Truth or Scientific Overestimation: The Impact of Climate Change on the Himalayan Glaciers
Environmental Science
Thursday September 23, 2010
There will always be a divide between experimental scientific predictions and the here and now. There will always be the scientists versus the politicians and those who utilize the research we often mistake for the ultimate truth. Such is the basic difference between the article and the research report I will be comparing. The secondary source in this case study is based upon the point of view of a writer who cited the primary source in accompaniment to reports from the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ (IPCC); the primary source being strict evidence and research presented by an Indian scientist and researcher by the name of Dr. Ravinder Kumar Chaujar. His 6 page report was strategically called ‘Climate Change and its Impact on Himalayan Glaciers’. It was the classic comparison between politics being based on what was at the time believed to be ‘proven scientific fact’, and the strict evidence that was later proven false.
The secondary source was presented in an article posted on a website by the name of “Celcias”, by one of its senior editors, Keith Schneider. It was titled ‘70% of Himalayan Glaciers Gone By Next Century, Studies Say’. Schneider strongly supported the idea that the statements of the IPCC earlier this year based on scientific research had been wrong. He made it clear that the IPCC had over-estimated the effect of climate change on the receding Himalayan glaciers, and the general Tibetan Plateau area. The reports they published had supported the idea that the glaciers would be extinguished by approximately 2035. As it was later proven, this estimate was quite over-reaching. Although Schneider came across as being fairly unbiased, there is a general flow to his opinions, in that he criticises the IPCC for being too forward and for trusting such ‘proven’ scientific fact to be wrong. In contrast, Dr. Ravinder Kumar Chaujar of the ‘Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology’ presents a strictly unbiased report of those facts that Schneider used in his article. Chaujar is very persuasive but uses only researched facts and not creative writing. He strongly supports the idea that though the scientists who predicted the glaciers to be gone by 2035 were wrong, they weren’t all that far off. He attempts to prove that the consequences of our actions on the glaciers will start to appear sooner than we think, and that a good portion of the glaciers will be gone by 2070. There are only 35 years between that and the recent predictions, which, in the grand scheme of things, is a microscopic length of time. His proof is in the strength of his scientific and mathematical findings. He is at the heart of the issue, researching the glaciers on-site and strongly believes that there is more to the story than just the receding of the glaciers.
As with any article, Schneider’s word usage was used to portray a certain side to the story more than another, and his belief. In contrast, Chaujar’s was strictly analytical, not intended to be convincing. His findings were the evidence enough to support his writing. For example, Schneider’s work includes words such as ‘ecological catastrophe’ in reference to the (predicted) future turns the glaciers will take. It indicated a strong opinion in the invalidity of current beliefs and that the IPCC had underestimated the issue in their recently published findings.
Luckily enough, Chaujar’s findings did thus support in part Schneider’s beliefs. Chaujar’s report stated that though there was significant evidence of the receding of the Himalayan glaciers recently, there was also evidence of the opposite. He took into account more than just the glacial studies, and included information about lichen, moss, moraines and numerous biological aspects of the area that are major factors in the study and rate of glacier depletion. He discovered that in addition to the receding, they have, over the past few hundred years, changed, morphed and grown in certain areas. Chaujar studied the ancient runes and monuments which, in places, supported the growth and decline in the glaciers, while in others proved that glaciers had not existed in that area at the time. Some of the monuments concluded that glacier depletion had only begun 258 years ago (Chajuar, pg 3). This supports Schneider’s beliefs about carbon emissions having a large impact – thus global warming. Schneider specifically states that sceptics were quick to criticise the IPCC on jumping to conclusions, using this as evidence that science may be wrong about global warming. Chaujar’s findings not only support the idea of global warming, but help to moderate the growing arguments between the sceptics and the scientists. Schneider simply illustrates the fact that science may have been off, but they were not wrong. Both authors support the idea of climate change, though on different levels. Out of all of the information, Schneider specifically included statistics of temperature increase in the Himalayan area, which were a major part of Chaujar’s research. Both thought it important to include the fact that in the last 30 years, the temperatures in the general area had increased by 0.8°C, and that average snow accumulation has dropped from 2,000 kilograms per square kilometre to about 1,500 (Schneider, pg 1). The difference in their reports lies in the opinions. Chaujar is analytical; he proves the existence of climate change and its effect on glaciers by showing evidence from both sides, having included the mini glacial ages occurring in the middle ages and how they tapered off into glacial recession. Schneider is using these specific points to prove the existence of climate change and to prove that the IPCC may have been hasty, but science still does reign, though he doesn’t use evidence of the contrary.
Schneider, though writing in an unbiased manner, doesn’t support the idea that climate change doesn’t exist, and that is the major limitation to his writing. This is evident in that he didn’t include Chaujar’s points in evidence of glacial shifting and growing (though they are still, in net, much less than that which is receding). He could have used Chaujar’s opposing points to thus further prove his point by comparison. Any limitations to Chaujar’s work would be his lack of a conclusion. He stated enough evidence to have convinced a reader of one point of view, but the findings seemed inconclusive as to his own personal conclusions. Even scientists are biased and have preferences and beliefs. On the contrary, though that may have been a limitation to Chaujar’s work, he did include the impacts of other factors excluding global warming to aid in the research. That makes for a good study, and made his work a very useful primary source. I see it as being useful to both sides of the argument.
Personally, I believe climate change is a major factor in the receding of the Himalayas and global glaciers which are devastation not only local communities, but the oceans and the world on a grand scale. I support the conclusions of both of these authors.
Chaujar, Dr. Ravinder Kumar. "Climate Change and its Impact on Himalayan Glaciers."
Think To Sustain. Current Science, 29/05/2010. Web. 23 Sep 2010.
Picture: Panoramic View of the Chorabari Glacier http://thinktosustain.com/ContentPageCaseStudy.aspx?id=%20278
Schneider, Keith. "70% of Himalayan Glaciers Gone by Next Century, Studies Say."
Celsias. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sep 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment