Communicating Climate Change (and other issues)

[TerryM]

Don

" Doing so only requires a respect for the facts, and that is a minimal obligation that should be the starting point for any reasonable discussion."

Sadly reasonable discussion isn't the outcome desired in some quarters.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Joe Bastardi is the or was the snow bunny's God, so he has an image to maintain.

Maybe at the least DMI could release a press release condemning the blatant false use of there products in public domain?

[SVT450R]

I don't think that ice loss should be compared to climate trends. As I understand it the 30 year standard for climate is because of the noise in the data as well as cyclic phenomena whose cycle is less than 30 years. With ice loss we're looking at the structural breakdown of features. When we've eroded through to darkened areas of ice in Greenland it's going to be difficult to cover them up again, and whenever they're the top layer melt accelerates.

I think of it as more akin to a situation where a flooding river takes out a few of the flood control dams up stream. The next flooding seasons are probably going to be worse until the dams are rebuilt, and some of the ice features took thousands of years to build.

It seems reasonable to assume that Greenland ice melt will accelerate as more low albedo surfaces are revealed and enhanced. A freak cold year followed by a freak warm one would have been a wash when there was a thick layer of ice covering the darkened areas. Now, with no safety feature in place, the above situation only pauses the melt for one year, then it's back to the increasingly rapid melt.

Greenland melted back further than it has today during the Holocene Optimum, and recovered, but there were few anthropomorphic particles embedded in the ice. This time I think it goes all the way down, and the particles are flushed away before there's any chance of sustainable rebound.

I've been asking on a few sites if there has been any evidence of Fjords straightening, widening or deepening that has recently been observed. I haven't had any replies yet, but will post to the Greenland thread when answers arrive. I think that for a very rapid melt out some alteration of the present fjord structure has to occur.

Terry

Tho we know the AMO plays a role in Greenland weather/temps how much so i can't say. So a small time scale may not be showing the true trend. Also albedo is not some new phenomenon while we have contributed to the darkening of Greenland there has also always been dirt/dust etc that has lowered it's albedo as well.

[Jonger]

Another day and another tweet by Joe Bastardi using DMI's SST charts to argue that Arctic sea ice had increased in recent weeks (all the data: CT, DMI, JAXA, and NSIDC show otherwise). As I replied to Bastardi via Twitter to inform him about the correct charts, his continued usage of the SST charts rather than DMI's ice products makes it appear that his use those charts is deliberate. It is unlikely that he could repeatedly make the same error after having been informed of the correct charts and their URL. Perhaps there is another possibility that I'm missing and I hope that there is.

Seemingly, rather than accept the fact that Arctic sea ice had continued to decline in recent weeks, which did not require him to accept any explanation for that decline e.g., role of AGW, and thus would have allowed him to maintain his skepticism on climate change, he used the SST charts to construct an artificial illusion of ice growth. He attempted to sustain an account that lacks objective merit, whether one measures ice by extent, area, or volume. If this hypothesis of what might have occurred is accurate--and the repeated use of the SST charts creates at least the perception that it is--such an approach to bolster an otherwise unsustainable narrative is not much different from an athlete's taking PEDs to bolster his performance on the playing field. At least that's the perception that is created. I hope it's not fact.

If accurate, that would be a truly sad outcome. It would be an outcome that is wholly inconsistent with his many years of tireless dedication, passion, enthusiasm, and generous sharing of meteorological knowledge and insights that have enriched the field and all who share his passion for the weather. Even if he never explains his incorrect use of the SST charts, he would do well to stop that practice, as it is so corrosive to the body of his good work in the field of meteorology. Doing so does not require him to embrace AGW. Doing so only requires a respect for the facts, and that is a minimal obligation that should be the starting point for any reasonable discussion.

Finally, this also is the last that I will mention of this particular issue. The relevant point is that one should be wary of claims that seem to run counter to all the data. One should try to be reasonably familiar with the sources of data, the proper uses of those sources along with their limitations, and then verify the data to the extent possible.

The white indicates a temp below the charts threshold, its disingenuous to call it ice. With that said, its still cooling and probably freezing close to the pack and the rest will follow soon.

So its jumping the gun on ice... I'll give ya that.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Another day and another tweet by Joe Bastardi using DMI's SST charts to argue that Arctic sea ice had increased in recent weeks (all the data: CT, DMI, JAXA, and NSIDC show otherwise). As I replied to Bastardi via Twitter to inform him about the correct charts, his continued usage of the SST charts rather than DMI's ice products makes it appear that his use those charts is deliberate. It is unlikely that he could repeatedly make the same error after having been informed of the correct charts and their URL. Perhaps there is another possibility that I'm missing and I hope that there is.

Seemingly, rather than accept the fact that Arctic sea ice had continued to decline in recent weeks, which did not require him to accept any explanation for that decline e.g., role of AGW, and thus would have allowed him to maintain his skepticism on climate change, he used the SST charts to construct an artificial illusion of ice growth. He attempted to sustain an account that lacks objective merit, whether one measures ice by extent, area, or volume. If this hypothesis of what might have occurred is accurate--and the repeated use of the SST charts creates at least the perception that it is--such an approach to bolster an otherwise unsustainable narrative is not much different from an athlete's taking PEDs to bolster his performance on the playing field. At least that's the perception that is created. I hope it's not fact.

If accurate, that would be a truly sad outcome. It would be an outcome that is wholly inconsistent with his many years of tireless dedication, passion, enthusiasm, and generous sharing of meteorological knowledge and insights that have enriched the field and all who share his passion for the weather. Even if he never explains his incorrect use of the SST charts, he would do well to stop that practice, as it is so corrosive to the body of his good work in the field of meteorology. Doing so does not require him to embrace AGW. Doing so only requires a respect for the facts, and that is a minimal obligation that should be the starting point for any reasonable discussion.

Finally, this also is the last that I will mention of this particular issue. The relevant point is that one should be wary of claims that seem to run counter to all the data. One should try to be reasonably familiar with the sources of data, the proper uses of those sources along with their limitations, and then verify the data to the extent possible.

You give him far to much credit Don. Notice the 2nd graph he cuts off the sst values. He blatantly has misrepresented what this chart means knowing full well, in other words, he commit fraud.

[donsutherland1]

WUWT Guest Blogger:

Insolation is already low enough to trigger glacial onset. For the last 8,000 years, the Earth has been cooling at 0.25°C per thousand years, so the oceans are losing heat. We just have to get to that trigger point at which snows linger through the northern summer. Solar Cycle 25 might be enough to set it off.

What the blogger fails to mention is that recent warming has reversed the impact of gradually falling solar insolation in the Arctic. Also not mentioned is the reality that the role of solar forcing has become relatively smaller during recent decades.

From Nature:

The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

From Science Daily.com:

Parts of the Arctic have cooled over the past century, but temperatures have been rising steeply since 1990.

Finally, despite the longest and deepest solar minimum since the early 20th century, the earth maintained a large energy imbalance. Hence, references to Solar Cycle 25 are likely highly speculative.

[Entropy]

WUWT Guest Blogger:

Insolation is already low enough to trigger glacial onset. For the last 8,000 years, the Earth has been cooling at 0.25°C per thousand years, so the oceans are losing heat. We just have to get to that trigger point at which snows linger through the northern summer. Solar Cycle 25 might be enough to set it off.

What the blogger fails to mention is that recent warming has reversed the impact of gradually falling solar insolation in the Arctic. Also not mentioned is the reality that the role of solar forcing has become relatively smaller during recent decades.

From Nature:

The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

From Science Daily.com:

Parts of the Arctic have cooled over the past century, but temperatures have been rising steeply since 1990.

Finally, despite the longest and deepest solar minimum since the early 20th century, the earth maintained a large energy imbalance. Hence, references to Solar Cycle 25 are likely highly speculative.

Classic Watts. Deride proponents of the mainstream science view on anthropogenic warming as alarmist, while promoting a blogger who believes the next glaciation could begin as soon as the next solar cycle despite the lack of any evidence of global cooling and/or glacial expansion.

[The_Global_Warmer]

WUWT Guest Blogger:

Insolation is already low enough to trigger glacial onset. For the last 8,000 years, the Earth has been cooling at 0.25°C per thousand years, so the oceans are losing heat. We just have to get to that trigger point at which snows linger through the northern summer. Solar Cycle 25 might be enough to set it off.

What the blogger fails to mention is that recent warming has reversed the impact of gradually falling solar insolation in the Arctic. Also not mentioned is the reality that the role of solar forcing has become relatively smaller during recent decades.

From Nature:

The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

From Science Daily.com:

Parts of the Arctic have cooled over the past century, but temperatures have been rising steeply since 1990.

Finally, despite the longest and deepest solar minimum since the early 20th century, the earth maintained a large energy imbalance. Hence, references to Solar Cycle 25 are likely highly speculative.

Unreal.

we are no where close to having any substantial snow cover last through the summer.

Delusional pipe dreams. Watt's has no soul, he is evil to manipulate so many for money like this.

There has to be a secret message board where all of these deniers get together bloggers or commentators and plan out these acts of blind ignorance and stupidity.

[donsutherland1]

Classic Watts. Deride proponents of the mainstream science view on anthropogenic warming as alarmist, while promoting a blogger who believes the next glaciation could begin as soon as the next solar cycle despite the lack of any evidence of global cooling and/or glacial expansion.

That Watts and at least one of his guest bloggers could believe that it is sufficiently plausible that a new glaciation is imminent (perhaps a solar cycle away) is quite astonishing. As Watts chose to use his site to host a piece broadcasting a possible imminent glaciation, he has taken a position on the issue. IMO, that's an extreme position to say the least.

[ORH_wxman]

That Watts and at least one of his guest bloggers could believe that a new glaciation is imminent (perhaps a solar cycle away) is quite astonishing. As Watts chose to use his site to host a piece broadcasting a possible imminent glaciation, he has taken a position on the issue. IMO, that's an extreme position to say the least.

I just looked at Watts' site...and saw the Glaciation article. It was labeled as a "Guest post". I find it a tad disingenuous to say that Watts agrees with this entire article when he didn't post any text in the article.

This is from someone who thinks Watts makes some inaccurate statements regarding the official data and the peer reviewed evidence. But if this type of indirect association is going to pinned on watts, then I would assume that people have no problem with me dissecting someone like Romm's website with his statements. However, I hardly ever do that, since its understood that each side has some hyperbole.

It's my opinion that the semantic criticism of the hyperbole from each side is not very constructive.

[donsutherland1]

I just looked at Watts' site...and saw the Glaciation article. It was labeled as a "Guest post". I find it a tad disingenuous to say that Watts agrees with this entire article when he didn't post any text in the article.

This is from someone who thinks Watts makes some inaccurate statements regarding the official data and the peer reviewed evidence. But if this type of indirect association is going to pinned on watts, then I would assume that people have no problem with me dissecting someone like Romm's website with his statements. However, I hardly ever do that, since its understood that each side has some hyperbole.

It's my opinion that the semantic criticism of the hyperbole from each side is not very constructive.

I revised the wording to note that the scenario was viewed as being sufficiently plausible. One would reasonably expect at least some attempt to see that the claims have at least some scientific backing. It seems that as the Arctic sea ice approaches its minimum, there has been a ratcheting up of rhetoric to shift the focus from the magnitude of the minimum. Bastardi has used DMI's wrong products despite having been informed of the issue and never corrected his error (he has received correct information from multiple sources now) to create an illusion of ice growth when, in fact, there has been a significant decline. Now the Watts blog has someone suggesting that a new glaciation is perhaps a solar cycle away and that's probaby the most extreme position one has seen this summer on the Arctic ice issue. Watts didn't have to accept the piece that lacks scientific validity. That choice makes it difficult for him to dissociate from the piece.

Romm's issue is a little different. From my quick read, he seems to be exaggerating the attribution of events to climate change, a different communications-related problem that is probably worth some future discussion. He also takes a decidedly political stance e.g., creating the illusion of a currently climate change-responsive government in the U.S. (though sometimes taking the opposite position) when, in fact, in terms of concrete policy, very little has changed. The EPA's moves have been driven strictly by the Supreme Court's Massachusetts vs. EPA ruling that required the Agency to regulate CO2 emissions consistent with its responsibilities, not a change in broader policy direction. The latter issue would probably belong in the politics subforum and it might have much to do with his past role in public service.

[TerryM]

Perhaps billboards displaying graphs similar to this might help.

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww133/Sane_Person/Arctic%20Meltdown/Sea_Ice_models_v_reality-2012.jpg

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

I revised the wording to note that the scenario was viewed as being sufficiently plausible. One would reasonably expect at least some attempt to see that the claims have at least some scientific backing. It seems that as the Arctic sea ice approaches its minimum, there has been a ratcheting up of rhetoric to shift the focus from the magnitude of the minimum. Bastardi has used DMI's wrong products despite having been informed of the issue and never corrected his error (he has received correct information from multiple sources now) to create an illusion of ice growth when, in fact, there has been a significant decline. Now the Watts blog has someone suggesting that a new glaciation is perhaps a solar cycle away and that's probaby the most extreme position one has seen this summer on the Arctic ice issue. Watts didn't have to accept the piece that lacks scientific validity. That choice makes it difficult for him to dissociate from the piece.

Romm's issue is a little different. From my quick read, he seems to be exaggerating the attribution of events to climate change, a different communications-related problem that is probably worth some future discussion. He also takes a decidedly political stance e.g., creating the illusion of a currently climate change-responsive government in the U.S. (though sometimes taking the opposite position) when, in fact, in terms of concrete policy, very little has changed. The EPA's moves have been driven strictly by the Supreme Court's Massachusetts vs. EPA ruling that required the Agency to regulate CO2 emissions consistent with its responsibilities, not a change in broader policy direction. The latter issue would probably belong in the politics sub-forum and it might have much to do with his past role in public service.

Watt's does it that way so he can use something similar to "plausible deniability" in case he get's called out by a public figure who he can't ignore. Watt's is a puppet master who has helped crushed the voice of the real skeptics who end up semi defending him because they have no voice now. It's the AGW majority vs The corporate backed three headed circus in this political game. Watt's is concerned with making money and swaying public perception of AGW as an immediate threat.

Below Larry Hamilton made a graph depicting Joe Bastardi's claimed ice recovery using real DMI data.

[dabize]

"It's the AGW majority vs The corporate backed three headed circus in this political game."

I always thought that he should be nicknamed "Cerberus".........

[csnavywx]

I just looked at Watts' site...and saw the Glaciation article. It was labeled as a "Guest post". I find it a tad disingenuous to say that Watts agrees with this entire article when he didn't post any text in the article.

This is from someone who thinks Watts makes some inaccurate statements regarding the official data and the peer reviewed evidence. But if this type of indirect association is going to pinned on watts, then I would assume that people have no problem with me dissecting someone like Romm's website with his statements. However, I hardly ever do that, since its understood that each side has some hyperbole.

It's my opinion that the semantic criticism of the hyperbole from each side is not very constructive.

If it was an isolated incident, that would be one thing. It's not. There's no excuse.

Comparing Romm to Watts isn't warranted given that Romm actually posts... ya know, real science and data from time to time. He can get carried away with single events, but it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of cognitive dissonance that Watts and company continuously puke out.

[ORH_wxman]

If it was an isolated incident, that would be one thing. It's not. There's no excuse.

Comparing Romm to Watts isn't warranted given that Romm actually posts... ya know, real science and data from time to time. He can get carried away with single events, but it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of cognitive dissonance that Watts and company continuously puke out.

We'll agree to disagree. Romm's site is littered with disinformation on a regular basis. You probably just do not view as egregious as Watts because of a difference in ideology. Its a matter of opinion.

Watts posts real science and data from time to time as well. But that doesn't excuse his mistakes like you are excusing Romm's mistakes.

[The_Global_Warmer]

"It's the AGW majority vs The corporate backed three headed circus in this political game."

I always thought that he should be nicknamed "Cerberus".........

Watts, TransOCEAN, SHELL, BASTARDI, whomever else heartland has paid and is in this game. Realized true skeptism is like being a vocal American independent.

Its a non starter.

At the end of the day its either its real and needs to be dealt with or its not real.

if anyone thinks that we would take half action "skeptically" thats absurd. If we decided to prepare for sea level rise at a super super majority acceptance we wont prepare for 12-20 inches by 2100 or 2150 because a few skeptical scientists think its not gonna be so bad. When the large super majority says .5 meters to 2 meters or more.

We will plan for a worse disaster.

So to stop action they realized they have to flat out deny it. There isnt room for 3 players in the modern political game. So skeptics have been replaced by fake skeptics who are deniers. Like the conservative party does so well they prey on the folks who want to be sung music to their ears.

[csnavywx]

We'll agree to disagree. Romm's site is littered with disinformation on a regular basis. You probably just do not view as egregious as Watts because of a difference in ideology. Its a matter of opinion.

Watts posts real science and data from time to time as well. But that doesn't excuse his mistakes like you are excusing Romm's mistakes.

Aye. I can respect our differences. World views are likely making the difference.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I just spent 30 min looking over Joe Romm's blog. He and Watts are very comparable, so is Megan Fox and Rosanne in terms or sexiness.

[dabize]

You're right, but the PCists will eat you for lunch on that one Friv.

Between them and the goalpost-moving experts who conflate the Watts and Romms of this world in the interest of "balance", I despair for this country.

[ORH_wxman]

You're right, but the PCists will eat you for lunch on that one Friv.

Between them and the goalpost-moving experts who conflate the Watts and Romms of this world in the interest of "balance", I despair for this country.

A site like Romm is not a good way to get the public to pay attention to climate change as a major issue. Scare mongering and attributing every event to climate change pretty much falls on deaf ears eventually.

In the last 3 years, he has blamed the warm 2011-2012 winter on climate change, the cold and snowy 2010-2011 and 2009-2010 winters on climate change, Hurricane Irene on climate change, the 2011 tornado outbreaks on climate change, and the 2012 central/southwest U.S. drought on climate change...and I'm sure there are plenty more I missed.

If anything sounds like "goal post moving", its that type of rhetoric. No matter what the weather does, blame it on climate change.

[Vergent]

Climate in your place on the globe controls the weather where you live. Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years.

http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/

[ORH_wxman]

[/font][/color]

http://www.eo.ucar.e...strong></span>/

That's a good point. Climate has a very large component of natural variation though...which of course is not the part of "climate change" that was being focused on here, unless I missed something.

[Vergent]

Climate is the context that weather happens in. When you have climate change, the weather will be unusual. While the nature of the unusualness may be statistical in nature. Its like playing craps with loaded dice. Every win is a cheat even if only 10% of the wins are above normal.

To get back to normal weather, you would have to put back all that glacial ice, take all that heat out of the ocean, lower the oceans and freeze the water on Greenland and Antarctica. You would have to take all the CO2, CH4, and man made chemicals out of the air. While you are at it you could clean up all the plastic floating around in the oceans. We live in a man made environment, and a high percentage was made in the U.S.A..

[ORH_wxman]

Climate is the context that weather happens in. When you have climate change, the weather will be unusual. While the nature of the unusualness may be statistical in nature. Its like playing craps with loaded dice. Every win is a cheat even if only 10% of the wins are above normal.

To get back to normal weather, you would have to put back all that glacial ice, take all that heat out of the ocean, lower the oceans and freeze the water on Greenland and Antarctica. You would have to take all the CO2, CH4, and man made chemicals out of the air. While you are at it you could clean up all the plastic floating around in the oceans. We live in a man made environment, and a high percentage was made in the U.S.A..

The "loaded dice" argument doesn't mean that all the events we have are the result of anthropogenic climate change. That is the whole point.

If I have a slightly better chance at a heavy rain event, that doesn't mean that most heavy rain events are because of AGW. As for some other stuff such as hurricanes and tornadoes, that isn't even supported by the current science.

Misleading the public is never a good way to get the message across. This goes for skeptic blogs that misinform people as well.

[Vergent]

The "loaded dice" argument doesn't mean that all the events we have are the result of anthropogenic climate change. That is the whole point.

If I have a slightly better chance at a heavy rain event, that doesn't mean that most heavy rain events are because of AGW. As for some other stuff such as hurricanes and tornadoes, that isn't even supported by the current science.

Misleading the public is never a good way to get the message across. This goes for skeptic blogs that misinform people as well.

Hurricanes and tornadoes are normal weather. The drought would tend to make tornadoes less frequent. You have the heat, but not the humidity to have the conditions for the big thunder storm fronts that generate them. Exception; tornadoes associated with hurricanes. We are in a GHG warmed climate, all storms happen inside that context. In middle and low latitudes, and in the southern hemisphere, the climate has not changed a lot yet. At any rate the global warming effect is to the frequency of outlying events, like four named storms this year earlier than ever before. While the frequency of hurricanes has not gone up, the argument can be made that the power and temporal distribution has. In a changing climate we will have to adjust such things as "hurricane season" or "tornado alley".

The big change is in the arctic. But it will not be confined there much longer. Papers are coming out showing that the reduced ice cap is keeping the jet stream further north in fall and early winter. This is a big contributor to the drought.

However there was an arctic storm this August that can be laid at the feet of global warming. That storm was only possible because of the greatly reduced ice cap. I was expecting this type of storm. I miss-predicted one a year ago, and took some heat for it. Now that it has happened exactly as I predicted, I think that I deserve some respect where I had scorn. It was not a lucky guess. I had spent some time modeling storms in an ice free arctic. So I had a feel for the transition. But I have to give credit to the weather models, I was just correctly describing what they were saying. The long range models have been predicting another one on and off, thankfully now off.

http://www.gallup.co...arm-Winter.aspx

The public is sufficiently misled that the political will in the US is not there. This is not true for the rest of the world, who signed and ratified the Kyoto treaty. We were the lone hold out. This was not because of people exaggerating the effects of climate change. It was due to a well funded propaganda campaign.

Our climate models suck. they are incapable of predicting the arctic ice loss. We are in the dark about an ice free arctic. But the weather models are physics based and correctly predicted that August storm. They will probably be correct about an ice free arctic. Do we really have to wait for that condition to exist to find out what these models say will happen? Like I had to wait for that storm?

If the models say that there is danger, then plans can be made. If the danger is too great to too many, then steps can be taken to prevent the ice from melting. A temporary dam across the Bering strait(with gates for migration and ships) would do the job. It would keep 30TW out of the arctic. The Canada side would not melt out. But that will not and should not happen unless we run the models, and it is really, really, bad.

This is really not the time for a wait and see attitude. The Wipneus exponential trend on PIOMAS hind-cast is the only metric that has had any success in predicting future ice. It is going to be very close again this year. This was one of the two independent ways that I used to make my prediction:

It was showing 3,000 km^3 for the minimum. If you put 100k 1m thick in both the CA and GS, you are left with 2,800. If you put 400k along the CA and Greenland, and make it 3-4 meters thick, you are left with 1,200-1,600 km^3 to make the rest of the ice cap. So the ice cap would be 1.8 - 2.2 M km^2 if the trend continued. 2.06 was on the optimistic side of the average. As it turned out I may not have been optimistic enough. But there has not been a second storm, and the models have been saying that one was possible.

These numbers were available last October. The Wipneus number for next year is 1,800 km^3. Of course there are big +/- on this number. That is why I waited for August 5 to make my prediction. The reason for the prediction was not to scare people, it was to demonstrate that I knew what that storm was going to do, and that I knew that enough heat was under the outer seas to melt them("its not about the weather""top melt +..."). I may end up with a -170k error, 7.6%, or one day of max melting. This error can only go down, at this point. There is still a lot of heat up there, and SLPs coming.

[dabize]

Vergent, thank you for that post.

When communicating a complex situation to others, perspective becomes essential.

It is impossible to accurately convey the essential meaning of a message about a multifactorial problem with numerous poorly understood variables and also specifically answer the "gotcha" criticisms of lukewarmers and denialisti that demand 100% proof of 100% causality to everything.

Statements such as "AGW now contributes to the increased probability of multiple types of abnormal weather and the magnitude of this contribution is accelerating" are (or should be) extremely worrying to informed people, but are not sharp enough to catch the attention of a jaded and info-saturated public.

I can't see how one can justify conflating the activities of those who are trying to alert the public to a massive common problem that must be addressed now to avoid extremely serious economic, social and political (as well as ecological) consequences with those of people who are funded by FF interests to block their efforts by saying that well, both of them are making inaccurate statements (i.e. simplifying generalizations of complex issues that ignore some information) and are therefor equally bad. Watts is LYING - he is paid by Heartland to do so. We have seen this kind of thing before - from cigarette vendors. Also, this is the kind of thing that was so infuriating about the moonlighting FOX "reporters" (such as Mara Liasson and Juan Williams) that NPR and CPB insisted on retaining during the Bush years - they were masters of this sort of tendentiousness and certainly knew what they were doing.

At some point one has to question the intent of those who conflate inaccurate statements by people who are making generalizations that willfully ignore the larger context of an issue (i.e. are lying about it) with those who are trying to integrate that context when summarizing complex issues and in doing so make simplifications. Acceptance of this position makes it impossible to communicate the critical nature of AGW to the public in a timely manner.

[ORH_wxman]

Vergent, thank you for that post.

When communicating a complex situation to others, perspective becomes essential.

It is impossible to accurately convey the essential meaning of a message about a multifactorial problem with numerous poorly understood variables and also specifically answer the "gotcha" criticisms of lukewarmers and denialisti that demand 100% proof of 100% causality to everything.

Statements such as "AGW now contributes to the increased probability of multiple types of abnormal weather and the magnitude of this contribution is accelerating" are (or should be) extremely worrying to informed people, but are not sharp enough to catch the attention of a jaded and info-saturated public.

I can't see how one can justify conflating the activities of those who are trying to alert the public to a massive common problem that must be addressed now to avoid extremely serious economic, social and political (as well as ecological) consequences with those of people who are funded by FF interests to block their efforts by saying that well, both of them are making inaccurate statements (i.e. simplifying generalizations of complex issues that ignore some information) and are therefor equally bad. Watts is LYING - he is paid by Heartland to do so. We have seen this kind of thing before - from cigarette vendors. Also, this is the kind of thing that was so infuriating about the moonlighting FOX "reporters" (such as Mara Liasson and Juan Williams) that NPR and CPB insisted on retaining during the Bush years - they were masters of this sort of tendentiousness and certainly knew what they were doing.

At some point one has to question the intent of those who conflate inaccurate statements by people who are making generalizations that willfully ignore the larger context of an issue (i.e. are lying about it) with those who are trying to integrate that context when summarizing complex issues and in doing so make simplifications. Acceptance of this position makes it impossible to communicate the critical nature of AGW to the public in a timely manner.

Conjecture....conjecture...and then more conjecture.

Its irresponsible to go about claiming a problem is so big when our understanding of the science is so uncertain.

[nflwxman]

Conjecture....conjecture...and then more conjecture.

Its irresponsible to go about claiming a problem is so big when our understanding of the science is so uncertain.

I do you have a general question about that though. When is the science certain? As a scientist, I'm constantly working on uncertainties. I'm often tabulating statistical values such as P99, P75, and any other P-value you can think of. Science is always uncertain. Meteorology in particular.

Does NYC not prepare for a blizzard 2-3 days in advance because 1 out of 5 models suggests mostly rain? I remember in winter of 2011, Mayor Bloomberg took a lot of flack because the city was not at all prepared for the 20 inches of snow they recieved. In that storm, the majority of meteorologists on this board knew that at least of foot of snow was a likely possibility. Climate should be no different. Experts are experts for a reason (because they can quantify uncertainty and make sense of it). At this point, with 90+% of climate scientists sounding some alarm on this, you would think there would at least be a bit more concern and action in government.

[Mallow]

Conjecture....conjecture...and then more conjecture.

Its irresponsible to go about claiming a problem is so big when our understanding of the science is so uncertain.

Disagree entirely. It is irresponsible to do nothing about it when the potential consequences are so significant.