Comments Andy Revkin has made

IPCC dropped the graph at the heart of this paper

One important aspect of the PNAS paper, explored on Dot Earth on Monday, was that the "burning embers" graph was DROPPED from the IPCC report in 2007 as too vague (some scientists) and too alarming (some fossil-fueled countries).
http://tinyurl.com/dotIPCCembersOn Climate change risk underestimated: study posted 9 months ago 3 Responses

When Hedges Are Right (whether or not convenient)

I posted a couple of rebuttals when this critique by Joe went up on Climateprogress.org. Better late than never, I'll post them here now, at least for the record:

Andy Revkin Says:
August 17th, 2008 at 12:42 am

Joe,

I think you've completely missed the boat this time in your chiding about inappropriate media multiple hedges (including mine). These are scientists' hedges, not mine. They are based on the extraordinary complexity of the Arctic Ocean system. Arctic sea ice is varying there because of dynamics AND thermodynamics on many time scales and driven by all manner of influences -- with much of the recent drop due to a big flush of thick old ice many years ago. For that October story [link above], I interviewed two dozen Arctic hands, almost all of whom said there had to be a human element.

But hardly any would say there's sufficient evidence to characterize it as the dominant force up there. Marika Holland at NCAR warned that the same variability that caused the remarkable dip in 2007 (and less remarkable one this year) could just as easily throw a wrinkle in the other direction.

In nearly 25 years of writing on humans and climate, I've learned to try to distinguish between the facets that are clear and those that remain uncertain. I think that is serving a greater public service than saying we know everything now only to have, say, the Arctic flicker back into cool, icy mode for awhile.

So while there are few caveats any more about the basics (as in the IPCC saying that more than half of the global warming since 1950 is "very likely" human caused), when it comes to regions (Arctic particularly), the complexities and uncertainty rise. But don't take my word for it. Come with me to the sea ice some time, or simply to the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, or an Arcus meeting, and let me introduce you to 20 or 30 scientists working incredibly hard to clarify that Arctic Ocean pixel point in the climate picture.

Click here for more about what's up with North Pole sea ice.

[JR: Andy, I think this is one of those cases where you have let your own abundant knowledge of the Arctic blind you to the obvious. I am very well aware and have previously blogged that there are multiple factors that determine the degree of ice lost any given year -- but the literature is clear that even in 2007, global warming played "a large part" (see "What drove the dramatic retreat of arctic sea ice during summer 2007?").

But your paragraph was not about the specific details explaining the full extent of the 2007 ice melt. It was about "the increasing summer retreats of sea ice." Again, to say that MANY POLAR scientists say that is PROBABLY being driven IN PART by global warming caused by humans is to eviscerate everything we know about climate science. I assert in the strongest possible terms that at the very least "many" should have been replaced by "most" and "in part" by "in large part" -- the latter of which is not mean "the dominant cause." Although again I challenge you to name even five polar scientists who do not think human-caused global warming is the dominant cause of "the increasing summer retreats of sea ice."

Andy -- Four hedges is at least two too many.]

I stand by what I said in the story and response above. You have a PhD and understand evidence and statistics and complexity. I'll send out a query, rather than speaking for the sea-ice community, and post anew at Dot Earth.

But as a starting point, I'll propose now -- and I'll change this if they disagree -- the names of some leading scientists in this field who I'm quite sure would NOT say there is sufficient evidence to conclude that human-caused global warming IS the main cause of increasing summer retreats of sea ice (although they would say there is strong likelihood that it will eventually dominate):

James Morison, U. of Washington
Igor Polyakov, U of Alaska, Fairbanks
Claire Parkinson, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Son Nghiem, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Marika Holland, National Center for Atmospheric Research
John Walsh, U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (and UAF)

I stand by the summation of ice experts' views in my 2007 story:

"More than a dozen experts said in interviews that the extreme summer ice retreat had revealed at least as much about what remains unknown in the Arctic as what is clear. Still, many of those scientists said they were becoming convinced that the system is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role."

- Andy Revkin nytimes.com/revkin

Fair and Accurate is My Goal - Not Balanced

Several things:

1. Joe, you did assert there's a significant gap in saying the paper doesn't say how long the concentration of CO2 could overshoot Jim's chosen goal of 350 ppm before tracking back to that level. That is a hugely important question in terms of how hard society has to work, and how quickly. Am I missing something?

2. Jim and I go back a long way (1988), and I think -- even though he's focused on this "balance as bias" idea now -- he'd see most of my 20 years of coverage as fair and ACCURATE. I've written repeatedly about the "tyranny of balance" in traditional news coverage and how it impedes effective coverage of complex science. (A book chapter including a discussion of balance was posted when I did an On the Media interview on this issue.)

3) A Dot Earth post on a DRAFT paper posted by Jim expressly to gain review and comment is NOT the same as a news story written once that paper has been formally peer-reviewed and published in a journal. When Jim's paper has passed those hurdles, I'll write a fair and accurate story about it.

Andy

- Andy Revkin nytimes.com/revkin

Counting Skeptics

After my short piece on the Heartland conference ran, a number of PhD's who'd attended, including Stanley Goldenberg of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's hurricane research branch, chided me for not making clear that while there may only have been 19 scientists who assembled for the group photo after lunch, there were at least several dozen more in attendance.

As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue). But, for fairness' sake, I added a post on Dot Earth in part elaborating on the turnout.

Andy Revkin "The North Pole Was Here" nytimes.com/earth

Glad to see this...

I like your thoughts Andrew, although to my eye the piece gives zero weight to the old pole of the debate denying any possible human influence on climate.

Even Richard Lindzen agrees that co2 is a greenhouse gas and more of it will warm the planet more (see my 4/06 "Yelling Fire on a Hot Planet" story for more on that.. easy to google).

As I just explained on www.realclimate.org as well, the orthodoxy that is in the public mind now is not the IPCC (which IS the orthodoxy for climate scientists, but is largely not what gets thru to the media and into policy realm).

There, the dominant framing now is the far 'hotter' notion that climate is a realtime crisis that can be solved with existing technologies and willpower.

The folks I focused this story on say that is NOT a useful approach and is flawed on every side. The building human influence has multi-decadal momentum. There is no quick fix. CO2 persists for generations and that is what creates need for prompt action. But even urgent action would not lessen current climate extremes, etc etc.

For the average American, all of that is news. And that means I've got to write about it.

I encourage you to review all of our recent coverage of the challenging climate-energy nexus here: www.nytimes.com/energychallenge .

Mostly sobering, some hopeful hints, and all vitally important.

Andy ROn It muddles the science and policy debates together posted 2 years, 10 months ago 47 Responses

Nicely put

I'm glad that at least one Grist reader noticed that this story is about the middle and one edge, despite the (bad) headline (which, as all writers always explain, is not written by the reporter).

And I, too, see our best hope, perhaps, in getting the next generation to absorb that their world (climatic and biological and more) is largely being shaped today by their parents' decisions -- or lack of engagement. I'm not being coy when I explain to audiences that one reason I wrote my new climate book for kids (anyone 10 and up) is I'm not convinced today's "fossils" (as youth climate activists call us grownups) are going to get this in time. You can read first chapter online here: www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarmingOn The supposed 'middle way' is debunked posted 2 years, 10 months ago 39 Responses

knowing what to do...

You raise a critical theme, which is the need to articulate a clear suite of strategies that -- once someone has crossed the threshold to action -- provides a sense she/he can wake up in the morning and make a greenhouse difference. Much more focus could be switched from ringing scary alarm bells to showing folks real-world escape routes. The Times is pursuing a series of stories this year on that side of the issue.

Andy Revkin "The North Pole Was Here" nytimes.com/earth