Far from being “alarmist,” predictions from climate scientists in many cases are proving to be more conservative than observed climate-induced impacts.
The observed rate of Arctic ice loss exceeds the projections of all IPCC climate models — by NSIDC scientist Julienne Stroeve updated through 2011 (via Climate Crocks, click to enlarge).
By Douglas Fischer, Daily Climate editor, in a repost
The warnings were dire: 188 predictions showing that climate-induced changes to the environment would put 7 percent of all plant and animal species on the globe – one out of every 14 critters – at risk of extinction.
Predictions like these have earned climate scientists the obloquy from critics for being “alarmist” – dismissed for using inflated descriptions of doom and destruction to push for action, more grant money or a global government.
But as the impacts of climate change become apparent, many predictions are proving to underplay the actual impacts. Reality, in many instances, is proving to be far worse than most scientists expected.
“We’re seeing mounting evidence now that the scientific community, rather than overstating the claim or being alarmist, is the opposite,” said Naomi Oreskes, a science historian with the University of California, San Diego. “Scientists have been quite conservative … in a lot of important and different areas.”
A decade ago scientists predicted the Arctic wouldn’t be ice-free in summer until 2100. But the extent of summer ice in the North has rapidly shrunk and today covers 70 percent of the area it did in 1979. Now some scientists think the Arctic could be naught but open water within 25 years.
In August, a team lead by University of York researcher Chris Thomas published a study showing that plants and animals are moving to higher elevations twice as fast as predicted in response to rising temperatures. They’re migrating north three times faster than expected, they found
As for extinctions, earlier this year two scientists at the University of Exeter paired predicted versus observed annihilation rates. The real-world rates are more than double what the best computer modeling showed: While the studies, on average, warned of a 7 percent extinction rate, field observations suggested the rate was closer to 15 percent.
Oreskes has spent a career studying climate science. She finds ample evidence that climate scientists are indeed biased – just not in the way portrayed by politicians such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who claimed scientists paint a bleak picture to secure more research funding.
In reality, Oreskes said, scientists skew their results away from worst-case, doomsday scenarios. “Many people in the scientific community have felt that it’s important to be conservative – that it protects your credibility,” she said. “There’s a low-end bias. It has led scientists to understate, rather than overstate, the impacts.”
Media’s fault, too
Not all scientists agree that they and their colleagues have deliberately downplayed impacts, of course.
But other scholars have noted the misperception – and argued the fault lies not just with scientists, but also with journalists reporting those findings.
In a notable 2010 study, the late William Freudenberg, a University of California, Santa Barbara, researcher who studied science and the media, found that new scientific findings are more than 20 times likely to show that global climate disruption is “worse than previously expected” rather than “not as bad as previously expected.”
He drew two conclusions from the assessment, one for scientists and one for journalists:
Scientists should be more skeptical toward supposed “good news” on global warming. And reporters, he warned, “need to learn that, if they wish to discuss ‘both sides’ of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate ‘other side’ is that, if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date.”
Inherent challenges
Of course, the science of climate modeling itself could be inherently biased. Predicting the future impact of emissions remains a difficult task, despite advances in the field over recent decades. Disparate elements can interact in surprising and additive ways that belie scientists’ best assumptions.
That may be the case with the discrepancy between predicted and observed extinction rates, said Ilya Maclean, a researcher at the University of Exeter and lead author of the study, published in July in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Many studies he examined tie predicted extinction rates to just one factor – rising temperatures, say, or loss of habitat due to sea-level rise. But a changing climate can impact habitats and species in diverse and unexpected ways, he said.
“That’s not to say there are always additive effects,” Maclean said. “But that might be one of the reasons why predictions tend to be quite conservative.”
As for the notion that scientists are – unconsciously or not – underplaying impacts, the charge has a ring of truth for Maclean.
Academics are a cautious lot, generally wary of being seen as making “alarmist” predictions, he said. The peer-review process tends to discourage bold or aggressive interpretations of data.
It’s a trend he recognizes even in his work: Maclean and his co-author, Robert Wilson, also a researcher at the University of Exeter, were careful to exclude any studies and factors they could not definitively link to climate change. That meant excluding a “fairly large” body of work from their analysis, he said.
Their standards, he acknowledges, were probably a little too conservative. But the main point of the paper wasn’t to highlight the gap between predictions and observations, he said. They simply wished to show the predictions were reasonable, not alarmist.
In an interview, Maclean was willing to “go beyond the message of the paper” and flatly state that the extinction predictions are too conservative.
But, he added, “I can’t say it definitively.”
– By Douglas Fischer, Daily Climate editor, in a repost
Related articles
- Study finds Arctic ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand in a warming world for up to a decade (greencarcongress.com)
- Arctic Ice Thinning 4 Times Faster Than Predicted by IPCC Models, Semi-Stunning M.I.T. Study Finds (thinkprogress.org)
One Comment
Researchers from the University of Tokyo have discovered high levels of cesium in plankton caught in coastal waters south of the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Samples measured almost 700 Bq/kg. Because many varieties of fish and sea life feed on plankton, scientists are concerned about a significant impact on the food chain.
Radioactive strontium-89 and -90 measuring 129 Bq/kg was discovered in a Yokohama street gutter this week, just days after a citizens’ group reported strontium in soil collected from a nearby rooftop. The area is 250 km from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, raising questions about just how far radiation from the disaster has spread. The Yokohama samples measured higher than some taken from Fukushima City.
Recent reports of radioactive hotspots in Tokyo are raising concerns among Japan’s citizens that dangers may exist in many places in which no testing has occurred. Experts say that radiation may have spread much farther than TEPCO or the government has admitted, and some caution that current testing methods are not sensitive enough to detect so-called ‘micro hotspots.’ Of 132 Tokyo soil samples submitted to Yokohama’s Isotope Research Institute, 22 exceeded 37,000 Bq/m2 of cesium-137, the standard that defined contamination at Chernobyl. Mountainous areas and the neighborhood housing Tokyo’s baseball stadium had particularly high readings. Government officials said they will start to monitor food originating from the mountains, but admitted that shipments from that region have not been monitored for the past seven months.
Japan’s Science Ministry has released a radiation map of Niigata and Akita Prefectures, showing high concentrations of cesium-134 and -137. In Niigata, the measurements ran as high as 30,000 to 60,000 Bq/m2. The ministry believes the cesium was distributed by wind and fell to the ground via rainwater. The half-life of cesium-134 is two years; the half-life of cesium-137 is 30 years.
Samples of one of the most famous types of tea in Japan, Sayama, exceeded the legal limit of cesium, in spite of the fact that they had previously passed radiation inspections. The tea is grown in Saitama Prefecture. Local government officials blamed the inaccuracy on the fact that Sayama tea is produced from young buds, and tests were only conducted on older leaves. An Agriculture Ministry official admitted, ‘We need to expand the scope of tests to reduce the number of contaminated products that go untested.’
A local group of citizens said they discovered a radioactive hot spot measuring 5.82 microsieverts per hour in a park in Funabashi City. City officials called it a false alarm, saying that their samples only measured 1.55 microsieverts, but said they will conduct additional tests.
Shitake mushrooms measuring 830 Bq/kg of cesium were discovered in Ibaraki Prefecture, after two other cases of radioactive mushrooms were discovered a few days earlier in Chiba Prefecture. In a related development, schools in Yokohama City will no longer serve mushrooms in school lunches. School officials made the decision in spite of the fact that mushrooms there measured 350 Bq/kg of cesium, lower than the government limit of 500 Bq/kg.
Tokyo city officials announced they will bury 3,000 tons of radioactive sludge and ash measuring up to 8,000 Bq/kg in a landfill in Tokyo Bay.
Goshi Hosono, Japan’s Nuclear Crisis Minister, announced that Japan will present a timetable for waste storage by the end of the month. Officials from Fukushima Prefecture said they are reluctant to accept temporary shipments of radioactive waste without knowing the duration it will remain in waste facilities.