- The Washington Times - Tuesday, May 29, 2001

"New research findings have identified declines in the extent of Arctic Sea ice and its thickness over the past several decades. The average thickness from the ice surface to the bottom of the ice pack has declined by about 40 percent. A related study … estimate the probability that the observed trends could be caused entirely by natural variability is less than 2 percent. This research suggests that human activities are very likely contributing to the loss of Arctic ice."
That is how the U.S. Global Change Research Program public relations department characterized one of the groups top accomplishments last year. The report of the Arctic meltdown was greeted with doomsday headlines and as confirmation of humans being the source of global warming. In January, the World Resources Institute even trumpeted that finding as a reason President George W. Bush should resume climate talks and seek ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an action that would require a 30 percent cut in U.S. fossil fuel use at substantial cost to workers and the economy.
In recent weeks, though, there has been some good news about Arctic ice that the media has chosen to ignore. A Swedish researcher, performing a re-examination of the data garnered on Arctic ice by U.S. submarine measurements, reported in Geophysical Research Letters in March that there has been no thinning of ice in the Arctic Sea for the last dozen years. And last week, at an international meeting of Arctic scientists, Greg Holloway, a Canadian scientist who has studied the Arctic for decades, provided a reason for the discrepancy: Arctic ice oscillates with the winds in 50-year cycles. The submarines measurements didnt take the movement into account.
The point of this is not to say the initial Arctic ice study was bad science or that the most recent reports are free of flaws. It is to caution the public and policy-makers against being rushed to action by scaremongers and the media who broadcast their message. For the science of climate change, despite what proponents of the theory of global warming claim, is hardly settled. It is filled with uncertainty.
That is not merely my conclusion. It was the message delivered in a National Academy of Sciences report, "Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade." The report issued in 1999 was requested by the government as a critique of the first decade of research into global climate change and as a guide for the next decade.
As a former president of the NAS, I appreciate the efforts of the scientists drawn together to explore issues of public import. So do the media, which often pick up NAS findings and report them to the public. What was noticeable about the Pathways report and subsequent follow-ups is the absence of attention by the press. And the question is why? Is it because this report upset as do the studies on Arctic ice the preconceived notions that the science of climate change is settled and mankind is its cause?
A key conclusion of the NAS scientists was that "a great deal more needs to be understood … about global environmental change before we concentrate on 'mitigation science." It warned that: "Anthropogenic global change [that is, change in the climate caused by mankind] cannot be assessed without adequate understanding and documentation of natural climate variability on time-scales of years to centuries in other words, without adequate baseline understanding." It found that "the impressive, and abrupt, swings in climate recorded over the past several thousand years may, if anything, understate the potential for natural climate variability."
The report work noted uncertainties in measurement of sea level and temperature. It posed a dozen research questions about greenhouse gases that needed answering. It raised serious reservations about the modeling being used as confirmation of global warming. It called for better observations of conditions on the lands, oceans and in the atmosphere before drawing meaningful conclusions. Follow-up NAS reports have reiterated many of these same reservations. A report "The Science of Regional and Global Change: Putting Knowledge to Work," for example, noted: "We still do not have sufficient knowledge or analytical capability to fully assess the magnitude of … changes."
Such findings point to the need not for rapid action by policy-makers, as pushed by certain European diplomats and environmental organizations, but for more research on climate and its variability. And those researchers shouldnt be pressured by politics or encouraged by publicity to find a particular answer. They should be given the space, the time, the funding and support to seek and find the truth.
The science of climate change today does not call for rash action that could wreak havoc with economies worldwide and even cause worse damage to the environment over time. Indeed, the science tells us such self-inflicted economic damage is unnecessary, unwarranted and foolish. It is time that story came out.

Frederick Seitz is president emeritus of Rockefeller University and past president of the National Academy of Sciences.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide