Two Blogs in One

My readers are pretty savvy about global warming. Most of you tend to be scientifically knowledgeable and quite current. In fact, there are a fair number of actual scientists who read this blog. I’m glad!

But there’s another audience I’d like to reach more of: the lay public who are puzzled about some of the issues involved. So, I’m going to try an experiment. I’ll still post my usual high-level (sometimes quite mathematical) stuff, but I’m also going to do posts which are at a much more basic level. I’ll start with the next post.

I’ll try to put the word “basic” or “basics” in the title of each. But I may well slip up. That’s the nature of the beast.

And for those who want the hard science, fear not — there’s plenty more to come. Including the post after the next one.

2 responses to “Two Blogs in One

  1. Good luck. After years of arguing with climate change deniers on a few news forums, reading the technical literature (as a geoscientist but not in climate) and following technical blogs I’ve lost perspective of what a genuinely curious member of the general public might think about these matters.

    I see some widespread concern about climate change, sometimes exaggerated (but then consider James Hansen), and a fair degree of trust in organizations and scientists, though maybe not in proposed mitigation solutions. I don’t see a particularly sophisticated understanding of the technical issues, but the reasons for that is too obvious to dwell on.

    I think that David Titley’s clear discussion of a simple but technically sound chart during Ted Cruz’s Senate hearing circus was a good example of a presentation that was likely effective for viewers at a wide range of levels.

  2. Value in science. Yep I do come here for the refresher in how to do stats right. But I also am faced with the dilemma of explaining science to those with less background, and finding what simple (least number of facts/ elements) accurately explain the complex system which is climate, in a >robust way<, 'robust' because anything I explain to people will then later be methodically assaulted,… with malice. Thus any science I explain to people needs to be well buttressed so the next "no warming since" "Co2 is plant food" or "xenophobic based policy meme(its them)" doesn't just wash over it.
    Is challenging. (probably IMO more challenging than getting the science right int he first place. But then i didnt have to get it right, so meh.)
    Anyway, I am, happy to read anything at any level. Its all useful, either to inform me or
    inform how I explain things so as to achieve robust accurate simplicity.

    I for instance love NOAA graph of trends before and after 1998, which are also constrained by continuity of the climate trends. Requiring continuity, and explaining all the data, kills cherry picking dead, and is so dead simple to explain that its practically self evident (to pretty much anyone). To the well informed saying yeah but 1998 is cherry picked start is all you need, but for motivated thinkers its not enough. The lack of trend change(break point) in a continuous graph of all the data… has no answer at all.