Los Angeles Times science reporter Eryn Brown sees a remarkably warm winter over most of the U.S., but manages to skate through without any mention of global warming, opting instead to point out that the Pacific Northwest has been cool and that Los Angeles has had a few chilly days. Oh, and the Arctic Oscillation and La Nina have something to do with it too.
Climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, commented on Twitter, "
How the New York Times could cover global warming, Dec. 23, 2011
The New York Times and global warming (not): why?, Oct. 3, 2011
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
'Loading the climate dice': Why it's important
[UPDATED 6/23, 9:30 a.m.] Twenty years ago today, James E. Hansen testified before the Senate Energy Committee — in a room kept intentionally warm by committee staff — that the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests was already perceptibly influencing Earth’s climate.That's a quote from the New York Times' Andrew C. Revkin, dated June 23, 2008, memorializing a key 1988 turning point in the history of human-caused climate change. Dr. Hansen was then director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Revkin adds:
The video [shot by Revkin during a 2008 interview that is the subject of the article] begins with [Dr. Hansen's] explanation of a visual aid he created in 1988 with Jose Mendoza, an illustrator at Goddard in the days before PowerPoint: a pair of cardboard dice showing how humans were tipping the odds toward climate troubles. Notably, perhaps because of old glue, the paper black dots were falling off. (emphasis added)The more I think about Dr. Hansen's metaphor, the more impressed I am. In 1988, he was able to come up with a very simple explanation of how humans were affecting the climate--so simple that almost anyone could understand it. My profession is communications, and I can tell you from long experience, that's not easy to do.
In addition to being simple, it's a very accurate (perfect?) description of a scientific phenomenon that is becoming more and more obvious as time goes on, and the perfect response to those who (1) point to a remarkably cold or snowy day as proof that global warming doesn't exist or (2) (accurately) state that any short stretch of weather doesn't prove the climate is changing. No, a short stretch of record hot weather doesn't prove anything, but we are loading the climate dice, and it's exactly the type of weather that we'll be seeing more and more of as time passes, because we've changed the odds and the "old normal" no longer applies.
I'd like to encourage everyone who shares my concern about global warming, and about the remarkably poor job most mass media are doing of communicating the issue, to bring up the topic of "loading the dice" as often as possible. It's simple, it's accurate, and there's not, to my knowledge, an easy and simple denier response. Regrettably, after all this time, many newspaper and broadcast journalists still don't get this most basic explanation of the effect of human-caused climate change on weather.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Lest we forget: 2011's 'mind-boggling' weather
Before 2011 totally gets away from us, here is a comment I've been meaning to post about. It's from a Public Broadcasting System (PBS) interview on the weather of 2011 with Dr. Jeff Masters, co-founder and Director of Meteorology of Weather Underground, and Kathryn Sullivan, deputy administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
----
JEFF MASTERS, Weather Underground: In one year, we had three of the most remarkable extreme weather events in the history of the U.S. I mean, we talk about the Dust Bowl summer of 1936. Well, this summer pretty much matched that for temperature, almost the hottest summer in U.S. history. We also talk about the great 1974 tornado outbreak. Well, we had an outbreak that more than doubled the total of tornadoes we had during that iconic outbreak. And, also, we talk about the great 1927 flood on the Mississippi River. Well, the flood heights were even higher than that flood this year. So, it just boggles my mind that we had three extreme weather events that matched those events in U.S. history. (emphasis added)
----
I post it here as something to remember--there were many other weather events in 2011, from Hurricane Irene to the Western wildfires and the Phoenix dust storms, but Dr. Masters's comment is a nice sound bite summarizing some ways in which the year really "pushed the [weather] envelope" on a macro scale.
----
JEFF MASTERS, Weather Underground: In one year, we had three of the most remarkable extreme weather events in the history of the U.S. I mean, we talk about the Dust Bowl summer of 1936. Well, this summer pretty much matched that for temperature, almost the hottest summer in U.S. history. We also talk about the great 1974 tornado outbreak. Well, we had an outbreak that more than doubled the total of tornadoes we had during that iconic outbreak. And, also, we talk about the great 1927 flood on the Mississippi River. Well, the flood heights were even higher than that flood this year. So, it just boggles my mind that we had three extreme weather events that matched those events in U.S. history. (emphasis added)
----
I post it here as something to remember--there were many other weather events in 2011, from Hurricane Irene to the Western wildfires and the Phoenix dust storms, but Dr. Masters's comment is a nice sound bite summarizing some ways in which the year really "pushed the [weather] envelope" on a macro scale.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Thin Ice in the Arctic
My letter to the Valley News (local paper that makes virtually no content available via the Web) appeared Wednesday:
Thin Ice in the Arctic
Thanks for the interview with Jackie Richter-Menge, lead editor of the Arctic Report Card ("Hanover Researcher Writes Report on Arctic Health," Dec. 24). To Ms. Richter-Menge's comments on global warming and the Arctic, I'd like to add a statistic that is remarkable to me. Detailed measurements of Arctic sea ice have been taken since 1979. In 2011, the minimum estimated volume of the sea ice was just one-quarter what it was in 1979, and less than half what it was as recently as 2006. For anyone interested in following the latest findings in climate science, I recommend the excellent Climate Progress and Skeptical Science blogs. If you're already concerned, Citizens' Climate Lobby is actively pursuing a simple remedy--a gradually increasing national tax on carbon with the proceeds distributed back to individuals as a yearly dividend to all Americans. This concept is embodied in the Save Our Climate Act, H.R. 3242. I urge your support.
Thin Ice in the Arctic
Thanks for the interview with Jackie Richter-Menge, lead editor of the Arctic Report Card ("Hanover Researcher Writes Report on Arctic Health," Dec. 24). To Ms. Richter-Menge's comments on global warming and the Arctic, I'd like to add a statistic that is remarkable to me. Detailed measurements of Arctic sea ice have been taken since 1979. In 2011, the minimum estimated volume of the sea ice was just one-quarter what it was in 1979, and less than half what it was as recently as 2006. For anyone interested in following the latest findings in climate science, I recommend the excellent Climate Progress and Skeptical Science blogs. If you're already concerned, Citizens' Climate Lobby is actively pursuing a simple remedy--a gradually increasing national tax on carbon with the proceeds distributed back to individuals as a yearly dividend to all Americans. This concept is embodied in the Save Our Climate Act, H.R. 3242. I urge your support.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Connecting dots on weather & climate: local newspaper shows how it's done
After two stories in two days by national-level media dropped the ball on global warming, my local paper, the Valley News, came through yesterday. Kudos!
Here is the magical (dare I call it remarkable?) text from the story "So Far, Winter Is a Washout" by Aimee Caruso:
By contrast, a lump of coal goes out to the New York Times, which carried a story of similar length on the same subject (lack of snow, warm weather) Dec. 23, but managed to avoid any mention of global warming even though it included the following text: "Week after maddening week of unusually balmy temperatures have made snowfall scant in New England ... "
And a slightly smaller lump to the Associated Press, with an entry also dated Dec. 23 and titled "With snow scarce, northern U.S. has brown Christmas." The author, John Flesher, doesn't fail to ask the obvious question--is there a reason for this?--but rather than bring up the sticky wicket of global climate change, he opts instead for "La Nina, the cooling of the equatorial Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide, has nudged the jet stream farther north. Air pressure over the northern Atlantic has steered storm systems away from the East Coast."
To be fair, climate science doesn't tell us a whole lot about snow--snowfalls may be much heavier due to the increased moisture content of the atmosphere, or they may be much lighter because they are replaced by rain, or the snow may melt because of warmer temperatures. So that's a plausible reason for not bringing it up.
Still, the weather has clearly been odd--otherwise, there would be no reason for writing about it--and one factor has clearly been unusually warm temperatures. Global warming "loads the [weather] dice," making warm spells more likely, as Mr. Bouchard noted, and it's my view that every feature story about unusual weather that dovetails with climate science should "connect the dots."
The New York Times does connect the dots sometimes--in its "Temperature Rising" series, which focuses explicitly on major issues relating to global warming, and, more interestingly, when its stories relate to politics. Take, for example, this recent segment from a story titled "Climate Scientists Hampered in Study of 2011 Extremes," by Justin Gillis:
UPDATE: To get a sense of just how different climate reporting can be, see this example from today's edition of the Montreal Gazette: "Quebec on the verge of catastrophic climate change, expert [says]."
Related posts:
How the New York Times could cover global warming, Dec. 23, 2011
The New York Times and global warming (not): why?, Oct. 3, 2011
Here is the magical (dare I call it remarkable?) text from the story "So Far, Winter Is a Washout" by Aimee Caruso:
Chris Bouchard, a meteorologist at the Fairbanks Museum in St. Johnsbury, Vt., said it's fairly unusual to have no snow in December, especially because the snowfall is just a few inches below normal.There now, that wasn't so hard, was it?
"What's weird about it is it's been very warm, so a lot of (the snow) has melted, resulting in our measly snowpack," Bouchard said.
Last month was the third warmest November on record in Vermont, with an average temperature of 41.2. The warmest year was 1948, with an average temperature of 42.6.
It's also been an unusually wet year, Bouchard said. As of yesterday morning, 51.14 inches of melted precipitation made it the wettest year since records started being kept in 1894 ...
It's hard to say why Vermont has had four of its wettest years on record in the past six years, he said, but possible explanations include a transitory weather pattern or "some link to climate change.
"Warmer and wetter are two trends you would expect here in the Northeast with a warming climate," Bouchard said.
By contrast, a lump of coal goes out to the New York Times, which carried a story of similar length on the same subject (lack of snow, warm weather) Dec. 23, but managed to avoid any mention of global warming even though it included the following text: "Week after maddening week of unusually balmy temperatures have made snowfall scant in New England ... "
And a slightly smaller lump to the Associated Press, with an entry also dated Dec. 23 and titled "With snow scarce, northern U.S. has brown Christmas." The author, John Flesher, doesn't fail to ask the obvious question--is there a reason for this?--but rather than bring up the sticky wicket of global climate change, he opts instead for "La Nina, the cooling of the equatorial Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide, has nudged the jet stream farther north. Air pressure over the northern Atlantic has steered storm systems away from the East Coast."
To be fair, climate science doesn't tell us a whole lot about snow--snowfalls may be much heavier due to the increased moisture content of the atmosphere, or they may be much lighter because they are replaced by rain, or the snow may melt because of warmer temperatures. So that's a plausible reason for not bringing it up.
Still, the weather has clearly been odd--otherwise, there would be no reason for writing about it--and one factor has clearly been unusually warm temperatures. Global warming "loads the [weather] dice," making warm spells more likely, as Mr. Bouchard noted, and it's my view that every feature story about unusual weather that dovetails with climate science should "connect the dots."
The New York Times does connect the dots sometimes--in its "Temperature Rising" series, which focuses explicitly on major issues relating to global warming, and, more interestingly, when its stories relate to politics. Take, for example, this recent segment from a story titled "Climate Scientists Hampered in Study of 2011 Extremes," by Justin Gillis:
This year, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tried to push through a reorganization that would have provided better climate forecasts to businesses, citizens and local governments, Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked it. The idea had originated in the Bush administration, was strongly endorsed by an outside review panel and would have cost no extra money. But the House Republicans, many of whom reject the overwhelming scientific consensus about the causes of global warming, labeled the plan an attempt by the Obama administration to start a “propaganda” arm on climate.Note the bolded passages, which provide the extra factual context a reader needs to make, yes, judgments about what is happening. Let's look at the same paragraph without the bolded parts:
This year, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tried to push through a reorganization that would have provided better climate forecasts to businesses, citizens and local governments, Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked it, labeling the plan an attempt by the Obama administration to start a “propaganda” arm on climate.The latter approach has far too frequently characterized the Times' approach to weather and climate coverage. Congratulations to Mr. Gillis for "telling it like it is" on the news story of the century--the disruption of Earth's climate by human-caused emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
UPDATE: To get a sense of just how different climate reporting can be, see this example from today's edition of the Montreal Gazette: "Quebec on the verge of catastrophic climate change, expert [says]."
Related posts:
How the New York Times could cover global warming, Dec. 23, 2011
The New York Times and global warming (not): why?, Oct. 3, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Thanks, Al
The post I should have written for Thanksgiving:
I'm thankful, of course, for everyone who is active in trying to persuade recalcitrant and boneheaded governments around the world (including our own in Washington, D.C.) to get serious about slashing global warming pollution. Bless you all, thank you all, and more power to your efforts, whatever (nonviolent) form they may take. But I'd like to extend a special note of thanks to our former Vice President, Al Gore.
When you look across the spectrum of U.S. politicians on this issue, it's a pretty sorry sight. Vice President Gore has done more--far more--than any other American political leader to draw our attention to this urgent global problem, and he has done it consistently, month after month, year after year. Take a look on Twitter for @algore and you will find him today, still pushing out information about climate science and its implications. In return, he has been belittled, defamed, mocked, and smeared. The lackeys of the fossil fuels industry have talked about "making Al Gore angry" as if it were a serious policy objective, rather than juvenile taunting unworthy of anyone's serious attention. Shame on them and those who pay them.
And thanks, Al. Thanks for not being either bought off by the fossil fuels industries, like so many others, or cowed by their Tea Party dupes. Thanks for continuing to tell us the inconvenient truth about the serious global danger we are courting with our current energy policy and what we need to do to avert it. We are all in your debt.
I'm thankful, of course, for everyone who is active in trying to persuade recalcitrant and boneheaded governments around the world (including our own in Washington, D.C.) to get serious about slashing global warming pollution. Bless you all, thank you all, and more power to your efforts, whatever (nonviolent) form they may take. But I'd like to extend a special note of thanks to our former Vice President, Al Gore.
When you look across the spectrum of U.S. politicians on this issue, it's a pretty sorry sight. Vice President Gore has done more--far more--than any other American political leader to draw our attention to this urgent global problem, and he has done it consistently, month after month, year after year. Take a look on Twitter for @algore and you will find him today, still pushing out information about climate science and its implications. In return, he has been belittled, defamed, mocked, and smeared. The lackeys of the fossil fuels industry have talked about "making Al Gore angry" as if it were a serious policy objective, rather than juvenile taunting unworthy of anyone's serious attention. Shame on them and those who pay them.
And thanks, Al. Thanks for not being either bought off by the fossil fuels industries, like so many others, or cowed by their Tea Party dupes. Thanks for continuing to tell us the inconvenient truth about the serious global danger we are courting with our current energy policy and what we need to do to avert it. We are all in your debt.
How the New York Times could cover global warming
I've complained (hmmm, maybe "ranted" is the appropriate word) here previously about the New York Times and its "coverage" of global warming.
It's interesting to compare that coverage with the Times' coverage of Congress. The e-mail alert (from the Times) for the breaking story of the day on Saturday, December 17, reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
“Senate Votes to Extend Payroll Tax Cut for Two Months
“WASHINGTON — In the ultimate cap to a year of last-minute, half-loaf legislation, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Saturday to extend a payroll tax cut for a two months, with the chamber’s leaders and the White House proclaiming victory, even as they pushed the issue of how to extend the tax cut and unemployment benefits into the new year. …
“The agreement — should it get through the House — mirrors a series of 11th-hour deals devised by the the 112th Congress that appear to solve an impending crisis, but simply push it forward …
“A failure to even extend a modest tax break for 160 million Americans for a single year — something both sides would love as political feathers in their election-year caps — is particularly remarkable in a Congress charged with far more significant items.
“‘Today is an important day for our country,’ said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, as he explained from the Senate floor Saturday why his chamber would be voting on a bill, conceived Friday in private between Senate leaders to extend the tax for only two months. ‘We are doing today exactly what the Founding Fathers thought we would do,’ and passage of the bills is ‘an accomplishment important for the American people.’
Notice that the reporting is very judgmental--I have bolded some of the pieces of the text that, while they are arguably accurate reporting, also appear to express the personal views of the reporter. Certainly, they are not "straight reporting." Also, the article positions the quote from Reid in such a way as to make him appear either openly cynical or stupid.
The NYT does this regularly with political news, so its reporters do know how to take a position, in a news story. The mystery is why it is so assiduous about writing news stories about global warming as neutrally (and even cluelessly) as possible. It has, for example, carried lengthy articles about the recent rash of wildfires in the western U.S. and on the record-breaking Texas drought of 2011 without mentioning global warming at all. Its blog even reported on the most well-known skeptic politician, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), sending a self-congratulatory message to skeptics at the Cancun international climate conference--without any discussion of the climate science he belittles.
That said, some credit is due. On the same day as the story above, it carried a long story on methane that actually discusses climate science as if it were settled. I hope it's the beginning of a sea change, but at this point, it's hard to be optimistic.
It's interesting to compare that coverage with the Times' coverage of Congress. The e-mail alert (from the Times) for the breaking story of the day on Saturday, December 17, reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
“Senate Votes to Extend Payroll Tax Cut for Two Months
“WASHINGTON — In the ultimate cap to a year of last-minute, half-loaf legislation, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Saturday to extend a payroll tax cut for a two months, with the chamber’s leaders and the White House proclaiming victory, even as they pushed the issue of how to extend the tax cut and unemployment benefits into the new year. …
“The agreement — should it get through the House — mirrors a series of 11th-hour deals devised by the the 112th Congress that appear to solve an impending crisis, but simply push it forward …
“A failure to even extend a modest tax break for 160 million Americans for a single year — something both sides would love as political feathers in their election-year caps — is particularly remarkable in a Congress charged with far more significant items.
“‘Today is an important day for our country,’ said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, as he explained from the Senate floor Saturday why his chamber would be voting on a bill, conceived Friday in private between Senate leaders to extend the tax for only two months. ‘We are doing today exactly what the Founding Fathers thought we would do,’ and passage of the bills is ‘an accomplishment important for the American people.’
Notice that the reporting is very judgmental--I have bolded some of the pieces of the text that, while they are arguably accurate reporting, also appear to express the personal views of the reporter. Certainly, they are not "straight reporting." Also, the article positions the quote from Reid in such a way as to make him appear either openly cynical or stupid.
The NYT does this regularly with political news, so its reporters do know how to take a position, in a news story. The mystery is why it is so assiduous about writing news stories about global warming as neutrally (and even cluelessly) as possible. It has, for example, carried lengthy articles about the recent rash of wildfires in the western U.S. and on the record-breaking Texas drought of 2011 without mentioning global warming at all. Its blog even reported on the most well-known skeptic politician, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), sending a self-congratulatory message to skeptics at the Cancun international climate conference--without any discussion of the climate science he belittles.
That said, some credit is due. On the same day as the story above, it carried a long story on methane that actually discusses climate science as if it were settled. I hope it's the beginning of a sea change, but at this point, it's hard to be optimistic.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)