On trusting scientists

29 Jan 2007

Got questions about the environment? Ask Umbra.

Hi Umbra,

We've had some bizarre weather in New England, and more and more people are wondering if it's due to global warming. On NBC News, they had a 30-year veteran of NOAA state flatly that it's not global warming, it's El Niño. As a greenie/leftie I got angry, thinking here goes the MSM denying reality again. Isn't the fact that we are seeing the effects of yet another El Niño indicative of a warming trend? Aren't the weeks of abnormally mild weather more ominous than the cyclical effects of El Niño? Is it acceptable for an NOAA scientist to categorically deny or rule out global warming as a factor?

Thanks,
Warm and Worried in Connecticut

Ask Umbra continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

Dearest WAW,

I have to admit, MSM took me a second -- you mean the purported mainstream media, of course. But at first I thought it was a new television network I'd missed thanks to my sheltered existence.

He angered me with science.

Photo: iStockphoto

Remember, I'm an advice columnist, not a scientist, so all I can do is give you a few pieces of conservative advice about Science. In sum: you should probably believe a 30-year veteran of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration before believing anything I or other non-scientists might try to mash together -- we amateurs are but wee pixels in the weather map of life.

These scientist people are very thorough. You know the whole idea of the scientific method: you have a question, then you make a hypothesis, then you do a ton of research to see whether your hypothesis holds up. Either your hypothesis is supported by your research, or it is not. If not, you start again. If so, you start again anyway to make sure -- and you also send all your previous research off to other, very picky and respected scientists who look at your conclusions quite critically and place them within the context of previous conclusions. Then, maybe, your work is published and the relevant scientific community responds with yet more support and criticism, which you fold into your ongoing research.

In general, a scientist is not a person who states neat notions that strike him or her as fact, or a person who says what other people want to hear, or a person -- most centrally -- who will state an unproven hypothesis as fact. Most are not that way by personality or training, nor would they survive long in their career if they were. They tend to love science because of the unanswered questions, even though we laypersons think of science as a bunch of answers to questions. Just try to pin a scientist down about conclusions from their research. It's like trying to eat a live cat. I think.

There can, of course, be exceptions when politics and money enter the scene. Scientists from some federal agencies, including NOAA, have said recently that they have been instructed to delicately circumvent the topic of climate change in their public speaking. And we know that ExxonMobil has invested in some misinformation of its own over the years. So your worries aren't entirely misplaced. However, I think enough scientists and others have gotten outraged over this state of affairs that, were your NOAA guy spouting hooey, they would call him on it. Non-scientist that I am, I think he was probably relating good, solid information on the weather. Do I know that? Am I sure? Have I read all the relevant peer-reviewed journals? No, but presumably he has, and his job likely rests on his reputation.

El Niño by himself has quite an impact -- both the weather system and the Christ child. But from what you report, the NOAA man didn't say global warming would not affect El Niño, nor -- and this is important -- did he say global warming was no big deal. Let me hook you up with the NOAA explanation on the link between climate change and El Niño. And here is some general reading about El Niño from the University of Washington.

Don't worry: you can still get angry about climate change and do something (drive less), even if the immediate weather is attributed to El Niño.

ENSOly,
Umbra

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!

The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine. Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Comments: (9 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

global warming

One of my pet peeves is when people refer to warmer days as evidence of Global Warming. Global Warming refers to change in climate, which is not something that you will notice because there are is a week or two of warm weather, especially since the average temperature is only projected to increase somewhere between 5 and 12 degrees by 2100.

You don't notice global warming because it is warmer outside.

A potential effect of global warming that you could notice is increased variability in the weather, which could explain why it changes between hot and cold so quickly, and why the climate is less variable.

by amdoyne at 10:54 AM on 29 Jan 2007

GLobal Warming

To add to this comment, can one trust scientists? Yes there are scientists that have an agenda and they may pick either side of the argument (yes there is global warming, no there is not global warming). I personally hate the term global warming, I prefer climate change. There well be part of the earth that can get colder. there well be areas that will get dryer or wetter, etc. Scientists a hundred years from now can look at todays weather and determine if it was part of a 'global warming' trend or an el nino trend or part of the 23 million year temperature cycle, etc.

In the case of the NOAA scientist, I believe that he is right. Of course I will never know if he is right or wrong because I will be dead long before the hundred years are up.

by greyowl at 11:26 AM on 29 Jan 2007

the scientific method

Umbra did a very eloquent job of describing the scientific method. If you are interested in how science works as an institution, you should read the classic book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.

by WhisperCat at 11:36 AM on 29 Jan 2007

science and global warming

Umbra - Thanks for the discussion of the scientific process. It seems a good portion of the general public does not understand the rigor of science; progress in the field relies acutely on peer review. An idea won't make it far unless it: a) has substantial quantitative support and b) is supported by independent efforts by other scientists. However, a confused understanding of science is perpetuated by the mainstream media, which thrives on generating the illusion of controversy (e.g. both sides of a scientific issue are given equal weight even if 99% of scientists accept a theory and the 1% of dissenters are not even trained in the relevant field).
As for the NOAA scientist, depending on what he said precisely, it is more correct to attribute this season's weather patterns to El Nino. Climate change is a broader-scale trend that really cannot be invoked to explain single weather events. However, scientists have predicted that climate change is/will be characterized by more frequent, more intense ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) cycles. That said, it would be disingenuous to disallow that climate change is related to ENSO events given results of current research. For those interested, realclimate.org is a site run by climate scientists aimed at disseminating climate science, not politics, to the general public. That is more than NOAA can do under the current administration.

by antgirl at 12:13 PM on 29 Jan 2007

Weather Change Good For Pollution

The good thing about Global Heating is that will put more fresh water into our environment. This will make all today's pollution seem trivial.

The only way that 9 billion people can inhabit the Earth is for all those glaciers to melt, and vast new arable land become available.

We should all buy bigger cars or just let the lawnmower run overnight to increase CO2.

Luckily, it has nothing to do with us...yet we will benefit.

by jabailo at 2:10 PM on 29 Jan 2007

disagree in CT

Having seen the report in question (NBC News) I have to respectfully disagree with Umbra and the NOAA rep as I do not believe what the NOAA scientist said was scientifically accurate. NBC actually did a follow up piece on this which contradicted their earlier story and did not rule out the role of global warming. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16531081/

The problem ...

NOAA's website doesn't rule out a link (and their leadership has been very reluctant to even acknowledge the debate over global warming and El Nino/hurricaine strength)

"What is the relationship between El Niño/La Niña and global warming? The jury is still out on this. Are we likely to see more El Niño's because of global warming? Will they be more intense? These are questions facing the science community today. Research will help us separate the natural climate variability from any trends due to man's activities. If we cannot sort out what the natural variability does, then we cannot identify the "fingerprint" of global warming. We also need to look at the link between decadal changes in natural variability and global warming. At this time we cannot preclude the possibility of links but it is too early to say thereis a definite link."
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring...

by rsmith02 at 3:58 PM on 29 Jan 2007

Knee-jerk Lefties and Greenies

"As a greenie/leftie I got angry,"

Why are statements like this tolerated? Comments such as this one are upsetting, and I thank Umbra for setting WAW straight. Far, far too often, liberals that I interact with have nothing more sophisticated than knee-jerk reactions to current events and modern issues. Again and again, I hear Bush, Rupublicans, business, etc. are bad - end of story - while anything anti-Bush, Democratic, or "green" is praised and there is no actual consideration of the facts or background story. Debate is a necessity of our civil society and those who vociferously jump to conclusions without being informed interfere with rational decision making. Ignorant, extremist rhetoric on the left is no more palatable than it is on the right.

So, rather than whining about imagined right-wing conspiracies in the media, educate yourself about the issues so you don't waste your time on non-starters and are ready to speak up when your knowledgable voice is really necessary. And leave the science to the scientists.

Tim Bartholomaus

Boulder, CO

by timcb at 7:10 PM on 29 Jan 2007

It's a scientifically inaccurate statement though

That el nino may be causing warmer temperatures here is pretty accurate, but to say global warming isn't causing them?
There's no proof it isn't. The warmer temperatures don't prove global warming, but nobody has proven they are not caused in some way by it. To say there is no evidence they are caused by global warming, or that they've seen no evidence they are caused by it, is one thing - but to rule it out as a cause can't be done conclusively.

by banana republican at 7:16 AM on 30 Jan 2007

'Warm & Worried' may be on to something

Hi Umbra -- I love your witty columns. Thanks for sharing links to the NOAA's official information about El Niño, and thanks also for trying to find a ray of sunshine in the scary news that you pontificate on. Still, I can't help but think that the following page from NOAA looks like it's slightly more blue (cold) toward the top (50 years ago) and a little more red (warm) toward the bottom (present times):

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring...

As such, I have a hunch that Warm & Worried in Connecticut may be correct in thinking that the NOAA scientist didn't say as much as he could have. This is no fault of the scientist, who was respecting the scientific method even if this meant also toeing the government's party line. But from a layman's point of view, it seems that Katrina was 2005's evidence of climate change, and the warm December was 2006's evidence. I predict that 2007's evidence will simply be another hot summer.

by mduruss at 9:21 PM on 31 Jan 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Whereof They Speak