Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt
The issues involved in science communication are complex and often seem intractable. We’ve seen many different approaches, but guessing which will work (An Inconvenient Truth, Field Notes from a Catastrophe) and which won’t (The Eleventh Hour) is a tricky call. Mostly this is because we aren’t the target audience and so tend to rate popularizations by different criteria than lay people. Often, we just don’t ‘get it’.
Into this void has stepped Randy Olsen with his new book “Don’t be such a scientist”. For those who don’t know Randy, he’s a rather extraordinary individual – one of the few individuals who has run the gamut from hard-core scientist to Hollywood film maker. He’s walked the walk, and can talk the talk–and when he does talk, we should be listening!
While there may be some similarities in theme with “Unscientific America” by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum that we reviewed previously, the two books cover very different ground. They share the recognition that there is currently a crisis in area of scientific communication. But what makes “Don’t be such a Scientist” so unique is that Olsen takes us along on his own personal journey, recounting his own experiences as he made the transition from marine biologist to movie-maker, and showing us (rather than simply telling us–you can be sure that Randy would want to draw that distinction!) what he learned along the way. The book could equally well have been titled “Confessions of a Recovering Scientist”.
More than anything else, the book attempts to show us what the community is doing wrong in our efforts to communicate our science to the public. Randy doesn’t mince words in the process. He’s fairly blunt about the fact that even when we think we’re doing a good job, we generally aren’t. We have a tendency to focus excessively on substance, when it is often as if not more important, when trying to reach the lay public, to focus on style. In other words, it’s not just what you say, but how you say it.
This is a recurring theme in Randy’s work. His 2006 film, Flock of Dodos, showed, through a combination of humor and insightful snippets of reality, why evolutionary biologists have typically failed in their efforts to directly engage and expose the “intelligent design” movement. In his 2008 film Sizzle, he attempted the same thing with the climate change debate–an example that hits closer to home for us–in this case using more of a “mockumentary”-style format (think “Best in Show” with climate scientists instead of dogs) but with rather more mixed results. Randy makes the point that the fact that Nature panned it, while Variety loved it, underlines the gulf that still exists between the worlds of science and entertainment.
However, the book is not simply a wholesale, defeatist condemnation of our efforts to communicate. What Randy has to say may be tough to hear, but its tough love. He provides some very important lessons on what works and what doesn’t, and they ring true to us in our own experience with public outreach. In short, says Randy: Tell a good story; Arouse expectations and then fulfill them; Don’t be so Cerebral; And, last but certainly not least: Don’t be so unlikeable (i.e. don’t play to the stereotype of the arrogant, dismissive academic or the nerdy absent-minded scientist). Needless to say, it’s easy for us to see our own past mistakes and flaws in Randy’s examples. And while we might quibble with Randy on some details (for example, An Inconvenient Truth didn’t get to be the success it was because of its minor inaccuracies), the basic points are well taken.
The book is not only extremely insightful and full of important lessons, it also happens to be funny and engaging, self-effacing and honest. We both agree that this book is a must read for anyone who cares about science, and the problems we have engaging the public.
If the book has a flaw, it might be the seemingly implicit message that scientists all need to take acting or comedy lessons before starting to talk – though the broader point that many of us could use some pointers in effective communication is fair. More seriously, the premise of the book is rooted in perhaps somewhat of a caricature of what a scientist is (you know, cerebral, boring, arrogant and probably unkempt). This could be seen merely as a device, but the very fact that we are being told to not be such scientists, seems at times to reinforce the stereotype (though to be fair, Randy’s explanation of the title phrase does show it to be a bit more nuanced than might initially meet the eye). Shouldn’t we instead be challenging the stereotype? And changing what it means to the public to be a scientist? Maybe this will happen if scientists spend more time not being so like stereotypical scientists – but frankly there are a lot of those atypical scientists already and the cliches still abound.
When it comes to making scientists better communicators, Greg Craven’s book “What’s the worst that can happen?” demonstrates how it can actually be done. Craven is a science teacher and is very upfront about his lack of climate science credentials but equally upfront about his role in helping normal people think about the issue in a rational way. Craven started off making YouTube videos explaining his points and this book is a further development of those including responses to many of the critiques he got originally.
Craven’s excellent use of video to discuss the implications of the science is neatly paired with the work that Peter Sinclair is doing with his “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” series. Both use arresting graphics and straightforward explanations to point out what the science really says, how the contrarians distort and misinform and take some pleasure in pointing out the frequent incoherence that passes for commentary at sites like WUWT.
Crucially, neither Craven nor Sinclair are scientists, but they are excellent communicators of science. Which brings up a point raised by both Mooney & Kirshenbaum and Olsen – what role should working scientists play in improving communications to the public? Video editing and scriptwriting (and even website design!) is probably best left to people who know how to do these things effectively, while content and context needs to be informed directly by the scientists themselves. To our mind this points to enhanced cooperation among communicators and scientists as the dominant model we should be following. We don’t all need to become film directors to make a difference!
#246 Matthew L.
There is a graph of the last 10 years on this page (scroll down)
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-stopped
Take a look at this and then repeat to us how the temperatures are flat
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
As far as doubts over sea level rise, read up on Lord Monckton (scroll down)
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/christopher-monckton
As far as 8C, that has not been ruled out, read the MIT report (scroll down)
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/2009-may-leading-edge
As far as your ice trend chart you gave a link for, global ice extent is used by denialists to show no trend. It is used be cause the graph contains the ice extent growth in Antarctica, which by the way was predicted in a global warming scenario. Here is Arctic sea ice trend
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090603_Figure3.png
And stop listening to the media.
After you read the pages and reports linked I would like to here your thoughts on these matters again.
Matthew L.,
Numbers of sea ice extent are facts; the interpretation however is less so. You call it a recovery. I explained above (233) why I don’t: we’re still on a decrfeasing long term (20-30 year) trend. Timescales matter.
I agree with your call for civility, and that we’d be wise to not make this appear a fighting match. OTOH, as a layperson (which you say you are), it’d be wise not to make all too profound statements about the state of science.
You state that “faith” is an alien concept to you. What about “trust”? Don’t you go to the doctor when you’re seriously ill? Isn’t that partly based on trust that (s)he knows more about it than yourself or your neighbor?
As “skeptico” puts it:
“It isn’t necessarily fallacious to consider that thousands of climate scientists writing in peer reviewed journals might know more than you do about such a complex subject.”
“What we have here is trust in the scientific method. And we trust it because we have reason to believe it works – just look around you. (You’re reading this on a computer aren’t you?)”
(http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html)
Finally, some people who may take you up on a reasonable bet:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/
Good luck. I hope you win.
Since you seem bound and determined to focus on the last three years, it’s worth noting that according to JAXA, the end of the melt season came later this year than in 2008.
If you suddenly find interest in longer-term data, you’ll see that there’s nothing particularly early about the end of the melt season this year.
If you’re interested in trends, august melt slowed down significantly compared to july, yet as I mentioned above it’s right on trend.
An increasing melt trend, that is. Note that the figures for individual years jag up-and-down regularly, there’s nothing unusual about that, nothing that would lead a sane person to talk about a “remarkable recovery” in ice.
Now look at July.
I do hope – in a spirit of consistency – that when you learned that more ice melted this July than in 2008, you were running around screaming about the “remarkable collapse” of the arctic ice cap just as you’re touting the “remarkable recovery” today?
Or do you only ignore trends when it serves you to do so?
“Someone who takes comfort in a single wave receding while the tide is still rising is not thinking very far ahead.”
Nice analogy, Gavin, I must remember that one!
Matthew L. (239) — I urge reading “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Andy Revkin’s review:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63
Wearth’s on-line book is also the first link in the Science section of the sidebar here.
re: 247
How can 2 years be a trend in climate?
Well, you can look this stuff up. It’s always worth seeing what’s in the media, particularly when they’re reprinting press releases you can track back to the source.
I’d guess in financial modeling you also would develop the habit of citing sources? It’s a good habit in science too.
USAToday–the most widely read paper in the USA–prints what’s likely the same press releases you found in the London Observer:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-03-27-sea-level-rise_N.htm
“LONDON — More than two-thirds of the world’s large cities are in areas vulnerable to global warming and rising sea levels, and millions of people are at risk of being swamped by flooding and intense storms, according to a new study released Wednesday…. in the journal Environment and Urbanization…. said Gordon McGranahan of the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, a co-author…. The other two co-authors of the study are Deborah Balk of the City University of New York and Bridget Anderson of Columbia University.
Separately, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a draft copy of a report expected to be released next week that coastlines are already showing the impact of sea-level rise. The draft copy, which was obtained by the Associated Press, said about 100 million people each year could be flooded by rising seas by 2080.”
You know how to find this stuff.
The contributions of “Matthew L” are indistinguishable from trolling.
Matthew, check out this interview with Dr. Mark Serreze, director of The National Snow and Ice Data Center: New NSIDC director on “death spiral” Arctic ice.
#249
Hi John, thanks for your time. I really like your polite and dignified approach. I feel we could have a proper debate. Honestly, we are actually on the same side – although I know you don’t believe that. My problem is I hate the way the debate has been hijacked by the media and political interests, and that predictions of extreme climate change do not seem to be the subject to the proper peer review they deserve.
“There is a graph of the last 10 years on this page (scroll down)
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-stopped”
I can’t really argue or disagree with this. However, your data is from NASA, over here the Hadley centre is the more respected time series, (probably for no better reason than that they are British!) and this is their graph:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
I have done my own graph of the more recent time periods, and it definitely shows a flat spot (for want of a better word) since around 2001, earlier if you count the El-nino year of 1998 – but that would be cherry picking!
“As far as doubts over sea level rise, read up on Lord Monckton (scroll down)
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/christopher-monckton”
I was not thinking of that, I was thinking of this:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/#more-969
I did not say “denial”, I said “doubts”. Whether you think they are mistaken or not, clearly there are genuine scientists out there who dispute the predicted extent of sea level rise. The jury is certainly still out on the subject. If you read the media you would think that we were all about to be swamped by a 20m tidal wave!
“As far as 8C, that has not been ruled out, read the MIT report (scroll down)
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/2009-may-leading-edge”
Well if it hasn’t been ruled out, it should be!
Pity there is not more detail on the assumptions made to arrive at such an alarming set of conclusions. Do you have a link to the source of these predictions?
“As far as your ice trend chart you gave a link for, global ice extent is used by denialists to show no trend.”
The chart I gave a link to relates to the Arctic only, and is the Anomaly from the 1979-2000 mean on any particular day. It is not the global ice extent.
You need to look here
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
The first set of charts at the top relate to the Arctic only. The Antarctic is at the bottom.
Sorry, I should have provided this link earlier. This site uses the same sources of data as NSIDC but interprets it slightly differently. They calculate the total sea ice area, NSIDC calculate the “extent” that is the area marked out by the boundary of the sea ice, which is generally a larger number. The trend is similar though.
Personally I think the “Cryosphere Today” information is more detailed and informative. The use of anomalies rather than absolute figures magnifies changes and trends and makes them easier to spot.
“And stop listening to the media.”
Sure, happy to do this – almost there already. Your problem in the scientific community is that the media is the only source of information that 99% of the population have about global warming. They may be ignorant, but they are not stupid, and when all they read is claptrap about December daffodils and London under 20m of water in their lifetime, is it any wonder they snort sceptically and turn the page!
Real scientists need to get out more, the people need you to be more public – and less willing to adopt extreme positions for dramatic effect.
[Response: Again, more unfounded statements about what “real scientists” are doing. Perhaps you can point us to the “real scientists” adopting extreme positions for dramatic effect you are referring to? – gavin]
MATTHEW L posted:
“Apparently, according to “The Metro” (the most widely read paper in London) by 2080 we are going to suffer 8 deg C of temperature rise, London will be underwater and daffodils will bloom in December.”
For non-Londoners: The “Metro” is a free-sheet give-away advertiser “newspaper”. It may be the most read, but looking at the litter/trash on London’s streets, it is also the most thrown away newspaper. Articles are written to be read in the three minutes a passenger may spend between tube station stops. It is also written assuming a reading age of twelve years, so as to reach a maximum audience.
#250
Hi Bart,
“Numbers of sea ice extent are facts; the interpretation however is less so. You call it a recovery. I explained above (233) why I don’t: we’re still on a decrfeasing long term (20-30 year) trend. Timescales matter.”
Well, I plot trends for a living, and looking at the graphs on Cryosphere today I cannot see any significant downward trend much before 1993, which is 16 years. Not that it matters much. You are probably right, the trend will continue, but whether the 2007, 2008 and 2009 melts were “anomalies” or part of that trend can be reasonably disputed.
“I agree with your call for civility, and that we’d be wise to not make this appear a fighting match.”
Thanks, appreciated.
“OTOH, as a layperson (which you say you are)”
I am sure there are plenty here who think I could not possibly be anything else! I am clearly not a climate scientist, and if I were a “denialist”, I would be a pretty crap one too.
“it’d be wise not to make all too profound statements about the state of science.”
Hopefully I am not making too profound a statement. Science apears very healthy, it is the relationship of science to the media that seems disfunctional. That is why I am posting on this particular part of the blog. I think the article makes a lot of sense.
“You state that “faith” is an alien concept to you. What about “trust”? Don’t you go to the doctor when you’re seriously ill? Isn’t that partly based on trust that (s)he knows more about it than yourself or your neighbor?”
I am married to a Doctor, and I never believe a word she says! Of course, she has forgotten far more than I will ever know about medicine. However, she is also the most incredible hypochondriac – both of herself and by proxy of her husband and children. It is lucky my employer has free health insurance – otherwise all the tests we’ve had would have cost me a fortune (or many a long wait in an NHS queue). And you should see our medicine cabinet! Needless to say we have ample stocks of Tamiflu.
I can see something of the same problem in some of the climate science I read. Everybody seems all too ready to believe the worst. Sometimes too much knowledge is as dangerous as too little.
You make a very good point about “trust” and “faith”, and one that I will take some time to consider. As a first stab at it I would say you generally trust those who have proven worthy of it in some way, or who have a proven track record (airline pilots, train drivers, computer engineers). If the air accident rates were to rise significantly, how long woud that trust last?
As “skeptico” puts it:
“It isn’t necessarily fallacious to consider that thousands of climate scientists writing in peer reviewed journals might know more than you do about such a complex subject.”
Of course. A pity they don’t write more for the daily papers or pitch up in our TV studios more.
“What we have here is trust in the scientific method. And we trust it because we have reason to believe it works – just look around you. (You’re reading this on a computer aren’t you?)”
Computers are not the creation of “scientists” in the sense we are talking about here, they are the product of engineers. They take scientific rules and turn them into concrete objects. If the science were dodgy the computer would not be possible. by that token I am bound to trust a computer engineer more than I would a research scientist, simply because the former has demonstrated what he can do in a very concrete way, whereas the latter is necessarily dealing in unknowns and uncertainty. Sorry guys!
“Finally, some people who may take you up on a reasonable bet:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/”
Thanks for the links…
To the guy who suspected me of being a troll, that breed of sprite generally arrives, makes a rude or provocotive post and then disappears again. Hopefully I have demonstrated that I am prepard to stick around long enough to trade a few punches.
I think I have made my point sufficiently. I will go back to being a quiet lurker here, keep up the good work guys.
Matt.
“Good luck. I hope you win.”
Thanks. You seem a nice guy, I actually believe you do. I regret many here probably hope I will lose.
Possibly this is the Metro story being referred to above. The actual quote is “With temperatures expected to rise by 5ºC (9ºF) by 2080, plants could bloom nearly two months early.” So, a quick bit of checking shows that the grandstanding person making up numbers is in fact the person complaining, and not an actual scientist at all. Quel surprise. – gavin
Here’s why folks like NSIDC and IARC-JAXA use extent, rather than area:
This is from the IARC-JAXA site.
“We don’t know so it can be argued” is a heck of a lot weaker than “remarkable recovery” … “You’re probably right, the trend will continue” isn’t even close to your first statement claiming a “remarkable recovery”.
I guess that’s progress – actually, it’s a “remarkable recovery”!
A good example:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/47382/title/FOR_KIDS_A_gassy_threat_from_above
#263
You got me! Yes this was the report. Sorry for the inaccuracies. I am afraid, as conjectured in another post, I read it in a couple of minutes on the way to work and then threw it in the recycling bins thoughtfully provided at the tube station exits.
My memory clearly mixed up the C and F figures. I still stand by my general point though. This is the most widely read newspaper in London (Gaea help us!).
“With temperartures expected to rise by 5 deg C… by 2080.”
Expected by whom, on what basis, in what model and with what inputs and assumptions?
Of course it is common sense that if you warm the climate 5 degrees this will have devastating consequences for every living thing on this planet. That is hardly news.
We need fewer press reports of models of what will happen *if* global warming continues, and more reports of models trying to find out *whether* and *how much*. This is up to you guys.
You cannot expect to confine your writings to the likes of Nature, or even New Scientist, and then expect the population of the World to give up their cars, air conditioning, foreign holidays and multi media entertainment centres. If you don’t get out there in the mass media then you are leaving it to the journalists and politicians. The former will spin it for sensation, and the latter will spin it to garner the most votes.
However, you may want your work spun for sensation and votes. In which case don’t be surprised if there is a backlash when the sensational result does not come about, or the politician who you helped vote in adopts ill informed policies – such as subsidising bio-ethanol to devastating effect on the cost of maize flour for the poor of mexico – or the building of lots of new nuclear power stations.
We need more real climate and less badly reported and sensationalist science.
I’ll get me coat…
Gavin, I said “an element of truth,” not “truth” in what Matthew L said. And he justified my assertion far better than I could in 239. But the real point is focused on demeanor. When someone makes a claim from the evidence that, for example, arctic sea ice is getting better, or not as bad a almost everyone predicted, that has an element of truth. The proper retort, IMO, is in the vein that the long-term trend is none-the-less bad, or maybe short-term anomalies are not indicative, or maybe our (climatologists) overall judgement is it still looks like “…a profound and disruptive change in an important ecosystem and element of the climate…” (your words). However, more often than not, the retort is something like “you’re a denialist goofball idiot with no acceptable scientific credentials and are just parroting the stupid memes of your reprobate group. And your mother eats grass.” That’s the problem.
When these complaints are directed to RC, all participants are included. While these complaints often (usually, IMO) do not fit the moderators personally, rejecting the complaints simply because it is not applicable to you few is a non sequitur. Though it is proper for you to defend yourself.
[Response: I find it bizarre that people come on to a website run by scientists, make general and unfounded statements about ‘scientists’, and then when asked to point out an actual example, the answer is always “Oh not you, I meant the ‘other’ scientists” (who conveniently don’t have a website). Well, I call BS. The scientists here aren’t particularly exceptional with respect to their opinions, statements or press releases and we have a documented history of calling others on statements that do sometimes go too far. So it’s completely legitimate to ask people to justify such statements… which as you saw here, actually aren’t justified at all. So honest mistake or cut-and-paste disinformation? You decide. – gavin]
#265 Dhogaza,
“We don’t know so it can be argued” is a heck of a lot weaker than “remarkable recovery” … “You’re probably right, the trend will continue” isn’t even close to your first statement claiming a “remarkable recovery”.
I guess that’s progress – actually, it’s a “remarkable recovery”!
I told you I was a pushover :-)
See, with a bit of rational debate you lot can modify and moderate views. You should try a bit harder where it really matters, in the “real media”.
> I plot trends for a living, and looking
> at the graphs on Cryosphere today I cannot see ….
What business are you in where you “plot trends for a living” by “looking at the graphs” — and how has this industry survived such careless innumeracy?
Oh, wait. You said you’re in finance, right?
Never mind.
Tamino at 205 said:
“Stop blaming the scientists, stop blaming the media. Blame the lies, and the lying liars who tell them.”
I agree with this, with the caveat that among the consistent “liars” *are* certain media outlets (Fox News, the National Post).
But certainly the liars include “scientists” like Monckton, “astroturf” organizations and think tanks like Friends of Science, the Frontier Centre and the Fraser Institute, duplicitous foundations like the Calgary Foundation, and of course the hidden corporate interests funding the liars.
All of this can be seen in Lord Monckton’s upcoming tour of Canada, as seen here:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/09/22/friends-of-science-behind-moncktons-magical-mystery-tour/
I first blogged about this back in July – not that too many were paying attention then:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/16/friends-of-science-theyre-back/
Matthew L. #262:
Actually not true, if you consider that the “engine” of a GCM is very similar to that used in numerical weather prediction models — which definitely do work in the real world as you can observe first hand as a user of three-day-plus weather predictions… specifically, runs of climate models are done as “weather runs” generating members of an ensemble, over which then averaging is performed. And there are many ways to real-life test a GCM.
That’s just GCMs… more generally, your distinction between engineers and scientists is, frankly, unreal as both are judged by getting things (models/devices) to work, and to be seen to work, in the real world. Hey, I am an engineer by training and do science for a job!
John P. Reisman (251), I looked at your graphs and it looked pretty flat to me: minus about 0.015 degrees over one ten-year period, plus about 0.025 degrees over another, maybe really flat over the combined 11-year period.
So are you predicting the 8 degree rise by 2080? Or when Matthew L strongly doubts it, and you reply “it can’t be ruled out”, is that a refutation of Matthew’s doubts??
#260 Matthew L.
My mistake, actually, the MIT report range was 3.5 to 7.4 with BAU giving us a mean target of 5.2C
Matthew, where did the 8C number originate? Do you have a source link?
I not qualified to get between the Hadley Center and NASA on who is more respected, I think they are both quite respectable. Just that I know NASA has a greater amount of resources.
The debate has been hijacked because controversy sells.
As far as the data in the section of the page
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-stopped
Do 10 years really make a difference?
That is hadcrut data, not NASA. The source links are below the graph images, just follow the links.
The amount of sea level rise in the future will remain disputed, but there is no doubt it will rise due to the warming. Of course i don’t read the general media I stick to sources as best I can.
I dont’ think 8C can be absolutely ruled out but neither can 2C, however both numbers are on the fringe as far as I can tell. But you can’t rule them out.
If you follow the source links on the MIT report you can get more detail.
I looked at the link you gave again and my mistake, I did not zoom in on it. It just reminded me of the global chart, my bad. Zooming in, I can see that the ice extent did drop quite a bit but what I try to point out to people is that ice extent does not tell you the story as well as ice mass loss. Which is a much more dramatic story.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic/20070822_oldice.gif/view
It’s also important to understand that ice area and ice extent are pretty much the same thing.
Gavin’s point is important. Real scientists are not making extreme predictions. The predictions are in ranges with probabilities. The fact that media picks up on the extremes of the ranges or uses false data, or makes something up has many reasons but none in those cases are helping get to the reasonable explanations.
I have not heard any extreme positions from the relevant science community. Do you have examples?
Gavin, none-the-less there are a pile of scientifically minded people posting on RC. When those are sometimes called out for being terribly uncivil it’s not appropriate to holler “KINGS-X. THEY DON’T COUNT.”
[Response: Don’t know that reference, but I was not uncivil. Arguably, making sweeping and unfounded statements about ‘scientists’ is. – gavin]
#273 Rod B
Why would you say I am predicting 8C?
John P. wrote
“t’s also important to understand that ice area and ice extent are pretty much the same thing.”
Not really. Some periods of the year the ratio Area/Extent is below 70%, the lowest I’ve computed was under 62%. 5 million km^2 extent then means in summer time, 24/7 daylight, that ~2 million km^2 is open ocean.
PS, add to my previous note that in last few years with predominantly first year ice, there’s lot’s more real flat and that causing melt ponds to spread out much wider… helping more melt from above. Mind you, this years NP webcam barely showed any compared to the 2008 summer cycle.
John, he says it so you’ll reply to him. The pattern is:
Misstate something said by someone who was confused;
insist that someone else justify it. Gets everyone going at each other sometimes for days trying to untangle the mess.
Quotations in context, please, or we’ll be going in circles.
At #230, Matthew L. was charged with spreading the “denier meme” that “…the earth has not warmed more in the last 10 years…” [i.e. not at all]. Actually, his claim (#226) was not about temps but about “AGW supporters'” attitudes to them, namely that they “seem positively unhappy that the earth has not warmed more in the last 10 years” [i.e. not more than it did].
Then came #247, probably in support of the point Matthew hadn’t actually made:
The reference is to the NOAA State of the Climate report, pp. 22-23, big PDF:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/bams/full-report.pdf
They note that Hadcrut3 data for 1999-2008 shows pretty slow warming — 0.07±0.07°C over that decade — and then they subtract the ENSO contribution to get a flat decade. The fairly relevant context to that quote is that they go on demonstrate how a decade like that is well within the variability simulated by climate models and consistent with a 2°C/century warming.
Not sure how to do the quote thing in this blog. Anybody help here? Pity there is no preview function. I will use the “>” convention.
Back again Gavin I am afraid. A glutton for punishment…
>[Response: First off, by not providing an actual reference or link, no-one is in a position to know what you are talking about. Is that a local number?
No, it is the mean annual Global Temperature Anomaly (deg C) from their “base period” 1961-90.
The data set is here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
[edit – I am aware of what the current temperature datasets are, thanks. The question was about your mysterious 8 deg which we have now found to only be “up to 5 deg C”.]
>Second, you appear to think that projections of climate are derived using the Excel linear regression routine.
Sorry? Where did I say that? I am not projecting anything, simply comparing the past as described in this data set with the future as projected by climate prediction models and reported on sites such as this.
> I’m sure that this functionality has many uses, but for calculating the impact of multi-thousand Gigatonnes of CO2 entering the climate system, it probably lacks a certain something. Like physics.
I would agree wholeheartedly if I were attempting any such projection, which I am not.
The numbers are simply the Mean Global Temperature Variance for 2008 (the last complete year) compared to the equivalent figure 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years earlier. I am aware that the El-nino year of 1998 falls into this list. That is just co-incidence and not deliberate. I am happy to do the averages over 15 years if you wish, but they are not significantly different once you get beyond the immediate past.
I am not positing any alternative hypothesis, I am just trying to make it clear how incongruous a (now corrected) 5 degree C change in temperature in the next 70 years looks compared to a roughly 0.5 degree C change in the past 50 years.
[Response: “See the stock market has gone up every year for a decade. I just don’t see how it could suddenly change and lose 50% in a month” or “See our fish catches have gone up every year for a decade, what do you mean their closing the fishery because there are none left”. – gavin]
The models may be right, but is it not obvious that the scientific community will have its work cut out trying to convince the unwashed masses that this is actually what is going to happen? Because it will need to if it wants us all to change our behaviour in the sorts of radical ways being put forward.
A simple statement of “Trust me, I am a scientist and here is my CV” will not do the job. Neither will “go away little man this is far to complicated for you to understand – leave this to us real scientists”.
[Response: Curious. I don’t recall ever having said any such things. This can’t possibly be another strawman caricature masquerading as concern for our well being can it? – gavin]
It is obvious to anybody who cares to look that global warming is happening, and has happened. It is not obvious that this trend will accelerate in the dramatic fashion described by some models. Scientists need to find a new language to describe complex models to the general public.
On a final note, can i remind you of a statement in the above post:
“Don’t be so unlikeable (i.e. don’t play to the stereotype of the arrogant, dismissive academic)”. Be nice. We the general public respond better to nice people than nasty people who sneer at us. Funny is good too, in fact funny probably trumps nice. Sneering sarcasm does not get a look in.
[Response: Yeah… but while this is true in general, it doesn’t give people the right to expect that mindless repetition of half-digested talking points will not get called on them. Genuine interest and real questions from lay people are to be welcomed and should be (and are) dealt with nicely. People pretending to be concerned about the image of scientists while ladeling on contrarian talking points are in another class altogether. – gavin]
CM, yes they did state it was within the variability of the climate models. I never intended to suggest they said anything different. It would be huge news if they had, hardly worth mentioning if they hadn’t since nothing major had changed. Now as far as what point Matthew was making, he said the Earth hadn’t warmed for ten years. If he read the Earth hadn’t warmed for ten years after ENSO had been adjusted for then what is the possibility he remembered it has having not warmed for ten years? I don’t think I’d discount this possibility would you? Besides, what would you consider a more accurate temperature trend: one that has or has not been adjusted for ENSO?
That NOAA/NCDC report at p23 has three charts;
the middle chart has the time increasing from right to left.
Odd?
CW, I’m sorry I had missed your primary point. Yes, I agree it is unjustified to try to place emotional tags on people you don’t even know.
> Computers are not the creation of “scientists” in the
> sense we are talking about here, they are the product of
> engineers.
We have climate models — based on radiation physics models — because we have computers that use semiconductors. It wasn’t engineers who figured out quantum physics, though they built devices. The old analog computers, and the ones built with physical relays, never would have sufficed to do any of that kind of work.
Deep Climate, One of the good Viscount’s biggest lies is saying he’s a scientist at all. His degree is journalism and he lists his profession as “business consultant,” rather than the more honest “professional liar”.
Ocean temps are at the warmest ever recorded. It’s insane to say that the Earth hasn’t warmed in 10 years: the chief repository of heat in the climate system is the warmest it’s ever been.
Well, Ray, if Monckton were honest about being a professional liar, he’d be letting down the side, wouldn’t he?
John P. Reisman (276), I was asking if you were, not claiming such.
#287 Well of course Monckton’s not a scientist. That’s why I put in quotes :)
As I mention in my post on Monckton’s tour of the colonies (um, I mean Canada), one of the lies that Monckton used to tell was that he was a “scientific advisor” to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. That whopper got laughed down a long time ago and was dropped from the official c.v., but it lives on in some of the PR being put out by one of his hosts, the Frontier Centre.
Matthew L. #284
(using a blockquote…/blockquote pair in angle brackets)
Now that we have out of the way what doesn’t work, what would you suggest we do to convince members of the general public? Step them line-by-line through the computer code?
Do you think you’re saying something new? Heck, already the MIT Limits to Growth report from 1972 expended pages on the counterintuitiveness of their finding, the logic of exponential growth within a finite system, overshoot and collapse, and the difficulty of making non-scientists appreciate this. Is any of this a surprise to you?
I stand corrected to those who write from 206 to 212! I do understand (sort of, barely) that ozone is the result of complicated reactions of CO2 created volatile organic compounds mixing with UV radiation. I can’t claim any sort of chemical or physics expertise, whatsoever.
But I can attest to one certain fact, because I can see it. The vegetation on the East Coast of the US is dying at a dizzyingly rapid rate. Croaking, wholesale, every single species of every single age is dying.
You tell me why, smartypantz! I would love to know!
Kevin #288, philosophers would have something to say about that.
#234 Dhogaza says:
“Your minor work delineating fish stocks using stable isotope ratios in otoliths gives you no more knowledge about the work you dismiss than that of any other interested layperson. When it comes to climate science, that’s what you are – a layperson.”
Dismiss what? I dismissed nothing except the use of GCMs for forecasting climate decades into the future. That is all. You can insult all you like (e.g. MINOR research on stable isotopes), it does not change the fact that, as a scientist, I can comment and criticise (constructively of course), because I do have the training. If I, as a fishery biologist, cannot comment outside my field of expertise then why are you even engaging in this debate at all as you have no scientific training?
You (Dhogaza) debate because you are entitled to and you are entitled to be listened to.
Richard Steckis
Just shopping around for your comments on the web. For the most part, your arguments are soundly put down in pretty much every instance. You take other peoples comments out of context, or just add your own twist and in some cases call others ignorant even though it’s a pot meet kettle moment.
One of my favorites is when you say Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann are not climatologists. It seems relevance context is not a capacity you entertain, or currently possess on the subject at hand.
http://www.desmogblog.com/user/richard-steckis/track
http://www.desmogblog.com/glacial-melting-redraws-italian-swiss-border-hints-future-water-wars
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-crock-week1998-revisited
http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3270
http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/08/de-icer-usgs-report-details-%e2%80%9crecent-dramatic-shrinkage-in-u-s-glaciers-matching-global-decline/comment-page-1/#comment-102105
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/western-sizzlin/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/31/for-slimehead-orange-roughy-goosefish-monkfish-toothfish-chilean-sea-bass-overfishing/comment-page-1/#comment-100808
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/05/australias-new-chief-scientist/#comment-123394
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/open-thread-8/#comment-24197
Not do you not understand climate, you do not understand web email either
http://www.desmogblog.com/george-monbiots-troll-problem-and-ours
Richard Steckis
Richard, it is clear that you do not have adequate understanding on the subject of climate. But you have already pointed that out. What is also clear is that you do not seem to be learning.
The models are matching the observations on the major part of the signal. The fact that you ignore that does not change the fact that ‘this’ global warming event is human caused.
Study the Milankovitch Cycles to get an idea of what natural cycle is in the long run. Then study TSI and forcing. Understand the difference between the signal and the noise. It’s not all about a single type of statistical analysis:
http://ossfoundation.com/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/the-copenhagen-distraction
If you actually care about learning climate science you would ‘choose’ to look at the big picture. You seem to choose a myopic view. That is your choice, but it brands you.
If you have children and grandchildren, they will likely live long enough to say, without doubt, you were foolish in your assertions. Do you really want to have that as how they remember you.
Just because you don’t understand it does not mean that thousands of scientists that work in the field of climate don’t understand that the main signal above the noise of internal variability.
Does this chart look familiar to you:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
If it’s only 25 to 30% anthropogenic, how do you attribute the rest of the warming, the change in radiative forcing from pre-industrial natural cycle? The the models match the observations for the most part right now.
– GCR’s don’t correlate.
– Solar only adds 0.2 W/m2 on the surface at solar max (not enough to get 1.6 or 3.6 W/m2 on the top end minus the industrial negative albedo input).
– et cetera
You are obviously not looking at something important. Is it only that you are not really studying climate, or is it that you are ignoring things on purpose? What is causing the other 70 to 75% of the warming if it’s not anthropogenic in origin?
If you have no alternative sound theory, why are you so unsure?
Matthew L.,
You wrote:
“I am just trying to make it clear how incongruous a (now corrected) 5 degree C change in temperature in the next 70 years looks compared to a roughly 0.5 degree C change in the past 50 years.”
There is a reason to expect that the warming trend may accelerate (I’m not defending the 5 degrees number however). Aerosol cooling has masked about 50% of the greenhouse warming so far. The aerosols (or particulate matter pollution) will very likely be cleaned up (their sources have already been substantially decreased over Europe and North America, for some badly needed good news), because they are a health hazard (ask your wife). The unmasking of this aerosol cooling will unleash the full extent of the greenhouse warming. The same process is thought to be responsible for the change in warming trend from 1940-1975 (strong aerosol cooling) compared to 1975-current warming. If globally aerosol sources will be cleaned up further, the warming trend may accelerate.
Here is a nice short summary paper on this topic:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1352231009004920
More general, the amount of future climate change depends first and foremost on the further development of emissions (primarily greenhouse gases but also aerosols), and on the climate sensitivity. The former is inherently unknown, and up to what society at large decides. The latter is inherently uncertain, though taking all constraints together it’s been pinned down at ~3 degrees per doubling of CO2 (http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html).
Good to see that your views are amenable to change.
Perhaps the whole premise of the post is misconceived, and we should not be agonising so much about the public at large:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/21/federal-court-says-states-may-sue-utilities-over-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate/
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/need_agreement.pdf
Judges are smart people, and they have a deep appreciation for this thing called evidence, i.e., the stuff that makes you believe in things you don’t want to believe in. And investors — well, there’s a reason they’re trusted with other people’s money. Smart cookies too.
It’s at times like this one should be grateful for not living in an actually functioning democracy ;-)
stevenc,
re #282, you cite a source noting the (adjusted) trend was flat, but you think the context that this doesn’t falsify climate predictions is too trivial to cite. Matthew L. seems to be one of many people to whom this is not at all obvious, and your source addresses the question he raises, hence it’s worth referencing in full.
As for what is “a more accurate temperature trend: one that has or has not been adjusted for ENSO?”: The more accurate temperature trend is, well, the temperature trend. You want the unadjusted trend if you just want to know if the world warmed or not. (If there’s more crime now than ten years ago, and the whole increase can be explained by the rise in unemployment, does that make it more accurate to say that the crime rate has been flat?) You may want the ENSO-adjusted one to take a stab at how much of that might be man-made.
re #284 (if meant for me), thanks but that wasn’t my main point.
#262 Matthew L.
Concentrating on flat parts can be of course misleading. Add the forcing component and the atmospheric lifetime of Co2 along with feedbacks that are certainly reasonably expected.
Thus it is easy to see where it will go. It is a non linear acceleration but will have a component that acts like compounding interest, but with a twist.
A good way to look at it would be the current situation with banks. The CEO’s and executives don’t want to reduce their salaries, so since they figure the spigots are closed on bailout money, as their profits get squeezed, on top of the interest on debt they charge their customers, they are starting to lop in extra fees. To maintain their desired profit, they would need to continue throwing fees at customers and changing the rules until of course the bank fails or the government says, here’s more bailout money.
That is pretty much what will happen with sea level rise (SLR) and AGW, in general, except there is no bailout for climate other than human action. The feedbacks will most likely magnify in response to the continued warming and thus push the numbers up at various tipping points.
The main difference being that climate is not a fictitious business entity that can go bankrupt and walk away to get another job somewhere else.
When AGW reaches a certain point, we pay the price. Not doing anything meaningful about it is similar in effect. Humans still have a chance to try to control it. The real question is when will human, in general, reach a level of understanding to avoid such bankruptcy of our resource capacity and sustainability?
Yes, I recall how reliably all those computer engineers predicted the downfall of civilization the the months leading up to Jan. 1, 2000. Those guys are so reliable???
What is your last name, please?