Today there was a classic example of how rushing out notions in support of your beliefs can end up doing more harm than good.
It cannot have escaped most folks' notice that of late, the weather has been less than clement. As I write a cold drizzle decorates my window. I can only imagine how those in the campsite opposite are feeling.
And this has been picked up by the 'news'. So we have the odd spectacle of the BBC reporting crew exchanging barbed commentary with the weather guys. 'How did you get it so wrong', was about the most polite interrogation.
To which, reasonably, the reply was that such things were almost impossible to predict.
Trouble is, a lot of folk seem to make a lot of noise based on predictions. And this summer was going to be long, hot, and non-stop BBQ. It may yet get there, and I am hoping for something nicer for our camping trip in a few weeks' time. It's hard to keep kids entertained under wet canvas for long.
But for now, there is quite a lot of egg on faces, and I rather fear more sober cautions on climate will get rather swamped by overly enthusiastic folk - using what they think will 'prove' their case - getting a bit of a hammering from those equally keen to 'prove' the exact opposite.
Frankly, from floods to heatwaves to hurricanes to even melting Greenland glaciers (some have used a piece on this to enquire as to how this country acquired its name, pre-Humvee), I think those advocating caution, moderation and even reduction might be better tasked looking at ways to motivate other than 'the sky is falling'. Especially when they put quantitative data on it all which proves unsound.
Telegraph - NEW - Start with the Met Office, Dave - It seems others have noticed, and views
BBC - NEW - Met Office cools summer forecast - Ten ways to beat the heat
Indy - NEW - The Big Question: Why did the Met Office get it so wrong?
Guardian - NEW - Rain puts dampers on 'barbecue summer' - the inevitable exchanges have rather made my point
Showing posts with label MET OFFICE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MET OFFICE. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
We're all "doomed", well, some* of us... maybe
It's a great headline: Possible unease over climate model stretching
Well, for a blogger like me it is at least.
I don't usually 'do' climate: too polarised.
But I do do communications, especially how the system persuades the people. And this is a doozy.
All very tricky. And one I don't envy the various 'powers that be', what with the massive authority, moral, trust and every other-wise that they currently enjoy with the (growing, but let's not worry about that) population.
I am just not sure that trying to unease the public into things slowly is quite working on past and present evidence, and when every flurry of climate foreboding is often followed by loooong fallow periods where navels get gazed at and economies get weighed (especially in terms of getting re-elected), if can often come across as tokenistic at best, half... um.. considered or, worse, when taxes heave into view, a tad opportunistic.
I must say that following what has doubtless been a very thorough briefing, that even as supportive a medium as the state broadcaster is littering its latest report with a preponderance of qualifying "quote" marks on every claim is hardly encouraging. *Especially on top of the "might's" and "depending's". The only certainties seem to be that as the grids get smaller, the derriere-covering gets greater. And, IMHO, that negates the whole exercise.
And if eyebrows are cranking here, I can only imagine what they will be like in some media, and how that will in turn be absorbed by some a wee bit preoccupied paying their Mum's annual care bills with less than certain leaders by example reckon is needed annually to sort out swirly ceilings, house ducks or faux timber their 50" TV rooms. Or certain quango senior execs still seem to score mega-bonuses for when what they are supposed to be doing fails and they try and blame the consequences of blocked drains or concreting over greenfields on a bit of weather.
At least Mr. Benn can hold his head high in this regard, but whether a disenchanted, distracted public will notice the distinction is doubtful.
ps: When it says 'on Thursday' on a blog dated Thursday, can I presume we are talking a weeks' time for the launch of this "research"?
Addendum - Having just found this via a Guardian writer Twitter feed, I am guessing not.
Well, for a blogger like me it is at least.
I don't usually 'do' climate: too polarised.
But I do do communications, especially how the system persuades the people. And this is a doozy.
All very tricky. And one I don't envy the various 'powers that be', what with the massive authority, moral, trust and every other-wise that they currently enjoy with the (growing, but let's not worry about that) population.
I am just not sure that trying to unease the public into things slowly is quite working on past and present evidence, and when every flurry of climate foreboding is often followed by loooong fallow periods where navels get gazed at and economies get weighed (especially in terms of getting re-elected), if can often come across as tokenistic at best, half... um.. considered or, worse, when taxes heave into view, a tad opportunistic.
I must say that following what has doubtless been a very thorough briefing, that even as supportive a medium as the state broadcaster is littering its latest report with a preponderance of qualifying "quote" marks on every claim is hardly encouraging. *Especially on top of the "might's" and "depending's". The only certainties seem to be that as the grids get smaller, the derriere-covering gets greater. And, IMHO, that negates the whole exercise.
And if eyebrows are cranking here, I can only imagine what they will be like in some media, and how that will in turn be absorbed by some a wee bit preoccupied paying their Mum's annual care bills with less than certain leaders by example reckon is needed annually to sort out swirly ceilings, house ducks or faux timber their 50" TV rooms. Or certain quango senior execs still seem to score mega-bonuses for when what they are supposed to be doing fails and they try and blame the consequences of blocked drains or concreting over greenfields on a bit of weather.
At least Mr. Benn can hold his head high in this regard, but whether a disenchanted, distracted public will notice the distinction is doubtful.
ps: When it says 'on Thursday' on a blog dated Thursday, can I presume we are talking a weeks' time for the launch of this "research"?
Addendum - Having just found this via a Guardian writer Twitter feed, I am guessing not.
Friday, February 13, 2009
As some around here have been saying...
'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts
Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions
I am no expert, but... D'uh.
New Scientist - NEW - Scientists losing war of words over climate change - the posts in reply rather make a few points.. sadly.
ADDENDUM - 13/03/07
It seems to be sinking in that there is a problem. This just in from The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM - who are not going to get many visitors from the URL they offer)
The UK’s recent cold weather has highlighted that the often interchangeable use of the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ leads to public misunderstanding.
Misinterpretation of the suggestive term ‘global warming’ has resulted in some people to propose that cold weather events disproves climate change is happening. Therefore CIWEM is calling for greater clarity in the use of these terms by scientists, environmentalists, other professionals and the media so that the general public is able to distinguish between climate change, global warming and localised, short-term weather events.
Global warming describes the increase in average global temperatures due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, whilst climate change refers to regional conditions such as rain, drought and storm events that relate to a long-term change in the Earth’s climate.
Although the UK is suffering from the coldest winter in 30 years, the current weather is entirely consistent with climate change predictions. In pre-industrial days such extreme cold weather occurred every five years but, with climate change, global temperatures have risen, meaning that we now experience it only every 20 years. And in contrast, China’s drought has left more than four million people without drinking water and 24 million acres of crops damaged; parts of Australia are suffering massive flooding, whilst the south’s drought has aggravated the terrible bush fires that have killed over 130 people; Argentina is suffering the worst drought for 50 years; and Israel suffered the driest January since records began.
CIWEM asks whether the term ‘climate change’ is significantly descriptive of the predicted extreme global weather patterns that we will experience. CIWEM puts forward that more dramatic and resonant terms such as ‘climate churn’ or ‘climate convulsion’ may help people to understand that this will not be a gentle transition which can be ignored.
Nick Reeves, Executive Director of CIWEM, says:
“To apply the term ‘global warming’ to explain all extreme weather events including freezing temperatures, snow and heavy rainfall is careless and will only feed the scepticism of the public and some sections of the media that average temperatures aren’t rising and that the climate isn’t changing. As scientists have predicted we are experiencing, simultaneously, extreme weather events around the world, which are causing unprecedented drought conditions, water scarcity, melting of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels, coastal erosion and flooding. Not only is this evidence of climate change but a more serious problem that should be more accurately described as climate convulsion.”
While I have some sympathy with the dilemma, and applaud the attempt, I have to say that after 'Global warming' and then 'climate change', moving to ‘climate churn’ or ‘climate convulsion’ might not quite suffice. There is a lot of baggage to undo, and a few too many who will be trotting out such new buzz words are those who loaded that baggage on the cart in the first place. Message vs. messengers again.
Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions
I am no expert, but... D'uh.
New Scientist - NEW - Scientists losing war of words over climate change - the posts in reply rather make a few points.. sadly.
ADDENDUM - 13/03/07
It seems to be sinking in that there is a problem. This just in from The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM - who are not going to get many visitors from the URL they offer)
The UK’s recent cold weather has highlighted that the often interchangeable use of the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ leads to public misunderstanding.
Misinterpretation of the suggestive term ‘global warming’ has resulted in some people to propose that cold weather events disproves climate change is happening. Therefore CIWEM is calling for greater clarity in the use of these terms by scientists, environmentalists, other professionals and the media so that the general public is able to distinguish between climate change, global warming and localised, short-term weather events.
Global warming describes the increase in average global temperatures due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, whilst climate change refers to regional conditions such as rain, drought and storm events that relate to a long-term change in the Earth’s climate.
Although the UK is suffering from the coldest winter in 30 years, the current weather is entirely consistent with climate change predictions. In pre-industrial days such extreme cold weather occurred every five years but, with climate change, global temperatures have risen, meaning that we now experience it only every 20 years. And in contrast, China’s drought has left more than four million people without drinking water and 24 million acres of crops damaged; parts of Australia are suffering massive flooding, whilst the south’s drought has aggravated the terrible bush fires that have killed over 130 people; Argentina is suffering the worst drought for 50 years; and Israel suffered the driest January since records began.
CIWEM asks whether the term ‘climate change’ is significantly descriptive of the predicted extreme global weather patterns that we will experience. CIWEM puts forward that more dramatic and resonant terms such as ‘climate churn’ or ‘climate convulsion’ may help people to understand that this will not be a gentle transition which can be ignored.
Nick Reeves, Executive Director of CIWEM, says:
“To apply the term ‘global warming’ to explain all extreme weather events including freezing temperatures, snow and heavy rainfall is careless and will only feed the scepticism of the public and some sections of the media that average temperatures aren’t rising and that the climate isn’t changing. As scientists have predicted we are experiencing, simultaneously, extreme weather events around the world, which are causing unprecedented drought conditions, water scarcity, melting of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels, coastal erosion and flooding. Not only is this evidence of climate change but a more serious problem that should be more accurately described as climate convulsion.”
While I have some sympathy with the dilemma, and applaud the attempt, I have to say that after 'Global warming' and then 'climate change', moving to ‘climate churn’ or ‘climate convulsion’ might not quite suffice. There is a lot of baggage to undo, and a few too many who will be trotting out such new buzz words are those who loaded that baggage on the cart in the first place. Message vs. messengers again.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
RE:VIEW - Weather
Actually, another in a long list of 'pre'-reviews.Just to acknowledge we got the thing and record a few first impressions before devoting a bit more serious time and effort to digesting it in totality
Title: Weather
By: The Met Office
Publisher: DK
pRE:view:
Actually, it looks like a nice little reference tome. Each page is a mix of text, photography and illustration, and the chapters suggest a nice read from history to the latest science.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Met Office Prediction - Heatwaves
The latest UK meteorological office weather predictions provide an interesting set of long term 'forecasts', although I think I prefer the term predictions. This from The Guardian provides a concise summary.
"Powerful computer simulations used to create the world's first global warming forecast suggests temperature rises will stall in the next two years, before rising sharply at the end of the decade."
So the prediction for the next few years is that temperature increases will plateau at current levels until 2009/2010; something to do with natural shifts in climate canceling out the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. After that though, we are in for steadily climbing temperatures, increasingly warmer summers and increasingly heavy rainfall periods.
"From 2010, they warn, every year has at least a 50% chance of exceeding the record year of 1998 when average global temperatures reached 14.54C."
Weather forecasting is an inexact science, and they often cannot even get it right a few days ahead, so many may question the accuracy of their powerful computer simulations. But if they are correct, then perhaps now is the time to stock up on sunscreen, brollies and sandbags?
There's a fuller article with perhaps better explanation on the National Geographic News site.
Hmmmm, even the Daily Mail has picked up on this story.
___________________
Meanwhile, in a rather worrying move, Ol' Golden Brown seems to have downgraded the status of the cabinet committee on climate change - see this article from EDIE. And we all thought that he considered climate change a 'major challenge to mankind'!
___________________
"Powerful computer simulations used to create the world's first global warming forecast suggests temperature rises will stall in the next two years, before rising sharply at the end of the decade."
So the prediction for the next few years is that temperature increases will plateau at current levels until 2009/2010; something to do with natural shifts in climate canceling out the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. After that though, we are in for steadily climbing temperatures, increasingly warmer summers and increasingly heavy rainfall periods.
"From 2010, they warn, every year has at least a 50% chance of exceeding the record year of 1998 when average global temperatures reached 14.54C."
Weather forecasting is an inexact science, and they often cannot even get it right a few days ahead, so many may question the accuracy of their powerful computer simulations. But if they are correct, then perhaps now is the time to stock up on sunscreen, brollies and sandbags?
There's a fuller article with perhaps better explanation on the National Geographic News site.
Hmmmm, even the Daily Mail has picked up on this story.
___________________
Meanwhile, in a rather worrying move, Ol' Golden Brown seems to have downgraded the status of the cabinet committee on climate change - see this article from EDIE. And we all thought that he considered climate change a 'major challenge to mankind'!
___________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)