James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
Are the ice sheets about to melt away? Andrew Revkin of the New York Times offers a news story and a blog post that explores what the scientists trying to answer the question have to say. Both are worth reading, but I found the "Dot Earth" blog post, which is just as journalistically sound as the "official" story, more interesting. The headline on the blog post is an excellent summary: "Melting Ice = Rising Seas? Easy. How Fast? Hard."
For those with even less time than I have to keep up with the flood of information on this more critical question, here are the highlights from Revkin's blog:
James E. Hansen, the prominent NASA climatologist who has become an outspoken advocate for sharp cuts in greenhouse gases, complained last year about the "reticence" of many of his peers when considering the risk of runaway ice loss within the lives of today's children. He has co-written several papers recently positing how sustained warming could lead to coastal calamity by 2100....there was "near certainty" that unabated emissions "would lead to a disastrous multi-meter sea level rise on the century timescale.Many experts on polar and climate science push back, saying there is scant evidence to support that level of certainty.
Waleed Abdalati, a NASA scientist focused on the ice sheets, said, "Ice sheets are continually responding to their changing boundary conditions in ways that might mitigate these changes." ...
There is a real risk of bigger ice losses and sea-level shifts, but much more work would be needed to clarify the odds, Dr. Abdalati said. "I think that close to a meter is a real possibility in the coming century, and the adverse effects of that should be enough to get people's attention."
...
"At the end of the day, you can be 90% confident of something, and all people will hear is that you aren't certain about what you are saying. This is why the debate is often cast in extremes, rather than an honest consideration of the data. It is really too bad, because an honest consideration of the data is still quite compelling."
Comments
Whatever happened to the Dick Cheney "1% doctrine" where you were supposed to invade another country if there was even a 1% chance they'd attack us? Is there some kind of S-curve where a 90% certainty of global catastrophe means you don't take action?
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | January 9, 2008 9:57 AM
Well, you see it works like homeopathetic. The more deluded the better, so 1% is a more serious threat then 90%.
Ok, forgive me the puns...
Posted by: student_b | January 9, 2008 11:58 AM
This is why the debate is often cast in extremes, rather than an honest consideration of the data. It is really too bad, because an honest consideration of the data is still quite compelling."
Yes, it is too bad. In an ultra busy world full of people with ultra busy lives sometimes it takes hyperbole to get their attention. Once you get it your credibility can be in question when they find out it was hyperbole to begin with! But sometimes that is what it takes to get their attention. Sort of a catch 22!
Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | January 11, 2008 11:11 AM
I like the call for an "honest consideration of the data." I think the global warmers have been exaggerating the data all along and are reluctant to talk about data contrary to their viewpoint. Has the Weather Channel ever discussed the rapid pace of the refreezing of the Arctic Sea?
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-47121205
Posted by: Ron Cram | January 13, 2008 8:41 AM