Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 11:50 AM ET, 08/ 7/2008

Freedman: Achenbach Off on Weather & Warming

By Andrew Freedman

On Sunday, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece on climate change by Joel Achenbach, a Post reporter and fellow blogger. While he made several good points about the perils of attributing individual extreme weather events to long-term climate change, Achenbach unfortunately left the mistaken impression that somehow climate and weather are two distinct realms. In fact, they are intricately related.

"Somewhere along the line, global warming became the explanation for everything," Achenbach wrote, lamenting that this has taken attention away from other more certain (in his view) environmental problems. This is not a novel criticism, by the way, since it's been aired by everyone from Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg on down to my barber. Achenbach decries the sensationalist media coverage that climate change often receives in the popular press.

Keep reading for more on the connection between weather events and climate change. For local weather, see our full forecast into early next week, SkinsCast for Saturday's preseason Redskins home opener, and our Virgin Mobile Festival forecast.

But while Achenbach criticizes other reporters for conclusively tying a single extreme weather event to global climate change, he instead commits the opposite error by making it seem like scientists cannot make any meaningful connections between trends in weather events and climate change in general. He underplays the links between extreme weather and climate change to such an extent that he may cause as much confusion among the public as when reporters hype up the issue.

"Seems to me that it's inherently impossible to prove a causal connection between climate and weather -- they're just two different things," Achenbach wrote. This point is accurate in the sense that the climate does not cause individual weather events, but it clouds the issue at hand.

Climate is the average of weather, which means that climate trends reflect weather trends. As the climate warms it increases the likelihood of certain weather events, such as bouts of extreme precipitation or temperature. According to the work of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, journalists are on solid scientific ground when they bring up climate change in the context of extreme weather events.

But for Achenbach, the lack of conclusive causal connections between a single weather event and climate change means that journalists and activists should focus instead on other environmental concerns, and base their climate change worries on other aspects of the voluminous scientific literature on the subject.

"This caused that: It would be nice if climate and weather were that simple," he wrote [his emphasis]. Here Achenbach neglects to make an important point, which is that when the average of a dataset changes, that means some of the individual data points have shifted. Since climate is the average of weather, this means that climate change is also about weather change. And scientists have said that weather extremes may shift noticeably in response to warming from human emissions of greenhouse gases.

I've previously compared the role that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, play in day-to-day weather to the role that steroids may have played in boosting baseball slugger Barry Bonds' home run record. Steroids increase the odds of hitting home runs but don't cause an individual shot over the left field wall. Similarly, greenhouse gases can't be blamed for causing a particular extreme weather event, but over time they can compound the likelihood of more such events.

Achenbach would have done a greater service to the Post's readers had he gone on to explain what the relationship between climate change and weather extremes actually is, rather than what it isn't. Instead he missed the opportunity, and seemed content to state that climate doesn't cause weather and move on to other topics ranging from population growth to economics.

As a result, the piece didn't fully reflect the scientific understanding of where weather extremes fit into the long-term climate change picture.

Two prominent bloggers in the climate change arena also had strong, but very different, reactions to Achenbach's piece. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado praised the story for its "nuanced" approach, while Joe Romm of Climate Progress came out swinging at Achenbach, calling his piece, "a typically uninformed journalistic 'backlash' piece, whereby a reporter creates a straw man and then sets it on fire."

In the end, perhaps Achenbach is doing something right if he is generating such strong reactions?

By Andrew Freedman  | August 7, 2008; 11:50 AM ET
Categories:  Climate Change, Freedman  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Forecast: Cooler, Less Humid Through Weekend
Next: CommuteCast: A Few Storms Possible


Posted by: Mr. Q. | August 7, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Q -- migrated all their blogs to a new server yesterday, and it seems some comments made it over and some didn't. We're checking to see what the status is and if all comments will be restored.

Posted by: Capital Weather Gang | August 7, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Thank you.

Posted by: Mr. Q. | August 7, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Achenbach is frequently an entertaining writer, but on climate he is neither a Freedman nor a Friedman.

Posted by: CapitalClimate | August 7, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Where was man, SUVs and industrial CO2 during the previous and many global warming periods...some warmer than this one is predicted to be? The weather in DC was missed dramatically this week by the prognosticators. Should we spend trillions and redistribute wealth on a massive scale based on models hundreds and thousands of years in the future when 3 days can be perilous? Seems that's always the answer isn't it? Heeeey wait just a minute. I see what's going on here!

Posted by: Soo weather and climate have never changed | August 7, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Andrew, I was hoping you'd respond to Achenbach's piece...thanks!

Posted by: ~sg | August 7, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Andrew, no offense (and don't take this personally), but do you ever post anything that is not either involved with, or pushing, the subject of "global warming"? If so, I haven't seen one for months. Please correct me if this is not the case.

And, BTW, just for the record, I happen to agree with Joel. We don't know what the relationship between extreme weather events and climate change IS, but we DO know what it ISN' that sense, Joel is correct.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Mike, my beat for Capital Weather Gang is climate change, along with the occasional weather-related post. So no, I have not written about subjects other than climate in a while. I'm always receptive to suggestions for future pieces, btw.

Posted by: Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang | August 7, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Joel's diatribe on warming is unlike anything of his I ever remember reading. He dresses down straw men, accusing them of exaggerated absolutes, which is to say, accusing them of doing what he's doing in his essay. His dismissive tone is stunning in it's lack charity, normally his salient characteristic.

As Andrew points out, the view Joel pushes on climate change is hardly unique, being, at least until recently, a common conservative view. It's very unlike Joel to insist rather than to explain. The latter, of course is what Andrew, himself, takes care to do.

I wouldn't presume to say Joel should stick to humor, which he says is harder for him to write. Still, I can't help lamenting the most reliable vehicle for his genius and true self has gone missing from this essay.

Posted by: jhbyer | August 7, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that some people feel the need to describe a dissenting view as a "diatribe"? It is as if it isn't enough to say that you disagree with it; you must also put the opposing viewpoint down in a dismissive and condescending manner.

Do you think that insulting someone else's opinion lends credence to your own? It does not.

Describing Mr. Achenbach's column/opinion as a "diatribe" reflects more on you, jhbyer, than it does Mr. Achenbach's column.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr. Q. | August 8, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

I have a suggestion for a future piece, Mr. Freedman. How about something on the continued oppression and unethical treatment of men and women of straw? Oh, I get it - the straw rights movement is not the ratings grabber this climate flim flammery is. Or is it that the issue can't be summed up by a Manny Ramirez metaphor? Damn you, sir.

Posted by: S Whitehair | August 11, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Would a celebration of Ignorance History Month do?

Posted by: CapitalClimate | August 11, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company