Welcome to the Climate Change News Roundup for 13 March 2011. The political world wasn't the only thing in turmoil this week. It seems Gaia has been raising a ruckus as well, much to our detriment. Our thoughts are of course still with the people of Japan, as they struggle to recover from a series of major earthquakes and aftershocks, starting with an 8.9 (now 9.0) magnitude quake on Friday 11 March that set off a tsunami affecting much of the Pacific basin.
And speaking of the earthquake and tsunami ...
Apparently, the right is stating that we on the left are blaming the Japan magnitude 9.0 quake and tsunami on global warming. On Fox Nation website, we see
Some respond to Japan earthquake by pointing to global warming
the usual variation of "Some say..." to belittle the science behind global warming.
To wit: Fox Nation quotes a number of tweets on Twitter stating the opinion that the Japan earthquake and tsunami was a direct result of global warming. But anyone can tweet ... non-scientists who don't have the requisite knowledge to make such a statement can tweet. So can people who want to appear to be on the left making unscientific statements, to discredit scientists who have used science to show global warming is very likely occurring and is the result of human activities. Just sayin'.
But there was some inartful messaging in a blog post, from of all places, Grist. The original headline was "Today's tsunami: This is what climate change looks like", which was of course not the point of the post at all, beyond what the expected change in sea level might do over time (and also, how higher sea levels can make regions more vulnerable to things like tsunamis). He posted two addenda after some comments were made in response (Some of the comments were the typical right-wing rudeness, but some expressed valid concerns.). But of course, the damage has already been done. And that brings me to the point of this up-front diary before the Climate Change News Wrap-Up for this week ....
Be Careful What You Say, and How You Say It!
I've been immersing myself in reading information on the communication of science, that is: "How you say it." This is after attending a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) event at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting a few weeks ago on science communication with the media. After a light dinner, the press secretary for UCS, Aaron Huertas, did a nice presentation that connected how scientists can effectively communicate with the people who present our results for public consumption ... the science reporter.
The KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid, for those who don't know the acronym) was prominent. In an interview, stick to one or a few points that you want to communicate. Regardless of what happens, steer the conversation back to the point or points you want to come across. Consider the time pressures on the media to prepare a story, especially now when resources have been cut. Help journalists by creating sound bites that will accurately convey your work to the public. You'd also do well to develop good working relationships with science journalists (what few are left ... and that point was made as well). It's helpful to initiate contact with interested media to work with them as a subject matter expert on science matters, even before a specific issue comes up. Contacts can be made based on journalists' past stories on science news. And so on ... lots of practical advice, and good examples of how to, and how NOT to, communicate.
A good book by the UCS that contains this information is A Scientist's Guide to Talking with the Media, by Richard Hayes and Daniel Grossman. You can buy it here.
Lots of additional information can be found on the web. Here's a sample of them:
- The Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University has an online version of their guide: The Psychology of Climate Change Communication: A Guide for Scientists, Journalists, Educators, Political Aides, and the Interested Public.
- Did you know there was a professional journal devoted to Science Communication? I didn't either, but it can be found here.
- An article in that same professional journal can be found hereentitled: Communicating Science: A review of the literature. It's 10 years old, but a cursory review of the content tells me it's still relevant.
- The George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication
- Understanding your enemy: I cannot recommend enough the on-line book called The Authoritarians. While it's not explicitly about communication, it gives lots of insight on those who seem to be anti-science.
Enough about science communication ... how about communicating some global warming science and its consequences? See below.
CLIMATE and CLIMATE CHANGE MONITORING
- Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands
This isn't a global warming skeptic piece, though the title makes it appear so. NOAA news reports that while blocking, which is not uncommon and is associated with long-lived extreme events, was the main culprit in the extraordinary summer 2010 Russian drought and heat wave. However, the researchers also note that climate models predict that the risk of such long-lived anomalies increases by an order of magnitude by the end of the 21st century (from 1% to 10%). It was noted that over 50,000 extra deaths in the Moscow region were attributable to the abnormally hot weather, and the dense smoke from large peat bog fires that lasted for weeks.
- February 2011 Climate Diagnostics Bulletin from Climate Prediction Center
The big story for February 2011 is the beginning of the demise of the La Niña, as subsurface warm water moves eastward from the western Pacific and the abnormally cold eastern equatorial Pacific surface waters begin to warm. It's too early to know for sure whether La Niña might make a resurgence; the atmosphere is still behaving very "La Niña-ish", and may force its return. That's sort of a chicken versus egg thing with the atmosphere and the ocean ... does the atmosphere initiate changes in the ocean, or does the ocean initiate changes in the atmosphere? My somewhat, though not completely, educated guess is "yes".
- February Arctic ice extent ties 2005 for record low; extensive snow cover persists
The February 2011 National Snow and Ice Data Center report was pretty grim. The monthly mean sea ice extent last month tied 2005 for lowest since the satellite record started in November 1978. With that, however, was abnormally extensive snow cover in mid-latitudes in both hemispheres. The extensive snow cover was left over from effects in December and January from the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. At that time, higher than normal pressure at Arctic latitudes and a suppressed storm track resulted in cold, snowy weather in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Temperatures over the Arctic were warmer than normal with this pattern, with below normal ice extent.
Also of interest ... the University of Washington updated its sea ice volume data assimilation system through 28 February 2011. The results are shown below:
The sea ice volume as of that date was 8,300 km3 below normal. Note that the linear trend line doesn't seem to keep up with the most recent time period, as the rate of decrease in volume seems to be increasing.
- JPL Study Highlights Drastic Scale of Human-Induced Global Warming
What would you think of a study that found that, if you took out the effects of increased CO2, you'd find old correlations to earth variables that you thought had disappeared? The study reported was published in Journal of Climate and gives the results without the science involved. I've summarized those details below.
I wasn't aware that there has been a strong negative decadal correlation between length of day and rotation of the molten iron core of the earth, and its surface air temperature. After 1930, this study found that correlation goes away, until you remove the estimated impact of global warming. Then it appears as before. There are the usual caveats; more study needed to understand the physical processes behind the correlations ("correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation", a longer time series to get better statistics, etc. But a decadal signal is there from an aspect of "natural variability" ... and that signal is dwarfed by the expected temperature increases from anthropogenic global warming over the next 100 years.
FOSSIL FUELISH NEWS
- Say What? PA Governor Gives Energy Executive Supreme Authority Over Environmental Permitting
Holy FRACK! An energy executive doing oversight over shale fracking to get natural gas? Leave it to a newly elected Republican governor (Tom Corbett) to do this. And the energy executive, C. Alan Walker, donated $184,000 to Corbett since 2004. What is it about the last name "Walker" that makes some of these folks right-wing tools? ;-)
A paragraph was stuck in the huge budget bill that grants Walker sweeping powers under vague circumstances, according to this article.
Now, as Corbett stakes much of the state’s economy on Marcellus Shale gas drilling, a paragraph tucked into the 1,184-page budget gives Walker unprecedented authority to “expedite any permit or action pending in any agency where the creation of jobs may be impacted.” That includes, presumably, coal, oil, gas and trucking. Ed.: Walker owns or has interests in 12 such companies. SURPRISE!
CLIMATE CHANGE and POLITICS
- American Geophysical Union Members Talk Climate on Capitol Hill
American Geophysical Union (AGU) and eight other scientific organizations participated in the first ever Climate Science Day on Capital Hill. A primer on scientific communication was given by George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication the day before. Congressional staffers from both sides of the aisle also presented on what to expect when visiting Congressional membership. Regarding the next day, from the article on the web:
The following day, the scientists traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with Members of Congress, their personal office staff, and congressional committee staff. Split into teams by state, the scientists participated in over 100 meetings. A primary goal of Climate Science Day was to introduce freshmen Members to the importance of climate science and allow them to meet researchers actively advancing our understanding of climate.
I have to wonder how the freshman Republican members responded.
- Nicholas Stern: Climate inaction risks new world war
In the first part of a three-part interview conducted by Think Progress, Sir Nicholas Stern, one of the world's most prominent climate economists, states he believes that if we don't address the causes of climate change, we could be facing World War III. This would be the result of massive dislocations because of climate change of 100s of millions of people or more, by the time we get to the early 2100s. The Grist web page includes a link to the interview itself.
- Naomi Klein: Why Climate Change Is So Threatening to Right-Wing Ideologues
The money quotes (really, much of the transcript is FULL of money quotes):
- "Climate change challenges everything conservatives believe in. So they're choosing to disbelieve it, at our peril."
- "There’s a political scientist named Clive Hamilton in Australia who’s done some really terrific writing on this, where what he shows is that climate change didn’t used to be a partisan political issue."
- Democrats overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Their position hasn’t changed. Republicans now don’t—overwhelmingly do not believe in climate change.
- ...what it means is that it no longer really has anything to do with the science.
- ...there’s all kinds of attempts to respond to this, to get climate scientists out there explaining things better, to popularize the science, and none of it seems to be working [because] climate change is now seen as an identity issue on the right. People are defining themselves, like they’re against abortion, they don’t believe in climate change. It’s part of who they are.
That last bullet alludes to the study reported on recently that suggests that ideological folks, when presented with incontrovertible facts that contradict their ideology, simply become more rigid in their positions.
God help us all.
- Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate Live-Blogs the House Climate Science Hearings
You'll laugh!
You'll cry!
You'll wanna slap someone upside the head for being so stupid!
Well, mostly you'll do the latter two. Reading the comments and links put up by the participants is an eyeopener and should also elicit at least a few facepalms.
I think this quote sums up the hearing nicely from a purely political point of view:
"In general I would say this hearing is a disappointment: the issue of whether Congress can/should have a close control on EPA decisions is at least an interesting one that different people who are reasonable can disagree about.
So far little discussion of that issue at all. :(
Maybe because these are scientists the real issue is just not coming up. Weird hearing."
CLIMATE CHANGE and WATER/FOOD/AGRICULTURE
- New Data Reveals Farmers are Mining Groundwater at an Alarming Rate
Something that is often ignored in the mainstream discussion of global warming/climate change is water, both quality and quantity. This story based on a National Geographic article about groundwater store depletion does a good job, however. It states that California farmers' groundwater use has resulted in a loss of 20.3 cubic kilometers, or 16.4 million acre feet, of water between October 2003 and March 2010, most of it lost during the 2006-2010 drought. In northwest India between 2002 and 2008, they've lost over 5 times as much from their groundwater stores. I guess that's what happens when you try to feed over 1 billion people.
- Groundbreaking New UN Report on How to Feed the World's Hungry: Ditch corporate-controlled agriculture
Our own Jill Richardson hit Alternet with this story about a way forward that may allow us to feed the 9 billion people expected to populate this planet by 2050: agroecology. She also blogged hereabout the story here in DKos.
I think I want what she's having (a reference related to her diary title).
CLIMATE CHANGE and ENERGY USE
CLIMATE CHANGE, CARBON ENERGY and HEALTH
The "formerly reasonable Fred Upton (R-formerly MI, now TP)" apparently has caught a case of primary fever (Tea Party primary, anyway) and is working with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oiligarchy) to essentially prevent the EPA from regulating smog-producing emissions from power plants and such. Carbon based emissions result in increased asthma, but after all, the business of the American People is business (to the detriment of health, safety, fairness, the common good, ...).
Hence why I say that there is no such thing as a moderate Republican. This is also why the Tea Party can control the agenda with about 20% of the voters at most being of their ilk. Well, that and the craven, fearful, suckitude of the Democratic Party.
CLIMATE CHANGE OBFUSCATION
- Much of the above hearing on 8 March 2011 about whether or not the EPA has jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse (or other) gases falls in this category too.
It's NY Times stenography a la Judith Miller, covering the above hearing. Except it's in the SCIENCE section. Read it and weep.
That's all, folks! I'm TIRED! ;-)