At EarthSky.org, we aim to be a clear voice for science, but science doesn’t always proceed in a clear, stepwise fashion with unambiguous results and instant agreement on all sides. Sometimes new studies come out that contradict each other, as scientists struggle to learn how our world works. For many people — including journalists — this can create a kind of whiplash. In recent years this has been true of climate change research; the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin examined climate change whiplash in an article this week.
There seems to be a new climate study published every day, which often gives me climate fatigue. Revkin illustrates this in his story:
“Discordant findings have come in quick succession. How fast is Greenland shedding ice? Did human-caused warming wipe out frogs in the American tropics? Has warming strengthened hurricanes? Have the oceans stopped warming? These questions endure even as the basic theory of a rising human influence on climate has steadily solidified: accumulating greenhouse gases will warm the world, erode ice sheets, raise seas and have big impacts on biology and human affairs.”
He continues:
“Scientists see persistent disputes as the normal stuttering journey toward improved understanding of how the world works. But many fear that the herky-jerky trajectory is distracting the public from the undisputed basics and blocking change. ‘One of the things that troubles me most is that the rapid-fire publication of unsettled results in highly visible venues creates the impression that the scientific community has no idea what’s going on,’ said W. Tad Pfeffer, an expert on Greenland’s ice sheets at the University of Colorado.” (Quoted passages are from “Climate Experts Tussle Over Details. Public Gets Whiplash,” by Andrew Revkin)
I think scientists do know what’s going on, in terms of the big picture: Climate change is happening and human activities have very likely contributed to warm the planet. Scientists are virtually 100 percent certain about the first part, and 90 percent certain about the second. Journalists and the public would do well to keep those two things in mind when confronted with a new study about some aspect of climate change.
Some journalists do place their stories into the context of the sum of climate-science knowledge at the time, but others do not. The 24-hour media cycle, with Internet and cable outlets desperate for new content, means that each new climate study gets mentioned in some way. Often there’s not time to put it in context, especially on TV. So we get a sensational headline or teaser and a short report highlighting the most extreme or sensational element of the scientific study — not necessarily the incremental gain made by the scientist, nor the unknowns remaining.
One example of leaving out context that comes to mind is the recent coverage of methane emissions from cows — cow farts and smelly cow dung — and how emissions from agriculture (worldwide) amount to more than those from transportation. And that methane is 23 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. There seems to be a cow fart crisis! (The cow coverage may have been spurred in early July by a quirky cow experiment going on in Argentina.)
But I looked at the International Panel on Climate Change’s “AR4 Synthesis Report — Summary for Policymakers” from November 2007 and it notes that “methane growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions being nearly constant during this period.” So methane may be a potent greenhouse gas, but if its levels are staying constant in the atmosphere, are cow farts really a crisis?
If you look at page 5 of that Synthesis Report, there is a figure (shown here) with nice graphs and charts showing global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1970, CO2 levels from fossil fuel use and deforestation have been rising, as have levels of nitrous oxide. Methane seems to stay constant.
In the pie chart of greenhouse gases by sector, Agriculture contributes 13.5 percent of the gases, while Transport creates 13.1 percent — not a huge difference. In contrast, three other sectors trump those two: Energy supply (at 25.9 percent), Industry (19.4 percent) and Forestry (17.4 percent). So Agriculture — that’s the entire sector, not just cows — is number four on the list.
The Chicago Tribune story about cow methane that I linked to is a pretty good story (I found it quickly on Google and I bet there were other blogs and sites that did not cover cows so thoroughly), but for me it lacked the few bits of information I’ve cited in order to give context to the issue. Yes, agriculture contributes a decent chunk of greenhouse gases and lots of folks are working on innovative ways to reduce those gases. But if methane levels are not rising, and CO2 levels are, tell us so. Put it in perspective.
Okay, I’m off my soapbox. Your turn to chime in: What do you think of climate change coverage in the media? Is methane a big issue or not? Post your comments here!
Termites trump cows when it comes to methane emmisions! Check it out online. Carbon dioxide levels might well be a trailing indicator of temperature rise. It has been at higher levels in the past than it is now. And without the burning of fossil fuels. If our cure has nothing to do with the ailment, how can it help?
CLimate change is normal. There is no stasis in climate. It warms and it cools. Also, our sun and solar system are a developing situation. Just as a human is an infant but once, the earth and sun will be the age it is right now, only right now. In a few billion years, if science is right, the sun will blow up and then implode. The ultimate climate change!
What I find interesting is that in the early seventies, the “climate change” boogie man was global cooling and the onset of an ice age. In the eighties and ninieties up until recently, the monster under the bed was global warming. Now the watchword has changed to “climate change’.
All of the above “problems” seem to be best addressed by raising taxes and destroying personal property rights as well as any economies that seem to be in the way.
I have lived a “back to nature” life style for several years. No electricity, no running water, no TV and no internet. It ain’t all it is cracked up to be. Been there, done that and don’t necessarily want to do it again. Most folks that espouse this revolution do so from the comfort of an airconditioned apartment while reading and opining on a computer powered by electricity.
There is nothing perfect. There is nothing without cost of some sort. However, we have the greatest lifestyle in human history right now. If we allow the alarmists to have their way, we will retrograde to the fifteenth century rather quickly. And with the decline if lifestyle, you can depend on a return to feudalism. Thnk about a life without the benefits provided by capitalism and the oil economy: Electricity. Safe abundant food. Clean water to drink and bathe in. Medicine. Communications. Safe affordable travel. Air conditioning. Heat. Affordable and abundant clothing. Entertainment, freedeom of action and speech.
Instead of complaining about the best time in history, perhaps we would be better occupied by seeing hoow much better we can make life for more of the earth’s population. Most of the world lives in oppressing, abject poverty caused by political problems, not a lack of resourses. Maybe we could bring them capitalism and the ownership and control of private property. Then, they too could participate in the good life.
Humans are not a pathogen.
Benjamin, I am quite flattered that you read and comment on most of my posts!
I agree that society should focus on making life better for more of Earth’s people. I don’t know that capitalism and private property rights are the main ways to address the problem. On the political side, one thing the U.S. has to do is start promoting fair trade, instead of trying to gain advantages for our farmers when they try to sell their products to rich and poor countries alike. Witness the recent collapse of the WTO talks over cotton: India wants to protect its cotton industry to help its poor farmers; the U.S. wants India to remove tariffs on U.S. cotton. The U.S. should not be making these demands; we need to let these countries grow their economies. We can’t keep them downtrodden for our own benefit.
-dan
I strongly suspect that global warming is a hoax madeup by people who want to make their wallets fatter. Dr. William Gray, former head of the Colorado hurricane perdiction school, is in the process of being fired by Colorado State for believing that humans have nothing to do with global warming. This is done by people who have little background in science. Even al gore has degrees in Jurisprudence and Theology. I didn’t see any formal science background in al gore’s bibliography. CO2 is not a good greenhouse gas, there are other gases that are much more efficient than CO2. As for the Ice melting in Greenland, well it isn’t called Greenland because it is white there. Remember all energy and life on Earth derives its energy from “The Sun”. If you study Astronomy, a very minor change in the Sun results in a very noticeable change on Earth. What do you think “The Little Ice Age” was. Don’t think Earth orbit around the Sun is circular. Earth’s seasons are caused by the inclination of the Earth and it isn’t constant but follows a definate cycle. The currenent inclination is about 23.4 degrees, down 0.1 degree from the average of 23.5 degrees
A.P., I hate to break it to you, but global warming is real. Scientists have proven that the planet is warming and that greenhouse gases are causing it to warm. When they run models to duplicate what’s happened over the past century, climate-wise, they can only duplicate it by including the effects of greenhouse gases. Not to mention that we’ve measured the rise of CO2 and temperature going up together.
As for the sun, you should check out my interview with Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Here’s the link:
Sun is not causing Earth to warm, says expert (published March 12, 2008)
http://earthsky.org/radioshows/52334/sun-is-not-causing-earth-to-warm-says-expert
-dan
Dan,
There are only two ways know to produce and distribute goods and services. One is capitalism. That way, those who work and want produce and make decisions based on their own wants and needs. The other way is communism. IT may have different names, one is “managed economy”. Regardless of the moniker, it is a system where the folks in charge dole out what they wish when they wish. Ussually just enough to prevent wholesale rebellion. Sometimes, the rank and file are starved to the point they cannot rebel. It has been that way forever. Human nature is not going to change. We do for ourselves in a way we perceive to be in our best interests. Period.
When anyone gets to be in charge of other folk’s lives, they will run the show their way, to the detriment of the serfs.
there are but two ways, free men and women owning and controling property and their own destinies, or, dictatorship where the folks in charge decide all. We have, in this country, tried to have a melded economy, where we have enought capitalism left to support the framework of oppressive government. It is failing. The economy will collapse as did Rome’s if this isn’t stopped. And when that happens, the environment won’t matter at all. Humanity will be back to the survival lifestyle. Anarchy and pain will reign.
As far as anthropogenic global warming being a foregone conclusion, I will have to beg to differ with you. The evidence does not support it. It is a way to frighten folks into following orders. It is a way to convert free men to serfs. Pure and simple.
I do appreciate your enganing me in conversation. Let us continue. Ideas are powerful. Let us continue to exchange them.
Ben
The Copernican idea that the sun was at the center of the solar system met a lot of resistance in Copernicus’ day because of RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY. Although Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton all had very good reasons for believing in the Copernican hypothesis, Earth’s revolution around the sun wasn’t really a proven fact until the the discovery of the aberration of light in 1725. (Newton died a year or two after this discovery.) Another proof of Earthly motion – the parallax measurement of a star – had to wait for more than a century later: 1838. In much the same vein, many people today don’t WANT to believe in the possibility of human-induced global warming because of POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.
“The evidence does not support it. It is a way to frighten folks into following orders. It is a way to convert free men to serfs. Pure and simple.”
Goodness.
And now for the understatement of the year: The evidence is overwhelming.
http://www.manpollo.org
Yes serfdom! That’s what THEY want! Imagine that – forcing the downtrodden people to drive electric cars, or, god forbid, use solar power and other renewable energies. Horrors! Conserve energy or its off to the Gulag with you!
[/sarcasm]
Perhaps Mr. Napier has been reading too much Ayn Rand and his mind like many conservatives and other extremists can only see black and white. The universe and the possiblities of human nature are not as restricted as Mr Napier paints, otherwise we would not have evolved physically and culturally to the place we are today inspite of our current shortcomings.
We may have more stuff and conveniences in our life today but that does make this the best of all possible worlds, not when our self-absorbed obsession with mindless consumerism and materialism(and supernaturalism)causes us to live in obstanate denial that the path we are on is unsustainable regardless if climate change is mostly human caused.
The ongoing depletion of resources like water and systematic destruction of the world’s environment and accelerating rate of extintion will increasingly have disasterous consequences for many of us around the planet.
While the free exchange of goods and owning property is a good idea there has to be consenually understood ground rules for how we treat the earth (and each other)and the resources that we all share. Obstinate denial of reality and the attitude of “it’s all about me” will not work and our mindless consumer orgy will not last forever. If you think 9 billion people can live like Americans do now then frankly you not thinking critically and rationally.
With much freedom comes much responsibility for the common good and the atmosphere promoted lately in this country by the mindless ideology of conservatism and libertarianism(and LIBERALISM also) has made us more polarized,insular and focused on the short term gratification of the individual over the sustainability and preservation of society and most importantly the earths biology that supports our existence.
No supernatural entity is going to “save” us from our stupidity and lack of care for the only livable planet we have. It’s way past time for our species to grow up and realize that we have to take responsibility for our individual and collective actions.
Great. Thanks for writing this. Its always cool to see someone educate the interet.
[...] this phenomenon, in 2008, Curtis Brainard, in the Columbia Journalism Review, and Dan Kulpinski, writing on the Earth Sky Web site, expanded on this theme.So here are the two fresh examples: How hot?One was a paper published in [...]
[...] this phenomenon, in 2008, Curtis Brainard, in a Columbia Journalism Review, and Dan Kulpinski, writing on a Earth Sky Web site, stretched on this [...]