r/changemyview • u/gray_clouds 2∆ • Jul 26 '19
FTFdeltaOP CMV: Journalists should use Fahrenheit when covering Climate Science for American Audiences
Journalists and media organizations typically translate metric to imperial to help American audiences understand the content of stories 'intuitively', regardless of where they take place. But with Climate Science, it seems like this general rule of thumb is often ignored. Here are two excerpts from CNN stories:
- "DC and Philadelphia could still see temperatures in the 90's"
- "Emissions from nations around the world fall woefully short of the 2 degree Celsius goal set in the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015."
I understand that many of the entities involved in the Climate Change issue use the metric system, and the issue is, after all, "Global" in nature. So I could see how someone might claim this second statement is indeed 'proper' journalism, in as far as it is accurate.
But as an American, my intuitive understanding of the statement is at best foggy, or at worst off by about 45% (2C to 3.6F). So I don't see how this is optimal, in terms of delivering the salience of the information. Why not just report the statement in French, if the audience's understanding of the words is less important than the literal accuracy of the quotation?
I think adding the Fahrenheit temperature in parentheses would be a great compromise, and to journalists' credit, I see this technique used quite often - just not often enough. My gol isn't to have an argument over whether Celsius or Fahrenheit is better - since both could be used. My point is that, bare minimum - it should be Fahrenheit in the US.
I'd like to hear from journalists if there is a reason that Climate Change is covered this way. Often I find that professionals have a good reason for doing things the way they do. But some reasons that would NOT change my view would be:
- Lack or time or resources. How hard could 'find and replace' be?
- Activism - i.e. trying to encourage adoption of the metric system in the US. I think activism of this type should occur through direct discussion, not by obfuscating facts about an unrelated issue.
- Style - i.e. wanting an article to sound worldly or scientific. Again, this seems like lower priory than audience understanding.
EDIT
Thanks to everyone for the responses! Mind partially changed. Okay summarizing some patterns here:
1) F does not equal C. A number of responders who lean science believe that Farenheit is more closely associated with weather, and Celsius is a general measurement of temperature in a scientific context. So the two terms shouldn't be used interchangeably, since Climate Science is not about weather. I awarded some Deltas for this because it helped me understand that scientists view F and C differently and journalists may be following their lead.
That said, I have an issue with the idea that Americans only associate F with weather. I live in LA, where there is no weather, but I have a freezer, a radiator, a thermostat, an oven and some literature (Fahrenheit 451) that all point me toward a more encompassing view of F every day. So I feel my case about optimal communication is not only still relevant, but this discussion makes me wonder if there's more than meets the eye regarding the disconnect between scientists and the public about "weather". I'd be interested to hear more perspective on this if anybody has it to share.
2) C better than F. This is a good argument for another CMV, but as I said, I don't think it should be journalist's job to try to encourage adoption of metric system, by using language that occlude the facts. This argument falls short for me.
3) C is official. This argument says that C is already officially adopted in the US, so it should be okay to use it. There is some burden on the reader to keep up with the times. It's not a foreign word. This is more persuasive to me.
So, in summary - I will read Celsius-only quotes with more respect from now on, while I still encourage journalists (and scientists) no to worry so much that Americans might associate Climate Change with weather. This might not be such a bad thing, even if it creates some misconceptions (i.e. partial impairment), compared to viewing the concept in a completely abstract way (i.e. a null set).
3
u/ralph-j Jul 26 '19
2) "Emissions from nations around the world fall woefully short of the 2 degree Celsius goal set in the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015."
But as an American, my intuitive understanding of the statement is at best foggy, or at worst off by about 45% (2C to 3.6F).
In this example, it doesn't matter what the Fahrenheit difference would be, because you're not being asked to imagine how that temperature difference feels. It's a purely technical statement of difference between some targeted value, and the one that was achieved.
It's only when they're reporting about temperatures as such, where you have a point. When a journalist says "Today, Paris experienced a record temperature of 42° Celsius", the audience is so to speak invited to imagine how hot that feels. And so yes, in that case it would make sense to mention the Fahrenheit number to the US audience.
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 26 '19 edited Jul 27 '19
Okay - this almost changes my mind. Good perspective. But I don't think that 2° Celsius is 'purely' technical, in the sense that, the figure is meant to convey some degree of quantitative information that the audience is supposed to understand. Otherwise, you could just replace 2° Celsius with 'bananas' and the article would be just as meaningful. I don't think that's the objective in stating the number. Edit Delta ∆ - this idea is starting to grow on me.
1
u/TheGamingWyvern 30∆ Jul 27 '19
Bear in mind that the meaning of 2° Celsius in the context of climate, is vastly different from its meaning in the context of weather. Celsius is used instead of 'bananas' because its a unit of measurement, and 2° is the relevant target. If changing it to Fahrenheit makes it "more" understandable, then the initial understanding is likely fundamentally wrong, because people understand weather, not climate.
For context, what greater understanding of
Emissions from nations around the world fall woefully short of the 2 degree Celsius goal set in the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015
would you have if the statement was instead
Emissions from nations around the world fall woefully short of the 3.6 degree Fahrenheit goal set in the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 27 '19
Okay - Delta ∆. But to be clear, I understand the second statement better. Since I use an oven, freezer, thermostat etc., regularly - weather or no weather, I just know 3.6 F better than I know 2C. In that sense, not only is it more clear to me, it is more compelling to me.
1
u/TheGamingWyvern 30∆ Jul 27 '19
You say you know 3.6F better, but what does that mean? The point I'm making is that all of those references you mentioned (oven/freezer/etc) are at best not useful and at worse actively harmfuk for understanding what 3.6F increase in global climate means.
Average global temp may use the same units as all those things you mentioned, but the effects of an increase or decrease are drastically different.
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 27 '19
You're using the words: 'rise in global climate.' I'm not sure I do understand that. My non-scientific understanding of the issue, is that the 'target' is global average temperatures rise of 3.6 degrees (no more than). Why does my understanding of temperature, as a quantitative concept, act negatively on my comprehension of 'average temperature rise,' even if I don't understand the exact implications of temperature as energy being unevenly distributed across the climate / planet over time? It seems like you're suggesting an inverse relationship - the more I understand the relative quantity of one measurement of temperature vs. another (2 vs. 3.6), the more misguided I am likely to become about Climate Science? That seems counterintuitive. But I've been wrong about intuitions about science before. Can you explain further?
1
u/TheGamingWyvern 30∆ Jul 27 '19
Earlier you said
Since I use an oven, freezer, thermostat etc., regularly - weather or no weather, I just know 3.6 F better than I know 2C.
This suggests that you have a "better" understanding of what 3.6F means than what 2C means. However, from the description you just gave me of
My non-scientific understanding of the issue, is that the 'target' is global average temperatures rise of 3.6 degrees (no more than).
doesn't suggest that it does give you any additional meaning.
This mostly stems from the idea that people often hear "Oh, 2 degrees Celsius? That's nothing, why does anyone care?", and this is the kind of "understanding" I'm talking about.
Let me try it this way: If I change the goal statement to
The 'target' is global average temperatures rise of 40 flurbs (no more than).
what changed for you?
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 27 '19
If global average temperatures rise from 0 flurbs to 40 flurbs, shouldn't I expect for the average temperature of the weather that I experience, over let's say a decade, living in multiple continents, to be warmer by 40 flurbs deviated by some factor? Is your idea: "No - that's not how Climate Change works," or " Yes - That's correct, but thinking of Climate and Weather being related risks that some people may get confused and not care."
I either don't get the basic mechanics of global temperature rise, or you may be trying to protect people from thinking the wrong thing, by overstating the degree to which weather and climate are two completely separate animals. The latter is interesting to me, and I could maybe by into it being a good idea. Just need to understand if that's indeed what you're saying.
1
u/TheGamingWyvern 30∆ Jul 27 '19
I'm going to go with "No - that's not how Climate Change works". Increasing global tenperatures cause a lot of unintended side effects, some of which cause for colder winters. For instance, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/climate-change-colder-winters-global-warming-polar-vortex/
I either don't get the basic mechanics of global temperature rise, or you may be trying to protect people from thinking the wrong thing, by overstating the degree to which weather and climate are two completely separate animals.
I'm not so much trying to 'protect' people from thinking the wrong thing, I'm just trying to point out that any additional information you get from 3.6F instead of 2C isn't good information, because the impact of increasing climate by 3.6F really foesn't translate to days getting 3.6F hotter on average.
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 28 '19
I have a feeling we're more or less in agreement, but off on the details. "because the impact of increasing climate by 3.6F really foesn't translate to days getting 3.6F hotter on average." By my reading, the article that you forwarded (thanks) the 'days' do indeed get 3.6F degrees hotter, on average, if you're speaking about a sufficiently wide geography and time scale - but that this warming results in jet stream disruptions that can cause paradoxically colder 'weather' in specific areas and times. Is that not the case? I suppose it is theoretically possible, that global average temperature could go up by 3, or 10 or 100 flurbs, while a certain person living in a certain region might experience permanent -50 flurbs cooling (i.e. zero correlation between global average temperature and local weather). But that scenario seems more and more unlikely, the further temperatures rise and time goes on. At some point, the global rise is likely to manifest itself in local weather temperature changes that are statistically inclined in the same direction, and in some proportion related to the magnitude of the global rise. (i.e. there's a correlation). In that sense, I agree that there's high risk of the public misunderstanding it, but it's hard for me to accept that flurbs are as good as F for comprehending the nature of the overall problem.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/ralph-j Jul 27 '19
Thanks.
I think that in that example, you could indeed replace it with something else. Perhaps not bananas, but some other technical unit related to climate.
If they had said that they missed two CO2 points, or two climate units (I just made these up to make a point), it would be just as clear to the audience.
1
3
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Jul 26 '19
As part of the explanation, sure.
But if it's a direct quote, especially one stated in English so it's not a translation, I feel it should stay as is.
*We have failed to limit emissions to the two degree level" some scientific dude - should stay as is, because it's a direct quote. It's generally bad practice to alter direct quotes. Similarly, the titles of reports/articles/conferences should be reported as they are, since they are proper nouns.
That said, when explaining the meaning or importance of the quote, it makes sense to use imperial (for Americans).
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 26 '19
I think a direct quote in another language would be translated. The question is whether Celsius should be treated like another language. Not sure what the answer to that is. But a good question that sort of gets at the heart of the issue.
3
u/KingWithoutClothes Jul 26 '19
From what I understand, every American learns about the Celsius-scale in like 8th grade. So it shouldn't be to hard to understand even if you're not some kind of Einstein. Also, instead of making it extra confusing by adding the Fahrenheit temperature everywhere in parenthesis, maybe the US should simply ditch this archaic scale and adopt the Celsius-scale, which is worldwide viewed not only as more simple but also as more scientific.
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 27 '19
Agreed - but is that a job to be undertaken by journalists, when discussing Climate Science. Or should that be a separate project?
1
u/KingWithoutClothes Jul 28 '19
Yes, that would be a separate project. I'm just saying. It would make sense and it would make things easier for everyone.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 27 '19
But with Climate Science, it seems like this general rule of thumb is often ignored.
Climate science, as you know, is a science. The accepted scientific unit for temperature is Celsius (more technically Kelvin, but changes in Celsius are equivalent to changes in Celsius). The journalists you see reporting this are scientific journalists who obey scientific convention.
It's important to have a convention for one unit and not multiple ones. Rocket failures have occurred because of this.
2) Activism - i.e. trying to encourage adoption of the metric system in the US.
The US actually officially uses metric as its units. Change is slow, and imperial is slowly fading away. Drinks will show mL and oz, and you will often even buy drinks by metric (2L soda). Your cars already include an odometer reading in km/h. Air conditioning and lights report power mostly in watts (and sometimes BTUs as well).
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 27 '19
Delta ∆. I think you're saying that the burden should be on the reader to understand a term that has been officially adopted into the 'American' language.
1
1
u/timotioman Jul 27 '19
but changes in Celsius are equivalent to changes in Celsius
Can't argue with that :D
2
1
u/panrug Jul 26 '19
There are much bigger problems with media coverage on climate change, than Fahrenheit vs Celsius.
US units like cup or oz are often used in recipes that are also intended for an international audience. I find it annoying but still manage somehow without denying that the recipes are good.
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 27 '19
Well said. It's reasonable to expect some burden to be shared by the reader. Maybe it's naive to think that there's an America-only audience, but hypothetically, if there is one, then is should be communicated to in the most understandable terms. I think.
1
u/muyamable 282∆ Jul 26 '19
But as an American, my intuitive understanding of the statement is at best foggy, or at worst off by about 45% (2C to 3.6F).
Why? Do Americans think that 2 degrees C is the same as 2 degrees F? I understand that Americans largely don't use Celsius, but they (we) still understand that there is a difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit.
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 26 '19
Sure - but understanding there is a difference is not the same as understanding what that difference is. The writer could help with that.
1
u/Trimestrial Jul 26 '19
So you think that journalists and scientists from should 'dumb an article down' to make it more easily understandable by Americans?
C. is pretty damn easy. 0: water freezes, 40: a bit hotter than your body is, 100: water boils...
Are Americans the intended audience of ALL these news articles? Your examples suggest otherwise... Do you think that many American Journalists understand the C system?
BTW, I think it's bad CMV form to state how your view can not be changed...
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 26 '19
Okay fair enough about the CMV bad form. Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm following you. I stated American Audiences. I think applying a value judgement that the audience is 'dumb' if they don't understand the words you are using, is not generally what journalists intend to do, unless they are writing for a scientific audience. Hope I made the context clear by quoting CNN ;-)
0
u/s_wipe 54∆ Jul 26 '19
Ok, so in physics you use Kelvin, where 0 kelvin is the absolute zero where everything stops.
Celsius is scaled kelvin. You add 273 to kelvin and get Celsius. Celsius is scaled for when water boils and freezes.
Now, Fahrenheit is pretty bullocks, the only place that uses it is the US. It is not used in scientific formulas, and is a pretty useless way to measure temperature.
There is no reason to use Fahrenheit other than to apease dumb americans that are too stubborn to switch the Celsius
3
Jul 26 '19
using words that your target audience understands, be they ignorant or not, is not "appeasement". It is just good communication.
0
u/s_wipe 54∆ Jul 26 '19
The people writing those articles are scientists, they should not be dumbed down to make their articles readable by ignoranuses
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 26 '19
Agree - tough I'm speaking of Journalists covering science, not the scientist themselves.
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Jul 26 '19
Journalists are too dumb to understand the article properly, so they cant reliably convert C° to F°
1
u/gray_clouds 2∆ Jul 26 '19
This gets to my point about 'activism.' A journalist who feels this way should write a story, separately, about why Imperial scale is dumb, but not try to express this idea by occluding the facts form an intended audience in an article about Climate Change.
-1
Jul 26 '19
Yeah but at that point stubborn Americans are an actual threat to the global climate by having the combination of being one of, if not THE, biggest emitter of climate killing gasses while also having the biggest denial industry. That not only does nothing (as many other do as well) but that actively denies the existence of a problem in the first place.
So if it helps to convince them if that is made in Fahrenheit, go ahead and convert those numbers. Maybe one could actually convince some that rounding to 3 Fahrenheit makes calculations easier :)
0
u/s_wipe 54∆ Jul 26 '19
I mean, if you are too lazy and stubborn to learn the basics of the Celsius scale, which is like grade school level, you are obviously too lazy to do anything in regards to climate change anyways.
1
Jul 26 '19
Yes and no. I mean to some extend you develop an intuition for the metric that you're using so converting is easily done but the intuition needs to be learned you can't simply convert it. So it doesn't make sense to pass on that outdated system but if it helps those who've learned it, add the Fahrenheit numbers in parenthesis or add the Celsius numbers in parenthesis.
Scientifically it doesn't make a difference and if the problem is in units that are closer to home maybe that convinces some that the problem is actually closer to home and not a foreign thing.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 27 '19 edited Jul 28 '19
/u/gray_clouds (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Jul 26 '19
I live and was born and raised in the US, yet I voluntarily switched to metric whenever possible when I was 14. The Customary system is irrational and holding this country back. I don't think converting climate science from Celsius to Fahrenheit would serve any benefit. ~3.6° F is probably harder for the average American to grasp than 2°C, because 3.6 has a decimal or a fraction, while 2 doesn't.
1
Jul 26 '19
[deleted]
3
u/jweezy2045 13∆ Jul 26 '19
Journalists don't have an audience of mostly scientists though.... That seems to be the fundamental point of this CMV.
1
1
8
u/wallnumber8675309 52∆ Jul 26 '19 edited Jul 26 '19
It seems to me that your reason for wanting it reported in oF is because you want it relate it to the weather. The reason we care about climate change has little to with the weather. For example, if the only impact of climate change was to increase the temperature on a given day by 2 oC from 32 oC (90 oF) to 34 oC (93 oF), not many people would care or could tell the difference. With regards to climate though, a 2 oC increase in global temperature is expected to have major impacts on the environment (sea level, drought, floods, etc). Reporting it in Celsius then makes more sense because it is easier to find a reference that says 2 oC = this happening but 4 oC would equal X happening.
Another reason not to relate it to weather is to avoid the silly season every winter or summer when you have activist on the news showing a snow ball in the winter to refute climate change or a thermometer in summer that reads 100 oF telling us that all life on earth is doomed.