Is it hot in here, or is it just me? Extreme weather events, such as the blazing summer of 2011 in the Midwestern U.S. and Mexico, used to be a once-in-a-millennium chance occurrence. But over the past three decades such extremes have occurred more and more frequently, and the public may be starting to notice it.
That's according to a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NASA scientists who authored the study summarize their findings:
Should the public be able to recognize that climate is changing, despite the notorious variability of weather and climate from day to day and year to year? We investigate how the probability of unusually warm seasons has changed in recent decades, with emphasis on summer, when changes are likely to have the greatest practical effects. We show that the odds of an unusually warm season have increased markedly over the past three decades. Also the shape of the temperature anomaly distribution, describing the frequency of occurrence of local temperature anomalies, has broadened, making extreme hot summers much more likely.
Now, if you are familiar with a statistical distribution, you know that when the average of something (say, global temperature) increases, so does the frequency of hitherto rare events (say, an extremely hot summer). But skeptics will be wary of the human tendency to misinterpret a coincidence (say, two closely-spaced shark attacks) as some new trend (stay out of the water, this is The Summer of the Shark!)
Only data can distinguish a genuine trend from an unlikely coincidence. Show me the data!
An important change is the emergence of a subset of the hot category, extremely hot outliers, defined as anomalies exceeding +3σ. The frequency of these extreme anomalies is about 0.13% in the normal distribution, and thus a typical summer in the base period climate would have only about 0.1–0.2% of the globe covered by such hot extremes. We show that during the past several years the portion of global land area covered by summer temperature anomalies exceeding +3σ has averaged about 10%, an increase by more than an order of magnitude compared to the base period. Recent examples of summer temperature anomalies exceeding +3σ include the heat wave and drought in Oklahoma, Texas, and Mexico in 2011 ...
Wait -- is that actual data, or was it simulated on a computer using some fancy climate model?
Our analysis is an empirical approach that avoids use of global climate models, instead using only real world data.
Oh. Well alright then.
In many ways, from a scientific perspective, the conclusion of this study is a straightforward consequence of the temperature record, and ought to elicit a big "Duh". However, the value of this study becomes clear when we consider the public understanding of science and the portrayal of climate change in the media. Contrary to the accusations of some, if the media is indeed biased, it is biased against attributing extreme weather to climate change. And I'll prove it to you.
Consider how the news media responds, for example, when a a typical number of shark sightings occur during peak beach season. At the very least, there will be a discussion: are shark attacks increasing? If so, why? How can humans mitigate the risk of an attack? And this is how the media responds in 2012, over a decade after the embarrassment of 2001. It was during 2001 that the infamous media circus called "The Summer of the Shark" occurred, although there were in fact 13 fewer shark attacks reported than in the previous year. It took the events of Sept. 11 to get the media to stop talking about a nonexistent spike in shark attacks.
Fast-forward to the summer of 2011. Unlike the Summer of the Shark, something real actually happened: a historic heat wave and drought covering a huge area of the U.S. and Mexico -- not to mention historic floods on the East Coast. In Texas, the temperature exceeded 100 degrees F for more than a month of consecutive days. In Houston it was the driest season on record -- and the records go back 100 years. This wreaked havoc on crops and cost the state over $5 billion, including a record high of $100 million in wildfire damages to homes. And yet, unlike the Summer of the Shark, the news media was unreasonably hesitant to mention these sensational events could be symptomatic of an underlying trend.
For example, in Houston, a liberal city with a gay mayor, what did the ABC local news say about climate change in its article about the heat wave? Nothing. The Houston Chronicle also published an article which said nothing. What about in Austin, that hipster, college kid city known for its indie music scene? Austin's Your News Now said nothing. The San Francisco Chronicle -- not exactly a conservative bastion -- said nothing. The Huffington Post said nothing. CNN said nothing. These are some of the first articles that showed up in a Google search for "2011 drought". In fact, of the 7 news articles I found on the topic, only one mentions climate change or global warming at all: a Your Houston News article which quotes one meteorologist who says flatly, "Global warming has little or nothing to do with this".
Don't get me wrong -- I'm sure those news outlets mention in some article, somewhere, that global warming might have something to do with hotter summers (I repeat the scientific response: "Duh"). But at the very least, there is simply no evidence to support the accusation that the news media is biased in favor of attributing extreme weather to climate change.
How is it possible that the same sensationalist media responsible for the Summer of the Shark hoopla repeatedly avoided making a connection, or even mentioning the possibility of a connection, between an actual historic event and an actual historical trend? One possibility is that news media have reflexively adopted an anti-climate change bias in response to loud and incessant accusations of pro-climate change bias. Basketball coaches are well aware that complaining about bias can actually cause a person to be biased in the opposite direction, which is why coaches "work the refs" from the sidelines. And that's exactly why scientists at NASA should publish the kind of article cited above: to reassure the public that no, it's not just you. It really is getting hot in here.
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteSo I take it you want the same geniuses who believe the best way out of debt is to spend (excuse me, invest) more money to come up with ways to stop climate change. If only that scourge of humanity FOX wasn’t standing in their way.
Sure shark attacks are more interesting, but the problem could also be Impending Crisis Exhaustion (ICE). Or, to put it another way, after listening to Al Gore and looking at hockey sticks the public might be experiencing fatigue from being bombarded with messages about the ‘Death Of Planet Earth’ (DOPE).
After Katrina there little no doubt that hurricanes were getting worse and more numerous. This year was going to be one of the worst ever not only for hurricanes, but for tornadoes as well. Well no but it was hot, hot, hot. I guess today’s science is best when it focuses in the rear view mirror rather than in predicting what lies ahead.
Did I mention the problem of time, geologic and other? Decades are long in human life, but not so much in geological time. The weather report in Cincinnati calls for an unseasonable cold week and we may have one or more record low temperatures this month. Has the crisis passed?
Oh, and did I mention the remedies? Environmentalists pushed oh so hard for ethanol, an expensive and worse than useless product. Now they’re against it. (Yes, they were for it before they were against it – a recurring theme.) But once you start massive government boondoggles it becomes almost impossible to kill them.
Speaking of killing, perhaps we can just kill off the cattle and pigs to reduce the level of methane. That would be cheap and effective plus we could all live happily and ethically-ever-after as vegetarians. Or we could kill off those overgrown old growth forests which fuel the forest fires that deliver untold amounts of soot and ash skyward during forest fires? Hey, we might even turn a profit on the lumber.
Look, I am not against scientific evidence, but it does have its limits. The Wall Street Journal (your favorite newspaper?) had an Opinion piece yesterday about the Mars Rover in which the writer noted that in 1907 readers were asked to name the most extraordinary event that had occurred over the previous twelve months. They chose “the proof afforded by astronomical observation… that conscious, intelligent life exists upon the planet Mars.” Fortunately they did not arm themselves for the war of the worlds that some theorized might come.
So I guess my summary is: whether it’s real or not, the remedies proposed are typically expensive, impractical and ultimately do little or nothing to solve the problem, assuming we should be solving the problem. Which brings me to Don Quixote, that delusional character of good intentions who tilted at windmills in the name of virtue. Now in the name of a pristine environment we waste billions of dollars subsidizing windmills that are poor at generating power, but effective at killing birds. Where are you Cervantes? We need you still.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteCan you please direct me to the substantive part of your comments that I should respond to? I'm having a hard time locating it underneath all the empty rhetoric, sarcasm, and straw man arguments.
I guess one point of substance you have made is that "scientific evidence has its limits". Absolutely.
I should point out, however, that the example you used to try to demonstrate this point (canals on Mars) was poorly chosen. I attended a physics seminar on this once. There was no scientific consensus concerning canals on Mars. Quite the contrary. But the idea (much like the supposed "face" on Mars) was sensational and therefore it was amplified by the news media in vast disproportion to the evidence. So if anything, your example about canals on Mars does not show us that "scientific evidence has its limits". Instead it shows us that the news media and the public understanding of science has its limits. And this fits very neatly into the thesis of my post.
You ended with: "whether it's real or not, the remedies proposed ..." I've seen this line of rhetoric before, and I have several problems with it. First, you're equivocating. Global warming is real. We know it's real because there are these things called satellites, ice cores, and sediments, and they have this annoying habit of measuring another thing called the temperature record. When push comes to shove, everyone who can be taken seriously acknowledges the fact that the climate has been changing rapidly in a hotter direction -- and that includes not only scientists (!), but also the U.S. military, the oil and gas industry, and the Republican Party (although perhaps not so much recently). Second, you're muddying the waters for rhetorical advantage. Who wants to solve a problem "whether it's real or not"?
If you are prepared to reject the existence of global warming, fine. If you are unsure, fine. But stand up and be counted. A healthy debate on how we deal with global warming begins with acknowledging the reality of global warming, or at least, one's position / extent of knowledge on it. It's not some peripheral issue that I will allow to be disparaged, and then conveniently bypassed. After all, if you don't believe in the science behind global warming, or you don't care to learn about it, then I don't have high hopes for any science-based discussion of remedies (e.g. ethanol, windmills).
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteOkay, now you have stepped over the line. If you want to talk about straw man arguments, listen to our Bloviater-in-Chief . Other than in his Inaugural I don’t think he has made a major (or minor) speech without beating up at least one defenseless straw man. But what straw man did I set up? I will accept (but don’t agree with) ‘empty rhetoric’ and I proudly admit ownership of copious amounts of ‘sarcasm’, but straw man??? Or is this one of those things where I have to guess what your definition is? And yes, that was sarcasm - not great, but I am pressed for time.
In regard to solving the problem, here I will give you my definitions. Please follow the rhetorical nuances carefully as they are instructional in comprehending my (delusional?) way of thinking. A problem that doesn’t have a solution or where the available solutions are worse than the problem is not a problem. It is a condition. Problems you solve. Conditions you learn to live with until you have an effective way of dealing with them. In my opinion some of the worst mistakes, both politically and economically, are made by confusing one with the other.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteThe question under consideration was clearly stated in the title of my post: are unusually hot summers caused by global warming? In your reply, you created the illusion of refuting my position on this question, or the position of environmentalists on the question of climate change generally, by attacking spurious arguments. Specifically, you attacked the argument that global warming causes more hurricanes / tornadoes every year, and hotter temperatures in Cincinnati every week. You also attacked the argument that environmentalists have consistently supported ethanol, and that wiping out all cattle and forests are good solutions. These arguments you handily defeated are superficially similar to those of your ideological opponents, but actually they are your own invention. For example, the position that the global, statistical frequency of unusually hot summers is increasing (supported by evidence, disregarded by Fred) is only superficially similar to the position that Cincinnati is getting hotter each week (clearly untrue, eagerly attacked by Fred). In other words, you knocked down your own straw men.
I agree with you that a problem that doesn't have a solution is not a problem to solve, but a condition to live with. My concern is that (1) a sizable part of the American public does not appreciate the facts attesting to the existence of said problem/condition; (2) said appreciation of facts is necessary to determine whether climate change is indeed a problem or condition, and how to solve it or learn to live with it.
Personally, when it comes to the policy question, I plead ignorance and I am open to all suggestions. But I'm skeptical of positions on climate change policy which are not grounded in the facts of climate change.
Fred - I believe you were saying something about this being one of the worst years for hurricanes?
ReplyDelete