iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

On Climate Change, Weathercasters May Be Misguiding Their Viewers

Weathercaster Climate

First Posted: 01/30/2012 4:53 pm Updated: 01/30/2012 5:20 pm

If you are like most Americans, the weather forecast on tonight's evening news may be your only exposure to science all day. And there's a good chance that your trusted local weathercaster is your only regular source of information on climate change.

This seeming monopoly on the public's exposure to a critical issue has consequences, according to environmental advocates. Recent studies have found that more than half of the reporters relaying weather on television do not believe humans are the primary drivers of global warming -- despite a consensus among scientists who specialize on the topic.

"If you look at the stats over the past five or six years, the public's belief that global warming is a serious problem, or is even happening, is declining," said Daniel Souweine, co-founder of the nonprofit Citizen Engagement Lab. In fact, nearly 40 percent of Americans are not convinced that the earth is heating up, according to the latest Pew Research Center poll.

"We think that's a result of the fact that they're not getting the right kind of information about what the science says," Souweine told The Huffington Post.

A new campaign called "Forecast the Facts," begun by Citizen Engagement Lab with the support of the League of Conservation Voters and the climate advocacy group 350.org, aims to call out on-air climate deniers. Many of these base their skepticism on their own inability to forecast more than five or seven days out. If they can't forecast the weather a week from now, how then, the deniers argue, could scientists try to tell us what the climate might be like in 70 years?

"That's a statement that on first blush sounds reasonable. But when you understand the differences between the science of climate and weather, it isn't," Souweine said. As many climate experts like to say, weather tells you what to wear that day and climate tells you what wardrobe to buy. And computer models used by the two professions differ significantly.

So far, Forecast the Facts has identified 55 outspoken and skeptical meteorologists. Among them is John Coleman of KUSI-TV in San Diego. He is quoted on the website: "We're talking about the greatest hoax in history, let's understand this. There is no man made global warming. The whole thing is a phony call for quick action."

Kris Wilson of the University of Texas at Austin, a co-author of the national weathercaster survey, applauded the new campaign for recognizing the important role that weathercasters can play in climate change communication. However, he also expressed concern that the approach may end up simply "stabbing at the hornet's nest and making things worse."

Wilson's research has found that skeptical weathercasters tend to trust their peers more than other sources. "This might just build them into a stronger community," he said.

Other experts also call the effort misguided. Bud Ward, editor of the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, suggested that the Forecast the Facts approach could "turn off a wider sweep of the broadcast meteorologist community."

Ward hosts educational workshops for meteorologists and has contributed climate materials to the National Environmental Education Foundation's outreach, which includes online course modules and email newsletters to a self-selected group of over 200 broadcast meteorologists.

These approaches rest on the notion that the platform and respect held by weathercasters can be used for good. Dan Satterfield, a meteorologist and blogger for American Geophysical Union, shares this idea. He belongs to a growing list of broadcast weather personalities looking beyond local seven-day forecasts to long-term global climate trends -- making the effort to learn the difference and then pass that knowledge on to their viewers.

Meteorologists have a "huge responsibility" to get the science right and not mislead, said Satterfield. "What I say on the air, or in my blog, or on Facebook -- it's good science."

"If you go on TV and say something you heard on talk radio or Fox News from someone who has never published a paper, you're gonna get called out. You're gonna look foolish," Satterfield continued. Before Forecast the Facts, such calling-out of the local weather guy usually had to come from a local scientist's letter to editor, he added.

Satterfield frequently gets questions from his viewers and Facebook followers about how various weather episodes, including the rise in extreme events, might be linked to climate change. The latest in his inbox: What is causing this mild winter?

"The average person wants to assign one reason," he said. "But it's more than one thing. The answer is La Niña, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the fact that the planet and oceans are warmer, that we've lost one third of Arctic sea ice," Satterfield said. Given the obvious changes to the atmosphere, he added, it would be "silly" to think that "any weather event was not affected by climate change." It's only the extent of that effect that remains to be seen.

The secret to Satterfield's education of his viewers, including some now-former deniers, is limiting his comments to the science: "I never talk about what to do about the problem."

But not all meteorologists are as open to learning about climate science, suggested Souweine. "There are some that even go on air and say that the globe is cooling," he said. "At that point, there's no time for dialogue, it's time for accountability. The viewers deserve to know the truth."

Silence on the topic of climate change also concerns Souweine. This information deadzone spreads from the TV screen to the classroom, with high school science teachers avoiding addressing the issue out of fear of backlash, as HuffPost highlighted last week.

"Reporting on a record heat wave and not talking about climate change is like talking about a string of murders and not saying there is a suspect in custody," Souweine said.

Last week, Souweine attended a council meeting at the American Meteorological Society's annual conference in New Orleans. On the agenda: drafting a new statement on climate change. While the AMS had previously published a statement acknowledging humans' role in climate change, they had been called on to issue an updated, more strongly worded version.

On Friday, after the conference, Souweine sent an email to the more than 13,000 supporters who have signed on since the site's launch earlier this month. "Before we arrived, deniers in the AMS were the only ones making their demands known," he wrote. "AMS senior leadership actually read our press release aloud and said the grassroots participation 'changed the context' for the entire discussion."

The council eventually voted to delay finalization of any updated statement.

Meanwhile, last week in Portland, Ore., the state's chapter of the AMS gave three skeptics the stage at another conference.

The battle continues. Despite his reservations on the campaign's approach, Wilson of the University of Texas at Austin said that he did agree with the Forecast the Facts statement: "The weather report never mattered so much."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

If you are like most Americans, the weather forecast on tonight's evening news may be your only exposure to science all day. And there's a good chance that your trusted local weathercaster is your onl...
If you are like most Americans, the weather forecast on tonight's evening news may be your only exposure to science all day. And there's a good chance that your trusted local weathercaster is your onl...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,917
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (23 total)
01:22 PM on 04/04/2012
taken the time to look multiple places for my info before making a decision on anything and I see no reason for doubt. I see every reason for belief.
01:21 PM on 04/04/2012
A common mistake in the science community... If you trust anybody, trust yourself first, your fellow specialists in a particular field second, and nobody else, even if different interests are related as between meteorologists and climatologists. The evidence that humans have an influence on the climate is there, which anybody can easily see if they get their collective heads out of their rears.

I do see a worldwide trend toward decidedly different weather. Unprecedented heat waves in Europe, for example. Siberia, a location well known worldwide for it's cold climate experienced a heat wave for the first time in recorded history. The temp. was between 90 and 100 degrees F for several weeks in a row in 2009. The US was also hit in many places by unseasonally warm weather all throughout much of the 2000 and beyond time frame.

With those things comes carbon dioxide bubbles in ice cores taken from Antarctica that are seen all throughout the last four decades worth of layers at an increase from decades past. Ice cores can go back, if taken from the correct place, for thousands of years, and at no other time is the presence of the bubbles more prevalent than after the start of most societies' industrial revolutions.

With each passing revolution the CO2 in the cores increases exponentially. Glaciologists are seeing the results already. Glacier Natl Park is loosing its landmarks for the first time since the ice age. Spare me denial, because I'm smart enough and have
01:15 PM on 03/23/2012
I want to share with you people blog I've seen recently -
The most interesting blog in extreme weather for the extreme people!
http://weatherforecast2012.blogspot.com/
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:46 PM on 02/15/2012
American Meteorological Society
----------------------------------------------------------

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change...

Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
03:53 PM on 02/23/2012
That statement taken by itself proves absolutely nothing. Correlation is not necessarily causation. For a few decades there was an extremely high correlation between who won the Super Bowl and how the stock market would do that year. Did anyone think that the winner of the Super Bowl had an effect on the market? Of course not. If anything this statement makes a case for no causation from CO2 since the warming began well before the dramatic increase in CO2
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:40 PM on 02/23/2012
Denny: "Correlation is not necessarily causation."

If you really think that AGW theory is based soley on correlation then you don't understand even the very basics of AGW theory.

Have any more science denier straw men?

Denny: "the warming began well before the dramatic increase in CO2"

Which warming are you talking about, exactly?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opit
05:20 PM on 02/15/2012
Wow. So now the only group charged with any need for professionalism in forecasting future is to be upstaged by the UN in the name of Truth. Meteorologists appreciate the complexity of planetary dynamics and interactions. Apparently we are not supposed to respect our limitations and trust to the alleged science - suitably promoted by a UN agenda to tax energy use on a global scale.
I'm stupid. I do not understand how one can 'scientifically' predict the future. The proof you are right is not available.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:33 PM on 02/15/2012
opti: "Meteorolog­ists appreciate the complexity of planetary dynamics and interactio­ns."

Meteorolog­ists are not climate scientists, and many do not appreciate the difference between the two disciplines. Indeed, one can become a meteorolog­ist without any formal climate science training whatsoever, and many if not most do.

opit: "I do not understand how one can 'scientifi­cally' predict the future."

In which case you simply do not understand science.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opit
01:08 AM on 12/26/2012
Apparently that makes two of us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
11:01 PM on 02/14/2012
This article is a classic example of one group bullying another group. It starts by stating that some weathercasters may be misguiding their viewers. It discusses a program aimed at "calling out" weathercasters who don't toe the line on the so-called climate consensus.

Yet the range of opinions among weathercasters demonstrates that there is no "consensus." There is simply one group of people supporting one hypothesis, while another group honestly disagrees with that hypothesis.

The best solution is an open and free discussion of the subject, with everyone showing respect for each other. But the author supports the bullying of one group over the other. Time may show that one group or the other was correct in their views. But the author jumps the gun by prejudging the issue, and then supports the bullying of anyone who happens to hold a different opinion.

Wiser people can sense that there may be an unexpected "kick-back" from the weathercasters against so-called climate scientists, because of the disrespectful efforts of the author and other groups attempting to bully these people into silence. What goes around comes around.
10:02 AM on 02/15/2012
I have never heard of a climate scientist criticizing a meteorologist about the accuracy of their weather forecasting. I not observed a climate scientist work as a meteorologist . Perhaps meteorologists should perform within their range of expertise.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opit
05:41 PM on 02/15/2012
Climate scientists have what demonstrated expertise ? The record so far is of abortive attempts at modeling the biosphere by using simple models and implementing fudge factors.
There's a short timeline.
There aren't that many reporting stations for a really long sampling time.
We were coming out of an mini ice age.
Perturbations associated with ocean currents throw projections off.
Forecasters know there are limitations to the accuracy of their forecasts over longer periods. 'Climate scientists' have yet to prove they can do better.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:42 PM on 02/15/2012
opit: "Climate scientists have what demonstrat­ed expertise ? The record so far is of abortive attempts at modeling the biosphere..."

Yawn.

---------------------------------------------
Science (Journal) 1975:

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

Wallace S. Broecker

Columbia University

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide… Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460.abstract
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:39 PM on 02/15/2012
Richard2: "the range of opinions among weathercas­ters demonstrat­es that there is no "consensus­." "

Amongst weathermen there is no consensus on a subject that most of them are not scientifically trained as experts in - that is correct.

Amongst climate scientists, however, there is a consensus about AGW, and said consensus is overwhelming.

----------------------------------------------------------

Hey Richard2,

Are you still in such deep science denial that you also deny that denial of evolution science exists?

Science denial - it's not a river in Egypt.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:21 PM on 02/13/2012
And while some of the honest among us are engaged in the back water game of jousting with and outing the constant astroturfing by professional shills here, the rest need to keep their eyes on what the big dogs are really up to:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Analysis_-_China_unlikely_to_prise_open_Saudi_oil_vault.html?cid=31961236
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
12:48 PM on 02/15/2012
Snowfall in the Sierra Nevada has remained consistent for 130 years, with no evidence that anything has changed as a result of climate change, according to a study released Tuesday.

The analysis of snowfall data in the Sierra going back to 1878 found no more or less snow overall - a result that, on the surface, appears to contradict aspects of recent climate change models.

John Christy, the Alabama state climatologist who authored the study, said the amount of snow in the mountains has not decreased in the past 50 years, a period when greenhouse gases were supposed to have increased the effects of global warming.

The heaping piles of snow that fell in the Sierra last winter and the paltry amounts this year fall within the realm of normal weather variability, he concluded.-San Francisco Chronicle



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/14/BA8N1N7HNQ.DTL#ixzz1mTQ9kugT
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:48 PM on 02/13/2012
How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

Dr. Peter Gleick
Feb 5, 2012

The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped...

The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth... 

All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity... When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to... to cherry-pick data to support their claims... But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming...

The next time you hear someone say it isn’t warming, or it hasn’t warmed for “xx” years, or “it’s actually cooling,” remember: someone is trying to deceive you with cherry-picked numbers.

http://tinyurl.com/88f43hl
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
12:17 AM on 02/13/2012
A row between weathermen threatens to wreck a BBC-funded project to test the accuracy of Britain’s weather forecasts.

The study, estimated to have cost tens of thousands of pounds of licence fee payers’ money, has been devised by the BBC’s senior environment analyst, Roger Harrabin.

But seven of the eight forecasters and bodies asked to take part have not agreed, with two blaming Mr Harrabin for undermining the study’s credibility, claiming that his reputation is tarnished by his close links to green groups who believe in man-made climate change.-The Daily Mail
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:15 AM on 02/13/2012
Dear Richard2,

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Bob Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misreprese­nting increasing global temperatur­e trend lines as flat?**

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensib­le lie?

If you disagree please provide a scientific­ally-valid explanatio­n for Bob Carter's gross misreprese­ntation of scientific data.

Please answer question R2 instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

-------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
03:01 PM on 02/13/2012
If you still don't recognize that global temperature measurements over the past decade have not been essentially flat, you have not been paying attention.

The temperature measurements have been essentially flat since 1998, 2011 was the coldest year in a while, and January 2012 was colder than January 2011. And all the secondary indicators such as sea level trends are indicating a similar pause of, or even reversal of, the last 20th Century temperature trend.

When the real estate bubble popped a few years ago, some people simply couldn't believe that an established up-trend had finally ended, and that a new down-trend was starting. It seems you have a similar problem in recognizing significant turning points in data trends. Haven't you noticed that environmentalists rarely speak directly in support of the idea of man-made global warming? There is one obvious reason. It isn't observable in the data.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:52 PM on 02/13/2012
Richard2: "If you still don't recognize that global temperatur­e measuremen­ts over the past decade have not been essentiall­y flat, you have not been paying attention."

If you Rchard2 really believe that the scientific data indicates that global warming stopped over the past decade, or since 1998 (the year of the most powerful El Niño on record) then you haven't been paying attention.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:04 PM on 02/13/2012
American Meteorological Society's climate change statement:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

"Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming."

".. there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise."
11:01 AM on 02/12/2012
TV weather casters should in general stick with what they know...weather for the next 7 days. At first glance weather and climatology can be thought of as interchangeable to many viewers and comments by an ignorant TV weather person can do damage to public understanding.

There should be a rule in the contract to not give information or opinions on climate change until one completes a minimum amount of required reading (for a certificate?)

I'm a meteorologist with a big interest in climate change and global warming. I've studied this subject extensively and that would be my solution for weeding out the skeptics who do the weather report.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
05:07 PM on 02/11/2012
Weathercasters know which way the wind is blowing:

Himalayan Glaciers have not lost volume in past ten years, based on satellite data. Check.

Times Atlas of World admits the claimed loss of Greenland Ice Sheet, shown in the new Times Atlas, was in error. The ice loss has been minimal. Check.

Met office admits no new warming in ten years. Check.

Sea level measurements at tide stations along the U.S. west coast indicate lower sea levels than han 14 years ago. check.

World sea level measurements, based on satellite data, has turned negative for the first time in 21st Century. Check.

Europe is experiencing severe winter weather not seen in 40 years. Check.

What is the common thread among these stories? The signs of warming found in 1990s data has not continued as an accelerating trend, as predicted by some. The 21st Century data indicates a leveling off of warming trends, with some measurements indicating a slight cooling is underway.

The sky is not falling! How soon will the public notice? Perhaps during TV weather reports.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:05 PM on 02/12/2012
Addressing part of Richard2's* Gish Gallop**:

R2: "Himalayan Glaciers have not lost volume in past ten years, based on satellite data."

Stop pedaling false claims, Richard2. In fact, satellite data estimates of Himalayan Glaciers loss are in the billions of tonnes each year.

R2: "Greenland Ice Sheet... ice loss has been minimal"

As has already been explained to R2:

Per satellite estimates Greenland lost ~1,764 billion tonnes of ice between March 2003 and and Feb 2011.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2009JB006847.shtml

1,764 billion tonnes of ice = 1,764 cubic kilometers of water, which is larger than the volume of Lake Ontario (1,710 cu km).

Which is to say, according to Richard2 all of the water in Lake Ontario is an "entirely insignific­ant amount" and "minimal".

I'm guessing that people who live in the Great Lakes region disagree.

------------------
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/

** Gish Gallop: "A debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised... It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:09 PM on 02/12/2012
Prominent Global Warming "Skeptic" Hides The Incline

Dear Richard2*,

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Bob Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?**

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?

If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of scientific data.

Please answer question R2 instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributo­r to several of the most prominent organizati­ons that are "skeptical­­" of man-made global warming, including:

* The Heartland Institute
* The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science and Environmen­tal Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
* The Nongovernm­ental Internatio­nal Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The Internatio­nal Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

------------------
* http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/

** http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:00 PM on 02/13/2012
Richard2: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:08 PM on 02/11/2012
Meanwhile, some fun videos:

time-lapse photograph­y, from all over the world, of receding glaciers from 2007-2011.
http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/index.php/new_gallery/
(see James Balog's new documentary, now at Sundance)

Time-lapse history of human global CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqV-kx2ClXU
(It all began in England)

NASA GISS animation of global/reg­ional surface temperatur­e anomalies from 1881-2007:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/nasa-visualization-global-temperature-changes_n_1239137.html?ref=climate-change

Surface temperature change relative to 1870-1899 baseline.
as simulated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research's
global CCSM model
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8sHvhLvfBo&feature=related

Greenland melt data:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyXQWimVrfw&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Impact of melting the polar ice caps would be on sea level rise for the U.S. Gulf Coast and south Atlantic states:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6szDWFeT5dw&feature=related

The effect of greenhouse gases from the National Geographic
(or what our resident deniers' mothers never told them):
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview-interactive/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:13 PM on 02/10/2012
The fact that UN experts said the Himalayan glacers would melt completely in 25 years shows that some skepticism is justified and much, much more research is needed. So if I was a weathercaster I would not hype this issue until more is known. It is obvious that some global warming forecasts have been off by a factor of 10. So double down on research and lighten up on the hysteria. :)
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:43 PM on 02/10/2012
That infamous IPCC error re- 2035 instead of 2350 was not in the IPCC WG1 report, which is to say it was not in the physical sciences report that was authored by climate scientists. The IPCC AR4 WGI report has no errors that I am aware of - an impressive accomplishment given size and scope of the report.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2010):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782 
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opit
06:12 PM on 02/15/2012
'very likely due to human activities' is the conclusion in question - which is not stated as such.That precedes evaluation of the strength of the forcing and thoughts about necessary modeling problems - like moisture aloft and in oceans, lakes - even snowfields which change reflectivity.
That's a staggeringly complex model even if all drivers were identified, measured,predicted and understood.
Projecting from that includes uncertainties too even without natural cycles.
But 'scientists say' rules : which is no wonder when politicians give orders to say certain things - which this article proves.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:22 PM on 02/15/2012
opit: "very likely due to human activities­' is the conclusion in question - which is not stated as such."

No, that is not in question by the vast majority of experts in the field - it is instead, again, scientific fact.

opit: "That's a staggering­ly complex model even if all drivers were identified­, measured,p­redicted and understood­."

News flash: science can be complex.

The scientific evidence supporting AGW theory however is overwhelming, just as it is for example for the far more complex Quantum theory.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
08:24 PM on 02/12/2012
Well, the times not up yet for that prediction. But even that error was discovered by a climate scientist, and not a denier. In the meantime, the IPCC reports of several thousand pages seem to have contained 2-3 errors. Not surprising, given the size of the enterprise.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
07:20 PM on 02/09/2012
Having "dissed" a large group of broadcasters who can easily choose to retaliate by informing the public of inconvenient facts, it is hoped that the weathercasters will widely broadcast the following news:

The Himalayas And Nearby Peaks Have Lost No Ice In Past 10 Years, Study Shows
Wednesday, 08 February 2012 21:17 Damian Carrington, The Guardian

"The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy."

----- film at eleven.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:30 PM on 02/10/2012
That Guardian headline is incorrect. 

The study they are referring to, "Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise" published in the journal Nature*, estimates that between Jan 2003 and Dec 2010 the Himalayas have lost 4  billion tonnes of ice per year, or 32 billion tonnes of ice.

The study estimates that total glacial ice excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets -- which are both also melting, and at an accelerating rate -- has melted at a rate of 148  billion tonnes per year over that 8-year study time period.

----------------------
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10847.html
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:51 PM on 02/10/2012
Prominent Global Warming "Skeptic" Hides The Incline

Dear Richard2*,

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Bob Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?**

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?

If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of scientific data.

Please answer question R2 instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributo­r to several of the most prominent organizati­ons that are "skeptical­­" of man-made global warming, including:

* The Heartland Institute
* The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science and Environmen­tal Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
* The Nongovernm­ental Internatio­nal Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The Internatio­nal Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

------------------
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

** http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:06 PM on 02/12/2012
Richard2: {{{ ... Crickets ... }}}
photo
banana republican
Next in line for crumbs from the King's Table
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:56 PM on 02/10/2012
From your Daily Mail tabloid link:

"The researchers used satellite measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE,, to calculate that the world's glaciers and ice caps had lost about 148 billion tons, or about 39 cubic miles of ice annually from 2003 to 2010."

Incorrect. 

That 148 billion tonnes per year estimate does not include the accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica. Including Greenland and Antarctica ice loss the study estimates an estimated total loss of ~530 billion tonnes of glacial ice lost each year.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10847.html
photo
banana republican
Next in line for crumbs from the King's Table
09:17 PM on 02/10/2012
They never said it included Greenland, etc, so it IS, in fact, correct. That point is, some of the incontrovertible evidence used by the science to 'prove' global warming turned out to be wildly incorrect. Maybe it all is.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:38 PM on 02/10/2012
Banana: "They never said it included Greenland, etc,, so it IS, in fact, correct."

?!?

Do you serioulsly think that "the world's glaciers and ice caps" do not include those of Greenland and Antartica?

Yes, that tabloid claim that you linked to IS, in fact, wrong.

Come back to reality, Banana.

-------------------------

Banana: "some of the incontrove­rtible evidence"

Who said the rate of glacial melting in the Himalayas based on limited observations was "incontrove­rtible"? Oh that's right - you did.

Banana: "turned out to be wildly incorrect. Maybe it all is.”

So according to you that new study's estimate of rate of glacial melting is correct, while every other estimate of glacial melting in that study may be "wildly incorrect". Got logical incoherence? Yup.

Again come back to reality, Banana.