October 2011 Archives

Does climate change get more news coverage in warmer years?

Today I find myself in an inquisitive mood.  A frigid and persistent winter wind has arrived early, chilling the walls of my island hovel, and forcing me to retreat to the couch with a blanket and a cup of coffee to ponder the whims of the weather.

An autumn snowstorm is chugging across the northeast US now.  It brings to mind the anomalously cold events that have occurred in the US in the past couple of years, like the frosts in Florida.  This, in turn, brings to mind the cacophony of recent news coverage questioning the reality of climate change.  "Has Global Warming Stopped?"  "If climate change is happening, why is the earth getting colder?"  Is curbing greenhouse gas emissions "Treason"?  I've often wondered, as I am wondering today: do changes in the weather effect the news coverage of climate change?

I am not a scholar of human nature.  Still, questions like the one I've posed in the title seem important to climate science.  Changes in climate and changes in weather are two very different processes that can be very weakly coupled in nature (depending on time scales).  It takes many decades for  the lumbering machinery of the climate to shift to another state.  Weather, on the other hand, changes quite rapidly.  I have lived in three different countries that boast the catch phrase, "If you don't like the weather, just wait five minutes!"  Yet these two processes--weather change and climate change--can be very strongly coupled within the human mind.  The confusion between weather and climate runs deep.  

We often rely on news media for information on topics where we have no expertise.  So I wonder: does the weather effect news coverage of the climate?

I'm not equipped to fully answer the question I've posed, but there is enough data freely available to at least begin to form an answer.  I have put together a simple analysis to get at this question, using two time series.  The first is the global mean surface air temperature change (provided by NASA).  The second is an index of news coverage on the topic of climate change.  This index is essentially the proportion of news articles in the US containing the term "climate change" (provided by the NewsLibrary.com database).  Available news data begins in 1977, so that's where my time series start.

In figure (1), I have plotted the temperature change (top) and the climate change news index (middle).  At a first glance, there might appear to be a strong correlation between the two (shown at the bottom).  However, this strong correlation only says that there has been an increasing trend in both series.  It says that temperatures have gone up over the past 33 years, and so has news coverage of climate change.  Nothing surprising.

Figure 1.

'd like to know, however, if there is a correlation on a finer time scale.  In other words, if there is a stand-out warm or cold year, is there any effect on the news coverage?  One (of many) ways to test for this is to subtract the increasing trend out of the data and plot the residuals.  When you do this, you get the flatter time series, shown in figure (2).

Figure 2.

There is no significant correlation between these two time series.  Yet if you look at them with a keen eye, you'll notice that they track each other fairly well until the year 2000, at which point they diverge.  Breaking the time series up by decade tells an intriguing story.  Figure (3) shows the correlations by decade--positive through 2000, then negative after 2000, and in all cases, statistically significant.

Figure 3.

To put it into words, something changed in 2000.  Before the turn of the millennium, warm years (i.e. warmer than the increasing trend) were associated with more news coverage of climate change.  Cold years (again, cold relative to the increasing trend) were associated with less news coverage of climate change.  

To me, this suggests that warm years were nagging reminders that this climate problem might be serious.  Hence the news coverage.  Have you ever been in a t-shirt on an eerily warm March day and heard someone remark sagely, "It must be global warming"?  Warm spells are not unique to the past 20 years, and an odd weather event is not evidence of climate change.  Yet they seem to remind many people of the climate change threat.  (You would be wiser to listen to your grandfather, as he mumbles, "Why, when I was your age, we had to dig potatoes in summer, because the first snowfall usually came in late September, by cracky.")

What happened in 2000 is even more compelling.  Suddenly it was cold years that drew the news coverage.  Why would climate change make headlines in cold weather?  I would hypothesize that this phenomenon is connected with the surge in climate change skepticism over the past decade.  Cold years are fodder for this sentiment in the same way that warm were for the opposite view.  I.e., "A snow storm in May?  So much for climate change."

Mind you, this is only my hypothesis.  We would need a deeper probing into the data to truly confirm or refute it.  We would want to examine, for example, the context in which the phrase "climate change" appeared.  Still, the evidence is compelling.  It would be alarming enough to learn that our perceptions of climate change are driven by fluctuations in the weather, rather than sound climate research.  It borders on disturbing that fluctuations in weather now seem to be driving a false perception.

On the other hand, it is possible that the increase in hurricanes, and the icy wind outside my door, are due to an angry Poseidon.

-Nick Record, signing off

Salmon Summit


Carrie Byron and I, both postdocs here in the ecosystem modeling lab, just returned from the "Salmon Summit" in La Rochelle, France.  Despite the grandiose name assigned to this conference, it was actually a small symposium that brought together about 130 scientists and managers working on Atlantic salmon from across North America and Europe (as well as a few West Coast folks with stories to relate based on their Pacific salmon work).  The core intent of this meeting was to learn about recent research related to Atlantic salmon while they are at sea--a life stage that received remarkably little attention for this species until major declines in returns were observed for salmon runs across their range in the mid-1990s.  The spatial extent and coherent timing of these declines indicated that something must be happening to salmon while they were at sea, and new studies and surveys were designed to understand the major contributing factors.  Most of this work has been done since 2008, when the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization funded new surveys and analyses addressing a variety of factors affecting Atlantic salmon while they are migrating and feeding in the ocean.


PFA graph.jpg

Graph of declines in the pre-fishery abundance of Atlantic salmon across six sub-regions of North America. 

Given the recent nature of most efforts to understand factors affecting salmon in the marine realm, there weren't definitive answers at this meeting about what caused the mid-1990s downturn.  But there were a lot of studies investigating key hypotheses and demonstrating that Atlantic salmon growth and survival are affected by environmental variability, predator and prey community shifts, and long-term climate change.  In addition, many of the studies advanced our understanding of the basic ecology of Atlantic salmon--honing knowledge of where these fish might feed, what they eat during different portions of their migration, how stocks are genetically structured, and how they interact with other fisheries.

While the meeting showcased some important advances in understanding the marine life of Atlantic salmon, it also revealed some valuable opportunities for future work.  Building collaborations across disciplines would further enhance our understanding of Atlantic salmon ecology.  For example, genetic tools that have proven able to assign salmon to specific populations or regions of origin could be applied to samples collected from fish when they are present as a mixed stock at Greenland so that ecological investigations could account for the life history and migratory distinctions between stocks before they encounter these feeding grounds or the commercial fishery.  In addition, the potential value of regional syntheses and comparative cross-regional studies became apparent, as different types of work have been emphasized in different locations.  Synthesizing information from these studies would provide a clearer picture of what we know broadly and locally about Atlantic salmon marine ecology, and it would pave the way for structuring comparative studies on a variety of topics.

It is an exciting time to be a marine ecologist studying Atlantic salmon.  I view Atlantic salmon as an integrator of effects from a variety of physical, biological, and anthropogenic factors that they may encounter between their home rivers and the northern Atlantic.  The "Salmon Summit" reinforced the idea that salmon are indeed affected by many independent factors, but there is still much work to be done to understand the relative importance of these factors and how they jointly influence population dynamics of Atlantic salmon.  Teasing apart these relationships further may lead to predictive models that will enable managers to adjust fishing regulations and recovery expectations for Atlantic salmon based on ecosystem conditions.  


Here we are outside the conference venue, the beautiful aquarium in La Rochelle.

Dead whales are beautiful!

| No Comments
Last year, we spent a certain amount of time and energy blogging about dead whales.  The Seascape crew's big contribution to our knowledge of dead whales was to calculate the carbon transferred from the atmosphere (or at least the surface ocean) to the deep sea in the carcasses of sinking whales.  Craig Smith from Scripps has been studying "whale falls" for many years, and his work describing the special communities of organisms that have evolved to exploit dead whales inspired me to think about dead whales.  The pictures from his work always rank high on the disgust-o-meter.  That's why I was so excited when a friend sent me this video:
The video was developed for the Radiolab.  You can see the original video here, and there is also a link to the podcast, which features Dr. Smith, that inspired the animation.  I'll be listening to the podcast on my next drive to Orono.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from October 2011 listed from newest to oldest.

September 2011 is the previous archive.

November 2011 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.