Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Isotopologue said:
Diderot said:
BBC claims: “Globally 2023 was the warmest year on record - at 1.48C above the pre-industrial baseline - it smashed the previous record set in 2016 by 0.17C.”
The Guardian, ever the hyperbolists, proclaims: “the planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis. “.
The Times stated: ‘The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), a specialised agency of the United Nations, said on Friday that the planet was on average 1.45C warmer than the pre-industrial period after analysing figures from the Met Office, Nasa and other organisations.’
The Telegraph suggests: “Last year was the hottest on record, climate scientists have confirmed, breaking previous highs by a significant margin in what was described as “an alarm call to everyone. The global average temperature in 2023 was 14.98C – 1.48C warmer than the 1850-1900 pre-industrial level, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.”
Etc.
Science reporting in newspapers is generally poor regardless of specific topic. If you want detail, go to the published literature.The Guardian, ever the hyperbolists, proclaims: “the planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis. “.
The Times stated: ‘The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), a specialised agency of the United Nations, said on Friday that the planet was on average 1.45C warmer than the pre-industrial period after analysing figures from the Met Office, Nasa and other organisations.’
The Telegraph suggests: “Last year was the hottest on record, climate scientists have confirmed, breaking previous highs by a significant margin in what was described as “an alarm call to everyone. The global average temperature in 2023 was 14.98C – 1.48C warmer than the 1850-1900 pre-industrial level, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.”
Etc.
The point here is that the lack of transparency around the inherent uncertainty is a deliberate, systemic and systematic policy of obfuscation and deception. ‘Noobs’, as KP puts it, are simply being hoodwinked. Obviously we have strayed into politics here.
Diderot said:
Of course.
The point here is that the lack of transparency around the inherent uncertainty is a deliberate, systemic and systematic policy of obfuscation and deception. ‘Noobs’, as KP puts it, are simply being hoodwinked. Obviously we have strayed into politics here.
The trouble is that uncertainty cuts both ways. If you're happy to accept that things might be better than thought in the future because of uncertainty, you have to accept the same chance that things are even worse than thought (unless there are asymmetric uncertainties).The point here is that the lack of transparency around the inherent uncertainty is a deliberate, systemic and systematic policy of obfuscation and deception. ‘Noobs’, as KP puts it, are simply being hoodwinked. Obviously we have strayed into politics here.
Lotus 50 said:
Diderot I think you're seeing plots where none exist. From the mainstream press' perspective it's more about keeping the reporting simple and to the point.
That's a rather simplistic and (if I may say so) naive view. Here, for example, is The Guardian's updated (2019) editorial policy on the reporting of MMGW:"In addition to providing updated guidelines on which images our editors should use to illustrate the climate emergency, we have updated our style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. Our editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, said: “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue”. These are the guidelines provided to our journalists and editors to be used in the production of all environment coverage across the Guardian’s website and paper": [my emphasis]
1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”. [They have?]
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space. [What about global boiling?]
It is patently clear that this is activism masquerading as journalism; it's not 'about keeping the reporting simple and to the point.'
Diderot said:
Isotopologue said:
Diderot said:
BBC claims: “Globally 2023 was the warmest year on record - at 1.48C above the pre-industrial baseline - it smashed the previous record set in 2016 by 0.17C.”
The Guardian, ever the hyperbolists, proclaims: “the planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis. “.
The Times stated: ‘The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), a specialised agency of the United Nations, said on Friday that the planet was on average 1.45C warmer than the pre-industrial period after analysing figures from the Met Office, Nasa and other organisations.’
The Telegraph suggests: “Last year was the hottest on record, climate scientists have confirmed, breaking previous highs by a significant margin in what was described as “an alarm call to everyone. The global average temperature in 2023 was 14.98C – 1.48C warmer than the 1850-1900 pre-industrial level, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.”
Etc.
Science reporting in newspapers is generally poor regardless of specific topic. If you want detail, go to the published literature.The Guardian, ever the hyperbolists, proclaims: “the planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis. “.
The Times stated: ‘The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), a specialised agency of the United Nations, said on Friday that the planet was on average 1.45C warmer than the pre-industrial period after analysing figures from the Met Office, Nasa and other organisations.’
The Telegraph suggests: “Last year was the hottest on record, climate scientists have confirmed, breaking previous highs by a significant margin in what was described as “an alarm call to everyone. The global average temperature in 2023 was 14.98C – 1.48C warmer than the 1850-1900 pre-industrial level, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.”
Etc.
The point here is that the lack of transparency around the inherent uncertainty is a deliberate, systemic and systematic policy of obfuscation and deception. ‘Noobs’, as KP puts it, are simply being hoodwinked. Obviously we have strayed into politics here.
Most of the 2023 margin above late 19th century av temps has occurred in the last 50yrs. 2023 about 1.1C warmer than the 1961-1990 average according to Hadcrut:
So your concern is basically about the public being fooled about the 0.3 - 0.4 portion of the margin prior to that.
But probably not concern that it could be more than that, or that the late 19th century avearge might be a too warm analogue for pre-industrial temps of course
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 30th January 15:08
As we've been discussing global land av temps here is Crutemp - land only data
So 2023 around 1.5C warmer than the 1961-1990 average, and by eyeball about 0.5C of warming prior to that
And global land+sea again using same 12 month means for comparison
Interesting to note less uncertainty in the land+sea averages than land only data, both in the early part of the record and recent obs.
So 2023 around 1.5C warmer than the 1961-1990 average, and by eyeball about 0.5C of warming prior to that
And global land+sea again using same 12 month means for comparison
Interesting to note less uncertainty in the land+sea averages than land only data, both in the early part of the record and recent obs.
Diderot said:
That's a rather simplistic and (if I may say so) naive view. Here, for example, is The Guardian's updated (2019) editorial policy on the reporting of MMGW:
"In addition to providing updated guidelines on which images our editors should use to illustrate the climate emergency, we have updated our style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. Our editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, said: “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue”. These are the guidelines provided to our journalists and editors to be used in the production of all environment coverage across the Guardian’s website and paper": [my emphasis]
1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”. [They have?]
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space. [What about global boiling?]
It is patently clear that this is activism masquerading as journalism; it's not 'about keeping the reporting simple and to the point.'
I was referring to the mainstream press leaving out the uncertainties when reporting on global temps - you know the stuff you'd been posting about earlier..."In addition to providing updated guidelines on which images our editors should use to illustrate the climate emergency, we have updated our style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. Our editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, said: “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue”. These are the guidelines provided to our journalists and editors to be used in the production of all environment coverage across the Guardian’s website and paper": [my emphasis]
1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”. [They have?]
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space. [What about global boiling?]
It is patently clear that this is activism masquerading as journalism; it's not 'about keeping the reporting simple and to the point.'
Does the Telegraph have a similar editorial policy to the Guardian?
Lotus 50 said:
Diderot said:
That's a rather simplistic and (if I may say so) naive view. Here, for example, is The Guardian's updated (2019) editorial policy on the reporting of MMGW:
"In addition to providing updated guidelines on which images our editors should use to illustrate the climate emergency, we have updated our style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. Our editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, said: “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue”. These are the guidelines provided to our journalists and editors to be used in the production of all environment coverage across the Guardian’s website and paper": [my emphasis]
1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”. [They have?]
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space. [What about global boiling?]
It is patently clear that this is activism masquerading as journalism; it's not 'about keeping the reporting simple and to the point.'
I was referring to the mainstream press leaving out the uncertainties when reporting on global temps - you know the stuff you'd been posting about earlier..."In addition to providing updated guidelines on which images our editors should use to illustrate the climate emergency, we have updated our style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. Our editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, said: “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue”. These are the guidelines provided to our journalists and editors to be used in the production of all environment coverage across the Guardian’s website and paper": [my emphasis]
1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”. [They have?]
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space. [What about global boiling?]
It is patently clear that this is activism masquerading as journalism; it's not 'about keeping the reporting simple and to the point.'
Does the Telegraph have a similar editorial policy to the Guardian?
Diderot said:
Thankfully not it seems that the ecoloons haven’t taken control of the whole paper, just some of its environmental reporting . The BBC, on the other hand, is a lost cause as we know in this regard with Rowlatt at the helm.
So despite the fact that all the mainstream press are reporting things in a broadly similar way (warmest year since records began etc) and that there's an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis that humans have caused global warming and are continuing to do so, you don't accept it and they're all 'ecoloons'?kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
Isotopologue said:
Diderot said:
BBC claims: “Globally 2023 was the warmest year on record - at 1.48C above the pre-industrial baseline - it smashed the previous record set in 2016 by 0.17C.”
The Guardian, ever the hyperbolists, proclaims: “the planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis. “.
The Times stated: ‘The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), a specialised agency of the United Nations, said on Friday that the planet was on average 1.45C warmer than the pre-industrial period after analysing figures from the Met Office, Nasa and other organisations.’
The Telegraph suggests: “Last year was the hottest on record, climate scientists have confirmed, breaking previous highs by a significant margin in what was described as “an alarm call to everyone. The global average temperature in 2023 was 14.98C – 1.48C warmer than the 1850-1900 pre-industrial level, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.”
Etc.
Science reporting in newspapers is generally poor regardless of specific topic. If you want detail, go to the published literature.The Guardian, ever the hyperbolists, proclaims: “the planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis. “.
The Times stated: ‘The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), a specialised agency of the United Nations, said on Friday that the planet was on average 1.45C warmer than the pre-industrial period after analysing figures from the Met Office, Nasa and other organisations.’
The Telegraph suggests: “Last year was the hottest on record, climate scientists have confirmed, breaking previous highs by a significant margin in what was described as “an alarm call to everyone. The global average temperature in 2023 was 14.98C – 1.48C warmer than the 1850-1900 pre-industrial level, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.”
Etc.
The point here is that the lack of transparency around the inherent uncertainty is a deliberate, systemic and systematic policy of obfuscation and deception. ‘Noobs’, as KP puts it, are simply being hoodwinked. Obviously we have strayed into politics here.
Most of the 2023 margin above late 19th century av temps has occurred in the last 50yrs. 2023 about 1.1C warmer than the 1961-1990 average according to Hadcrut:
So your concern is basically about the public being fooled about the 0.3 - 0.4 portion of the margin prior to that.
But probably not concern that it could be more than that, or that the late 19th century avearge might be a too warm analogue for pre-industrial temps of course
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 30th January 12:03
Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
Lotus 50 said:
Diderot said:
Thankfully not it seems that the ecoloons haven’t taken control of the whole paper, just some of its environmental reporting . The BBC, on the other hand, is a lost cause as we know in this regard with Rowlatt at the helm.
So despite the fact that all the mainstream press are reporting things in a broadly similar way (warmest year since records began etc) and that there's an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis that humans have caused global warming and are continuing to do so, you don't accept it and they're all 'ecoloons'?Has the world warmed? Yes. It has been since the little ice age. How much of the current warming is attributable to humans rather than natural variations, we don't know, we can only hypothesise.
Diderot said:
Just an example from the articles cited above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-678...
Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
paste: I struggle to see reporting of temps without the uncertainty bars stated as part of some attempt to fool the public about the amount of global warming that's occured. Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
For the reasons stated in the post you've replied to, but not replied to
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 30th January 17:03
All this hand-wringing about 19th century temps but what would happen if we dispensed with the pre-20th century data? Probably then use 1900-1930 average as the oldest available instrumental data baseline which would, by eyeball, raise the baseline by about 0.1C above the late 19th century baseline.
The case for action would crumble!
The case for action would crumble!
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 30th January 17:51
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
Just an example from the articles cited above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-678...
Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
paste: I struggle to see reporting of temps without the uncertainty bars stated as part of some attempt to fool the public about the amount of global warming that's occured. Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
For the reasons stated in the post you've replied to, but not replied to
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 30th January 17:03
kerplunk said:
All this hand-wringinging about 19th century temps but what would happen if we dispensed with the pre-20th century data. Probably then use 1900-1930 average as the oldest available instrumental data baseline which would, by eyeball, raise the baseline by about 0.1C above the late 19th century baseline.
The case for action would crumble!
Is there an actual case for 'action' (beyond the most extreme scenarios like RCP 8.5 which ain't happening) to crumble? Much also depends on attribution (although the thorny issue of natural variation seems to have been glossed over in the clamour and frenzy of the alarmist claptrap that has taken over politics). It also depends on whether you think that humans can control the climate. The case for action would crumble!
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
Just an example from the articles cited above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-678...
Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
paste: I struggle to see reporting of temps without the uncertainty bars stated as part of some attempt to fool the public about the amount of global warming that's occured. Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
For the reasons stated in the post you've replied to, but not replied to
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 30th January 17:03
paste: The stated uncertainty bars are quite small. Nowhere near the +/- 0.5 that you made up.
Stating the actual calculated error bars would have little effect on the public's perception.
The BBC are off the hook in this instance. They reported accurately the information released by a credible source - with an added "about" 1.48C that the source didn't employ
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hott...
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
All this hand-wringinging about 19th century temps but what would happen if we dispensed with the pre-20th century data. Probably then use 1900-1930 average as the oldest available instrumental data baseline which would, by eyeball, raise the baseline by about 0.1C above the late 19th century baseline.
The case for action would crumble!
Is there an actual case for 'action' (beyond the most extreme scenarios like RCP 8.5 which ain't happening) to crumble? Much also depends on attribution (although the thorny issue of natural variation seems to have been glossed over in the clamour and frenzy of the alarmist claptrap that has taken over politics). It also depends on whether you think that humans can control the climate. The case for action would crumble!
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
Just an example from the articles cited above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-678...
Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
paste: I struggle to see reporting of temps without the uncertainty bars stated as part of some attempt to fool the public about the amount of global warming that's occured. Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
For the reasons stated in the post you've replied to, but not replied to
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 30th January 17:03
paste: The stated uncertainty bars are quite small. Nowhere near the +/- 0.5 that you made up.
Stating the actual calculated error bars would have little effect on the public's perception.
The BBC are off the hook in this instance. They reported accurately the information released by a credible source - with an added "about" 1.48C that the source didn't employ
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hott...
The BBC isn’t off any hooks. They did not mention any margins of error, they did not include any graphs with error bars , and there was no mention of uncertainties; they simply reverted to type with pics of unrelated wildfires. You also, inadvertently, confirmed my point that Government agencies (in this case an EU agency - Copernicus) are guilty and complicit as well. Nicely done.
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
Just an example from the articles cited above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-678...
Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
paste: I struggle to see reporting of temps without the uncertainty bars stated as part of some attempt to fool the public about the amount of global warming that's occured. Unless I've missed it, none of the graphs has error bars, and there is no mention of uncertainty anywhere; quite the opposite, plus the usual liberal sprinkling of hyperbolic guff (and unsubstantiated claims) we've come to expect from the BBC.
For the reasons stated in the post you've replied to, but not replied to
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 30th January 17:03
paste: The stated uncertainty bars are quite small. Nowhere near the +/- 0.5 that you made up.
Stating the actual calculated error bars would have little effect on the public's perception.
The BBC are off the hook in this instance. They reported accurately the information released by a credible source - with an added "about" 1.48C that the source didn't employ
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hott...
paste: The stated uncertainty bars are quite small. Nowhere near the +/- 0.5 that you made up. Stating the actual calculated error bars would have little effect on the public's perception.
Diderot said:
The BBC isn’t off any hooks. They did not mention any margins of error, they did not include any graphs with error bars , and there was no mention of uncertainties; they simply reverted to type with pics of unrelated wildfires.
Quite unreasonable, which makes you easy to dismissGassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff