Arctic Tipping Points

There is so much conflicting evidence regarding climate change in the Arctic.  What shall I believe?

The view above the village of Qaanaaq on an overcast day. Photo P. Wassmann

Headlines and news regarding the climate and climate change have been regular event in recent years.  They hit us like ice grains during a hailstorm.  And many headlines hurt us.  Droughts, storms, heat waves, hurricanes, floods, melting sea ice, disappearing species, drinking water shortages etc.: we could list endless lists of miseries that befall the human race in recent decades of increasing climate change.  The media wishes to attract the attention of people and thus it is partly ourselves that “create” the frightening headlines.  If we would not be so, the number of climate related headlines would be much smaller and reserved for the big events that we call catastrophes.  I hesitate to use the word because it is so often misused.  Most of what often is called catastrophes are just events that are overexposed by the media.  This can create a dooms day scenario that upsets people.  In this manner media can keep the attention of people.  A balanced statement on sea level rising, ice-melt or fauna changes often do not make it to the main headlines, partly due to the cool, precise and unemotional nature of scientific communication.

The front of the Eqip Sermia glacier discharges in the fjord. Photo P. Wassmann

Often the information presented is, over time, discussed by the media, which wishes to have debates about burning issues.  In order to commence a debate one or other person will be selected who has an opposite opinion to most scientists or an alternative explanation.  Here the media often make the mistake that they initiate a debate that is not based on opinions that are weighted, for which the journalist had to have very good scientific insight.  Often any opinion opposite to one launched by scientist is given as much space then science.  Some of the debates are net between scientists of different opinion, but scientists and politicians, members of environmental movements or others with critical opinions regarding mainstream science.  This can easily result in superficial debates that give the reader or listener the impression that scientists do not really know what they talk about.   Presented to the fear for the future and the insecurity that derives from – what I would call – unbalanced debates, people get tired and give up their “engagement”.  By which nothing has been gained.  In particular an important issue for the livelihood of mankind like the climate can suffer from that sequence of events, resulting in passivity and repression.

The Inglefield fjord outside Qaanaaq with the Fram and icebergs. Photo P. Wassmann

Hot debates in the media result in that important question are forgotten by the general public.  Is there no acid rain any more, much debated 30 years ago?  There is less acid rain now, but there is still the acid rain question that we never hear anymore about.  And what about dying woods, a major debate in central Europe 20 years ago.  Are the woods healthy now because we never hear about it?  No, the situation is as bad as before (except for specific regions with large industrial emission that have improve) or worse.  But the issue is “used up”, does not make it not the headlines anymore.  I can foresee a time, not far from now, where we will not hear anymore about melting sea ice anymore because it is not a hot issue anymore for the general public.  Already now journalists have to fight an decreasing interest in climate change issues in the Arctic by focussing upon them in particular manner, e.g. through personal interviews with scientists.

What shall we then believe when we have great interested in issues such the climate, the Arctic or ecosystems?  The core question will always be the following: “What is the quality of this information? Who has provided it?  Has it gone through an evaluation and referee process?”  The best one a do is to look for international reports such those from ACIA* and IPCC**.  Both reports have good and readable summaries that are written for the general citizen.   My answer to the question raised above is thus that one should not believe too much into the debates about climate change and the Arctic Ocean in the media, but go to the best available sources such as ACIA and IPPC.  Knowledge has magic qualities: it keeps the worries at a distance.  The future will be good one for many regions of the world, but reduced carrying capacity and climate change will result in lowered life quality

Clouds, iceberges and a ships that becomes rather small. Photo P. Wassmann

At the end I wish to launch a wish.  I notice a trend where some citizens believe that the ultra conservative ACIA and IPPC reports are documents of a environmentalist and scientific clique.  An elite that wish to indoctrinate citizens and limit democratic freedom (e.g. driving cars, protecting nature, introduce environmental taxes etc.).  These conspiration theories are wrong and dangerous.  They can easily become the place where we move in the political landscape because we do not wish to change our life style.  All reason tells us that we need a controlled lading after decades of overconsumption to omit the crash that will be the inevitable result of today’s life styles. ACIA and IPP do not wish to indoctrinate people and limit their freedom.

*ACIA (2004). Impacts of a warming Arctic: Arctic climate impact and assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 144 pp.

** IPCC (2007). Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm#1.

Comments are closed.