Welcome back to me. I took a break due to heavy class load and studying for qualifying exams. I’m looking forward to a good 2015. I tagged plenty of material while I was short on writing time, so stay tuned for lots of climate and energy science and policy discussions.
File this in the “who’da thunk?” category: research presented at the 2014 American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting showed recent summers over the Arctic were cooler than normal and as a result, Arctic sea ice melt wasn’t as extensive as previous record low years.
I remember all too many climate scientists tripping over one another in their mad rush to a microphone to declare that the Arctic would be ice-free in just a few short years – a claim I thought was silly and dangerous.
Why silly? Because these same scientists, preaching objectivism and claiming science has an impenetrable hold on truth over all other comers, no more understood the cryosphere then than they do now. This most result lays bare that type of truth: we don’t know enough about the cryosphere system to accurately or precisely project conditions in the near to medium future. While it is very likely that summer Arctic sea ice will be missing at some point in the future, the timing of that event is very much in question. I think it will be sooner than the IPCC AR4 model projections (see quoted statement below), which read: “In some projections, arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century.” Papers written prior to the 2014 AR5 report projected ice-free conditions between 2037 and 2050. But there is still 35 years in the meantime. What will Arctic sea ice be like during those 35 years? Like good scientists, we should collect data as well as run and test models during that time to more fully understand the system. But good scientists do not claim knowledge they do not have.
The 2007 IPCC report made clear the level of uncertainty that exists:
A systematic analysis of future projections for the Arctic Ocean circulation is still lacking. Coarse resolution in global models prevents the proper representation of local processes that are of global importance (such as the convection in the Greenland Sea that affects the deep waters in the Arctic Ocean and the intermediate waters that form overflow waters).
Which leads to the dangerous part of scientists’ misguided efforts to “educate” the public at every turn, a strategy motivated by perceived successes by fossil fuel corporations and their backers. Moreover, the perceived extreme position of those corporations elicited a corresponding response from scientist-activists. One problem with this is the potential to appear foolish to the very people scientists are trying to convince of real climate risks when dire projections end up wrong. Scientists historically and currently enjoy wide-spread and deep respect by the public. I can’t believe that will continue if, for instance, grandiose claims of significant events end up wrong. How often do you and your friends make fun of the local weatherman after a busted forecast? I think scientists should instead tap into that deep reservoir of trust and leverage it intelligently. If the best science indicates an ice-free Arctic by 2035-2050, then say that. If conditions change radically, there will of course be a ready explanation that the public will gladly receive.