I don't think this is a sensible way of reporting on climate change. Firstly, it's very difficult for people to believe because we don't think statistically. You can tell me that 2015 was the hottest year on record, and maybe you're right, but it's a very difficult fact for me to believe. Especially when those sorts of figures are disputed.
Secondly, setting a record isn't important if you're talking about a change in climate. Britain had a very cold, snowy winters not so long ago, and that wasn't touted as indicative of global warming. Using outliers to demonstrate the overall trend is a bad idea.
Thirdly, this particular article reports a prediction. This is good because predictions can be held to account. The downside is that it's even harder to convince people about predictions than it is about statistical data.
Finally, this wouldn't be so bad if those predictions weren't adjusted to conform to expectations. The recent claim that there was no pause in global temperature rises may be perfectly correct, but it looks dreadful from a PR perspective.
I believe in humans as a main cause of climate change. I am not an expert in the science, but it seems to me that the way it's being reported isn't doing anyone any favours. Naming and shaming the hottest years is headline grabbing but doesn't help anyone believe what's happening.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34226178
I interpet the Met's prediction as the forecast that the 2015 El Nino is so powerful that it will last even into next year. This is certainly plausible, from historical data alone. But El Nino events are inevitably followed by La Nina events (like the 1998 El Nino, one of the most powerful in recent history), which mean a year or two of cooler temperatures (like the '98 event).
ReplyDeleteIf the suggestion is that climate change has altered this pattern, it will take evidence, not prediction, to show one way or the other. I see no predetermined reason or data to support the claim, so I'm skeptical.
As for the "pause", you have to be careful. Analysis of ground data shows that warming since circa 2000 has been following about half the pace that it did from 1975-2000, but that the full data set doesn't show this small change to be significant. By contrast, satellite data from 1980-2014 shows less warming in the 80-90's than ground data, followed by clearly falling temperatures up to the present (though they are still higher that 1980). I don't know the explanation for this, or which data set should be accepted as the true warming line (a combination?).
From what they said on the TV report El Nino is indeed a factor along with multi-decadal ocean oscillations. However in general reports like this all too often do treat specific instances as examples of global trends, which is not really justified. The Met office spokesman on the report quite correctly said, "No-one can make a ten year prediction - it's just a shift in the odds".
ReplyDelete