Skip to main content

More ammo for the climate sceptics

The hottest year on record? We don't know
Scientists have to be precise. It is their downfall when they try to communicate. The media don't want precision, 'if's and 'but's and error bars. They want black and white 'facts'. It's not a trivial problem. If, as a scientist, you over-simplify then you are in danger of getting a twisted message across (and losing the respect of your peers). If, on the other hand, you apply normal scientific caution people switch off and your political opponents rip you to pieces.

This is a problem that climate scientists face all the time. Every time they revise something or hedge their statements with probabilities, or admit there are competing theories, those with a vested interest in playing down climate change wade in and give it to them with all guns blazing. And it wouldn't surprise me if this happens again with the recent announcement that they've changed their mind about what was the warmest year on record. 'If they can't even decide this,' the professional sceptics will crow, 'how can they possibly say what the climate will be like in 50 years time?'

The trouble is, deciding on the warmest year is not a trivial task. It is all very well to ask how the average temperature on the Earth is varying – but how do you find out the average temperature of such a huge body, with such varied weather at any one time? It isn’t actually possible to calculate a meaningful average for the whole world. Apart from anything else, there isn’t a good enough spread of weather stations evenly across the Earth’s surface to achieve this.

Instead, what they do is make use of 'temperature anomalies.' These compare the average temperature for the required year against long term averages using the same weather stations. That way you get a like-for-like comparison and can understand the way temperature is changing without knowing the 'real' average temperature across the world.

The trouble with this approach, producing those disputes over what is the hottest year since records began, is that the chosen year will vary depending on the spread of years you use for your long term average. Hence the fact we used to think the hottest year on record was 1998, but now it is 2010. So when the anti-climate change brigade leap on this, bear in mind it isn't a mistake, it's merely refining the data. It doesn't actually matter how you cut it - the different averaging processes all say that the decade up to 2010 was the hottest since records began. But it's fairly easy to fiddle around with the specific hottest year.

Not error, just the true scientific process. As I've said many times before, science isn't about 'true and unchanging facts' - dogma should be for religion, not science - it is about our best understanding given the data we have at the moment and will always be provisional and open to change in the future.


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense