Guest post by Ryan Maue
Green journalists and partisan bloggers are baffled about the lack of sufficient coverage of the “2010 hottest year ever” — and utter failure to ram through climate legislation in the 111th Congress. After scratching your head in amazement at the conundrum these journalists find themselves, something about pots, kettles, and a mirror comes to mind.
Here is a sample of headlines from the green media establishment:
Huffington Post: 2010 Hottest Year on Record: The graph that should be on the front page of every newspaper
The Hill: Frustration on global warming deepens for supporters of climate change bill
Guardian UK (warning Bob Ward, palaeopiezometry): Why have UK Media ignored climate change announcements?
I’ll give you a very easy answer: it’s winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and so far, it’s been historically cold. And, the media should be more wary about using such vitriolic language like “denier” considering the explosive connotation that the term implies.
They are all constipated about the lack of overwhelming coverage of 2010, and the sizzling planet (we’re talking about hundredths of degrees here): Read about NASA’s press release below…
Here is NASA’s press release, which apparently wasn’t sufficiently disseminated for certain segments of the climate establishment. According to Hansen, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). They have to admit an inconvenient truth:
One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.
Confusion?
“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.
Wait a minute, wait a minute: a remarkably inactive sun …
“The three official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data, but they agree extraordinarily well,” said Reto Ruedy, one of Hansen’s colleagues at GISS who helps analyze global surface temperatures.
Subtle differences? Extraordinary agreement?
Invariably, a great deal of attention centers on each year’s ranking, but it is critical to focus on the decade-long trends that matter more, the GISS scientists emphasize. On that time scale, the three records are unequivocal: the last decade has been the warmest on record. “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. “It is the underlying trend that is important.”
Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto. You never know what year is number 1 due to those “subtle differences”, which apparently aren’t that important anyways.
These lamenting journalists must be getting desperate:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html
“One of the problems”
=====================================================
They have been trying to prove global warming for over 30 years, and now
they say they still have problems with the PR.
Give it up, it’s been 30 years, time to move on………….
The whole idea of looking at global temperature as a metric for GW is, at first sight, highly plausible.
The way in which this seemingly simple task has been performed is highly problematic. Relocation of sites, treatment of UHI, data obfuscation, statistical smearing and a clear fanatical need to demonstrate ever increasing temperatures have led to profound distrust in a large and growing section of the population.
In short, many feel that they can no longer trust the messengers and, rightly or wrongly, the message.
Does anybody know why SOHO has stopped its sun image. It used to be daily, and then (afyet their outtage while they moved office) it became more often, but up to Jan 10th/11th a bit erratic. Now nothing since 22.00 on the 11th.
A bit of a pity, as the sun has gone as good as spotless again.
Wow!
My comment which , pointed out that the greenhouse effect was based on the retention of heat and that 2010 finished with the lowest global average surface temp, despite incoming radiation being relatively constant, in over decade was deleted in about a minute.
I have run a corporate communications dept for 8 years. I am not a PR trained person. I have learnt that the media can be generalised to be interested in the three “C”; Celebrity, Catastrophe or Confrontation (or the variant, victim, villian or hero). If you can’t hit one of these you will either be buried in the pages or not make it at all. It is hard to have a climate warming catastrophe in the Northern Hemisphere in a cold winter. You can have one in Australia with the devastating floods, or Russia last summer etc. Media also get bored, just as the rest of us do. So the more something is pushed, the less it becomes news.
“Good” ideas, like saving the planet are always great as long as someone else has to pay. But in places where consumers are starting to see the cost of the “good” ideas, the less of they are keen on them!
Richard S Courtney says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:18 am
Careful Dr Courtney, somebody might infer from your figures that there is a rhythmic cycle going on the climate!!! :-))
Well, well, well. A “remarkably inactive Sun”????? I can hardly believe my ears. Here we are witnessing a most remarkable natrual experiment in the relationship betweeen the Sun & the Earth, & that’s the best they can come up with?
As for those in the MSM of dubiuos parentage, they’re up to something I can tell. TheBBC lunchtime news covered the landslides in Brazil, didn’t mention AGW once at least not when I was watching, although I did have to check on my toast. They kept saying the most ridiculous & pathetically silly things like, “poor construction”, “built without permission”, “poor regulatory control”, “no foundations”, “areas prone to landslip”, & “susceptable to flooding”, etc. etc. etc. I ask you, as if any those pitiful excuses could be legitamite, honestly? We all know it’s AGW. NOT! The Wet Office do at least & always have done when commenting on unusually high rainfall in a given month, point out how some area of the UK had receveid a months worth on rain over night, but also used to point out (in the old days) how over the year of a 12 month period it evened itself out more or less.
The beautiful BBC News reader Sophie Rayworth……………….grrrrr……………….it’s all right I now holding something cold & metallic, mentioned earlier in the week a strange phenomenon, La Nina, allegedly responsible for the strange weather patterns in the Pacific & Eastern Australia in particular. Something’s afoot me thinks! It may be strange to the BBC but it’s not for many people round the world. I recall looking up El Nino/La Nina when the world had that time of blocking where parts of Asia was covered in a smog & low cloud as a result of a holding/blocking pattern, & Eurpoe had stagnant weathe with not much happening either way, as did many areas around the world, forget the year now.
I think you guys are right, people are tired of hearing about global warming, and lefty environmentalists crying wolf.
Of course, if you look at it from my point of view, I’m getting tired of my fellow frogs in the pot telling me not to worry about the water getting warmer…..
Some time soon there will be another weather disaster which is obviously related to global warming, probably something which actually hurts rich people, and then global warming will be all the rage again.
RR Kampen says:
January 14, 2011 at 2:23 am
Keep up the good work, Anthony. The extreme warm year 2010 gets some coverage after all!
“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.
Thus proving AGW
==============
Thus proving the cognitive bias that has affected climate science. The logic seems to be something like this: Only the sun, Enso and CO2 affect temperature. Therefore it follows that if ‘quiet sun’ plus La Nina equals high temperature, it proves it was CO2 wot done it!
Has climate really science descended to the level of two blokes arguing in a pub? Apparently so!
Warming is not,repeat not a “partisan” issue. Not even close. Using this language completely distorts, and trivializes the very real concerns eminating from the scientific community. The facts are clear. Our planet is warming and, when other forcings are combined with man-made influences, the effects are easily observed. Please open your eyes, and minds, and hearts and help solve our collective challenge.
Green journalists should realize people can only take so much monotonous indecisive repetition coming from their frustrated and debunked supporters. Especially when they claim everything in weather proves global warming. When monkeys all over the place are being neutered by the cold the world burning up is a hard sell. And liberal media’s audience is being siphoned off by conservative media.
I don’t know why but reading the press release the songs Hokey Pokey and Undecided came to mind. Two songs dedicated to repetition and monotony with no purpose butt to entertain.
Mike Haseler says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:11 am
“Clearly, global warming has not only become boring for the public to read about, it has lost its kudos with the rest of real science.”
Excellent point. After beating a dead horse long enough, you find that you are beating bare ground. The Warmista should take this to heart. They have said nothing in response to the very best criticisms of their claims. All they have done is double-down. Who wants to read triple-down and quadruple-down? The Warmista non-response to criticism is not just a matter of public relations but of science. Their science has been totally inflexible. They have been incapable of making some adjustment in the science that might accommodate some valuable criticism. Instead, they have offered an endless run of excuses. Who wants to read quintuple-down and more excuses? The one thing predictable in Warmista science is its lack of adjustment in the face of serious criticism.
“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun”
Hansen, here, is either totally ignorant or being deliberately disingenuous. He ought to know full well that the La Nina effects have a delayed impact on the temperatures, as does El Nino, and it is the El Nino we had prior to the La Nina in question which primarily lingered influencing most of 2010.
In fact, I am certain he knows that the response to solar activity is also not immediate, and I am convinced he must know ENSO has a delayed effect too. Which leaves only one possibility: He is deliberately misleading the public.
Nonoy Oplas says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:16 am
Nothing will change, no matter how cold the world gets, they just live in a parallel universe:
http://www.earthsummit2012.org/
Richard S Courtney says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:18 am
the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then
the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then
the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then
the Little Ice Age (LIA), then
the
present warm period (PWP).Now: the New Dark Age Cool Period.
” ..such vitriolic language like “denier” ….”
If it’s inexcusable of that chump Palin to use “blood libel”, how much more more disgraceful it is for highly educated and intelligent Climate Scientists to use “denier”.
Shevva says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:39 am
….it’s a “Steppenwolf”..and it comes with the cold.
Hansen says: “La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet”
When was it established that sunspot number is a causitive factor in warming or cooling of the planet?
I’ll tell you when it was established. It was established as soon as it became convenient for the CAGW cabal to say it’s so i.e. when they can say “despite record low solar activity the planet has continued to warm” which of course implies that warming would have been hideously higher had the sun been active.
This is one of the most blatantly dishonest utterances I’ve seen come out of Hansen’s ugly mouth. The man doesn’t have an honest bone in his body.
aaron says:
“My comment which , pointed out that the greenhouse effect was based on the retention of heat and that 2010 finished with the lowest global average surface temp, despite incoming radiation being relatively constant, in over decade was deleted in about a minute.”
Maybe William Connolley is now moderating for the Guardian. You might try writing the editor and pointing out the bizarre rate of erasure.
If that doesn’t work, take heart: Karma does.
Please don’t link to the DailyKos/Huffington Post. I go and look at the comments and get depressed that people can be so insulated and delusional. Just reading their comments makes it clear that global warming is simply another religion/doomsday cult.
The caption under the photo accompanying the article you linked states, “Climate change? The sun rose in Ilulissat, Greenland, two days early on Tuesday, ending a month-and-a-half of winter darkness. One theory is that melting ice caps have lowered the horizon allowing the sun to shine through earlier” (emphasis added)
The article appears on the Science and Tech page, yet the caption incorrectly uses the technical term theory instead of the technically correct term hypothesis. Bob Ward can add imprecision to his list of reasons why more and more people are tuning out his brand of enviro-journalism.
I sort of don’t know what to say. This article is so stupid my jaw drops. In Ryan Maue’s attempt to make nothing of something he just flat out fails. I don’t even get what his main point is??
“stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings?” ???
Yes, Hansen said it’s the long trend that matters, but you think people don’t want to know when we have the hottest year on record? I don’t know what to say?? I am baffled.
“You never know what year is number 1 due to those “subtle differences”, which apparently aren’t that important anyways. ”
You think we can’t see through this? I realize these here devotees can’t, but you are not fooling anybody else. All you are doing is attempting to state the facts (because you can’t deny them) in a way that makes them unimportant. It is word usage, phrasing and rhetoric, but you actually have nothing to say because the truth is staring you in the face, and you don’t know what to do but try and minimize it. Nice try.
[ Moderator note: we have a real winner here, looking at Mr. Heims blog (see his link in his name) we are treated to this:
“I am 56. I have no official background in climatology, which is the subject matter of this paper. I am merely using common sense and logic to draw my conclusions.”
And…
“HEY YOU! Get up and start fighting!”
Another angry emotional approach to science against Dr. Ryan Maue. Verdict: FAIL]
My grammar was better in original comment. Alas, no cache. And commenting is tough on a touch-screen phone that thinks it’s smarter than you.
Dave Springer says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:11 am
Nailed him! Hansen is like a child who believes that the number and weight of his claims will prevail. Apparently, it does not occur to him that his claim about the sun’s activity is inconsistent with all his past claims. Apparently, he thinks we do not care about inconsistencies. He has become another Al Gore, yet he remains a chief administrator at NASA.
Andrew ,
I believe you are correct . IIRC , a couple of years ago the AGW crowd completely dismissed the idea that solar activity could influence climate .
So let me ask this – if anthropogenic warming is unequivocal , why do climatologists spend so much time equivocating when pressed on specifics ?