Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Tabloid treatment of climate science
By Prem Shankar Jha |
February 13, 2010, Saturday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
THE scientists whose research has revealed the extent of global climate change are now getting the tabloid treatment. First came the scandal of leaked (actually hacked) e-mails at the climate institute of Britain's East Anglia University. Now comes the supposed news that the Himalayan glaciers are not, in fact, retreating, and will therefore not disappear by 2035.
The first story was timed to appear just before December's COP15 climate-change summit in Copenhagen. The second is designed to bury whatever hopes still exist for signing a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
But how justified are these attacks, particularly the attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that has set the gold standard for analyzing global climate change?
One tell-tale sign is the climate skeptics' contempt for the actual data in the Indian government's study, which is being used to undermine the IPCC report and the impeccable credentials of the scientist Syed Iqbal Hasnain, the source of the IPCC's alarming quote on the Himalayas.
There is also the unholy glee with which they have set about destroying an icon of the anti-global warming movement, the Nobel Laureate R.K Pachauri, by attributing financial motives to his research.
Hasnain, who is currently conducting a study of the accumulation of black carbon on snow at high altitudes in the Himalayas, is not some egotistical scientist seeking the limelight. He is the author of "Himalayan Glaciers: Hydrology and Hydrochemistry" and scores of scientific papers.
Hasnain made his remark to the New Scientist in 1999, only five years after the retreat had reached its peak and only two to three years after the slowdown began - far too soon to say that the trend had changed.
The IPCC's use of his remark may have been rash, but was not misleading because in 2003-2004, the year before it finalized its fourth report, the changed trend would have been barely perceptible.
What the 2009 report for the Indian Ministry of Forests and Environment actually says is that the average retreat of glaciers, approximately five meters per year since the 1840s, when records began to be kept, accelerated sharply between the 1950s and 1990s. But the retreat slowed after the mid-1990s until, for some of the biggest and best-known glaciers, such as Gangotri and Siachen, it had "practically come to a standstill during the period 2007-2009."
But, the retreat of a glacier's "snout" is only one of three measures of how glaciers can change. The other two are its "mass balance" and the rate at which melt-water is discharged. The Himalayan glaciers have not stopped losing mass, although they are losing it at a somewhat slower rate than before.
Another story
The same study also shows that smaller glaciers are shrinking much more rapidly than larger ones.
What could have caused the glacier snouts to have stopped retreating? One factor could be deposits of dust and black carbon (collectively called aerosols) upon the snow, which, up to an accumulation of 400 grams per square meter sharply raises the rate of melting. Between 400 and 600 grams, it has no further effect, but when it exceeds 600 grams, it acts as a shield against the sun, and slows down melting.
Much thicker coatings of aerosols at the lower ends of glaciers might explain the tendency in several glaciers, noted in the Indian report, to become narrower in the middle, forming two distinct parts. The slowdown in the retreat of the snout of glaciers could, therefore, be a consequence of the very rapid rise of human population in the hills and desertification caused by overgrazing purely local factors that boost aerosol levels.
Only more research focused on the differences between glaciers in heavily populated areas and those in uninhabited ones like Siachen will answer this question definitively. But relying upon population growth and desertification to prolong their lives would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
What needs to be explored is not the validity of the secular trend, but the nature of the local influences working against it. By rushing to apologize for a statement they clearly did not understand, British Secretary for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband and others have impugned not only the honesty of scientists like Hasnain, but also the credibility of science itself.
(In 1985-1987 Prem Shankar Jha was a member of the energy panel of the World Commission for Environment and Development, headed by Gro Harlem Bruntland. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010. www.project-syndicate.org)
The first story was timed to appear just before December's COP15 climate-change summit in Copenhagen. The second is designed to bury whatever hopes still exist for signing a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
But how justified are these attacks, particularly the attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that has set the gold standard for analyzing global climate change?
One tell-tale sign is the climate skeptics' contempt for the actual data in the Indian government's study, which is being used to undermine the IPCC report and the impeccable credentials of the scientist Syed Iqbal Hasnain, the source of the IPCC's alarming quote on the Himalayas.
There is also the unholy glee with which they have set about destroying an icon of the anti-global warming movement, the Nobel Laureate R.K Pachauri, by attributing financial motives to his research.
Hasnain, who is currently conducting a study of the accumulation of black carbon on snow at high altitudes in the Himalayas, is not some egotistical scientist seeking the limelight. He is the author of "Himalayan Glaciers: Hydrology and Hydrochemistry" and scores of scientific papers.
Hasnain made his remark to the New Scientist in 1999, only five years after the retreat had reached its peak and only two to three years after the slowdown began - far too soon to say that the trend had changed.
The IPCC's use of his remark may have been rash, but was not misleading because in 2003-2004, the year before it finalized its fourth report, the changed trend would have been barely perceptible.
What the 2009 report for the Indian Ministry of Forests and Environment actually says is that the average retreat of glaciers, approximately five meters per year since the 1840s, when records began to be kept, accelerated sharply between the 1950s and 1990s. But the retreat slowed after the mid-1990s until, for some of the biggest and best-known glaciers, such as Gangotri and Siachen, it had "practically come to a standstill during the period 2007-2009."
But, the retreat of a glacier's "snout" is only one of three measures of how glaciers can change. The other two are its "mass balance" and the rate at which melt-water is discharged. The Himalayan glaciers have not stopped losing mass, although they are losing it at a somewhat slower rate than before.
Another story
The same study also shows that smaller glaciers are shrinking much more rapidly than larger ones.
What could have caused the glacier snouts to have stopped retreating? One factor could be deposits of dust and black carbon (collectively called aerosols) upon the snow, which, up to an accumulation of 400 grams per square meter sharply raises the rate of melting. Between 400 and 600 grams, it has no further effect, but when it exceeds 600 grams, it acts as a shield against the sun, and slows down melting.
Much thicker coatings of aerosols at the lower ends of glaciers might explain the tendency in several glaciers, noted in the Indian report, to become narrower in the middle, forming two distinct parts. The slowdown in the retreat of the snout of glaciers could, therefore, be a consequence of the very rapid rise of human population in the hills and desertification caused by overgrazing purely local factors that boost aerosol levels.
Only more research focused on the differences between glaciers in heavily populated areas and those in uninhabited ones like Siachen will answer this question definitively. But relying upon population growth and desertification to prolong their lives would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
What needs to be explored is not the validity of the secular trend, but the nature of the local influences working against it. By rushing to apologize for a statement they clearly did not understand, British Secretary for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband and others have impugned not only the honesty of scientists like Hasnain, but also the credibility of science itself.
(In 1985-1987 Prem Shankar Jha was a member of the energy panel of the World Commission for Environment and Development, headed by Gro Harlem Bruntland. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010. www.project-syndicate.org)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
