Is the media overselling climate change? 20 April 06

As regulars on your blog, I think we can develop a fair perspective on the various arguments and come up with informed opinions. But often the media do seem distort the arguments & the issues so that the tone isn’t quite right. Partly this is to do with how media reports on issues, but there are some malign interest groups at work (the Royal Society has just produced a report about this http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1758233,00.html) as well as crack pots like Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy.

I saw David Bellamy had written a letter attacking wind-farms in yesterday’s Independent. Whenever I see a letter from David Bellamy, a question pops into my head for him ..

So … is it really true that 555 glaciers are expanding? ;-)

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/

Peter

I only caught up with the Radio 4 “overselling” programme this morning. Hyping, overselling or exaggerating are aspects of the AGW/CC issue which need careful consideration. I’ve expressed my concern below when referring to Lovelock’s pronouncements. I think I used the phrase “unnecessarily alarmist”.

On the other hand reading Leggatt’s explanation of methane hydrates and the New Scientist piece on Atlantic circulation (thanks Almuth) illustrate there is some chance that one or other feedback mechanism will provide a future which is truly alarming.

I think we need to take care when making predictions about the future. There is as much psychology as science involved in engaging people such that they will dramatically reduce their CO2 output. And of course the media can chase sensationalist stories to sell copy.

Your overall appraisal of the programme is very good Mark and your points on 3 degrees being scary enough and the possibility of rapid changes are well made.

I listened to the Today programme this am and was horrified to hear Professor Bob Carter doing a FUD act. I fired off a complaint and copied it to Prof Phil Jones the other participant in the debate. In replying he indicated the reality of the threat from the contrarians and lobbyists along the lines of the Guardian article Peter has alerted us to. Carter aided by someone on the Today team may be the first salvo in this battle.

We need to be prepared to deal with a whole lot of nonsense from the anti lobby when the next IPPC report is released. It’s not over yet!!

Douglas Coker

I remember once Norbert made claims that glacier melting was occurring at the edges but gaining more mass at higher elevations. I countered that even if this was true, it would only create more vertical pressure to move the ice flow faster out to sea. Recent precise satellite measurements of Antarctica show a decrease in ice mass.

As I have shared before in the past, it takes 79 times more energy to melt a given quantity of ice than to raise the same quantity of water 1 degree Celsius. So, a cubic mile of ice is like 79 cubic miles of water raised one degree Celsius using the same heat.

In this light, I see the melting of the Arctic ice as significant. If more solar is absorbed from open ocean and there is less ice to keep the water surface cold, then I think the warming should increase quite a bit. Then, how can Greenland be spared?

I am thinking of an idea to illustrate this by using a glass of ice water and thermometer and to show what happens when you remove the ice. I also want to have clear satellite before/after pictures showing ice melt of glaciers and the Arctic. I want to put the 2 ideas together to make a point.

Where can I purchase good photographs of glaciers and Arctic ice which show both a before picture and an after picture with a time line online? Any stats on the amount of ice melted would be great as I can use that to calculate the effect on raising ocean temperatures when no ice is present.

Granted, an oversimplified approach but it is still a correct use of physics regarding the properties of water and it is something simple enough for everyone to relate to.

I want to create a short display which can make someone never look at an ice cooled beverage without thinking about the melting ice cap. The floating ice cubes would be a nagging reminder.

Best Wishes,

Dan

And may I add the engineering concept of what we call a “safety factor”.

All engineering design involving high loads must have a safety factor. This is extra capacity built in to insure everything stays safe. Bridges are designed to be much stronger than the greatest load they will encounter.

The massive planes flying at hundreds of miles per hour did not topple the very tall twin towers at impact because the buildings were designed with a safety factor built in. They collapsed hours later only because the insulation protecting the steel was removed from impact and extreme heat weakens steel. The insulation was there in case of a “normal” fire.

What this example brings up is that a climate plan needs a “safety factor” built in if it is to succeed and this “safety factor” must be larger than reasonable uncertainties.

The only way to lower the safety factor is to lower the uncertainties and that is why I support more funding for climate research and to have a bolder plan than hoping the problem is not as bad as many would like to believe.

Best Wishes,

Dan

It’s like the greatest catastrophe to strike humanity (barring all out nuclear war or being hit by a comet). Words simply fail us. There are no adequate words for it. All the names we give it fall short. Naming diminishes it. Adjectives fool us into complacency.

I think I understand denialists & their “It just cannot be happening.”

However, I do think the media should start focusing more on solutions, not just the problem or debates about how bad or not-so-bad the problem is. We need solutions, not talk.

Much of what they said was directed against this Press release from ClimatePrediction.net. I have some sympathy with the programme’s viewpoint here. The press release did, in my mind, overstate the case. I know that many of you also frequent RealClimate.org, here’s Gavin’s take on this.

Apart from this, the programme challenged reports that climate change was a factor in the demise of amphibians around the globe, and was a factor in the spread of malaria in parts of Africa. I felt this was much shakier – these reports were not written by climatologists.

The programme also made the point that people criticising “alarmism” were fervent believers in climate change.

I do believe that we shouldn’t try to oversell climate change. As Mark said, three degrees is bad enough – and if we hype it then it makes life a lot easier for the contrarians.

Stick to what we know to be true. That’s quite bad enough. Leave conjecture to the opposition.

I produced the documentary and have no problem with your criticism which seems reasonable and balanced.

I would just like to point out that we actually made it quite clear in the programme that a 3 Celsius rise was “still in itself a significant rise”.

Perhaps you could argue we could have made this point more strongly but we in no way tried to diminish the significance of a 3 degree rise.

You know when you enter this field you are going to get criticism. Last time I made a programme Exxon complained. So I can’t be all bad.

My point was not that the sea-ice melt would raise ocean levels directly but that it would enhance the warming of the entire polar region leading to the melting of Greenland which then would raise sea levels.

The latent heat of fusion of ice is a buffer to warming in the polar region in that it takes 79 times more energy to melt a given quantity of ice than to raise the same quantity of liquid water one degree Celsius. Once the total polar area is ice-free, then I imagine the lack of ice plus the associated decrease in albedo would add significantly more warming making Greenland even more vulnerable to more melting. This is in part due to the lack of ice to melt. I also imagine, with warmer ice-free polar seas, that it will take longer for winter sea ice to start forming which will further delay the increase in winter albedo which reflects solar energy. This lower albedo of an ice-free ocean would keep the whole region warmer much longer than it would be without the ice cover.

The main point with the ice-water demonstration is we can never let the polar region be totally ice free in order for Greenland not to melt down. That is my conclusion based on simple physics. If I am incorrect in anyway with this simple observation, then I would like to hear from anyone on this blog if I missed something. If the more refined science confirms this simple observation, then I would like to know this as well.

The reason for the ice-water demonstration was to have a basis of reference for average people to relate to the simplified physics which govern both the glass of ice water and the polar region. The temperature of the ice water in the glass, like the polar ocean surface, would be near the freezing point of water. If I lift the ice out of the glass, then the water rises in temperature. A digital thermometer and a stop watch can show the temperature rise and how fast it rises once the ice is gone. Everyone already knows intuitively that we have to have ice in a cold beverage to keep it cold. Quantifying it only confirms our own intuition.

So, I really appreciate your response Stewart because what I am trying to do is find a way to show others the urgency of global warming. The ice melt in the polar region indicate it is leading to an ice-free ocean. This in turn would make Greenland melt. When Greenland melts, then sea levels will rise accordingly and this would be bad for humanity.

Photos showing before and after ice melt, like Mark’s blog picture, can make the case that this is occurring and the reason is global warming. If a person can understand this and relate it to the warming after the ice disappears in a glass of ice water, then I think the person’s awareness would increase and with that a higher level of concern.

The total presentation is meant as a short introduction to policy makers, politicians, various groups, students, etc. Using the photos and a quick demonstration with a glass of ice water should take only a few minutes.

After the introduction, the focus would be less on the science and more on the solutions. Any reference to the science would also relate back to solutions which will prevent the ice from melting in the real sense.

What I need is a place to purchase the best photos and any statistics on the amount of polar ice we once had, the amount we lost, the current melt rate, and projections.

The photos and demonstration also relate to defining the solution in terms of preventing the worst-case scenario. I believe strongly that this focus is essential in developing a comprehensive world-wide plan on what we have to do to win. Without that plan and this direct focus, I think we flounder about with half-measures and may miss the opportunity to solve the larger problem. All other environmental concerns seem to be subordinate to priority number one which is to save the climate.

This presentation idea needs further exploration and enhancement because what we want to do after we determine the actual plan is to find a way to convey in simple terms that we have no choice other than to follow that plan. In this light, a serious of photos and demonstration as I shared may serve to aid the purpose of getting people’s attention and commitment to the plan once developed

Please continue to have a dialogue with me and others join in. I come to this blog not to just share my thoughts but to learn from others and the dialogue is very helpful to me. Just from your response alone Stewart, I see the need to clearly state the fact that see-ice does not directly raise sea levels but when we loose it, then it can create the conditions whereby Greenland melts faster and its release of land-based ice will raise sea levels. I hope I get more feedback on how I can make this idea work better. Facts and figures plus photographs and where to get them can help refine this short presentation which is meant simply as a means to help an audience focus and be attentive to the rest of the presentation on solutions.

If others like the idea and seek to use it, then let me know if it is effective. In the USA, we have a huge problem in the lack of awareness of the climate problem. It is not a topic here and it gets very little media attention. Even so, I surmise that in the UK, there are people less worried about it that have to be reached in some manner.

One last comment I often have to repeat. If the USA simply reduced its per capita emission level to that of the current per capita emissions of the UK, then it would be equivalent to the UK reducing to zero emissions 4 times.

In that light, it appears that merely focusing on UK’s GW strategy is not sufficient. Anything which can aid the USA and in particular those people in the minority in the USA who seek to influence the course of future events can have a greater impact to curb global warming. When it comes to climate change prevention, it does not matter where the reduction in emissions occur on the planet.

In that light, we are truly all in this together. One of my personal goals is to see more collaboration and dialogue between the USA and other countries. In a small way, I am already doing this on Mark’s blog. Mark’s blog is “home base” to me. It may be difficult for me to find a better forum. American culture is fast-pace and people take little time to discuss issues in depth with all their competing priorities. Our collective short-attention span is a detriment. Our strength is once we “get it” then we can be compelled to decisive action.

The real problem will be the difficulty in transforming our infrastructure which evolved from cheap energy. That transformation does not happen quickly and we will be experiencing real pain when the price of energy soars.

Kind Regards,

Dan

Richard V. Good to see you participating in the debate here. I’ve commented on your Radio 4 programme above.

Have you any influence on the Today team? They can be good on AGW/CC then for some reason they go and broadcast something which is just completely off the scale.

Douglas Coker

I’d just like to concur with Stewart’s recommendation that readers check the RC debate. I think something very good can come out of this spat.

The interface between the media and the science is crucial. AGW/CC gets coverage. What we need to aim for, from here on in, is truly excellent coverage. Coverage that gets the balance right.

The information should galvanise us into action and not paralyise us like rabbits in the headlights. When dire warnings are issued solutions should be offered. And we are not short of solutions!!

Douglas Coker

I obviously didn’t understand what you were trying to do – my apologies, and thanks for the lucid reply! In terms of images, have you tried NASA? They have a refreshingly relaxed attitude to copyright (see their copyright statement here). They’ve got some good images on their website, and many of them can be downloaded in high resolution format. Here’s an example, showing sea-ice extent in 1979 & 2005: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/arcticice_decline.html

I have no influence on Today. Which is as it should be. Decisions are made by the Day and Night Editors. You have to sell them the story ideas.

The key man on Today regarding climate change is Roger Harribin. I’m sure he would have strong opinions to the piece on Friday with the sceptic v Phil Jones.

I find it very helpful to have a constructive dialogue and to brainstorm ideas. I get the best feedback from my friends on this blog. It helps me not to feel I am alone. I am in good company here. I not only learn from you and others but it helps to clarify to myself my own intentions.

This can build one’s own self confidence when facing those who you must sell an idea to.

Sometimes, we just have to do it anyway because not everyone has an imagination to visualize another person’s idea or intention. I have a desire not to see Greenland melt down and an obsession to do what I can to prevent it.

Considering human nature, I think we tend to develop a means to make our most inner desires become a reality. In that light, I would rather define the goal as “Greenland does not melt” rather than saying 7 percent below 1990 emissions.

I want to know the plan that gets us what we truly want and if we do not find it and implement that plan, then we are wasting our time on half measures. In some small way with our dialogue, your thoughtful feedback may have contributed to preventing Greenland from melting. I value your thoughts in that light.

I appreciate the link that you found for me and will go to it with interest. I will report back what comes of this idea since it could be an effective tool others may like to try to raise the degree of concern which facilitates real action.

Best Regards,

Dan

I havnt seen the TV show, but the idea of “worst case” can be easily understod by anyone with insurance.

I reckon that “Prediction” is the wrong word to use for simulations.

A better term would be “Projection”

eg: “if his trend (eg CO2 rise) continues, expect these trends to increase” – simulations of a large system cant be predictions of a definite state, but can indicate other trends which will be associated. Even the 70s “Club of Rome” can be regarded as useful “projections” wheras it wasnt much of a prediction.

The major puzzle I have is with the Deserts|Forests link.

All paleoclimatology I read suggests that Ice ages are associated with deserts (“five times present”), and associates dust clouds. Also tropical forests shrunk to refugia less than 1/5th of present SAmerica|CentralAfrican forests.

However the common “Projections” for global warming seem to be climat-band shifts towards the equator. Which means that USA and Australia wheat may suffer. But broader, it appears to mean ‘more heat = more deserts’

nb Lovelock has a page in his book with ‘colder = more forests’ and hotter = more deserts’. Which seems common sense, but not what paleo science says. Lovelock says Gaia likes it cooler – which is a kind of content-less noise phrase, but popular & easy to grasp.

This kind of contradiction is a major turn-off for a lot of people. Anyway, its not clear how bad ‘weather’ has to get before ‘global warming’ especially anthropo-gw is accepted. 2 category 5 hurricnes|cyclones in one year n Queensland or Miami? 5 cyclones? 20?

The elephant in the room which has been apparently missed or simply denied by AGW proponants is the SUN. I’ve come across many articles talking about how the sun is at it highest output in the last 300 years.

Could this have anything to do with warming and not so much man’s activities?

I think in light of the media hyping up global warming this is relevant. The media is notorius for hyping to increase viewership and what better way than painting doomsday scenarios caused by man’s evil uses of earth’s resources rather than owning up to boring old solar cycles.

Some of the dates on these articles are really pretty old.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Meteorologists have apparently predicted warmer temps for the past decade or so with the higher temps (above 3 degrees) being at the upper range (lower chances of really happening) of the predictions.

You’ve been looking in the wrong places for good reliable information on AGW/CC.

I suggest you try Real Climate. http://www.realclimate.org/ They’ve written about the influence of the sun as well as many of the other “factors” denialists try to FUD us with.

Douglas Coker

There is absolutely no way this problem could ever be over-sold.

First of all, if it were oversold, then we would have solved the problem & there’d be no AGW.

Second of all….there’s no second of all.

Only alternative is do what we can – like reduce our GHGs.

There is another website which answers the various ‘questions’ raised by sceptics briefly but clearly – it was recommended on the Real Climate website.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

It allows you to search for different statements and get an easily understandable answer – without going quite into the technical details as Real Climate.

Almuth Ernsting

The illconsidered blog site discounts the measured and documented variations in solar activity but only uses 1978 as the baseline reference point… to short of a time period on the climatological timeline. Assuming that the sun is a constant is a convienient dismissal of the one major source impacting earth’s climate.

“According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began.”

Other scientists found correlations with sun’s output and earth temps such as FSU physist- David Lind or Dr. Judith Lean is a solar physicist at US Naval Research Laboratory.

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html

Real Climate appears to be a shell for EMS which is a “science communication” website or in other words is a public image firm for what ever scientific view deemed worthy or important.

Their site states:

“The EMS/Science Communication Network (SCN), a private non-profit foundation-supported educational organization, is dedicated encouraging environmental public health scientists and medical practitioners to contribute to public discussions about their work through the media and thereby elevate the quality and quantity of environmental health reporting.”

Betsy Ensley started realclimate and also has other sites like bushgreenwatch.org & womenagainstbush.org. She appears to be some sort of paid political activist for all things green and all things anti-bush… hmmmm who would pay her for those types of activities?

womenagainstbush press kit:

“Betsy A. Ensley, vice president for website and outreach development, creates content for the website and coordinates outreach campaigns for WAB members. Betsy currently works for a non-profit media organization dedicated to expanding coverage of environmental topics.”

The sources of information I’m getting were from UK telegraph, BBC and others… but judging by the above sited websites, I guess I should be more careful where I get my information from.

I should have offered Jimbo that option too Almuth! Tsssk.

BTW did you know James Lovelock is talking in B’ton next month. I’ve briefed my contacts to ask him the killer question.

Douglas Coker

I read the Judith Lean and David Rind paper that you referred to with some interest. They do indeed suggest that “changes in solar radiation, linked to long-term variations in solar activity, may have been the dominant climate driver in the period between about AD 1600 and 1850.” They also state that ” The most likely cause of climate change in the period since about 1850, based on estimated magnitudes of known perturbations (Fig. 4), is the growing concentration of greenhouse gases”. And finally,

Looking ahead, were solar changes limited to what has been measured in the last fifteen years, future changes in the Sun’s total radiation would have only a negligible effect on the temperature increases of 1 to 3ÂC that are now projected in IPCC models for the end of the next century. If greater changes in solar radiation occur-as seems probable based on what is known of climate and solar activity in the past-the Sun needs to be considered in long-term climate projections. The present high levels of solar activity may be approaching all that the Sun can deliver, in terms of total radiation. But, were the Sun’s activity and total radiation to drop in the coming century to levels of the Maunder Minimum, solar effects might reduce the expected surface temperature effects of enhanced greenhouse warming—by at most about 0.5ÂC.

Given that the paper is ten years old, I don’t think there’s anything in it that would cause blood to boil over at RealClimate. :)

I also had a look at the Telegraph article that you provided a link to (a report on a study carried out by the Max Plank Society on sunspot activity). The article quotes liberally from the Max Plank Society’s Press Release, and goes on to claim that it adds weight to David Bellamy’s claim that “Global Warming is poppycock”.

They chose not to include the following from the press release, though:

However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earthâs temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.

:)