Datasets:

Joon007

/

science-feedback

like 2

https://science.feedback.org/review/forbes-james-taylor-updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

-2

Forbes, by James Taylor, on 2015-05-19.

“Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”

This article has been read more than 660,000 times since it was published in May, making it Forbes’s most read article on climate in 2015. So how accurate was it? Not accurate at all. According to the reviewers, this article contains numerous factual errors and flawed logic. The author fails to distinguish between sea and land ice, and the Arctic and Antarctic. Taylor’s conclusion, which contradicts the observed signal of global warming on polar ice, is misleading.See all the scientists’ annotations in context If the link does not work due to the high number of ads on Forbes, install Hypothesis bookmarklet or extension in your browser and switch it on from the article page. UPDATE (6 September 2019): On an unspecified date, Forbes retracted this post. A note on the article now reads: “After review, this post has been removed for failing to meet our editorial standards. We are providing our readers the headline, author and first paragraphs for context only. We regret any inconvenience or confusion.”GUEST COMMENTS: Jennifer Francis, Research Professor I, Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University As is clearly explained in a recent article from Carbon Brief, sea ice behavior in the Arctic and Antarctic is responding to climate change in different ways, and we know why. In the graph below, it is obvious that Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a much faster rate than Antarctic ice is increasing. Numerous studies have concluded that Arctic ice loss results from a combination of thinning due to greenhouse-gas warming, natural events that flushed thick ice out of the region, and various positive feedbacks (amplifying effects) that augment the ice loss. Climate models cannot reproduce observed Arctic sea ice loss without including the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. On this topic the science is settled. In Antarctica, sea ice varies from year to year much more than it does in the Arctic because its boundaries are not confined by land, as they are in the Arctic. The Southern Ocean sea ice is free to move with the ferocious winds and strong ocean currents that prevail there and cause the large variations. In recent years, the amount of sea ice in winter (when it has a relatively small effect on the global energy balance because there’s no sunlight) has increased, but much less than the amount lost in the Arctic. This increase has been caused by stronger storms (related to a recovering ozone hole) and fresher surface waters (owing to melting of Antarctica’s ice shelves). Because the Antarctic is so much colder than the Arctic, it takes a much larger temperature increase to affect the sea ice, but eventually global warming will cause this sea ice to decline, as well. Readers of articles such as this that claim to refute decades of peer-reviewed science must arm themselves with a healthy dose of skepticism — the good kind. Dig deeper, inform yourself, and don’t take one non-scientist’s take as gospel just because it supports a position that you hope is true. Arctic and Antarctic annual average sea ice extent (million square kilometres), from 1979 to present, against a baseline of 1981-2010. Source: Monthly data available from NOAA, via the NSIDC. Julienne Stroeve , Senior Research Scientist, National Snow and Ice Data CenterThe article is misleading and completely incorrect. It appears that the article is lumping together sea ice and ice sheets, although perhaps the author does not know the difference between sea ice and the ice on Greenland and Antarctica. Several outright false statements persist in the article: 1) Sea ice from earlier satellites, submarines, aircraft, whaling log reports, etc. do not show that polar ice caps were more extensive in 1979 than the 1920s. Sea ice also did not remain at 1979 levels until 2005. There is no NASA data that shows this. Arctic sea ice has been declining in all calendar months and in all regions of the Arctic (except for slight increase in the Bering Sea during winter) since the satellite record began, it has not recovered in any way. The Antarctic shows areas of small regional increases that are dependent on the time of year, but in contrast to the Arctic, these increases are not for all sea ice regions and they do not happen in all calendar months. 2) The author also appears confused by the fact that the sea ice grows back every winter and fails to understand the importance of weather. We do not expect each year to exhibit lower sea ice extents than the year before as sea ice responds to the weather patterns, and a particularly cold year may help keep ice around in one summer (such as in 2013). That does not imply the long-term trend is not continuing, just that there are departures from year to year along the long-term trend. Just as one shouldn’t make a big deal out of the record low in 2012, they shouldn’t point to 2013 as a recovery. 2015 shows this to be very true despite the author’s claim of a “dramatic rebound” in 2013, and the false statement that sea ice has been 5% above the 1979 average ever since 2012. 3) May 2015 does not show sea ice 5% above the 1979 average, in fact the Arctic set an all time record low for the winter maximum in 2015. And while the Antarctic had some record high summer ice, the maximum in 2015 was near average. 4) There is no definition of what the author means by land ice, but records show increased melting of Greenland and parts of Antarctica, that together lead to significant increases in global sea level.REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Twila Moon Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder: This article was overwhelmingly misleading. The author consistently applied incorrect methods to come to false conclusions using real data. Terms were also used incorrectly, increasing confusion. Ken Mankoff Senior Scientist, Geological Survey of Denmark & Greenland: This article discusses land and sea ice interchangebly and appears to confuse the two. This is a fundamental error, equivalent in other fields to confusing house and senate, or an artery and vein. Ron Kwok Senior Research Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology: In this article, The Arctic and Antarctic ice cover are totally muddled. Most of the trends quoted are of the Arctic, even though the mechanisms controlling Arctic and Antarctic ice differ and should be considered carefully and separately. Robert Grumbine Physical Scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Cherry picking, misrepresentation, distortion. Substituting personal value judgements for scientific conclusions. Ilissa Ocko Climate Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund: The author asserts bold statements that are not whatsoever backed up by science and scientific research. The article is misleading and flat out incorrect, with flawed reasoning throughout. Jan Lenaerts Assistant Professor, University of Colorado, Boulder: This article claims that global sea ice has not decreased since 2012, by ‘cherry-picking’ data comparing short term signal to a long-term trend. It contains many invalid and unjustified claims. Rasmus Benestad Senior scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological institute: The article contains a number of inaccuracies and mixes up different aspects. The sea-ice reduction in the Arctic is a summer-time phenomenon, whereas the Antarctic sea-ice is a winter-time condition. Thus, the sea ice at the two poles involve different mechansisms, in addition to playing out in different geography (the North pole is an ocean basin surrounded by land, whereas the South pole is land surrounded by sea). It’s very naive to think that ice is just ice. Notes:[1]See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.[2]Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time. Key Take-away: The statements quoted below are from James Taylor; comments and replies are from the reviewers. While sea ice extent varies from year to year, global sea ice extent has declined since satellite records began in 1979.“Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979.” Dr. Robert Grumbine, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Incorrect on at least two levels. What he compares is ice at a particular time in 1979 with ice at a particular time in 2015. Today (23 October 2015), the figure is negative; ice is again below the long term average, and below values at any time in 1979. The second and more important level on which this is wrong is that for examining long term trends, scientists use all the data, not just two particular days out of 36 (and growing) years of data. The long term trend is negative. Both of these can be verified by going to Cryosphere Today, at the University of Illinois. See also Cryosphere Today’s response to this article. Twila Moon Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder: This is flat out false. NASA has an excellent visualization and graph of Arctic sea ice decline since 1979. Antarctic sea ice, on the other hand, has had some expansion. However, this expansion does not negate climate change, as explained in this news article. “Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average.” Ken Mankoff Senior Scientist, Geological Survey of Denmark & Greenland: Extent is a measure of area, but volume also matters. The short-term area increase is due to new thin ice. This ice melts more easily than the older thicker ice which used to occupy this area. See this news article. “The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend.” Ken Mankoff Senior Scientist, Geological Survey of Denmark & Greenland: Also misleading. Natural variability is still part of the ongoing climate warming. While the late 1970s were cooler than the years around 1904, it was not a continuous cooling, as seen below. You can also see in this figure that late 1970s temperatures were still high in comparison to the previous 120 years. “As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s.” Dr. Robert Grumbine, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Mr. Taylor should publish his research on what the sea ice area was. Otherwise, he is simply stating his opinion on a technical topic. And he his not an expert in this topic. “Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years.” Dr. Robert Grumbine, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Mr. Taylor’s value judgement of ‘modest’ recession is, again, hampered by not being expert in sea ice. A ‘modest’ change in body temperature from 98.6 F to 108.6 F (only 10 degrees, the outside temperature changes by 30 degrees some days) would be fatal. ‘Modest’ is decided by examining the thing you’re studying. “Total polar ice area—factoring in both sea and land ice—had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as ‘proof’ of a global warming crisis.” Ilissa Ocko Climate Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund: Lumping all of the polar ice together is not very insightful. First – land ice and sea ice are very different; land ice accumulates for thousands of years while sea ice is a seasonal and inter-annual process. Land ice in Antarctica is melting rapidly which means that water stored for centuries is entering the oceans raising sea level. However, sea ice in Antarctica is slightly gaining likely because of mixing processes between melting freshwater and ocean saltwater. The sea ice in Antarctica has little impact on the energy balance and does not change sea level. One must distinguish between the two different processes of land and sea ice. Second – Arctic and Antarctic processes are very different. The Antarctic is much cooler than the Arctic, as it is very isolated from the rest of the world with a current that prevents some of the warming from reaching the area. Even though the Antarctic air and sea are warming, because the Antarctic sea ice melts every summer anyways, and the Arctic’s does not, Arctic sea ice melt strongly impacts the energy balance. Sea ice volume in the Arctic has decreased by 50% from 1979 to today – data from the Polar Science Center. Third – polar ice area is not nearly as telling as polar ice mass or volume, so the metric that the author uses is extremely misleading. “receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit” Ilissa Ocko Climate Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund: This is not true. Polar ice caps (land ice) have already contributed to sea level rise that has impacted coastal communities all over the world. Currently, mean sea level rise (7.5 inches globally; 1 foot off the Northeast U.S.) manifests its worst impacts through storm surges that are much higher than they would otherwise be. … Further, Arctic communities have already been impacted by melting ice and permafrost. One resident of an Eskimo community stated in 2012 that “Not that long ago the water was far from our village and could not be easily seen from our homes. Today the weather is changing and is slowly taking away our village. Our boardwalks are warped, some of our buildings tilt, the land is sinking and falling away, and the water is close to our homes. The infrastructure that supports our village is compromised and affecting the health and well-being of our community members, especially our children.” Coastal erosion has threatened many communities, and standard defensive adaptation strategies, such as rock walls, sandbags, and riprap, have been unsuccessful. High costs to relocate have prevented all but one Alaskan village to escape.

https://science.feedback.org/review/andrew-freedman-mashable-hurricane-patricia-global-warming/

1.4

Mashable, by Andrew Freedman, on 2015-10-23.

“How Hurricane Patricia became the strongest hurricane on record so quickly”

This article is accurate and based on comments from scientists with actual expertise in the study of climate influence on intense hurricanes. It describes the roles of El Niño, greenhouse warming, and other physical factors at play in Hurricane Patricia’s spectacular intensification.See all the scientists’ annotations in contextGUEST COMMENTS: James Kossin, Research Scientist, NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate Nice piece. Well written and accurate, with a good variety of quotes. Doesn’t over-reach or sensationalize, and presents some aspects of what we know in a clear useful way. In fact, the connection between climate change and Patricia may be a bit understated and overly conservative, as the connection between climate change and the most extreme hurricanes was not discussed.REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Karthik Balaguru Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: The article is well-written and explains the potential scientific reasons behind the rapid intensification of Hurricane Patricia reasonably. Hamish Ramsay Lecturer, Monash University: A well written and balanced article that draws on a range of scientific opinion from well-established climate scientists, hurricane specialists and forecasters. The article provides a nice summary of the major physical factors at play, while also highlighting the issues and challenges to do with detection and attribution of extreme events such as this. Daniel Cohan Associate Professor, Rice University: The author has undertaken a superb effort to incorporate the instant reactions of leading experts in tropical cyclone formation. The article provides a nuanced explanation of current scientific understanding and uncertainty regarding the relative roles of El Niño and greenhouse warming in intensifying Pacific storms. Dan Chavas Assistant Professor, Purdue University: It’s a very nice article overall, as it is more an organized survey of scientists rather than a non-science author trying to make a scientific argument. My concerns lie only with the content provided by one of the scientist contributors (Kevin Trenberth), which is not the author’s responsibility. Emmanuel Vincent Founder & Executive Director, Science Feedback: A good description of what scientists think about the influence of climate change on intense hurricanes like Patricia. Notes:[1]See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.[2]Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time.

https://science.feedback.org/review/matthew-francis-forbes-even-without-drastic-predictions-coasts-are-in-danger/

1

Forbes, by Matthew Francis, on 2015-07-28.

“Climate Change Will Cause Increased Flooding In Coastal Cities ”

This article provides a fair and balanced discussion of two recent scientific studies on the magnitude of the sea level rise that can be expected this century as a result of human-induced climate change.See all the scientists’ annotations in context If the link does not work due to the high number of ads on Forbes, install Hypothesis bookmarklet or extension in your browser and switch it on from the article page.REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Tad Pfeffer, Professor of Glaciology, University of Colorado A clear statement of the content of a controversial paper, with an accurate description of the source of controversy. I think this is a good piece of science journalism, in which the author gives an even-handed account of the position taken in the Hansen et al piece, and also describes the informed opposition to the Hansen’s conclusions, as articulated in Kevin Trenberth’s response (also cited in the piece). The author’s scientific credentials show in his writing, even though he does not come down on one side or another of the controversy. David Bahr, Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Regis University and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado The article discusses a manuscript that is still under “open access” review, so naturally there is still significant (and public) discussion about the details among scientific reviewers. Overall the article is accurate, though some of the language is a little skewed. For example, the author says climate deniers “may not have science on their side,” but that should be “do not have science on their side.” Likewise, by calling Hansen’s work “alarmist predictions,” the author uses language that is common to climate deniers and introduces a subtle bias that is unfounded until the review process is complete. Nevertheless, the article is reasonable, and it correctly states that sea level rise is a real problem regardless of this particular Hansen publication. Ted Scambos, Senior Research Scientist, National Snow and Ice Data Center The article is accurate enough in its discussion of the threat, and the Hansen paper, but understates the nature of the concerning issues with the Hansen et al. extrapolation and concluding estimates. Hansen et al. estimates are based on a somewhat adhoc amplification of the contribution from the ice sheets based on the past two decades’ observations. If we have seen an approximate doubling every decade, then (having eight decades left in this century) we might anticipate at least a 2^8 (256-fold) increase in mass loss from the ice by 2100 – says Hansen et al. This ignores fundamental issues with the mechanics of this ice loss, e.g. in glacier speeds or in surface melt rates. This was discussed in part in an earlier paper by Pfeffer et al., in 2008. Rasmus Benestad, Meteorologisk Institutt The article does not explain that the IPCC numbers tend to exclude collapse from landfast ice, wheras Hansen et al place a great deal of emphasis on land ice. Also it is diverted by an argument about ENSO (El Niño), which is not relevant for the analysis by Hansen et al, as ENSO involves much shorter time scales. James E. Neumann, Industrial Economics The author generally characterizes two important new studies accurately, and correctly references other relevant work and the major conclusions of that work. Alexis Berg, Postdoctoral Research fellow, Columbia University This article reports on two recent papers about climate change and sea-level rise. The author places the articles in the context of current scientific thinking rather accurately. He should have mentioned that Hansen’s paper is not published yet, and could also have provided more quantitative information on the topic.Notes:[1]See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.[2]Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time.

https://science.feedback.org/review/andrew-freedman-south-carolina-flooding-climate-change/

1.3

Mashable, by Andrew Freedman, on 2015-10-06.

“South Carolina flooding is the type event climate scientists have warned about for years”

This Mashable article does a good job at describing the relationship between the flooding in South Carolina and climate change. Long-term trends show an increase in the frequency of heavy downpours in the US, and this increase is consistent with the consequences of climate change. There is still debate, however, over attributing specific extreme rain events to climate change. Some scientists argue that by increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere, global warming has an impact on all extreme rain events. Not all scientists agree with this conclusion, however, and Andrew Freedman makes this clear in his article.See all the scientists’ annotations in contextGUEST COMMENTS: Thomas Mote, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Georgia I believe the article addresses our current understanding of the science and is a balanced response. The article discussed the unique juxtaposition of an upper-level low and hurricane that was the direct cause of the event, but also directly addresses the role of the increase in atmospheric water vapor available for enhancing rainfall. The article also discusses the potential role of high latitude blocking highs (such as occurred with Hurricane Sandy), but, appropriately, does not dwell on that as a leading mechanism. I also appreciate the different perspectives on attribution studies and how they might apply to this situation. Note: For the reader interested in further analysis about the influence of climate change on South Carolina flooding, Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd (Professor at the University of Georgia) recommends the article by Chris Mooney in the Washington Post. Dr. Shepherd says, “It pretty much sums up what I would say about South Carolina flooding and climate change.”REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Dargan Frierson Associate Professor, University of Washington: Water vapor content has increased in a warmer climate, and this is leading to more extreme rainfall events around the world. It’s tricky to evaluate the contribution of climate change to a particular weather event, but generally speaking, the author provides an accurate summary of the challenges of this research, and the range of scientific thinking about it. Victor Venema Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany: This is a complicated topic and the author honestly describes many caveats. Still the reader may get the impression that the changes in precipitation are larger than they most likely are. Jim Kossin Research Scientist, NOAA's Center for Weather and Climate: The statements and quotes are defensible but also vague and quite broad in how one thing may be related to another. Consequently, the article does not provide much scientific insight. The lack of specificity in “connecting the dots” leads to a somewhat unsubstantial message. Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: In my view this article presents a well-documented and balanced view of what can, or cannot, be said currently about extreme precipitation events and global warming in general, and about this recent event in South Carolina in particular. I appreciate the author’s effort to get the input of several climate scientists on the latter. Ilissa Ocko Climate Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund: Comprehensive overview of the state of the science, including discussion of areas we know well and areas that are still being actively researched. Notes:[1]See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.[2]Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time.

https://science.feedback.org/review/betsy-mccaughey-wake-up-obama-climate-change-has-been-happening-forever/

-2

New York Post, by Betsy McCaughey, on 2015-09-07.

“Wake up, Obama, climate change has been happening forever”

The scientists unanimously qualify this article as misleading and flawed in its reasoning. The author asserts that “many scientists are predicting the onset of two or three centuries of cooler weather—which would mean bigger glaciers.” As the scientists point out, however, glaciologists have collected “crystal clear” evidence for accelerating glacier melt and retreat, which scientists overwhelmingly attribute to human-induced global warming, and scientific consensus warns that a continued rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will produce further global warming.See all the scientists’ annotations in contextGUEST COMMENTS: Martin Truffer, Professor of Physics, University of Alaska Fairbanks This article seems to proclaim that because there is natural variability in climate, there can’t possibly be human-caused climate change. This is like saying that sea-level change cannot be due to ice loss, because sea level goes up and down every day with the tides, without ice melting. The fact is that global temperatures keep rising, and the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has reached a level that is unsurpassed during the time human civilization has existed. We are in the middle of conducting the greatest climate experiment. Uncertainties in models mean that we don’t know exact outcomes, but the forcing of greenhouse gases is understood sufficiently well that the risk of large changes in climate is very high. Undoubtedly, natural variability means that there will be cooler trends that interrupt the general warming, but it also means that there will be times with unusually high rates of warming. Scientists who proclaim to know that we are heading into decades of cooling stand on very thin ground. Stephan Harrison, Associate Professor in Quaternary Science, University of Exeter This article is highly misleading and biased. It fails to recognise that scientists have good understanding of the ways in which climate change occurs and the ways in which we can differentiate between natural variability in the climate and climate change produced by human greenhouse gas emissions. Obama was also correct in using Exit Glacier as an example of how contemporary climate change is leading to the retreat of glaciers. This pattern of glacier melt is seen in all of the world’s glaciated mountain regions. Arguing whether one glacier started its recession slightly earlier or slightly later than others is to miss the point. The article also tries to suggest that Arctic warming is not new. What it fails to reveal though is that the recent warming covers the whole of the Arctic region; previous warming was much more regional. Finally, the article claims that scientists are predicting a long period of global cooling. While climate change does not mean that all regions of the world will warm uniformly, the overwhelming scientific consensus is clear that a continued rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will produce continued global warming. This view is supported by all the world’s major academies of science and by the recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. David Bahr, Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Regis University and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Betsy McCaughey incorrectly confuses the historically slow retreat of the Exit Glacier with its vastly more rapid retreat over the last 25 years. Manmade climate change is directly related to the historically unprecedented and rapid melt of Alaskan glaciers. Scientific study after study shows that most of the world’s glaciers are melting at an ever-increasing rate that cannot be explained by natural cycles alone. Only human activities could generate the speed-up in melt that we have observed over the last 25 years in Alaska and around the world. Glaciologists have collected tens of thousands of measurements from glaciers, dating back over 120 years, and the evidence of accelerating glacier melt and retreat in response to manmade warming is crystal clear. Any other conclusion is willfully ignoring the data, the facts, and the conclusions of the entire glaciological community. Ignoring this level of certainty about the human causes of melting of glaciers is analogous to believing that the Earth is flat, all evidence to the contrary. Mauri Pelto, Professor of Environmental Science, Nichols College Alpine glaciers did retreat rapidly during the first half of the century, but not from 1950-1980 when many alpine glaciers including several in Glacier Bay, Alaska did advance. The volume of Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets was also stable during this period. Today, it is the ubiquitous and rapid volume loss on glaciers that is remarkable, and one of the many different lines of evidence that have convinced the vast majority of scientists that the current warming is caused by man. Glaciers in equatorial and arctic latitudes, wet and arid climates, large and small, ending in lakes or the ocean are almost all retreating. Out of the 250 glaciers I have worked on, at present 242 are retreating, six have disappeared and one is stationary.REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: This article rehashes a tired old argument that because natural forces have caused climate change in the past, current climate change is no big deal. In fact, every line of evidence now points to man-made greenhouse gas emissions as the primary driver of ongoing (and projected) climate change. The article also tries to pin the “global warming theory” on president Obama, while the reality is that it reflects the consensus diagnosis of the climate science community. Jan Lenaerts Assistant Professor, University of Colorado, Boulder: An extremely subjective, unsubstantiated article. It includes several misleading and flawed statements and cites irrelevant experts. Andreas Schmittner Associate Professor, Oregon State University: Contrary to overwhelming scientific evidence and conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, the article claims that climate will be cooling in the future and that the recently observed warming is not caused by humans. It is misleading in suggesting uncertainty and doubt about human causes of climate change, whereas in reality there is very little uncertainty and doubt on that point. Joseph Shea Assistant Professor, University of Northern British Columbia: The article contains many misleading and simply false statements about climate and glacier change. Ilissa Ocko Climate Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund: This article is plagued with inaccurate information, flawed logic, and quotes from individuals who lack climate science merit. Notes:[1]See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.[2]Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time.

https://science.feedback.org/review/tom-harris-deceptive-temperature-record-claims/

-1.9

The Washington Times, by Tom Harris, on 2015-08-23.

“Deceptive temperature record claims”

Our reviewers unanimously characterize this article as misleading and in disagreement with elementary science. The author uses a scientifically baseless argument to support his claim that an average global temperature for the surface of the Earth is a meaningless quantity.See all the scientists’ annotations in contextREVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Shaun Lovejoy Professor, McGill University: The argument has two parts: a) that the accuracy of the measurements is too low to claim a record, b) that the global temperature is meaningless. a) is an affirmation that is not supported by the facts (the actual accuracy is indeed enough to affirm that the month is hottest – or at least amongst the hottest). b) This is a repetition of a sophisticated but irrelevant argument put forward many years ago by Essex and McKitrick. Victor Venema Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany: The article is deceptive and claiming that a global average temperature does not exist is simply wrong. Dargan Frierson Associate Professor, University of Washington: The only deception here is by the author, who uses a false scientific claim (that global average temperature does not exist) to back up his ridiculous assertion that global warming doesn’t matter. Andreas Schmittner Associate Professor, Oregon State University: The article claims that global mean temperature is not a meaningful measure of climate, contrary to climate science and its standard practices. It is a typical denial argument that has no foundation in science. Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: This article recycles old, specious skeptic talking points about how the Earth’s global temperature does not exist, cannot be computed and/or is irrelevant to its inhabitants. All long-debunked nonsense. John Abraham, Professor, University of St. Thomas This article makes several inaccurate claims and the authors demonstrates a nearly complete lack of knowledge about measurement of the Earth’s climate. The claims about temperature accuracy, ocean measurements, thermodynamics and others are just plain wrong. Andreas Klocker Physical Oceanographer, University of Tasmania: Whereas this article claims that ‘Warmest month announcements have no scientific basis’ I would say that this article does not have any scientific basis. Notes:[1]See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.[2]Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time. Key Take-aways : The statements quoted below are from the article; comments and replies are from the reviewers. 1.Through careful analysis, researchers effectively track changes in global temperatures. “This is the distance between Ottawa, Canada, and Myrtle Beach, S.C. cities with very different climates. Yet, according to NASA, only one temperature sensing station is necessary for the two cities and the vast area between them to be adequately represented in their network.” Victor Venema Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany: One of the reasons why climatologists prefer to work with “anomalies”, deviations from the typical climate, is that anomalies are similar over large regions, especially when it comes to averages over longer periods. I guess everyone still remembers that last winter the entire East Coast was colder than usual, while the West Coast was warmer than usual. Thus while it naturally was absolutely warmer in the South, regions of the East coast with different climates still had similar temperature anomalies, this is why a station at a given point is representative of the temperature anomaly in a large region around that point. Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: This is an old skeptic talking point that has been discussed a thousand times. The basic point is the difference between temperature anomalies and absolute temperatures. See for instance this NASAwebpage, which indicates: “The GISTEMP analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km.” See also this article by Real Climate : “the basic issue is that temperature anomalies have a much greater correlation scale (100’s of miles) than absolute temperatures – i.e. if the monthly anomaly in upstate New York is a 2ºC, that is a good estimate for the anomaly from Ohio to Maine, and from Quebec to Maryland, while the absolute temperature would vary far more. That means you need fewer data points to make a good estimate of the global value.” “In their award winning book, ‘Taken By Storm’ (2007), Canadian researchers Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick explain: ‘Temperature is not an amount of something [like height or weight]. It is a number that represents the condition of a physical system. In thermodynamics it is known as an intensive quantity, in contrast to quantities like energy, which have an additive property, which we call extensive in thermodynamics.’” Andreas Schmittner Associate Professor, Oregon State University: Temperature and heat (energy) content are closely related such that the heat content is the temperature times the specific heat capacity and the density. Because the specific heat capacity is a constant and density variations are small compared to temperature variations the heat content is typically very closely related to the temperature of the air in the atmosphere or the water in the oceans. Thus, while this citation of Essex and McKitrick is a correct statement about the principles of thermodynamics, its use here is misleading because it does not acknowledge the close relationship between temperature and energy in practical climate applications. “Temperature, like viscosity and density, and of course phone numbers, is not something that can be meaningfully averaged. ‘Global temperature’ does not exist.” Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: According to this line of argument, one could not talk about human body temperature, because the temperature of someone’s feet is not the same as, say, their belly. Yet I am sure Mr. Harris accepts the medical relevance of the concept of fever (or hypothermia)… Victor Venema Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany: A measured temperature is always an average over time and space. The thermometer is not infinitely fast and probes a finite space. If Harris were right, you could no longer say something as simple as your bedroom being cooler than your living room. Or the Moon being colder than the Earth. 2. Continued climate change comes with serious impacts for humans and other species. “Even if you could calculate some sort of meaningful global temperature statistic, the figure would be unimportant. No one and nothing would experience it directly since we all live in regions, not the globe. There is no super-sized being straddling the planet, feeling global averages in temperature. Global warming does not matter.” Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: This is nonsense. What about the last ice age, when global temperature was estimated to be a handful of degrees (C) lower than today, and half of North America and Europe were under huge ice sheets? Of course for large changes regional temperatures are tied to the global temperature. Almost all regions are currently warming with global warming at present, and are projected to do so with further warming. Note that warming is indeed “global”, but not every place is warming at the same rate, and some few places might even experience negative trends for now (e.g., Southeast US, North Atlantic – see below, or also here). Also note that as this supposedly irrelevant global temperature is rising, a host of associated metrics/impacts are following suit: sea level is rising, ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost and glaciers are melting, species are migrating, etc. Source: IPCC Andreas Schmittner Associate Professor, Oregon State University: Global warming matters a great deal. We know that global mean temperatures are related to sea level such that a warmer planet is one with less snow and ice on land and hence higher sea level.

https://science.feedback.org/review/brad-plumer-el-nino-explained-why-this-years-could-be-one-of-the-strongest-on-record/

1.7

Vox, by Brad Plumer, on 2015-08-17.

“El Niño, explained: Why this year's could be one the strongest on record”

Scientists unanimously qualify this article as accurate and informative. The article contains useful information for readers who are interested in learning about the ongoing El Niño event. The author correctly emphasizes the probabilistic nature of the impact of El Niño events on climate—the current El Niño, for instance, increases the odds of a rainy winter in California, but does not make it a certain outcome.See all the scientists’ annotations in context GUEST COMMENTS: Wenju Cai, Principal Research Scientist, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) This article is educational, logical, and useful to interested readers who want to know about the current El Niño, and/or to learn about El Niño and its impacts. The information flow-structure is also well thought out. REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Ailie Gallant Research Fellow, Monash University:This is a great article on the current El Niño and explainer on how El Niños often affect global climate, as well as regional climates around the world. The author has done a great job of providing caveats that all El Niños are different and that not every El Niño will bring rain or drought (depending on where you are) but think of it as “tipping the scales” towards those states. I think the author has done a good job of not overselling the current El Niño given that we’re not sure exactly what the impacts will be until they happen. A nice explainer from Vox. Julien Emile-Geay Assistant Professor, University of Southern California:A very well-informed piece, as scientifically accurate as can be for a didactic piece, and touching on all the impacts that people care about. I wish all climate reporting were half as good! Michelle LHeureux Scientist, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:Brad wrote a very solid and informative article on this current El Niño. He provides a clear definition of El Niño and its potential impacts, and he also managed to communicate several more nuanced elements that many El Niño articles miss when they are promoting “Godzilla.” In particular, I appreciate how he discusses that even though El Niño is quite significant, there is still uncertainty in the ultimate impacts on U.S. temperature and precipitation. Predicting climate months in advance is about making bets (favoring certain odds) because no impact is ever guaranteed. With that said, this upcoming winter will likely be quite interesting! Eric Guilyardi CNRS Research Director, Université Pierre et Marie Curie & Professor, University of Reading:This is relatively well written piece that does explain the current El Niño event and the broader context. The links are helpful if one wants to understand more.

https://science.feedback.org/review/the-telegraph-christopher-booker-arctic-ice-has-made-fools-of-warmists/

-2

The Telegraph, by Christopher Booker, on 2015-07-25.

“How Arctic ice has made fools all those poor warmists”

Christopher Booker’s article claims that sea ice behavior contradicts the predicted effects of climate change, but his argument contains major scientific inaccuracies. It uses anecdotal claims as evidence, short-term year-to-year changes to dismiss long-term trends, and builds on cherry-picked information to reach its conclusions. In reality, the long-term trend of sea ice loss is clear, and mass loss from ice sheets is contributing to sea level rise.See all the scientists’ annotations in contextGUEST COMMENTS: Julienne Stroeve Senior Research Scientist, University College London: The writer fails to understand interannual variability. Long-term ice extent decline and ice volume decline does not mean each year will be lower than the year before, but that the long-term trend is towards less sea ice and thinner ice. The fact that the ice thickness increased from the record low in 2012 is no surprise since there was more ice left over in summer 2013 and 2014. This does not signal a “recovery” as the ice is still much thinner than it was in the 1980s and 1990s. It is simply a reflection of interannual variability, in particular a cooler summer in 2013 that resulted in significantly less ice melt that year. Note that the thickness did not increase by a third, the total ice volume (thickness x area) increased. The article contains numerous scientific errors as well as errors in understanding basic physics and how things are measured. For example, the author incorrectly states that you cannot measure thick ice with electromagnetic induction instruments and that instead a tape measure was needed. In fact the reverse is true, if the ice is too thick, it’s too hard to drill through the ice and measure it with a tape measure. The author is also incorrect that there is more polar ice than since 1979. Global sea ice measurements do not support this statement. Finally the fact that ships get stuck in the ice is never a surprise to those working in the polar regions. Conditions vary regionally all the time and movement of ice can suddenly result in ice compression and thick ice that may trap ships.REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Andreas Schmittner Associate Professor, Oregon State University: The article claims that there is more polar ice than at any time since satellite observations begun. The existing observational evidence suggests the opposite. Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: This “take” on Arctic sea-ice changes, and more generally polar ice evolution, is highly inaccurate and totally misleading. The authors goes to great lengths to try to convince readers that polar ice is doing just fine, and therefore by extension that global warming is nothing to worry about – he cherry-picks claims, tries to pass anecdotes as evidence and annual changes as representative of long-term trends. Loic Jullion Postdoctoral Research fellow, Mediterranean Institute of Oceanography: Another article cherry picking a few years or events opposing the global trend. The majority of available pieces of evidence suggest that polar sea ice is decreasing. Jonathan Lauderdale Postdoctoral Research Associate, MIT: This article is cherry picking individual years in the satellite sea ice record whilst ignoring the long term trend. It uses anecdotes of ships getting stuck in locally thick sea ice whilst ignoring the broader spatial and temporal patterns of change. It uses misleading confusion of the effect of sea ice and land ice on sea level to justify the authors opinion that climate change is one of “the longest-running farces of our modern world”. Arctic sea ice is just one thread of evidence amongst many that suggest the climate is undergoing a warming shift as a result of anthropogenic activities. Emmanuel Vincent Founder & Executive Director, Science Feedback: The article contains major inacurracies and fails to remind the broader context of polar sea-ice and land-ice evolution over the last several decades. It also builds on a few cherry-picked facts to reach its conclusions; in science one has to account for all evidences to conclude on the most likely theory. Britta Voss Postdoctoral Research fellow, U.S. Geological Survey: This article cherry-picks portions of climate records which suit the author’s argument (that changes in Arctic ice are overstated or not a matter of concern) and relies on anecdotes rather than technical analysis. Climate records cannot be considered only on a year-to-year basis because many trends develop over decades or longer. Kyle Armour Assistant Professor, University of Washington: This article contains major scientific errors in just about every paragraph. Those scientific statements that are somewhat accurate are used in very misleading ways (e.g., the expansion of Antarctic sea ice being incorrectly linked to sea level rise; and the increase in sea-ice volume over just a few years being taken as a sign of sea-ice recovery). Further, the article highlights statements made in the press and findings by scientists that have always been considered far outside the scientific mainstream, which gives me the impression that the article was written to be intentionally misleading. Notes:[1]See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.[2]Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time.

https://science.feedback.org/review/the-telegraph-dan-hyde-earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years/

-1.5

The Telegraph, by Dan Hyde, on 2015-07-11.

“Earth heading for 'mini ice age' within 15 years”

The article’s central message about an imminent mini ice age is unfounded, as it’s based on an incorrect understanding of what the Maunder minimum is, and jumps to conclusions about future climate impacts.See all the scientists’ annotations in contextUPDATE (05 Aug 2015): The original article has been modified and now features a “Correction” acknowledging that “An earlier version of this article inaccurately stated that scientists have predicted bitterly cold winters in the 2030s“. Read MoreGUEST COMMENTS: David Battisti Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington: The article is based on material in a press release for an international astronomy meeting. Nowhere in the press release is it stated that this will cause a mini ice age, or cold winters, or the Thames to freeze. The press release is limited to a study of the solar cycle. The peer reviewed literature shows that changes in solar irradiance due to sunspot cycles may cause the global average temperature to vary by up to 0.1C on an eleven year cycle. The published peer reviewed literature concludes that the Little Ice Age was primarily due to an extended period of increased volcanic activity. A recent study [in press] quantified the cause of the cooling during the Little Ice Age (1600-1850) to be primarily due to changes in volcanic activity (77%) and secondarily due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (13%); changes in solar output contributed only about 10% to the net cooling of the Little Ice Age.REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Michael Lockwood Professor of Space Environment Physics, University of Reading: The whole argument in the article rests on the incorrect myth that the Maunder minimum caused a “mini ice age” and uses that name to draw specious implications and conclusions. Just a couple of weeks ago we made a press release about state-of-the-art climate modelling led by the Met Office (by Sarah Ineson et al., published in Nature Communications) that shows what a return to Maunder minimum conditions would (and would not do) – but that is ignored. Loic Jullion Postdoctoral Research fellow, Mediterranean Institute of Oceanography: The Author (Dan Hyde) uses a paper focussing purely on the dynamics of the Sun solar activity to extrapolate the arrival of an upcoming ice age. Unless Dan Hyde actually attended the meeting and heard the authors explicitly mentioning the impact of their findings on climate, this article is misleading. Emmanuel M Vincent Research Scientist, University of California, Merced: This article concludes on the imminence of an ice age while the initial scientists’ press release—although ambiguous—does not. Why not fact-check sensational information before publication? Britta Voss Postdoctoral Research fellow, U.S. Geological Survey: The research this article reports on does not support a “mini ice age”, and the article does not offer commentary from researchers not involved in the work or point out that the results have not yet gone through the process of peer review. Featured Annotations: Below is a list of a few statements made by Dan Hide in his article along with comments and replies made by scientists. “The earth is 15 years from a “mini ice-age” that will cause bitterly cold winters during which rivers such as the Thames freeze over, scientists have predicted.” Michael Lockwood Professor of Space Environment Physics, University of Reading: The term “mini ice age” is inherently misleading in the context of solar variations as it implies a global decrease in temperatures and at all times of year. This does not apply at all to the solar Maunder minimum. Temperature observations from central England show that summers during the Maunder minimum were, if anything, slightly warmer than average – indeed the third warmest summer in that record occurred in the middle of the Maunder minimum, just 2 years after the coldest winter. Hence there was certainly not the unremitting cold in the Maunder minimum that the term “mini ice age” implies. There is evidence that there was increased occurrence of cold winters during the Maunder minimum but this is an effect of jet stream behaviour specific to northern Europe and the USA and not a global ice age. Recent climate modelling has reproduced this effect and indicates that the inferred lower solar ultraviolet emissions during the Maunder minimum modified the jet stream such that winters in northern Europe and the USA were colder but those in Greenland/Canada and southern Europe were warmer. This was not an “ice age” of any kind. Part of the confusion exploited by this article is that there is some evidence from tree ring data for a slight global decrease in temperatures that has been called “the little ice age” but this is nothing to do with solar variations and commenced decades before solar activity fell and the Maunder minimum began and continued after it ended. Georg Feulner Senior Scientist, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK): First of all, the scientists mentioned in the article have not predicted a “mini ice-age”, but an extended period of low solar activity similar to the 17th-century Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum falls into a more extended period of somewhat cooler climate conditions termed the “Little Ice Age” (although this was no true “ice age”). It has thus become rather fashionable to claim that the “Little Ice Age” was caused by low solar activity, but this is not what the science says. First, the “Little Ice Age” began already way before the Maunder Minimum and ended much later. Second, low solar activity has contributed to the cooler conditions in the late 17th century, but other drivers like frequent and powerful volcanic eruptions are responsible for most of the cooling. The link from a prediction of low solar activity in the future to a “mini ice-age” is thus highly questionable.“Temperatures will fall dramatically in the 2030s.” Georg Feulner Senior Scientist, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK): While regional and seasonal effects might be larger, the expected global temperature response to a future grand solar minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum is a cooling of about 0.1°C. It should be pointed out that this cooling would occur on the background of current anthropogenic warming which is about a factor of 10 larger. To claim that “temperatures will fall dramatically” is thus not really justified. It is also clear from these numbers that a future grand solar minimum (which would last only for a few decades anyway) would not save us from global warming, as we have shown in a scientific paper and explained here. The marginal temperature differences between warming scenarios with and without a future Maunder Minimum is illustrated here: Figure – Rise of global temperature for two different emission scenarios (A1B, red, and A2, magenta). The dashed lines show the slightly reduced warming in case a Maunder-like solar minimum should occur during the 21st century. The blue line represents global temperature data. Source: PIK.“In a presentation to the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, she said the result would be similar to freezing conditions of the late 17th century.” Keven Roy Research Fellow, Nanyang Technological University: Dr. Zharkova’s research predicts a lower solar activity for the next couple solar cycles (explaining patterns in recent solar activity in terms of internal variability within the solar dynamo, and extrapolating them in the future), leading to a so-called “solar minimum”, but says absolutely nothing about its impact on the climate system. A link between this decreased solar activity and the climate system cannot be drawn from the research presented or from the peer-reviewed paper on which it is based: Shepherd et al. (2014), Prediction of solar activity from solar background magnetic field variations in cycles 21-23, Astrophysical JournalNotes:[1]See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.[2]Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all released at the same time. UPDATE (05Aug 2015): Here is the list of statements that have been removed (or modified) from the original version of The Telegraph article: “River Thames could freeze over in 2030s when Northern Hemisphere faces bitterly cold winters, scientists say” [original subtitle of the article] “The earth is 15 years from a “mini ice-age” that will cause bitterly cold winters during which rivers such as the Thames freeze over, scientists have predicted.“ “[…] in such a way that temperatures will fall dramatically in the 2030s.“ “In a presentation to the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, she said the result would be similar to freezing conditions of the late 17th century.“ “This had helped create a picture of what would happen in the 2030s.“ See the retracted sentences highlighted over the article.

https://science.feedback.org/review/pope-francis-encyclical-laudato-si/

0.9

Vatican.va, by Pope Francis, on 2015-06-18.

Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si

Pope Francis’s encyclical rather accurately depicts the current reality of climate change. While it does contain a few minor scientific inaccuracies, and could be interpreted as understating the degree of certainty scientists have in understanding climate change impacts, the encyclical fairly represents the present concerns raised by the scientific community.See all the scientists’ annotations in contextUPDATE (25 May 2017): The Encyclicalhas been edited, clarifying oneof the statements that scientists had highlighted here. The problematic statement initially read “Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space” and has been updated to “As these gases build up in the atmosphere, they hamper the escape of heat produced by sunlight at the earth’s surface“.GUEST COMMENTS: Kerry Emanuel , Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT The Pope’s encyclical is strongly aligned with the scientific consensus about the reality and risks posed by global warming. The most striking feature of the encyclical is its linking of environmental degradation to cultural and political decline, painting it as a moral issue, not just a practical problem.REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: In the few passages dealing with climate science, this text does not contain major scientific inaccuracies – but it does contain some minor ones, or at least some poor choices of words. The presentation of some elements (e.g., the scientific consensus on the attribution of observed climate change) is not as clear as it could be. Andreas Klocker Physical Oceanographer, University of Tasmania: Some facts are a bit oversimplified (but not wrong), but in general a good article written for a very broad audience. Dasvinder Kambo, PhD Candidate, Queen’s University Note: I only read Chapter 1 of the encyclical. I found Chapter 1 to be a great representation of ‘popular’ scientific understanding of the effects of climate change. However, there could have been more input on the interactions of how humans in one country influence humans in others (i.e. Fossil fuel production in North America / China decreasing rainfall in west Africa/India). Britta Voss Postdoctoral Research fellow, U.S. Geological Survey: The purpose of this document was not to provide a technical description of climate science, however, the evidence presented in support of the anthropogenic footprint of environmental problems in general and climate change in particular was overall accurate and relevant. Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick Research Scientist, Climate Change Research Centre, The University of New South Wales: Most of the encyclical is reasonably accurate, though there are a few careless statements that could have been better explained. In general, the current scientific view is reasonably well summarized. Emmanuel Vincent Founder & Executive Director, Science Feedback: I did not spot major inaccuracies in this document as far as climate information goes. The encyclical is a good summary of human pressure on ecosystems and associated societal concerns. It is based on a state-of-the-art scientific knowledge of these issues although some statements are imprecise. Jonathan Lauderdale Postdoctoral Research Associate, MIT: The Encyclical summarized the current state of climate science well, in conjunction with a raft of other issues related to human exploitation of the natural environment. The key part of this document is bridging the gap between the scientific observations that we make, which often do not engage the public’s attention, and the moral implications of humans as guardians of our planet (whether you are religious or not, this still makes sense). As a specific point, I think the Encyclical could have been more definitive in attributing recent climate change to anthropogenic factors – mentioning the natural forcings in the context of warming seemed to be uncharacteristically overcautious. Mark Eakin Scientist, Coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: This encyclical is beautifully written and largely captures the scientific consensus. It is a bit too conservative in places, especially in terms of the amount of climate change attributed to humans. Featured Annotations: The statements quoted below are from the Encyclical; comments and replies are from the reviewers. “In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon.” Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick Research Scientist, Climate Change Research Centre, The University of New South Wales: It depends on the type of event. heatwaves and extreme heat events have increased since at least the 1950s1. Though tropical cyclones and drought are a bit harder to analyse since natural climate variability also plays a large role. This means there may be a signal of change due to human activity, but is more difficult to measure, due to the noise of the natural variability of the climate. Also, “attribution” can be done for specific events. this basically compares how often an extreme event of a particular magnitude and duration occurs in climate model simulations both with and without human emissions of greenhouse gases. This was first done on the 2003 European heatwave2. So it can be done, but is heavily dependent to the event you analyse, the spacial scale on which it occurs, and even the climate model/s and experimental set up you use3 1- Perkins (2012)Increasing frequency, intensity and duration of observed global heatwaves and warm spells. Geophysical Research Letters 2- Stott (2004)Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature 3- Angelil (2014)Attribution of extreme weather to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions: Sensitivity to spatial and temporal scales.Geophysical Research Letters“….to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity.” Jonathan Lauderdale Postdoctoral Research Associate, MIT: I think this statement is unnecessarily unclear and could be cherry-picked: “The Pope says volcanic activity, Earth’s orbit and the solar cycle cause global warming”. While volcanic activity, changes in Earth’s orbit and the solar cycle can (and do) produce changes in climate, the recent trend of these forcings over the last couple of decades is probably towards net cooling. Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. ERL Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: I find this statement a little weak. As mentioned above, natural factors would not lead to global warming over recent decades. Saying “a number of scientific studies” is a little bit of an understatement: it’s really almost all of the literature on the topic… The IPCC statement in the Summary: for Policy Makers: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}”“Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes.” Andy Pitman Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, The University of New South Wales: This statement is correct. Deforestation leads to the emissions of greenhouse gases, a reduced absorption of gases and a range of other problems that adds to the problem of burning fossil fuels. Jean-François Exbrayat Post-doctoral Research Fellow, The University of Edinburgh: Deforestation is principally the result of the agricultural expansion, for example soy bean and beef production in Brazil (1). The conversion of forests to other types of land use leads to a release of greenhouse gases. Tropical deforestation alone emits around 0.57-1.22 Pg C y-1 (2) globally, or 7-14% of the total anthropogenic emissions. The large uncertainty is due to the complex interactions of multiple mechanisms that occur at different time scales such as instantaneous burning, and slower decay of slash residues (3). However, removing trees limits the capacity of the land surface to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide and thereby reduces the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to act as long-term carbon stores. (1) Nepstad et al. Science (2014) 344, 1118-1123, doi: 10.1126/science.1248525 (2) Harris et al. Science (2012) 336, 1573-1576, doi: 10.1126/science.1217962 (3) Ramankutty et al. Global Change Biology (2007) 13, 51–66, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01272.x“Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space.” Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: This is really poorly phrased. If by “warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth” one means something like “infrared radiation emitted by the earth when heated by the sun”, then okay – but that’s a stretch. As it is it makes it sound as if greenhouse gases trap reflected solar radiation… Andy Pitman Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, The University of New South Wales: This statement is simply careless – sun’s rays reflected pass back out – its the suns rays absorbed and then re-emitted that get trapped. Its a basic error that should not exist. “The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas” Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: This is a bit confused, it seems. While melting ice caps (Greenland, Antarctica) and glaciers will lead to sea-level rise, I am unaware of the fact that it would lead to methane release. On the other hand, the “decomposition of frozen organic material” in, e.g., melting frozen soils of high latitudes (permafrost), could lead to carbon dioxide or methane release (depending on the hydrological conditions associated with this melting, i.e. aerobic or anaerobic).“Things are made worse by the loss of tropical forests which would otherwise help to mitigate climate change.” Jean-François Exbrayat Post-doctoral Research Fellow, The University of Edinburgh: Tropical deforestation contributes to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases (see my above comment). Although regrowth and reforestation may partially offset these emissions, deforested areas will remain a long-term net source of greenhouse gases (1) unless complete regrowth is allowed. (1) Exbrayat and Williams. Geophysical Research Letters (2015) 42, 2968–2976, doi: 10.1002/2015GL063497 “Carbon dioxide pollution increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food chain.” Mark Eakin Scientist, Coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: The combination of warming and acidification of the ocean is having tremendous consequences on organisms, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and human societies. A recent summary of impacts of ocean acidification can be found in Turley and Gattuso 2012 A recent review of the combined impacts of ocean warming and acidification on ocean chemistry and physics can be found in Howes et al. 2015 A new review of the combined impacts of ocean warming and acidification on ocean chemistry, physics, ecosystems, and dependent human societies coming out shortly: Gattuso J.-P., et al., in press. Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science.“However, many of these symptoms indicate that such effects will continue to worsen if we continue with current models of production and consumption.” Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: Not only will global warming impacts worsen in the future, but it is worth underscoring that global impacts will likely not scale with global mean temperature change, i.e., the impacts of a 4 deg.C warming will not simply be twice as severe as those of a 2C warming.“Each year sees the disappearance of thousands of plant and animal species which we will never know, which our children will never see, because they have been lost for ever.” Dasvinder Kambo, PhD Candidate, Queen’s University Researchers compared current extinction rates to a conservative background estimation of 2 mammalian extinctions /10,000 species /100 years. Our current rates are 114 times higher than the background rate – highest that it has been since previous large extinction events. “Many of the world’s coral reefs are already barren or in a state of constant decline.” Mark Eakin Scientist, Coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Coral reef decline has been well-documented and is accelerating due to the combination of local impacts and the global impacts of ocean warming and acidification due to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases. Pandolfi et al. (2003)Global Trajectories of the Long-Term Decline of Coral Reef Ecosystems. Science Knowlton (2001)The future of coral reefs. PNAS Hughes et al. (2003)Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs. Science“It is aggravated by the rise in temperature of the oceans.”Mark Eakin Scientist, Coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: We may have reached the point now where climate change has eclipsed the local impacts mentioned in the previous sentence as the greatest, most pervasive threat to coral reefs. See links above.

https://science.feedback.org/review/mashable-andrew-freedman-vanuatu-cyclone-pam-climate-change/

1.5

Mashable, by Andrew Freedman, on 2015-03-16.

"Vanuatu's president makes a leap in tying Cyclone Pam to climate change"

The main reason for the positive evaluation is that the author successfully places Cyclone Pam within the larger context of climate change and its’ effect on tropical cyclones, and does so by effectively calling on several scientists with expertise in this field.See all the scientists’ annotations in contextGUEST COMMENTS: Brian Soden, Professor at the University of Miami All of the scientists quoted in that article are reputable, well-respected experts on the subject. The extent to which there’s a diversity of expert opinions expressed in that article concerning the connection between Pam and anthropogenic global warming accurately reflects the degree of scientific uncertainty on the matter and the various ways in which climate change can influence tropical cyclones. For example, sea level has undoubtedly risen due to anthropogenic activities and this certainly increases the storm surge. Likewise, higher moisture contents in the atmosphere lead to higher rainfall amounts in tropical cyclones. The impact of anthropogenic climate change on TC intensity is less clear, and this is reflected in the comments of those quoted. Greg Holland, Willis Senior Scientist and Leader of Regional Climate Section, National Center for Atmospheric ResearchA growing body of published evidence is pointing towards there being substantially more intense tropical cyclones as a result of climate change. And this is not just in the future. Recent studies by us have indicated a substantial increase in the proportion of Category 4 and 5 cyclones both globally and in individual regions that is strongly related to the global surface temperature increases that have already occurred. For the western South Pacific the proportion of Cat 4-5 cyclones has more than doubled in the last 30 years[1]. Thus, the chances of a Pam occurring have increased substantially because of climate change.REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Jim Kossin Research Scientist, NOAA's Center for Weather and Climate: An insightful and timely article. There are some statements quoted that are not easily supported and may be overstating the direct impacts of climate change on Cyclone Pam, but the overall message is reasonable. Dan Chavas Assistant Professor, Purdue University: Overall it’s a nice, well-written article that hits most of the key points regarding the complex question of how global warming may affect tropical cyclones. The main issue is with the comments quoted from one of the “experts”, Kevin Trenberth, that are misleading. Emmanuel Vincent Founder & Executive Director, Science Feedback: Even though one may ask whether a single storm is caused by or linked to climate change, this is not a question that science can confidently answer (Vice News has an insightful article on this). What can be more confidently stated is that the impacts associated with Tropical Cyclones (notably coastal surge and floods from cyclonic rainfall) are very likely increasing due to anthropogenic climate change. Hamish Ramsay Lecturer, Monash University: The interannual (El Niño) and intraseasonal (Madden-Julian Oscillation) variability present in the South Pacific at the time of Pam likely contributed to its extreme intensity. It is important that we understand the influence of these internal modes on tropical cyclone intensity within the broader context of a long-term warming trend in the Pacific. References: [1] Holland, G.J. and C. Bruyere, 2014: Recent Intense Hurricane Response to Global Climate Change. Clim. Dyn., 42, 617-627. DOI: 10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0. Notes:[1]See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.[2]Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time.

https://science.feedback.org/review/wall-street-journal-bjorn-lomborg-alarming-thing-climate-alarmism/

-1.6

The Wall Street Journal, by Bjorn Lomborg, on 2015-02-01.

"The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism"

The main reason for this negative evaluation is that the author practices cherry-picking: he is selecting limited evidence to support his thesis that “much of the data about climate change are…encouraging”. The evidence provided is insufficient: several examples are either inaccurate or only speak about one aspect of the problem, ignoring much of the published literature on the subject. See all the scientists’ annotations in context GUEST COMMENTS: Gary W. Yohe[1], Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University Bjorn Lomborg’s op-ed refers to the recent plateau in global mean temperature, but he ignores that the last fifteen years have been very warm; most of the warmest years on record occurred in the past 15. This is a very old argument, that “cherry-picks” data without providing historical context. I am “not a climate scientist, but I know many very good scientists”, so I will not speak more to the science behind that. I will, though, speak to the detected and attributed examples of the observed and anticipated increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and the message that Bjorn sends for those whose job is to protect people and natural systems. These events are the fingerprints of the manifestation of a changing climate that has been reported for decades. It is possible to pick one, like droughts, where attribution is difficult because we have so little data. Or others, like hurricanes, where alternative explanations need some more work. It is, though, irresponsible to ignore the preponderance of evidence on floods, extreme precipitation events (and if it is winter, these are snow storms), wildfires, etc. These were anticipated to occur as the climate changes. They have occurred around the world (U.S., Russia, Indonesia, Japan, Argentina, etc..), and they are getting worse and more frequent[2]. Bjorn does speak to impacts on humans with his natural disaster discussion, but he ignores the value of adaptations that communities have undertaken over the past decade or so to reduce risk –successful adaptations based on local social, political and economic context that allow people to survive. Ignoring these activities allows Bjorn to suggest that the climate problem is minimal. That is to say, the reductions in deaths that he reports can be attributed largely to reactions undertaken by communities and societies because they had recognized the “dark tails” of what the future might hold[3]. The message of this opinion piece, if believed, would eliminate the value of responses based on risk –and cost lives and billions of dollars in damage[4] that will then be attributed to a gross misinterpretation of the recent history. Bjorn is a fan of cost-benefit analysis with high discount rates and a single metric, and it is from that perspective that he derives his repetition of the same message. The world has moved on, and the WSJ should know better. Their readers understand risk management; why do not the editors insist that their opinion writers do the same? REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK: These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article. Kyle Armour Assistant Professor, University of Washington: The article contains numerous scientific errors, does not provide references for some of its key claims, and ignores much of the published literature on the subjects discussed. It appears that many details have been cherry-picked or misconstrued in service of making a political point. Alexis Berg Research Associate, Harvard University: The author tries to rebut the narrative “that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse”. In doing so, he erects a straw-man, cherry-picks studies and misrepresents current climate science. Furthermore, the logic that since things are not ‘worst-than-we-thought’, we shouldn’t take action and do the things we would do if things were simply ‘bad’, is lost on me… Emmanuel M Vincent Research Scientist, University of California, Merced: The article is imprecise, for instance, about who the “doomsayers” and the “alarmists” are: since the core of the argumentation is about them, a definition of who they are and what they argue exactly cannot be avoided. It is also vague in its conclusion: “we need balance”, here again what exactly is meant by balance should be made clearer. John Dwyer Postdoctoral research fellow, MIT: Tries and fails to make a convincing case for why humans need to worry about climate change less than they currently do. Britta Voss Postdoctoral Research fellow, U.S. Geological Survey: Although this author appears to have read parts of the IPCC report and carefully selected the facts which support his narrative, he presents information in a very misleading way, and some of his statements (e.g. “despite endless successions of climate summits, carbon emissions continue to rise”) do not support his thesis that action on climate change is alarmist and unnecessary. His conclusion that “climate change is not worse than we thought. Some indicators are worse, but some are better” suggests a false equivalency between the indicators that are “worse” and those that are “better”. Dan Chavas Assistant Professor, Purdue University: The author on multiple occasions presents blatantly inaccurate information and otherwise uses selective information to argue his point, which is highly misleading. References: [1] Gary Yohe is also – Senior member of the IPCC since the 1990’s; – Member of assorted National Academy of Sciences panels including America’s Climate Choices; and – Vice Chair of the National Climate Assessment Development and Advisory Committee (for the United States) [2]Chapter 18 of the WGII IPCC AR5 report on “Detection and Attribution” of Climate Change impacts [3] Adaptation sections in the regional chapters of IPCC AR5 [4] see e.g. theglobalchange.gov report on Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Notes:[1]See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.[2]Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time.