Madam, – It was with a sense of real disappointment that I read your Editorial (January 6th), your first line “So much for all of that guff about global warming! Are world leaders having the wrong debate?” This throwaway comment from a paper that only one month ago joined with 55 other newspapers urging world leaders to broker a new global deal to combat climate change is confusing.
Back then you stated that “humanity faces a profound emergency”. Am I now to believe that because of one exceptional cold spell, your paper no longer believes this to be the case? Does your paper have a consistent policy on climate change or is it just a passing fad? As someone who follows this story closely I am regularly disappointed by the media’s inconsistency and mixed messaging of the climate change issue. No wonder there is such confusion in the general public.
If you took the time to explore the science you would realise that meteorologists predicted a cycle on cooling in the North Atlantic and I suggest this could be reflected in our current cold snap.
I bring your attention to the work of Mojib Latif an internationally respected German meteorologist and oceanographer. In 2008 Latif was joint author of a modelling study in Nature (May 1st, 2008) whose results suggested global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
Consistency in reporting climate change is essential if the public is to fully understand the complexity and apparent contradictions that occur with this story. If humanity faces a profound emergency as you suggest, there is an onus on your paper to be consistent in its messaging. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In your Editorial (January 6th), you comment “So much for all of that guff about global warming! Are world leaders having the wrong debate? We are experiencing the most prolonged period of icy weather in 40 years and feeling every bit of it.” As an attempt at irony, or even as an introduction to the Editorial’s main point, this was sorely misjudged, particularly when “moderate” commentators such as Pat Kenny are already doing more than enough to stir up unwarranted scepticism about climate change in Ireland.
The comment seems to have been intended as a serious point, accepting the existence of climate change, but querying its effects: “In a country where snow was an erratic visitor and black ice something of an overnight wonder, however, we need to know what to expect in terms of climate change.”
We could start by reading the (Nobel prize-winning) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, compiled by hundreds of the world’s leading scientists. According to it, the northern European climate this century is likely to be warmer, with drier summers, wetter winters, and a shortened snow season. Seasonally in Europe, the largest warming is expected to be in northern Europe in winter. However, as the report acknowledges, “the substantial natural variability of European climate is a major uncertainty, particularly for short-term climate projections in the area.”
Thus, just as one person does not make a trend, one cold spell does not serve to refute or even call into question the IPCC’s climate projections. To get a group of scientists to agree on anything is hard, so the fact that hundreds – across many disciplines – have agreed on the content of the IPCC’s reports gives some indication of the informed consensus that exists regarding climate change and its likely effects. – Yours, etc,