Sea level row
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Ken Caldeira
Jan 12, 2010, 12:28:50 PM1/12/10
to Climate Intervention
Folks: Note that I am moving this conversation to "ClimateIntervention" ... as a discussion of a press account of something relevant to geoengineering, but not directly about geoengineering, a discussion like this belongs on the "ClimateIntervention" not "Geoengineering" google group.
I think this story in the Times is indicative of the press's tendency to make a big story out of every individual paper, rather than reporting the picture that emerges out of the findings of a field of science over time.
Rahmstorf's regression analysis of sea level rise seems to me simplistic and not likely to be a reliable predictor (and if I had been a reviewer it would not have been published in Science), but Stefan is a good scientist who like all of us sometimes produces work that does not compare with our best work.
It is completely normal science for someone to publish a paper and then it be criticized -- that is the normal path of scientific development.
However, let's look at the breathless reporting in the story:
Also, what is the basis of the prognostication that Rahmstorf's results will be included in the next IPCC report? [As far as I know, the author teams have not even been selected yet.] By "included" does the author mean "mentioned"? Does he have information suggesting that the IPCC will endorse Rahmstorf's conclusions blindly?
However, the studies, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at Potsdam, have caused growing concern among other experts. They say his methods are flawed and that the real increase in sea levels by 2100 is likely to be far lower than he predicts.
...
The row comes just weeks after the so-called climategate affair when emails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit revealed how scientists tried to withhold data from public scrutiny.
Despite, in the following sentence denying a relationship to emails stolen from East Anglia, the writer creates an association, raising the specter that this is not a normal scientific discussion, but that there might be some whiff of malfeasance.
---
I think science journalism is in a terrible spot right now. Most scientific stories unfurl slowly, in a process that involves many different published papers, but journalists are tied to the news cycle and need to make a news event out of each story. So, to get space in the newspaper, they need to make it seem as if each published paper is a major event and the science is being whiplashed back and forth by each published study. (This is supported by the scientists who do each study and naturally feel the importance of their own study.) As a result, the public gets an exaggerated view of the volatility of scientific understanding.
If the journalist do not overemphasize the importance of individual studies, the stories will not get in the paper, and stories on the rising seas will be nowhere in the newspaper.
Where is there a place for journalism that focuses on long-term trends?
----------------------
Hi All
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
I think this story in the Times is indicative of the press's tendency to make a big story out of every individual paper, rather than reporting the picture that emerges out of the findings of a field of science over time.
Rahmstorf's regression analysis of sea level rise seems to me simplistic and not likely to be a reliable predictor (and if I had been a reviewer it would not have been published in Science), but Stefan is a good scientist who like all of us sometimes produces work that does not compare with our best work.
It is completely normal science for someone to publish a paper and then it be criticized -- that is the normal path of scientific development.
However, let's look at the breathless reporting in the story:
The research, published by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
in Germany, created headline news during the United Nations summit on
climate change in Denmark last month.
It predicted an apocalyptic century in which rising seas could threaten coastal communities from England to Bangladesh and was the latest in a series of studies from Potsdam that has gained wide acceptance among governments and environmental campaigners.
Besides underpinning the Copenhagen talks, the research is also likely to be included in the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This would elevate it to the level of global policy-making.
What does the writer mean by "underpinning the Copenhagen talks"? Does the writer of this article really believe that Stefan Rahmstorf's results actually directly impacted the Copenhagen talks -- more than "impacted" them, that they "underpinned" them? What is the basis of the that claim?Also, what is the basis of the prognostication that Rahmstorf's results will be included in the next IPCC report? [As far as I know, the author teams have not even been selected yet.] By "included" does the author mean "mentioned"? Does he have information suggesting that the IPCC will endorse Rahmstorf's conclusions blindly?
However, the studies, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at Potsdam, have caused growing concern among other experts. They say his methods are flawed and that the real increase in sea levels by 2100 is likely to be far lower than he predicts.
...
The row comes just weeks after the so-called climategate affair when emails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit revealed how scientists tried to withhold data from public scrutiny.
Despite, in the following sentence denying a relationship to emails stolen from East Anglia, the writer creates an association, raising the specter that this is not a normal scientific discussion, but that there might be some whiff of malfeasance.
---
I think science journalism is in a terrible spot right now. Most scientific stories unfurl slowly, in a process that involves many different published papers, but journalists are tied to the news cycle and need to make a news event out of each story. So, to get space in the newspaper, they need to make it seem as if each published paper is a major event and the science is being whiplashed back and forth by each published study. (This is supported by the scientists who do each study and naturally feel the importance of their own study.) As a result, the public gets an exaggerated view of the volatility of scientific understanding.
If the journalist do not overemphasize the importance of individual studies, the stories will not get in the paper, and stories on the rising seas will be nowhere in the newspaper.
Where is there a place for journalism that focuses on long-term trends?
----------------------
Hi All
The Times has a story at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece
about a bust up over sea level rise between Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor
of Ocean Physics at Potsdam v the UK met office and the Proudman labs.
Stephen
--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile 07795 203 195
S.Sal...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
Eugene I. Gordon
Jan 12, 2010, 7:03:10 PM1/12/10
to KCal...@gmail.com, Climate Intervention
Ken:
This may amuse you. Note the date.
The full article is at
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1930.pdf?scp=1&sq=Next%20Great%20Deluge%20May%2015,%201932&st=cse
-gene
Ken Caldeira
Jan 12, 2010, 9:18:50 PM1/12/10
to Climate Intervention
fyi
--
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Droid: 914-441-5556 Fax/voicemail: 509-357-0965
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Revkin <rev...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [clim] Sea level row
To: KCal...@gmail.com
a highly related instance of the issues at the heart of this sea-level 'fight' is playing out in Joe Romm's space. I think your comment below hits on a vital issue (as in my writing on the media mania for the 'front-page thought').
From: Andrew Revkin <rev...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [clim] Sea level row
To: KCal...@gmail.com
a highly related instance of the issues at the heart of this sea-level 'fight' is playing out in Joe Romm's space. I think your comment below hits on a vital issue (as in my writing on the media mania for the 'front-page thought').
Here's the back-and-forth - related to Arctic sea ice - with Joe pressing his case using selected studies and Betts cautioning against over-interpretation of 2007 ice change (as I wrote at length in 2007 etc.. see links in my reply).
p.s.,
if you are willing would love it if you could circulate the links at that Tweet as another instance related to the inevitable perception of a 'controversy' over sea -level...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
--
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Droid: 914-441-5556 Fax/voicemail: 509-357-0965
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin
Andrew Revkin
Jan 12, 2010, 8:19:27 PM1/12/10
to eugg...@comcast.net, KCal...@gmail.com, Climate Intervention
Related to exchanges here on media and climate:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
Veli Albert Kallio
Jan 13, 2010, 6:09:48 AM1/13/10
to rev...@gmail.com, eugg...@comcast.net, kcal...@gmail.com, Climateintervention FIPC
In my view this article reflects the 1930's when there were rapid retreat of ice shelves around Ellesmere Island that was encirled by the ice shelves that then disintegrated. 1940s saw reversal or slow down in the rapid glacier retreat which resumed in 2000s.
But the real shaker comes as the Arctic Ocean, especially the Atlantic Ocean end seems to be incredibly slushy. Ice even disappearing from Kara Sea as winds have pushed excessively water under ice, mixing the cold surface waters with warm water from deep.
I would be surprised if we were not having early onset of summer melt and vast disappearance in the Atlantic end at least as ice is weak an huge leads and open seas prevail in many places, combined with warm under currents.
A coupling of melt in Greenland would make a deluge on terrestrial ice cover more likely as marine ice cover deteriorates and the winter time cooling of Greenland's ice surface is not occurring. Just day before yesterday Greenland in places had +9C and this warmth has been there at least 2 weeks, cutting the mid-winter cooling short.
My bets are we are primed on deluge. But it is interesting to read these retro-stories and climate change history as it unfolded in the measurements and recorded history as well.
Regards,
Albert
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:19:27 -0500
But the real shaker comes as the Arctic Ocean, especially the Atlantic Ocean end seems to be incredibly slushy. Ice even disappearing from Kara Sea as winds have pushed excessively water under ice, mixing the cold surface waters with warm water from deep.
I would be surprised if we were not having early onset of summer melt and vast disappearance in the Atlantic end at least as ice is weak an huge leads and open seas prevail in many places, combined with warm under currents.
A coupling of melt in Greenland would make a deluge on terrestrial ice cover more likely as marine ice cover deteriorates and the winter time cooling of Greenland's ice surface is not occurring. Just day before yesterday Greenland in places had +9C and this warmth has been there at least 2 weeks, cutting the mid-winter cooling short.
My bets are we are primed on deluge. But it is interesting to read these retro-stories and climate change history as it unfolded in the measurements and recorded history as well.
Regards,
Albert
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:19:27 -0500
Subject: Re: [clim] Sea level row
Not got a Hotmail account? Sign-up now - Free
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages