Climate scientists told to 'stop speaking in code'

May 04, 2011 By KARL RITTER , Associated Press
In this July 19, 2007 file photo an iceberg is seen off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. A new assessment of climate change in the Arctic shows the ice in the region is melting faster than previously thought and sharply raises projections of global sea level rise this century. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

(AP) -- Scientists at a major conference on Arctic warming were told Wednesday to use plain language to explain the dramatic melt in the region to a world reluctant to take action against climate change.

An authoritative report released at the meeting of nearly 400 scientists in Copenhagen showed in the Arctic could help raise by as much as 5 feet this century, much higher than earlier projections.

James White, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, told fellow researchers to use simple words and focus on the big picture when describing their research to a wider audience. Focusing too much on details could blur the basic science, he said: "If you put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it will get warmer."

Prominent U.S. climate scientist Robert Corell said researchers must try to reach out to all parts of society to spread awareness of the global implications of the Arctic melt.

"Stop speaking in code. Rather than 'anthropogenic,' you could say 'human caused,'" Corell said.

The Arctic has been warming twice as fast as the global average in recent decades, and the latest five-year period is the warmest since measurements began in the 19th century, according to the report by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program - a scientific body set up by the eight Arctic rim countries.

The report emphasized "the need for greater urgency" in combating global warming. But nations remain bogged down in their two-decade-long talks on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other blamed for global warming.

The World Bank's special envoy for , Andrew Steer, said the new findings "are a cause for great concern." The sea rise will affect millions in both rich and poor countries, but would particularly affect the poor, he said, because "they tend to live in the lowest lying land and have the fewest resources to adapt."

Steer said bank studies showed the costs of major flooding events on infrastructure and the economy could run into billions of dollars.

"It is clear that we are not on track in the battle against climate change," he said.

Bogi Hansen, an expert on ocean currents from the Faeroe Islands, said one problem is that scientists can come off as unsure about conclusions because they are reluctant to talk about anything with 100 percent certainty.

White, the Colorado scientist, agreed. At a news conference later Wednesday, he said those opposed to reining in fossil fuels "sow the seeds of doubt that give the people the impression that ... unless every single one of us lines up behind an idea, that decisions can't be taken."

The AMAP report will be delivered to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the foreign ministers of Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Russia, at an Council meeting in Greenland next week.

Explore further: Is Hawaii prepared for the impacts of climate change?

3.9 /5 (10 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Report sees sharper sea rise from Arctic melt (Update)

May 03, 2011

(AP) -- The ice of Greenland and the rest of the Arctic is melting faster than expected and could help raise global sea levels by as much as 5 feet this century, dramatically higher than earlier projections, ...

Planned emission cuts still mean far hotter Earth

Sep 24, 2009

(AP) -- Earth's temperature is likely to jump nearly 6 degrees between now and the end of the century even if every country cuts greenhouse gas emissions as proposed, according to a United Nations update.

Arctic heats up more than other places

Jan 16, 2009

Temperature change in the Arctic is happening at a greater rate than other places in the Northern Hemisphere, and this is expected to continue in the future.

Scientists warn of climate catastrophe

Jun 18, 2009

The world faces a growing risk of "abrupt and irreversible climatic shifts" as fallout from global warming hits faster than expected, according to research by international scientists released Thursday.

Recommended for you

Climate change: meteorologists preparing for the worst

17 minutes ago

Intense aerial turbulence, ice storms and scorching heatwaves, huge ocean waves—the world's climate experts forecast apocalyptic weather over the coming decades at a conference in Montreal that ended Thursday.

Sunlight, not microbes, key to CO2 in Arctic

37 minutes ago

The vast reservoir of carbon stored in Arctic permafrost is gradually being converted to carbon dioxide (CO2) after entering the freshwater system in a process thought to be controlled largely by microbial ...

Drying Sierra meadows could worsen California drought

1 hour ago

Carpeting the high valleys of Yosemite and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, mountain meadows are more than an iconic part of the California landscape. The roughly 17,000 high altitude meadows help regulate ...

User comments : 28

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nayTall
3.4 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
am i wrong in assuming this is a peer-reviewed field? cause i fail to see how the high majority of climatologists could be 'corrupted' by money to tell lies when the evidence is right there to be observed by anyone who cares to look. warming, cooling, i don't care. don't sh*t where you eat.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (11) May 04, 2011
Yesterday's temperature records.

http://mapcenter..../us.html

Total Records: 333
Rainfall: 79
Snowfall: 1
High Temperatures: 6
Low Temperatures: 126
Lowest Max Temperatures: 112
Highest Min Temperatures: 9

Apparently, yesterday was one of the coldest May 3 since record keeping began....
madrigal
3.3 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011
....and April was the warmest on record in the UK...your point being?
dogbert
3 / 5 (6) May 04, 2011
"Stop speaking in code. Rather than 'anthropogenic,' you could say 'human caused,'" Corell said.


I don't think that "dumbing down" will be productive. A patronizing attitude is seldom welcomed.

I'm all for it.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (12) May 04, 2011
Is this plain?
5 ft/100 yrs = 60in/1200 months = 1 in/20 months.

People on the coast should be able to observe this, if it is true.
Moebius
2.3 / 5 (9) May 04, 2011
QC, you one of those people who doesn't understand that climate change (and global warming) means record cold as well as hot? All kinds of weather records? The weather is chaotic due to our activities, not just an overall warming trend.
thermodynamics
2.7 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011
ryggesogn2: If anyone expected the results to be linear your simple division would be correct. The reality is that the reason they need copious computer time is that nothing is linear in climate science. If your depth of understanding of the subject led you to make that simplistic example then you are probably one of those they are trying to explain things to in simple terms.
RobertKarlStonjek
2.1 / 5 (7) May 05, 2011
"Stop speaking in code. Rather than 'anthropogenic,' you could say 'human caused,'"


Dumbing down the argument so that even the average individual can understand science is not going to convince Americans either way ~ to convince Americans you must mention 'God' at least twice, pretend that your position is against the prevailing World View and never mention a responsible World body of any kind unless to deride it and pledge opposition [this will work in the US for either side of the debate, use the opposite tactic for non-recalcitrant (mature) countries]...
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2011
melting ice in the Arctic could help raise global sea levels


This was peer-reviewed? I doubt it. Notice that they didn't specify a source or credit anybody. That's usually a sign of BS ahead. Do we really need to do a lesson on bouyancy again?

Using small words might sound like a good idea, but how about not using misleading and/or fearmongering headlines? That's probably what turns most people off more than anything else. People aren't dumb. The majority might not understand the details but they can tell when somebody is being disingenuous. Stories like the one above just tend to push people who might be in the middle further towards one side or the other.

The World Bank's special envoy for climate change, Andrew Steer, said the new findings "are a cause for great concern."


The fact that the World Bank has an envoy for climate change is cause for great concern. Red flags and alarm bells should be going off unless you are blind and deaf.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2011
ryggesogn2: If anyone expected the results to be linear your simple division would be correct. The reality is that the reason they need copious computer time is that nothing is linear in climate science. If your depth of understanding of the subject led you to make that simplistic example then you are probably one of those they are trying to explain things to in simple terms.

And every second they project into the future becomes exponentially uncertain as well.

Ever read "Models of Doom"? http://www.alibri...20Growth
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
It's the age of the internet. Information is at our finger tips. If one is reading an article online and doesn't understand a word, why not look it up and learn?
wiyosaya
5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
Dumbing down the argument so that even the average individual can understand science is not going to convince Americans either way ~ to convince Americans you must mention 'God' at least twice, pretend that your position is against the prevailing World View and never mention a responsible World body of any kind unless to deride it and pledge opposition [this will work in the US for either side of the debate, use the opposite tactic for non-recalcitrant (mature) countries]...

With representatives in our government like Michelle Bachman and when congressional leaders say God won't let global climate change happen because he said he would never smite the earth again, I can see why you would feel that way.

IMHO, it is unfortunate that God also gave a lack of understanding that it gave humanity the power to smite the earth.

I can always hope for more signs that those who elected the brain-dead to office are now realizing that those they elected really are clueless and brain-dead.
hopper
3.1 / 5 (7) May 05, 2011
Everyone has seen the graphs of temperature and carbon dioxide levels going up and down over thousands of years. Recently scientists have noted that temperature rises have always slightly preceded the rise in CO2 levels. They have said further that while there is correlation there is no proven causation. However if there were causation it would be more likely that in terms of cause and effect--heat would have caused the rise in carbon dioxide -- and not the other way around--since changes in temperature slightly preceded changes in carbon dioxide levels. This makes intuitive sense because snow can evaporate without changing to water first. So also will carbon dioxide trapped in water and soil evaporate. What would cause the earth to heat up and cool? What's the biggest body in the solar system? Might be the sun. Might have something to do with the sunspot cycle. Even a slightly elongated solar minimum can cause some pretty funky weather anomalies. Consider the last couple years.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (12) May 05, 2011
The planet was warmer 1000 years ago. There are remains of dairy farms under 100s of meters of glaciers in Greenland.

The planet was cooler 235 years ago when Alexander Hamilton pulled cannon across the FROZEN Hudson River at Haarlem Heights. The Hudson hasn't frozen that hard since the 1920s.

So. We know the planet warms and the planet cools.

Why we have to invent dire prophecies to explain natural events has only one explanation. Control. Government control over the means of production.

Everything else is just so much bullshit.
madrigal
4 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
Shootist...good grief!!
So the dairy farms are under 100m's of ice are they? Will you be providing a reference to this ridiculous an patently untrue claim?
Sure ley you understand the North Atlantic temperature anomoly was NOT global.
1776, a good year for volcanic eruptions across the globe, tends to cool the global temperature somewhat!
Government control...means of production....CONSPIRACY THEORIST ALERT!! Time to don the tin foil hats.
Bullshit....yep, you said it
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (10) May 05, 2011
And no, there was no significant vulcanism in the years 1775-1776. And the little ice age effected at least the entire northern hemisphere. 1815 was the year w/o a summer (Krakatoa).

Medieval glaciation

late 1100s: Sharp fall in Camp Century ice-core 18O content signals lower temperature in North Atlantic region.

1200: Foraminifera in deep Atlantic sediments show culmination of warming trend of preceding few centuries.

1200: Beginning of increased sea ice in coastal waters of Iceland and Greenland.

1200s: Glaciers began to advance in Iceland and Greenland.

As to the 'conspiracy', when international communism (Commintern) failed, its leadership moved to the Green movement and have been biding their time ever since. Look it up.

Control of the means of production goes hand in hand with Marxism/Environmentalism. Marxists and enviros are similar, both are faith based religions.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
Shootist: madrigal asked a very good question that you have not answered. He specifically asked for a reference to the statement that "There are remains of dairy farms under 100s of meters of glaciers in Greenland." I am also interested in the source of that information. I have seen you post it before but I have never seen a source for that quote. Can you please support the statement with a source?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 05, 2011
Shootist: madrigal asked a very good question that you have not answered. He specifically asked for a reference to the statement that "There are remains of dairy farms under 100s of meters of glaciers in Greenland." I am also interested in the source of that information. I have seen you post it before but I have never seen a source for that quote. Can you please support the statement with a source?

Thermo, you still have no first principle data or theory to support CO2 causes global warming.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2011
ryggesogn2: Actually, there is ample information on the FACT that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and increasing it causes retention of IR from the earth (warming the earth). It is basic physics and is easily shown in any heat transfer book. I suggest that the book "Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer" 4th ed by Siegel and Howell would be a good place for you to start if you understand physics. The basic principles have been known since Svante August Arrhenius first proposed the concept. From Wikipedia: "Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect." He had the first principle physics defined at that time. It was just that his calculations were off (not surprising considering he used long-hand arithmetic and underestimated the rate of change of use of fossil fuels). What more do you want?
madrigal
4.2 / 5 (5) May 06, 2011
And no, there was no significant vulcanism in the years 1775-1776.


Wudalianchi- China
Opala- Russia
Little Sitkin- Alaska
Vesuvius-Italy
Tungurahua- Ecuador
Pacayita-Guatimala

I also told you that it was a North Atlantic anomaly, so thank you for backing that up by quoting all Atlantic sources. errr...where are your global (i.e. not Atlantic) sources?
. You omitted to mention that the Russian winter of 1776 was quoted at the time as being the mildest winter ever known.
Oh, and thank you also for backing up my assertion that you are, if I may say so politely, a conspiracy theorist nutjob.

...and where are your links to the plainly ridiculous assertion that the dairy farms are under "100ms of ice" ?

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) May 06, 2011
madrigal: I have donned my tin-foil hat to get ready for more conspiracies from Shootist.

I also went out to look for the dairy farms that he claims were buried under 100s or meters of ice. What I found instead is that some dairy farms were buried under a thin layer of blowing sand that has frozen into tundra. Hmmmmmm.... I wonder if Shootist can't tell the difference between a thin layer of blowing sand and 100s of meters of ice? If that is true and he is confused by those two concepts, does that mean his "keen insight" into climate science could be a bit confused? Get ready for the barrage of conspiracy theories.
madrigal
4.6 / 5 (5) May 07, 2011
Song from Shootist....
"Hello darkness my old friend...."
Yes, it's the Sound of Silence. Just goes to show the climate change deniers are intent on blatant lies and misinformation to get their crackpot views across.
Come on Shootist, show me the links, show me the links!

PPihkala
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
This is how I see CO2 pollution: It has been shown that oceanic acid balance is worsening, meaning trouble for calcium exoskeletons. Secondly, it really does not matter which comes first in natural processes, CO2 levels or warming in general. We know that current CO2 rise is non-natural, because it is caused by human energy production, from road traffic and other means to burn hydrocarbons. We also know that when tundra's permafrost will (not if) be lost, all CO2 trapped there currently will be released. We also know that there are other processes that feed these positive feedbacks.

The lesson from this is that we know that climate will be warmer in the future. That warming will mean more water in the skies (humidity). That humidity will cause more extreme weather, like floods and hurricanes.

Now, what can we do to prevent climate warming further? We must stop and reverse CO2 (and other) pollution. For example soot is a big reason arctic ice and snow are melting faster.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 08, 2011
We know that current CO2 rise is non-natural,

Of course it is natural as humans are a part of nature.

Now, what can we do to prevent climate warming further?

Where is your data?
Predictions using CO2 as the culprit have failed.

The lesson from this is that we know that climate will be warmer in the future.

The climate has been warming for 10000 years melting the ice sheets that covered half of the Northern Hemisphere.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (6) May 08, 2011
The climate has been warming for 10000 years melting the ice sheets that covered half of the Northern Hemisphere.


Somehow, Chicken Little manages to ignore that fact.
Brad_Louis
1 / 5 (6) May 18, 2011
Gerlich and Tscheuschner have falsified the greenhouse effect. Joseph Postma "Understanding the Atmosphere Effect" explains why earth's temperature requires no greenhouse effect to understand. Claes Johnson describes the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. Bo Nordell explains how thermal pollution generates heat on earth. Climate scientists are unable to provide a falsifiable proposition for how their "greenhouse" effect works based in real physics. The claimed "backradiation" theory is unphysical and the claimed "radiative insulation" theory is also unphysical - neither have been demonstrated to exist experimentally and nobody seems to care that they need to do this.
madrigal
3.7 / 5 (3) May 29, 2011
Shame to see the anti-scientists at it again.
SphaericaBob
not rated yet Jun 01, 2011
Brad,

Postma's paper is a complete joke. If you read it with any understanding of atmospheric physics, you see that the holes in it are gaping wide and ridiculous. If that's what you consider to be science, or a good refutation of actual science, I'm afraid you're completely lost.