{"id":1125,"date":"2009-12-17T03:43:52","date_gmt":"2009-12-17T08:43:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.easterbrook.ca\/steve\/?p=1125"},"modified":"2009-12-17T10:22:15","modified_gmt":"2009-12-17T15:22:15","slug":"agu-meta-blogging-moment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.easterbrook.ca\/steve\/2009\/12\/agu-meta-blogging-moment\/","title":{"rendered":"AGU meta-blogging moment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Given the terrible internet connection and complete lack of power outlets in most meeting rooms, I’ve been reduced to taking paper and pencil notes, so I’m way behind in the blogging. So I’ll console myself with a quick tour of everyone else’s blogs about this AGU meeting:<\/p>\n

First, and foremost, the AGU press office is putting together its own blog<\/a>, coordinated by Mohi Kumar. It does a much better job of capturing the highlights than I do, partly because the staff writers can sample across all the sessions, and partly because they’re good at summarizing (rather than my own overly-detailed<\/a> blow-by-blow<\/a> accounts<\/a> of talks).<\/p>\n

There’s lots of talk here about impacts, especially on water. Water, Water Everywhere\u2013Except There, and There, and There<\/a> is a nice summary of some of the hydrology sessions, with the new results from GRACE<\/a> being an obvious highlight. And the session on\u00a0Climate Change in the West<\/a> covered some pretty serious impacts on California.<\/p>\n

But the biggest buzz so far at the meeting seems to be science literacy and how to deal with the rising tide of anti-science.\u00a0Capitol Hill Needs Earth Scientists<\/a>, reports on a workshop on communicating with Congress, and\u00a0Talking about Climate: A Monday Night Town Hall Meeting<\/a> tackled how to talk to the press.\u00a0Both of these pick\u00a0up on the idea that the science just isn’t getting through to the people who need to know it, and we have to fix this<\/a> urgently. I missed both of these, but managed to attend the presentations this morning on science literacy:\u00a0Can Scientists Convince the Growing Number of Global Warming Skeptics?<\/a>, which included a beautifully clear and concise summary of the\u00a0Six Americas<\/a> study. I’ll post my own detailed notes from this session soon. The shadow of the recently leaked CRU emails has come up a lot this week, in every case as an example of how little the broader world understands about how science is done. Oh, if only more people could come to the AGU meeting and hang out with climate scientists. Anyway, the events of the last few weeks lent a slight sense of desperation to all these sessions on communicating science.<\/p>\n

And here’s something that could do with getting across to policymakers – a new study by Davis and Caldeira<\/a> on consumption-based accounting – how much of the carbon emissions of the developing world are really just outsourced emissions from the developed world, as we look for cheaper ways to feed our consumption habits.<\/p>\n

But there are good examples of how science communication should be done. For example, the\u00a0Emiliani Lecture and the Tough Task of Paleoceanographers<\/a>, is a great example of explaining the scientific process, in this case an attempt to unravel a mystery about changes in ocean currents around the Indonesian straits, due to varying El Nino cycles. The point of course, is that scientists are refreshingly open about it when they discover their initial ideas are wrong.<\/p>\n

And last, but not least,\u00a0everyone<\/a> agrees<\/a> that Richard Alley’s lecture on CO2 in the Earth’s History<\/a> was the highlight of the meeting so far, even if it was scheduled to clash with the US Climate Change Research Program report on Impacts<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Some more highlights:<\/p>\n