,
110 tweets,
10 min read
Read on Twitter
And now, a separate thread (I think technically my second ever). 1/x
(Warning: this will be QUITE long.)
was among the fastest and most vocal critics of my piece, especially on Twitter.
He is a serious science writer whose work (and Twitter!) I make a point of following.
Much of his criticism has echoed that of Michael Mann, that the story is too alarmist (Mann called it “doomist”).
As I’ve said elsewhere, I think that is a reasonable critique, though I disagree.
(I think alarmism is called for because I am alarmed, and think everyone should be).
But earlier today Eric began emphasizing factual questions with my story, and this afternoon presented his list of problems.
This was a very complex, fact-dense, and complicated story, and I would not be surprised if a few errors made it in, despite best efforts.
(One that we know about did, actually, about the eocene-oligocene extinction, but we caught it quickly and fixed online.)
But especially on the big-picture science...
Not only do I stand behind the piece, I think its presentation of that science is more or less incontrovertible.
The IPCC’s median projection is for four degrees celsius of warming by 2100; the high-end of their probability curve is eight degrees.
My reporting brought me to a variety of scientists to ask what that scale of warming would mean for their field: four degrees, six, eight…
My story relayed their answers, and the answers I found in research papers of scientists I did not interview.
In many cases, I sent the exact wording of my text to relevant scholars for review.
A few had quibbles with word choice here or there, but none made substantive objections.
As I said, it is possible that some more issues will emerge—it is almost inevitable, given how many pieces of data are presented.
And I welcome objections, if readers have them; I’d like to fix any issues there are!
But I feel very confident, at this point especially, given the enormous readership among scientists, that I have not made major blunders.
Most of the particular criticisms @EricHolthaus made of the piece this afternoon are not what I would call fact issues, exactly.
They are arguments with my interpretation, how and what I chose to include and emphasize, and with where I deployed hyperbole.
As I said earlier, I think these are important questions, although I also don’t think @EricHolthaus and I are actually that far apart:
We are both very worried about climate change, and think a lot of suffering and devastation is possible because of it.
We are also both motivated by the desire to see the world take more aggressive action, I think it’s fair to say.
But on to his objections, which I’ll take one at a time. ...
He writes "There is virtually zero evidence that permafrost will catastrophically melt in our lifetimes.”
The piece does not say that permafrost will melt in our lifetimes; it treats permafrost melt as a warming wild card.
None of the scenarios I present are based on, or require, methane release from permafrost melt.
They are based on the IPCC’s high-end business-as-usual estimate of 8 degrees by 2100.
But, considering permafrost melt by 2100, the IPCC has this to say:
“It is virtually certain that near-surface permafrost extent at high northern latitudes will be reduced … "
"with the area of permafrost near the surface projected to decrease by 37% (RCP2.6) to 81% (RCP8.5).”
(This is the synthesis report of IPCC AR5, page 12.)
Eric writes, "The calving of the Larsen C iceberg is almost certainly a mostly natural process.”
I did not say otherwise, but I think the science of this question is not settled either way.
(This Washington Post news story is a good primer: washingtonpost.com/news/energy-en…)
Regarding my suggestion that temperatures have risen as much as ten degrees in a decade, Eric writes…
"We simply can't know the Earth's temperature in geological time at decade-scale resolution.”
He is right that a lot of this science is speculative.
But Richard Alley (whom I interviewed) has studied abrupt climate change extensively...
and written in particular about a single-decade, 10-degree warming of Greenland 11,500 years ago.
(Here is one popular-press piece he wrote on the subject: soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/ITO…)
On heat stress, Eric writes, “the word 'uninhabitable' is a misread of the original research on heat stress + human activity this century.”
I interviewed Steven Sherwood, one of the two authors of the landmark paper on heat stress, and sent him my text before publication.
He approved it.
In fact, my original text said categorically that we would not get to 11-12C. Sherwood made me change that, because he believes we would...
(In coming centuries, without emissions reductions.)
"It feels weird to say that it is 'not remotely plausible' to provide air conditioning for the ppl on the front lines of climate change.”
Perhaps he has a different idea of plausibility than I do, and perhaps dramatic warming will indeed force a solution of this kind.
Personally, I think enclosing the entire equator and tropics in an air conditioned environment sounds very implausible.
(Although it is true that I did not research this question extensively.)
About my suggestion that frozen, ancient bacteria and diseases could thaw and threaten humans…
Eric writes, "Those ancient bacteria and viruses might have no idea how to infect us, either.”
That is true, and in my piece I included an additional caveat that most experts don’t believe there is a big risk of arctic plagues.
(Though the 1917 Spanish Flu and the Bubonic plague do know how to infect us, and they are frozen in the arctic, too.)
But most experts worry more about the effects climate will have on existing, contemporary diseases, as I pointed out in the piece.
About my suggestion that, at carbon concentrations of 1,000 ppm, cognitive function declines by 21%…
Eric writes, "The effects of 1,000 ppm CO2 on human cognition are not known well enough to make this statement.”
The science on this subject is young, it’s true, and the consensus may well change. But here are two studies:
(There is also a good summary of the research and its limitations in Joseph Romm’s Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know, p. 112-118.)
Regarding Chinese smog: "Eliminating fossil fuels will virtually eliminate China's smog problem. Indeed, that's already happening.”
To which I say, if that were to happen, he’s right!
But of course that is not what I was writing about, and that does not mean that smog from carbon emissions is not a problem today.
(Or, more importantly perhaps, going forward.)
Regarding my summary of the work of Marshall Burke and Solomon Hsiang on the relationship of climate to violence, Eric writes…
"There's no 1-to-1 relationship between climate change and conflict.”
He’s right, which is why, in the story, I said that climatologists are very careful talking about this subject...
And wrote explicitly, about this research, “In climate, nothing is simple.”
I also sent this material, verbatim, to Marshall Burke to review.
He approved it.
(You can find some of the interesting work here: web.stanford.edu/~mburke/papers… and web.stanford.edu/~mburke/papers….)
Regarding Burke’s work with Hsiang on the economic effects of climate change, Eric writes...
"In the event that climate change causes a massive global recession, emissions would decline as well.”
I believe that is, broadly speaking, true, but my summary was faithful to the existing (complex) models.
And this material, too, I sent verbatim to Burke for review.
He approved it.
(You can look at some of the relevant work in more depth here: web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climat…)
When it comes to ocean acidification, Eric takes issue with my use of an analogy to the pH level of human blood:
"I don't see how the pH of human blood has anything at all to do with ocean acidification.”
He’s right; it doesn’t really. But I was perfectly clear that this was an analogy meant to suggest scale of change.
At a couple of points in my story, I refer to the end-Permian mass extinction (also called the Great Dying).
"We just don't know if hydrogen sulfide caused the Great Permian Extinction,” Eric writes.
Extinctions are very complex and multifactorial, it’s true, but the leading scholar of this material is Lee Kump...
... and one summary of his findings is here: news.psu.edu/story/211836/2….
Finally, “there is no solid evidence of how climate change will affect thunderstorms + tornadoes + hail,”Eric writes.
Actually Michael Tippett at Columbia, for one, studies exactly this, and his findings are that climate change...
...will make more severe tornado and hale events will happen more frequently.
(In case it interests, here is another paper on hail: nature.com/nclimate/journ….)
And that, I believe, does it for @EricHolthaus’ objections.
But if you've made it this far, please, just bear with me a minute or two more...
To pull back from the particular objections: It is important to remember that much of climate science is speculative and evolving.
It is also clouded by uncertainty in many of its particular assessments, and certainly in its predictions.
It is not surprising that there would be a few things in an article that could surprise even a responsible, informed climate reporter.
(Which I have always thought Eric to be.)
And some of this research in my story may turn out to be misleading, or incomplete. That's science.
But my story is a digest of that research—that is, in a sense, all it is.
(Aside from an introductory section with, admittedly, some narrative and essayistic flourishes.)
And while I appreciate some of @EricHolthaus’ objections to the framing of the piece, and its commitment to surveying worst-case scenarios…
I find it frankly irresponsible for a climate writer to make such a public effort to undermine the credibility of this science…
Without even making a good-faith effort to find out my sourcing, which I volunteered, unprompted, to send him earlier this afternoon.
It is especially dispiriting when that same writer has spent the day proclaiming that we need to get the science right before going public.
We do.
Thank you all for reading!
I want to thank @EricHolthaus , too, for engaging with this piece, though I wish he had done so more conscientiously.
I also want to thank all of the many scientists who spoke to me at great length for this story; they are heroes beyond imagination.
(We're publishing some interviews this week at nymag.com; Michael Mann is particularly interesting: nymag.com/daily/intellig…)
And I want to thank my amazing researcher Julia Mead, who saved me from making the kinds of mistakes that @EricHolthaus has been looking for
And that is the end of this preposterously long tweetstorm.
