Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts by Andrew

¶ … Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts" by Andrew C. Revkin, printed in the New York Times on October 2, 2007. Its focus lies on the Arctic ice cap -- particularly, on the rapidly decreasing amount of floating ice there. It reports that during the summer of 2007, the amount of floating ice melted to "an extent unparalleled in a century or more," and that upon discovering this information, scientists were "unnerved." The article cites a study that found that during that summer, ice had not only melted but moved -- out of the Arctic basin and past Greenland. It reports that the rate at which the ice melted was far more than any scientist or report had previously speculated, but that there exists between scientists disagreement about the true cause for this event. Still, the article says, many of those scientists believe that the Arctic "is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role." It goes on to say that experts have so far not been able to locate records from Russia, Alaska, or elsewhere that point to a decrease in melt at such a high rate as that of the summer of 2007, and that scientists are becoming increasingly convinced that the Arctic's changing climate is directly related to human influence.

The focus of the article shifts to describe how the situation is beneficial to shipping, fishing and oil exploration, but how it is detrimental to the fate of polar bears. It lists a number of scientists' views on the potential for the ice melt to be reversed; all of them say they believe there is essentially no chance of that happening. It then lists a number of factors that may have also influenced the ice melt: heat-trapping clouds, the "ocean-heating influence of unusually sunny skies in June and July," warm winds, and a decrease of thick ice, which can endure months of higher temperatures and sunshine. What was left was thin ice, which in turn absorbed the solar energy that thick ice normally would, but melted faster.

The article concludes with a number of quotes from scientists, testifying that warming trends such as these in the Arctic region, at this point, can probably not be reversed.

The academic article chosen for this essay is "Challenges of Climate Change: An Arctic Perspective" by Robert W. Corell, published in Ambio in June, 2006. I do not believe this article was used in the previously discussed New York Times piece. However, both are topically similar.

The article introduces its subject with an overview of the climate situation in the Arctic. It claims that the Arctic is experiencing climate change more intensely than most other areas. It cites thawing of permafrost, melting of glaciers and melting of sea ice as evidence for Arctic warming. It reports that changes in the Arctic will possibly have the following negative consequences: changes in global climate, sea level rise and "devastating effects" on polar bears, seals, and the people who rely on these animals for food. Conversely, climate change in the Arctic will possibly lead to less ice, which, as the New York Times piece states, will "increase access to the region's marine resources, expanding opportunities for shipping and possibly offshore oil extraction." However, the article says, these if these possibilities are realized, there will be possible increases in environmental damages brought on by such activities. The article goes on to list more possible impacts of climate change on the Arctic, and closes the introduction by saying that people need to be more aware of what is happening.

The body of the essay is composed of a number of subheadings, all dedicated to potential implications of climate change as related to the Arctic region. It warns of these implications: substantial decreases in snow and ice cover, leading to even warmer temperatures, the shifting of arctic vegetation zones to cause further warming as the result of a decrease in snow and ice reflection and in increase in heat uptake by the land, an increase in forest fires and insect outbreaks, increased stress on the larger fauna of the Arctic region, an increased storm risk for coastal communities, thawing ground to disrupt transport and other infrastructure, negative cultural and economic impacts on indigenous communities, and elevated UV radiation levels to negatively affect people, plants and animals. There are a number of charts and images as illustrations of some of these issues.

The article goes on to speculate at the possibility of reversing climate change. It argues that the effects of climate change are unavoidable, at this point, but that if we take steps to reduce emissions drastically, effects will come slower and be less intense, giving societies more time to adapt. It concludes by saying that climate change has very serious implications for the Arctic region.

Discussion

I believe the New York Times piece accurately reflected the information given in the Corell's article. However, not all the information in Corell's article was presented in the Times piece. This is either for the sake of brevity or because the Times piece did not use his article for its research.

In Corell's article I detected a specific focus on the negative effects of climate change in the Arctic, whereas in the Times report, it seemed that negative effects were contrasted with positive effects, and far less were listed. I found it interesting that I interpreted Corell's piece as "feeling" alarming, whereas I had much less of that kind of sense reading the Times story. It was interesting to me because I've become so used to media sensationalism, and this time I actually found an academic paper that felt more sensational than a mainstream media outlet's piece on the environment.

I did not find any contrasting information in the two articles. This is most likely because the story was written shortly after Corell's report, and so less time existed for updated data to enter the picture. I found the Times piece to lack any bias or interpretation -- it seemed to report the information from all possible angles and with a strong sense of neutrality, qualifying most of the "facts" with "the authors said," or something similar. I feel positive about this type of reporting.

The same level of "humility," as you might call it, did not exist in Corell's piece. This is probably because the author had no need, as the Times did, to appear completely neutral and act as if even "science" was under question. The Times must use language that does not condemn or condone science; to do so would be to show bias. Conversely, the academic article, acting under the paradigm of science, does not need to appear unbiased toward its belief in science, as that might make the whole thing seem irrelevant.