1-Study Hysteria

1. 1-Study Hysteria-I am increasingly disturbed by the tendency today to overplay the results of 1 study. I see this on both sides of the climate "ledger." It is silly. Most scientists are trained to consume nuances of weather/climate science and not "hyperventilate" over the results of 1 study. Scientific results are more robust when replicated and repeated by multiple sources or from different perspectives. This type of "consilience" is important irrespective of what position you hold.

When I see people posting the NOAA study today, I noticed those that lean skeptical on climate change sharing with an air of "see we told you." Meanwhile, I see others noting many omissions to the study (e.g., no consideration of record warmth, role of arctic amplification (still inconclusive by the way), etc.).Meanwhile, the study itself still articulates that humans contribute to climate change and droughts will be affected. 

So what is driving this? One hypothesis is that many consume science like "reasonable doubt" in a court case. However, science doesn't work that way. It also works very differently that a corporate business spreadsheet. Neither uncertainy or 1-study is the final answer. The rise of social media is likely a big driver as well.

To reiterate, I think there is sound science in the NOAA report by colleagues that have my utmost respect. But, let's chill. It's 1 study and it said nothing to dismantle the broader body of literature on climate change. If anything, it strengthens the scientific credibility. Lead author Seager has written many peer-review studies on the impacts of climate change on hydroclimate. This study illustrates his scientific dexterity and objectivity. 

2. Selective "Props" for Peer Review-The other thing that I have noticed at times when I am having discussions with colleagues that I disagree with on climate science is the "Selective "Props" for Peer Review". 

Before I expand on that, notice that I said, "I have discussion with colleagues that I disagree with." I have colleagues that I respect highly that I completely disagree with, but I have dinner/lunch with them or would do what I could for them if they needed me. Let's keep civility in the discussions please. 

Anyhow, some colleagues point out that the "Peer Review Process" can't be trusted for one reason or another. I understand their point of view but disagree with it (Note: I am sure there are isolated incidents but the peer-review process is not inherently bad). However, I have also noticed that when a peer-review study comes out that affirms their belief system (i.e., confirmation bias), there is acceptance of the peer-review process. You can't have it both ways. And this was actually a report not a journal paper and their was mostly open not anonymous "peer" review. As a former editor of 2 journals and someone that has published agency-commissioned reports, I know that there are differences in the process. I do understand via Seth Borenstein that this work has also been submitted to a journal.

So, I am not writing this blog to debate the merits of the NOAA study. I candidly think that aspects of it are quite sound. I am really just writing to caution all sides that weather-climate processes are nuanced and not easily explained in a binary, linear, or simplistic fashion. As noted meteorologist and friend, Chuck Doswell stated (paraphrasing), "Media and social media must capture the nuances in climate/weather discussions" or 1-study hysteria will continue.