the climate brief Accurate Reporting of Climate Science

Mayor of London Boris Johnson bemused the world in the run up to the Olympics with a patriotic  speech about table tennis's purported ancestor 'whiff-whaff', an ancient game built around the idea of a good back and forth. 

Johnson's conception of climate science also seems to be based around the idea of a good back and forth - between scientists and skeptics. He gave his latest thoughts on the subject for   Telegraph readers today, as from his window in snowy Islington, he muses on the subject of snowy winters. He turns to the theories of climate skeptic meteorologist, Piers Corbyn, who believes that far from warming, the globe might be heading for a "mini ice age".

Read more

NASA Goddard Institute 

On Tuesday, NASA released its latest annual analysis of global temperatures - which shows 2012 was the ninth warmest year since records began in 1880. But does one year's temperature data tell us anything about climate change? We asked some scientists for their thoughts.

2012 in context

In a report accompanying the data,  Dr James Hansen, chief scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), says:

"Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average...2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year [since 1880]."

It might be tempting to focus on this fact, but it's not that simple. As Dr Richard Allan, climate scientist at the University of Reading told Carbon Brief, looking at temperature data for a single year is not very informative.

"The fact that 2012 was the ninth warmest year on record does not tell us much about climate change. Global temperatures fluctuate naturally from year to year by as much as half a degree Celsius."

Or as  Dr Gavin Schmidt, climate scientist at NASA GISS told us:

"That 2012 is fifth, ninth, or twenty-seventh is not really the point. Instead, it is the fact that the long term trends and the decade-on-decade differences are all up (as has been predicted for decades)."

Read more

Accusations of scientific misconduct flowed from skeptics and some news outlets last week after the Met Office revised downwards its  decadal prediction of global temperature rise up to 2017. Although the Met Office has explained why this change to their short-term forecast doesn't affect their view of the likely long-term warming trend, this didn't stop the Mail on Sunday resurrecting one of its  favourite arguments - that global warming has "stopped".

This is not a new claim. In the article on Sunday, climate skeptic journalist David Rose claimed the Met Office's new decadal forecast proves global warming "stopped" 16 years ago - contrary to the Met Office itself. This is a claim he's been making for well over a year - he dismissed the wave of rebuttals that followed initial claims about the Met Office's new data as the "Stalinist way the Green Establishment tries to stifle dissent".

Well, the argument that a slowdown in temperature rise in recent years shows global warming has "stopped" certainly isn't new - and has been extensively picked apart, discussed, rebutted and critiqued many, many times online. Here, for your amusement, are a selection of responses.

Natural climate fluctuations can slow temperature rise

Climate skeptics often claim that scientists ignore the effect of natural changes on the climate - this is the "The climate has always changed!" argument.

However, the scientific literature is full of discussion of natural fluctuations in the climate - and scientists believe it's such natural processes which are currently masking the full extent of human-induced warming - making global temperature rise slower. On Tuesday last week, the Met Office said in a  statement:

"Small year to year fluctuations such as those that we are seeing in the shorter term five year predictions are expected due to natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long term warming."

Read more

The BBC Trust has commended the corporation for making "significant progress" in improving coverage of scientific issues including climate change. We examine the trust's claim that a key recommendation not to give equal weight to evidence and opinion is now "already a factor" in planning its output. 

Yesterday's BBC Trust report follows a review of the corporation's science coverage published just over two years ago. That review, written by Professor Steve Jones of University College London, contained a section on climate change suggesting that the BBC's coverage of the issue is a "microcosm of false balance" - where fringe scientific views are given equal weight to mainstream scientific opinion.

In particular, Jones highlighted examples from BBC reporting giving the impression that there are "two equally valid points of view that must be sorted out" over whether climate change is happening - despite the scientific evidence being, as he put it, "overwhelming". 

Jones proposed that in reporting science the BBC needs to achieve "due weight" or "due impartiality" in its reporting. This means conveying to audiences where the weight of scientific opinion lies, while retaining space for discussing scientific disagreement.

'Significant progress'

The BBC Trust said yesterday:

"The Trust commends the Executive for the significant progress which has made since publication of the Review in 2011. It is apparent that the Review has had an impact on output and is likely to continue to do so."

It highlights a series of steps the corporation has taken to that end. These include the appointment of new Science Editor David Shukman, the creation of something called the 'pan-BBC Science Forum', which has strategic oversight of science coverage, and a science training programme for editors. 

Read more

Melting permafrost in the Arctic could push the earth towards climate change that is "irreversible on human timescales", according to a new report released yesterday. Here's our quick guide to what you should know about melting permafrost.

The report, by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), says billions of tonnes of carbon once locked up in permafrost could be released into the atmosphere this century - accelerating global warming. But how much might be released, and how quickly? These questions are still being debated in the scientific community, which means that it's sometimes hard for media coverage to strike the right balance when discussing how significant the effect could be.

1. What is permafrost?

Permafrost is the name given to permanently-frozen ground in high latitudes. Permafrost acts like a lid, locking frozen carbon deposits deep below ground. The upper layer of permafrost thaws and re-freezes naturally each year. As the carbon thaws, microbes degrade it - a process that releases carbon dioxide and methane.

As atmospheric temperatures rise - due mainly to  human activity  - heat penetrates deeper into the ground than before. This leads to more permafrost thawing, and more carbon being released to the atmosphere.

2. What does that have to do with climate change?

Scientists are concerned that carbon dioxide and methane released into the atmosphere from permafrost will mean more global warming. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas - around 25 times  more effective at trapping heat  than carbon dioxide over a 100-year cycle. 

What's more, this additional warming can create a vicious circle. Extra warming thaws more permafrost, leading to further warming - and so on. Scientists call a self-reinforcing warming cycle like this a positive feedback.

Read more

Could laptop models help negotiators imagine the impacts of climate change? How could emissions accounting be improved to include land use? With the UN's COP18 international climate talks starting today, we look at some recent developments in science and political research that can play a part in helping countries cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

Upper limits

Climate scientists' predictions go to the heart of the UNFCCC process. Scientists first suggested in 2007 that to avoid serious climate change, global mean temperature rise should not exceed two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. But as three different reports out last week highlight, this target looks increasingly unrealistic.

According to the World Meteorological Office (WMO), carbon dioxide has continued to rise at a fairly constant rate  for the past decade, reaching a record high this year along with methane and nitrous oxide - two other important greenhouse gases.

The United Nations Environment Programme has said the "emissions gap" - the difference between government pledges to reduce emissions and what is needed to stabilise global temperature rise at two degrees - is widening.  And according to the World Bank, without further action, the world is likely to warm by more than three degrees.

Read more

Photo: Dirk Ingo Franke

With open warfare in the government over onshore wind, will politics or hard evidence dominate UK energy reforms? So begins a segment which provided a brisk run-through of the arguments for and against onshore wind subsidies and expansion in the UK on Newsnight last night. Here's our rundown of the main arguments.

Reporter Susan Watts lays out the problem: onshore wind power is one of the more mature forms of renewable energy, but the coalition government is currently split over the role it has to play in the UK's future energy mix.
 
Onshore wind is cheaper than other low carbon energy sources

Head of trade body RenewableUK, Maria McCaffery, appears early on to argue that the cost of onshore wind is coming down. This, she suggests, is why this year that the government reduced the subsidies the technology receives by 10 per cent.

Dr Rob Gross from Imperial College makes a similar point, arguing that without onshore wind - which compared to other renewable sources of power is relatively cheap - it would be more difficult and expensive to reach the UK's renewable targets. Gross and a team presented evidence to the Energy and Climate Change select committee on the cost of wind this year.

Read more

As millions of people on the US east coast remain without power in the wake of hurricane Sandy, the media are still speculating over how far the storm can be linked to climate change. With a complicated range of factors affecting hurricane activity, we asked climate scientists how satisfied they are that the media got it right this time?

Measured media

Hurricane Sandy tore through the Caribbean and the US east coast last week, killing 160 people and causing $20 billion worth of damage. As the Guardian points out, Sandy has forced climate change further up the political and media agenda. Emilee Pierce from US media fact-checking website, Media Matters, told us:

"In the days leading up to landfall in the U.S...very few in the press mentioned the words 'climate change.' But once it hit New York and DC...the connections started coming -- from journalists and politicians alike."

Read more

Daily Politics Show - BBC2 - 12pm - 1st November 2012

Following two front page articles yesterday in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph reporting energy minister John Hayes's comments about wind farms - see here for more - the BBC's Daily Politics show today had green MP Caroline Lucas, climate skeptic blogger and anti-windfarm campaigner James Delingpole and former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone on to discuss the issue. 

Here's a transcript - it should be accurate, but check against delivery here when it goes up.

Read more

Poll results are a boon to journalists - especially if you've commissioned the poll. You have an instant story giving the public's answer to a question you want to ask. So why has the Sunday Times failed for the third time to report the results of its most recent polling questions on the UK energy mix - and what would it take for that to change?

Support for renewables

The Sunday Times's most recent YouGov poll, conducted last Thursday and Friday, indicates that the majority of the UK public wants an increase in wind and solar energy capacity - 55 per cent and 72 per cent respectively - in the UK, and less oil and coal-fired generation. 45 per cent wanted to see oil powered stations deployed less and 43 per cent wanted less coal. Attitudes to gas were more mixed: 36 per cent - the largest group - want to see less gas-powered generation.

The public also appears to favour an increase in the UK's nuclear capacity and seems divided over whether or not the government should support new shale gas exploitation. 32 per cent said the government should go ahead with shale gas, compared to 30 per cent who said it shouldn't. 38 per cent said they don't know.

The results chime with the Guardian's latest UK-wide survey, conducted by polling company ICM. Asked to choose between having a wind turbine or a shale gas well near their home, 67 per cent of respondents favoured a turbine over 11 per cent who support the gas development. Overall, 49 per cent of people said they would support a wind turbine being erected within two miles of their home, with 22 per cent against.

Read more