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Andrew Dodds,
Actually, you can trace the same strains of thought back to the Middle Ages or even Ancient Greece if you care to. What is different now is its ascendancy and the fact that it is ascendant despite the undeniable success of science. What we see now are nutjobs saying science has been hijacked and they are trying to save “real science”–viz. the astoundingly silly site run by Tilo Reber. It’s a duel between science and anti-science, with both sides claiming to be science–kind of like 12th century Catholicism!
Kevin McKinney // January 26, 2010 at 2:11 pm
IMO you’re right, Ray, about the ancient Greek connection.
“Sophism,” against which Sophocles strove, included (IRC ) the notion that oratorical supremacy was what mattered, as well as the notion of the savant as what we might now call a “hired gun.”
Patrick Michael, anyone?
Slioch // January 25, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
Vibenna and Ray
May I offer the following small example of how useless many scientific organisations are in respect of public relations?
One of the denialist memes doing the rounds since last autumn is this:
“According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.”
(see for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=7070976
I don’t have to explain to you that this is a) strictly true b) a ludicrous cherry-pick and c) therefore deliberately misleading.
The easiest way to counter it is simply to show the graph of NH sea-ice extent for the month of September (ie summer minimum) from 1979 to present, from which even the dimmest denier can see the trend of diminishing sea-ice and maybe even understand that he/she is being misled.
So. Is it easy to get such info. from the
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
website? Not at all. They show the graph for the current month but it is difficult to find the graph for September (I’ve managed it before but can’t find it this time after twenty minutes of trying).
I think it entirely reasonable to expect the NSIDC to have a rebuttal of these egregious statements on their website to which people can refer. Instead, not only is there no such rebuttal, it is well nigh impossible for anyone else to find the information to do their own rebuttal.
These organisations seem to have learnt nothing about how to present and defend their data. They need picking up by the heels and shaking hard. We are losing the battle to convince the public of the dangers of AGW and a large part of the reason for that is the ineptness with which scientists and scientific organisations present themselves to the public.
Didactylos // January 26, 2010 at 9:20 am
Look at the press releases: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html
The problem from a science/media point of view is that information must be topical. Newspapers don’t print old news unless they have nothing better to fill the space with. So, NSIDC tries to remain current, instead of just repeating September, September, September.
But it doesn’t matter which month you look at. They all have a significant downward trend.
Don’t be too harsh on these scientific institutions. They do the best they can when they spot egregious misrepresentation of their work or views. Unfortunately, the scummy media can’t be held accountable. If memory serves, the latest such incident saw “NSIDC scientists” turn into “some scientists”, and the lies went unchanged.
Can’t we campaign for better quality and accountability in journalism?
Phil. // January 26, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Agreed that the site navigation there is horrible, this is the link you want:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html
their sea ice animation tool will allow you to find the monthly data
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html
Select ‘Extent anomalies’ in the ‘image’ box and the month you want to see.
HTH
[Response: You can also get the numeric data here.]
dhogaza // January 25, 2010 at 3:22 pm |
And supports that by saying, “oh, maybe all the physical chemistry textbooks are wrong.”
That was an unbelievable episode in that website that should be renamed “bring on the stupid!”
Didactylos // January 25, 2010 at 4:18 pm |
Yes, salespeople do best when they play fast and loose with the truth. This is part of the reason they are hated so much. Salespeople, in their turn, know that the phrase “the customer is always right” is nothing more than a sick joke at their expense.
Scientists, though? They aren’t going to lie. Science isn’t a commodity to be bought and sold (except by a few amoral anti-science hacks, bought and sold by the Heartland Institute and similar).
This is why we have politicians.
vibenna, I have never heard a scientist resort to saying “trust me”. The problem is, when the subject is sufficiently technical and the public sufficiently stupid, the scientific argument does always boil down to “trust me”.
All this aside, I have seen journalists and politicians dumb down the science (or ignore it altogether) when trying to “sell” the problem of global warming. I haven’t noticed them succeeding particularly well, either. Certainly not noticeably better than scientists.
Personally, I feel that those people without sufficient clue to understand any of the nuances of global warming, and even without the ability to reason logically – but who still advocate strongly for action on global warming – these people sometimes do more harm than good. You see them on the news, making ludicrous claims about rising oceans and mega-hurricanes. You see them on blogs, happy to take on any denier in sight, but not if it means *thinking* for a second.
Every time they say something stupid, I cringe. Don’t we have enough misinformation to deal with, without people saying that wind farms generate more power per square metre than a nuclear power station? Maybe this is more harmless than the crazies who come out with doom-laden scenario after apocalyptic nightmare. The future will be bad enough. Pretending it will be worse is just asking not to be believed.
Maybe the opposite of “denier” really is “warmist”, and those who actually want to take action against global warming can only look on the asshattery, and despair.
Or maybe I’m just in one of those moods where the absolute stupidity of the entire world is getting me down….
Ray Ladbury // January 25, 2010 at 7:09 pm |
Igor Samoylenko,
Damn. That is about the most depressing editorial I think I’ve read. If humans really care more about who the message comes from rather than the facts, then the species really is doomed.
I just don’t understand how people can dismiss the facts as unimportant.
Gavin's Pussycat // January 25, 2010 at 8:22 pm |
Yes… and it makes me think, is it really our job as scientists to try and become better journalists than the purported professionals?
To use your, Ray’s, doctor metaphor, I think that is the appropriate one: it’s our job to tell you that smoking is bad for you — and quantify how bad, if that’s your thing — but it’s your job to do the quitting.
As a doctor, it’s not a good idea to take your job home. Patients will die on you even if you did your darndest. A few will die that you could have saved, if only… if only… If that gets to you, perhaps the medical profession is not for you.
That’s the attitude I’m more and more coming around to. Heck, I don’t even like human beings ;-)
Deech56 // January 26, 2010 at 12:17 am |
Well, to see what scientists are up against, check out the comments here. I thought the letter itself was pretty good, at least that’s what my wife and daughter said. ;-)
Kevin McKinney // January 27, 2010 at 4:05 am
Good job, Deech.
Igor Samoylenko // January 27, 2010 at 4:03 pm
There is some weapon-grade stupidity on display there in the comments section (as Ray used to say)… Or as Monbiot said once: “There is no pool so shallow that a thousand bloggers won’t drown in it. ”
The internet has become a megaphone for the idiots of this world to flaunt their stupidity. Quite depressing…
Deech56 // January 27, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Thanks, Kevin. It’s just one little corner of the world, but every little bit helps. I will send copies to my elected officials, though.
Igor, I’ve dealt with comments like those for years, but I do know that some lurkers have been receptive to the scientific arguments.
Igor Samoylenko // January 27, 2010 at 11:56 am |
To be directly comparable with the communication of climate science, you’d need to add a small complication to this metaphor with doctor and patient: their fates are coupled. So, yes, the doctor can simply lay out the facts, quantify the risk and leave it up to the patient to decide what to do, except if the patient decides to do nothing and continue smoking BAU despite the advice and subsequently contracts cancer, both the doctor and the patient will die. That changes the game plan, doesn’t it?
I would naturally agree with you that the science should be above it all. Produce good science, let IPCC summarise it for policy makers and that is it. But because you guys are in it just as much as the public at large (who needs to be convinced to get the politicians to actually act), can you really just sit back and watch the world collapse around you? No, of course not. This is why you are all here! And Gavin (and the rest of the RC crew), James Annan, Robert Grumbine, Tamino and many others are spending a lot of their time at their blogs, instead of actually doing science.
Communicating science is never a trivial problem. And it is particularly so in the case of climate science. The science is very complex and nuanced. How do you communicate (risks, uncertainties, revisions of results, internal debates etc etc) to the general public who don’t know much or care about science? Yet it has to be done if we are to avoid a disaster.
I am not suggesting for one second that you should turn into politicians. Nor do I think that any of you should be spending any time at denialists’ blogs – that would be a monumental waste of time IMHO.
But we also know that some scientists are naturally better at communicating science than others. The question is why? What are the differences? A few lessons from human psychology may also be useful, hence my interest in that paper in Nature.
Ray Ladbury // January 27, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Igor, Good point–although my personal fate is probably a matter of a couple to 3 decades, and I leave fortune no hostages. I had another insight while wading through the detritus of the latest RC thread.
I think that the IPCC is actually being asked to fulfill two roles. On the one hand, it is supposed to summarize the current state of the SCIENCE as rigorously as possible. It really does this quite well. On the other hand, it has been asked to map out potential damages–a role that really is more risk assessment and engineering than science.
The models needed for the latter role are quite different from those used in the former. Even the definition of a “conservative” analysis is different.
A scientist would say that we could conservatively say that CO2 sensitivity is greater than 2 degrees per doubling.
A risk management professional would say that we need plan for no more than 4.5 degrees as long as we hold CO2 levels lower than a single doubling.
The same word implying opposite ends of the confidence interval.
So really, it is not just a matter of educating people about science, but also about responsible threat reduction and risk mitigation. If we confuse the two, we further confound our problem.
vibenna // January 25, 2010 at 11:09 pm |
Ray – I take your point about doctors, but people usually visit a doctor when they have already decided they have a problem – that’s not quite the case here. Similarly, I’m not saying an argument from authority is wrong, simply that people are suspicious. That suspicion is being fed at the moment by discovery of lots of grey literature in the IPCC assessment report.
Slioch has got a point – the climate community needs to do much better in communicating the key facts. Nasa tried to this with their six or eight key pieces of evidence for warming, but unfortunately, they used alarmist stuff including advancing the glacier claim from 2035 to 2030. They. Must. Do. Better. That kind of sloppiness feeds the suspicion.
As an interested layperson (and social scientist) here is what convinced me:.
- Multi-decade artic sea ice decline, including the big recent summer losses, plus fracturing of some Antarctic ice sheets
- Finding data on the huge increase in fossil fuel burning from around 120 years ago.
- Realizing there are few if any climate analogies for this rapid fossil fuel burning (except maybe volcanic outgassing), suggesting that a priori is is reasonable to expect it disturb the climate system.
- Evidence of warming in all modern data sets (post 1850) including UAH.
- Greenhouse predictions from the 19th Century being borne out.
- Crap weather all over the place, both hot and cold, suggesting a lot of change in the climate system
- Understanding that the current temperature plateau was both the highest in recent history, and that the ‘pause’ consistent with cyclical nature of climate phenomena.
- The overwhelming majority views of established scientists and journals.
But what I found difficult to deal with was some of the alarmist claims about secondary effects (many of which turn out to be based on grey literature), the claims that temperatures were still going up when they were clearly in a statistical dead heat for recent years, plus the claims that this was the hottest period in the last x thousand years. I think all of those were distractions.
I urge the climate community to abandon alarmism based on grey literature, and to go back to the really solid science. Too many people will recognize propaganda when they see it. And fisk it.
But to be able to change tactics, you first have to recognize the failure of the olds tactics. That’s another lesson from business. Don’t keep on with a losing formula. Instead try to work out how to persuade your customers.
[Response: Here's my opinion:
First, you're wrong about a number of things and those are likely due to propaganda -- from the denialist side. The comment about "cyclical nature of climate phenomena" is a glaring example, you only think that because denialists have repeated it so often that you believed it. The "gray literature" idea is likewise a horrific exaggeration driven into your brain by the astounding amount of denialist propoganda you're exposed to, and clearly vulnerable to.
Second, where did you get the idea that it's your doctor's job to get you to quit smoking? It's YOUR job. Your doctor's job is to tell you the truth about it. The deceptive propaganda on this issue is from the tobacco industry (not the medical community), and they should be punished for it. Severely.
Climate scientists have told us the truth about global warming. Now it's our job to act on that knowledge. Unfortunately, there IS a propaganda machine in the mix -- but it's the fossil fuel industry. You are way too mixed up about this.
But you're right about one thing, and you illustrate it perfectly: denialists are a lot better than scientists at propaganda. Stop criticizing this, start helping.]
Master of Eutychus // January 26, 2010 at 8:17 pm |
“Lots”? Since we’re being loose with terms, I’d like to take this opportunity to let everyone know I have lots of bellybuttons.
dhogaza // January 26, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Apparently, it’s actually more like “lots of appendages”, unless you have several belly buttons.
Out of thousands of references, amazing, isn’t it?
There’s no “molehill” in that “mountain”.
Ray Ladbury // January 27, 2010 at 2:17 am
So, if an ad hominem attack is ignoring the content of the argument to attack the one who delivers it–it appears what we need here is a brand new logical fallacy, that of attacking the type of publication an argument comes in rather than its content–argumentum ad papyrus?
Mal Adapted // January 26, 2010 at 1:22 am |
The following bit of sad wisdom from Aldo Leopold has been appearing all over the blogosphere lately. It’s especially germane to this thread, WRT the public role of the climate scientists:
vibenna // January 26, 2010 at 12:15 pm |
I give up. Bye.
Ray Ladbury // January 26, 2010 at 2:40 pm |
Vibenna,
First, as far as the use of “grey literature” is concerned, there is nothing wrong with citing a study done by WWF as long as the study was carried out responsibly and is at least based on peer-reviewed science. That was the case in most of the citations by the IPCC. The one really big clusterf*ck was basically a typo.
As to “flat temperatures”, Tamino has repeatedly shown that this is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the data–it is a trick of the eye brought on by the fact that the 1990s ended with an El Nino and the 2000s ended with a La Nina.
Vibenna, look, I sympathize. However, we have to stick with rigorous methods. We can’t draw conclusions about climate based on short datasets. We can’t dumb down the science to sell it. We can’t use a different standard of proof for the conclusions we like and those we don’t like.
When we’ve reached the point where we can’t dumb things down anymore, it’s time for the public to wise up.
george // January 26, 2010 at 3:19 pm |
Ray says
I think the essential problem is that the (American) public does not want to wise up.
They would rather be “comfortably dumb” (as Pink Floyd say)
Wising up would require significant changes in lifestyle and (gasp) even “sacrifice”.
Easier to just believe those who deny that climate change is a significant issue, or better yet, believe those who claim that it will actually be good.
Don Henley has a song about this phenomenon : “End of the Innocence”.
Christian A. Wittke // January 26, 2010 at 4:34 pm |
George
I agree and add that staying “comfortably dumb” above all diluted in the mass(es) keeps one off any kind of responsibility which in return adds to the comfort…
Ray Ladbury // January 26, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
George
No, Don Henley wrote many songs about this:
“We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing
When it’s said and done, we haven’t told you a thing
We all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry
“
Douglas Watts // January 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm |
The Aldo Leopold quote is dead-on. Buckminster Fuller had, typical for him, a ‘glass half full’ take on this awareness dilemma. He wrote, “Bite your tongue, get a cinder in your eye. When you feel good you feel nothing.”
Also, Leopold was living in much darker world compared to ours (the 1930s), ie. when basic conservation and natural resource protection laws did not even exist and Manifest Destiny and Pillage was the order of the day. At least now citizens have a lot of legal tools at their disposal to protect and conserve natural resources.
David B. Benson // January 26, 2010 at 8:23 pm |
I take studies done by/for the WWF cum grano salis.
Neven // January 27, 2010 at 1:46 pm |
Exactly, me too. Maybe this is a good reason not to let WWF numbers slip into the IPCC work reports.
Joseph // January 26, 2010 at 10:37 pm |
Well, I think records do matter statistically, if you keep hitting records more than would be expected by mere chance.
Didactylos // January 27, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
It’s true that Joe Public respond better to records (thanks to tabloids trumpeting them).
But will this last? Already I see “record fatigue” setting in. “Not another record high temp/low ice extent” cries the tabloid reader.
And you should see their heads exploding when a year passes without a record.
No. Trends are solid, and hence not subject to changing with the weather.
But “Earth still doomed” really makes a terrible headline.
Deech56 // January 27, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Didactylos, I see your point, but a record ice loss or warmest year after all this nonsense about ice recovery or cooling does provide a wake-up call and allows the general public to be receptive to the real science about the long-term trends.
Didactylos // January 28, 2010 at 8:02 am
Indeed it does. For a day….
So annoying that Copenhagen came right after La Nina, and during a US/European cold-snap as well.
Maybe the next negotiations will have more drive if they follow “Hottest year ever” in the tabloids?
The other worry with this irresponsible journalism is that the public gets flip-flop-shock, and believe that “scientists” keep changing their mind. After all, the headline last week was “Earth Cooling, Says Top Scientist”….
Kevin McKinney // January 28, 2010 at 12:47 pm
I’m planning an article on the history of the “it’s cooling” meme. I expect it to be repetitious in the extreme, but it should be a good corrective to those who like to question the predictive powers of the mainstream science.
“Where’s the cooling???”
Douglas Watts // January 27, 2010 at 2:22 pm |
Nasa tried to this with their six or eight key pieces of evidence for warming, but unfortunately, they used alarmist stuff including advancing the glacier claim from 2035 to 2030. They. Must. Do. Better. That kind of sloppiness feeds the suspicion.
I disagree. There is an enormous, ingrained human bias against information that is perceived as “bad.” And the implications of AGW for the future are quite bad. I witnessed this once at a meeting where Atlantic salmon fishing in Maine was going to be banned in a certain river (the Sheepscot) because there were only 6 salmon left in the run. But despite this, a number of “diehards” who wanted to keep fishing basically refused to ‘believe’ the data. The power of disbelief, especially when facts dictate a change in behavior, is a very powerful, non-rational human attribute.
In context of the quote above, virtually all GCMs and IPCC materials adopt quite conservative estimates of future change, for the express purpose of not overshooting what the data can reliably support. What we’re seeing now tends to show that the higher bounds of risk, e.g. in the rate of trend of Arctic sea-ice melting, are providing a better fit to observation than the lower and middle bounds.
And the use of the word “alarmist” as a pejorative is somewhat silly. I would rather my neighbor call the fire department if he thinks my house might be on fire, when it is not, than not call when it is.
Jason // January 27, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
ClimateHack?
Have I missed the results of the official investigations?
So a whistle blower is out of the question because there is no malpractise to deny then?
Didactylos // January 27, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
A whistleblower is out of the question because a whistleblower is not anonymous, nor does a whistleblower obtain information through illegal means.
That’s the very definition of the term.
Now, we just have to wait to discover which fossil fuel interest(s) was behind the hack for the Watergate metaphor to be complete.
Ray Ladbury // January 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm |
Jason, why would a “whistleblower” hide his identity if he were exposing real wrongdoing? Why would he release only selected emails taken out of context?
I find myself very suspicious of those who remain in the shadows while proclaiming that sunlight is a good disinfectant.
Gavin's Pussycat // January 27, 2010 at 7:37 pm |
I’m still waiting for the “whistleblower” to sue me for calling him/her/it a thief.
Tamino knows where to serve me. Do remember to put your proper name on the legal papers.
Andrew Dodds // January 28, 2010 at 12:14 pm |
I’m sure, of course, that if all the emails from Steve McIntyre and Antony Watts were downloaded onto a random web site, our skeptic friends would be happy to call it an act of whistleblowing, and would be equally content if the climate scientist community spent the subsequent few months grubbing through them for any comments that where not entirely fit for publication.
Gavin's Pussycat // January 28, 2010 at 3:03 pm |
…the problem being of course that this wouldn’t give us anything we don’t already have — and much good that does us. Do you honestly believe that those mails even in principle could contain anything more incriminating than what these two have already voluntarily put on the Internet?
Ray Ladbury // January 28, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Personally, I’ve always been glad I am a scientist. It means I don’t have to go rummaging around in my opponents’ garbage to make my case. All I have to do is figure out how to tease the truth out of the data–or look at the work of smarter people who have done so and understand what they did.
Andrew Dodds // January 29, 2010 at 12:12 pm
There are two competing hypotheses in my mind.
The ‘nice’ one is that denier talking points are brought up more or less at random, and spread through the denialosphere by web viewing and cross linking between people who are politically inclined to disbelieve AGW and are not educated in the difference between science and rhetoric.
The ‘nasty’ one is that denier talking points are deliberately created and systematically propagated by people who consiously know that they are creating and spreading lies for political and economic ends.
My general belief in the decency of human nature predisposes my to the nice interpretation. The illegal activity, death threats and assumption of conspiracy on the part of at least some ’skeptics’ points to the latter. Email trails would clarify it.
Kevin McKinney // January 29, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Andrew, I think it’s almost certain to be a bit of both. I know folks who I’m pretty sure are participating in the online “denialist” conversation in “good faith.”
But the money trail traced by Desmogblog et al. certainly indicates that the initial dissemination of these stories is more calculated and intentional than viral. I’d imagine that many of those doing so have their self-protective rationalizations.