As I right this, it is 58.5 deg F outside my window, and the sun is shining brightly.
Our chatty-happy media personalities actively harm us with their bubbly upbeat descriptions of today’s “beautiful” weather (I apologize for not embedding the video, but I can’t find the embed code and don’t have time to code it from scratch.). Tim Kelley goes to some lengths to reassure us that it’s been warmer on this date in 1907 — presumably to make sure that none of us blames this on global warming.
Horsefeathers
The Arctic sea-ice coverage is collapsing. The seasonal changes that normally set up to create New England winter weather are missing. Even Mr. Kelley describes the high that has now stabilized off the East coast as a “Bermuda High”. A Bermuda High in the first week of January? That is a wake-up call, folks.
Contrary to what our right-wingers and mainstream media would have us believe, global climate change is happening faster and more extreme than the IPCC models have predicted. We see this in the 2011 patterns of the US southwest, we see this in the unexpected plumes of methane observed emerging from melting permafrost in northern Europe and Alaska, and we see this in the very unusual winter weather pattern we have been experiencing in North America and New Englad this year.
Is today’s warm weather directly caused by anthropogenic global warming? Nobody can say. Is today’s weather “beautiful”? Most emphatically “no”. I doubt that co-anchors could get away with talking on-air about how much they enjoy the lovely scent of the fresh smoke of a fine cigar. Why is it still ok for them to lie about climate change?
It is perhaps time to strongly encourage our mainstream media do a better job of communicating the real meaning of the tangible climate change happening all around us.
Update, 8-January-2012
In today’s Sunday Globe, we see another example of mainstream media coverage of the “unseasonable” weather that nearly avoids mention of climate change altogether.
The piece includes just this reference:
“I am giddy with delight that I have not picked up a shovel, or an ice scraper,” said Kathryn Kilroy, of Somerville. “But my Catholic upbringing also has me feeling guilty as thoughts of global warming sneak into my mind.”
I see. So realistic concerns about the relationship between unusual winters such as this and anthropogenic climate change are reduced to Catholic guilt. We are encouraged to “shed a tear for the sea turtles, count [our] blessings in snowlessness”
With mainstream media “reporting” like this, is it any wonder that our government is so paralyzed about climate change?
Yes, we need to be conscious of climate change, and craft policy accordingly. However, I’m also more than fine with today’s beautiful (yes!) weather since I’m personally not a fan of cold or snow.
Switzerland and Austria, so much so that even the ski lifts are closed. Does this mean that global cooling has started simultaneously with global warming? http://www.1tv.ru/news/world/195777
Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. In many regions of the world, snowfall is limited by cold. Meanwhile, climate change forces changes in wind patterns. Storms follow different tracks, so some areas see more precipitation (including snow), others less.
Genuinely understanding climate change requires more than off-the-cuff knee-jerk reactions to weather events. Reading the science is a good start.
Greenhouse gas build up and temperature changes are disruptive to usual climate patterns. In some areas, like the Southwest and sub-Saharan Africa, it means hotter temperatures and more intense droughts, and the attendant problems (fires in the Southwest, famines and displacement of African villagers when rains fail). In others (including New England), it means more intense storms and more rain. In the Arctic, it means less sea ice and permafrost.
I think the weather was beautiful today, though I spent much of the day inside.
It’s the climate that worries me.
same conclusion from opposite externalisms. I have two questions:
1) climate change has existed on the planet earth for millennia, e.g. the Sahara Desert was jungle a mere twenty thousand years ago. How to explain these climate changes which took place before mankind sullied the atmosphere?
2)As the former director of NASA asked, how do we know that cilmate change will, indeed, be bad for the humans on the planet? Perhaps the northern tundras will be the breadbaskets of the future? (and all the wannabee bourgeois from around here won’t deem it necessary to buy condos in Florida :))
You do realize that pointing out that natural climate changes have occurred in the history of the planet is not an argument against human-caused change today? Regardless of whether you believe the effects predicted by climate models are due to natural cycles or human activity, some of those effects are a serious threat to human lives and safety. We can expect more droughts causing Africans to face famine, rising sea levels that will displace the inhabitants of low-lying islands and coastlines, water shortages in areas that today depend on glacial run-off, and danger to people in the path of larger and stronger storms. Try telling the people who are or will be affected by these and other consequences of climate change that it isn’t “bad for the humans on the planet” …!
Dropping in on Wikipedia, the history of the climate of the Sahara region is quite interesting. It suggests that the climate of any given region of the world is even somewhat delicate, that slight changes in temperature can cause radical changes like desertification.
I’m not sure why Mr. TheArmenian thinks that this supports his points, whatever they are. Usually, his reasoning is based on his likes and dislikes, and, if I recall correctly, he has an aversion to James Hansen. That suggests to me that a more effective avenue of persuasion lies not in a parade of science but in effecting a reconciliation of Mr. TheArmenian and Mr. Hansen.
Mr. Griffin attempted to silence James Hansen because Dr. Hansen’s science was inconvenient to the political agenda of Mr. Griffin and his owners. The attempt of the right-wing denier community (including Edgar, apparently) to denigrate Dr. Hansen is similarly driven by opinion and politics; Dr. Hansen’s science has been shown, time and again, to be impeccable. The “parade of science” demonstrates this.
I doubt that Edgar’s personal opinion of Dr. Hansen will be “reconciled”, and that misses the far more important point: science is not about belief or opinion. Governance that attempts to ignore science based on belief is failed governance — it not only will not succeed, but it will do an enormous amount of harm to the world in failing.
I’m content to show, here, that Edgar’s objection to established science is based on opinion and politics. Ad hominem attacks on Dr. Hansen only reinforce this observation. Hopefully the rest of our audience can connect the dots, regardless of whether or not Edgar is persuaded.
Edgar, your questions are easily answered by simply reading the widely-published peer-reviewed science.
As bean pointed out below, there are multiple drivers of climate change. Those changes occur across centuries or millenia, not years or decades. The more recent historical climate changes of the Sahara were driven by geological and astronomical changes. Anthropogenic factors add to natural factors.
The “former director of NASA” that you refer to is Michael Griffin, an appointee of George W. Bush who embarrassed himself and NASA with his ignorant comments about the impact of climate change. This is the same former director who famously attempted to muzzle James Hansen, one of the preeminent climatologists of the world. Edgar, I am surprised that you of all people, given your history, are tolerant of Michael Griffin’s blatant attempts to censor hard science and (scientists) because of political expediency or personal belief. That is a hallmark of Soviet- rather than American-style government.
As I said at the beginning of this response, your “questions” are readily answered with even a cursory review of widely-published peer-reviewed climate science.
My “mindset” is a conviction that science trumps personal belief every time. What’s yours?
…in terms of specific weather patterns, though overall the planet IS warming and there is overwhelming evidence that in this cycle we ARE contributing to it. Could we adapt? Probably, but we seem to be reluctant to do so.
The international goal had been to keep the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below the level that would cause a 2 degree centigrade rise in temperature. The thinking had been that such a rise was within the safe range, but even that doesn’t look safe as we’ve learned more about the climate.
Suppose a 2 degree rise is safe. Unfortunately, we seem to be looking at an increase of nearer 4 degrees. Modelling that increase, with the concomitant redistribution of rainfall with its effects on food & water supply, reveals an earth that can only support 1 billion people. The planet now has seven billion people.
Adaptation? Not looking good.
though not a good indicator, of climate change.
The point of this post is not to say that Saturday’s warm weather was caused by anthropogenic climate change. It is, instead, to focus on the role that our media play in manipulating our responses to this weather.
I wrote: “Is today’s warm weather directly caused by anthropogenic global warming? Nobody can say” — I thought this was a clear enough indication that I appreciate the difference between weather and climate.
When a smoker’s voice changes tenor, it is similarly true that we cannot say that the change is “caused” by his or her last cigarette. On the other hand, surely we would challenge media personalities who describe those changes with glowing descriptions and failed to mention the health consequences of smoking. The tobacco industry fought this cultural shift tooth and nail for decades. Climate change deniers use the same tactics — in several cases, practiced by the same persons — today.
I think we need to examine and change the mainstream media’s role in describing these events. The comments of Edgar, above, demonstrate the importance of educating the public — too many Americans view this vital issue as “just politics”, when the science truly is compelling and settled.
I didn’t happen to hear weather forecasts for yesterday, but in other instances I know the local TV meteorologists have not been at all hesitant to bring up climate change as a possible contributing factor to extreme weather patterns.
I offered two examples, in the thread-starter and its update, of the media response that I refer to. Did you watch yesterday’s NECN report that I linked to? Did you read today’s Globe piece cited in my update?
It isn’t just “TV meteorologists”, it is the way that these events are so badly reported by the rest of the media as well. When these events are relentlessly described as “beautiful” weather, when legitimate concerns about their relationship to global warming are dismissed as Catholic guilt, then the media is doing a terrible disservice to this vital issue.
needs to be completely eradicated and started over for the electronic age. It is their “opinion differs on shape of the Earth” reporting allowed right-wing lies to take hold on global warming.
There is no scientific question of whether or not global warming is the result of human activity. None. Denialists, even when they are scientifically-educated, are not climate specialists. Their doubts are not based on peer-reviewed research. At heart, they are politically motivated.
The NECN video did not strike me as overly-enthusiastic, just reported what was happening and mentioned a couple of comparable years. He assured us there would be snow in all likelyhood and explained the patterns, including where the cold air was, and certainly did not say anything that would lead me to question his belief in global warming.
The Globe article struck me as mostly a puff-piece where the Catholic guilt reference was one person’s reaction who otherwise acknowledged the warming factor, and the article also included reference to animals suffering from this. I think it’s a natural human reaction. January thaws are not uncommon and I know if I walk out the door and discover it to be 60 degrees my own first thought is how nice it is out rather than try to analyze it in the context of global warming.
Both of these are notable for what they do NOT say, in addition to the false cheeriness about the “beautiful” weather.
For example, in the NECN piece, Tim Kelley mentions — without further elaboration — “That Arctic high is turning into a Bermuda high” (1:02) and “Lack of a Greenland Block; no block in the North Atlantic” (1:49). A Bermuda high off the coast of Virginia (1:07) is very unusual for January. The persistent lack of a Greenland Block, as we’ve seen all winter, is similarly anomalous. When I agree that Saturday’s unusual warmth was weather, not climate, I think it’s important to simultaneously recognize the climatological anomalies that create it.
A “January thaw” is only called that when it comes in the midst of seasonal temperature and precipitation. We have not had that this year.
The very fact that your reaction to a 60 degree early January (after an unseasonably warm December) is to think “how nice it is”, and not to ask whether it is meaningful in the context of global warming, exemplifies both what we must change and also the powerful influence of mainstream media reporting like the two cites I mention.
(Dr. Michael Griffin) and/or to deify those with whom they agree (Hansen? what a schmuck he is)make me smile. Thanks, Tom and KBusch for making my day. And you wonder why the “progressive left” remains so impotent in the USA.
And, by the way,Tom: you have admitted that you opposed Reagan’s placement of missiles in Europe during the 80’s–but I never heard you take any responsibility for the thousands of innocent people who died in the gulags during the 80’s. How do you sleep at night, knowing that?
Why is this? First, our species is notorious for its ability to classify other humans (and define “other” on various grounds, whether religion, ethnicity, etc) as expendable – and no leader or nation is without taint in this regard. I could do a long list – as admirable as FDR was, for political reasons he did not fight to let German Jews into the country while Hitler would let them go, or fight the internment of Japanese Americans, relations between Turks, Armenians, Kurds (et.al) has been horrific, the Romany are periodically at risk, the Ainu were largely extinguished in Japan, and Japan’s treatment of Koreans and Chinese doesn’t exactly pass muster, and the role of human inhumanity to other humans and various animals is quite lengthy. I suppose the only corrective measure is light and air – again, these days, the right to bear cameras may be more critical than the right to bear arms. And as for speaking out about “those gulags” and etc., well of course I did – for all that it mattered at the time.
“mindset”
You brought up Michael Griffin, not me. Perhaps you live in a universe populated by demons and deities; I do not. Michael Griffin attempted to muzzle the impeccable science developed by James Hansen. That is a matter of objective fact. The denier community has squandered enormous energy attempting to discredit the science of James Hansen — the effort is utterly wasted. You might dislike him, but his science is still correct.
You apparently would have us return to a medieval mindset of demons, deities, goblins, and ghosts — unrestrained by actual fact, logic, or rationality.
I’m going to attempt to ignore your bizarrely irrelevant reference to Reagan, missiles, and the gulags.