THIS.❆ Clothing: creative awareness of climate change

Dear all,

In my time away from the blog I haven't been lazy, but besides reading up on developments in glaciology, snowboarding and climate change, I've been busy with my slightly-gone-out-of-hand hobby!

I'm now proud designer/owner of THIS.❆ Clothing. Totes, t-shirts and sweaters, snow(board)-, ice- and climate change themed, as is this blog. I want to create awareness and discussion through design and art, and I feel lucky to receive so much support from the local snow community.

After I'm back from my time in the mountains, you'll also find my website and facebook page online, but here is a little sneak peek:

Blue mountains. Let's keep 'em snowy

The polar bear & the thermometer: little depiction of climate change.

INTERESTED IN BUYING A SHIRT/BAG? Drop me a line in the comments! 

Have a great winter season guys, and shred safely! 

Graduate Climate Conference

Hi all,

A short post to let you know I'll be off to the most amazing, nerdy, outdoorsy and scary conference I've been to so far. The Graduate Climate Conference is alternately organised by UW and MIT, and this year will take place close to Seattle, from 30.10 - 02.11.

I'll be presenting my poster on numerical modelling of glacier processes within the cryosphere section, and be listening to a wide range of graduate research in the climate sciences. I'm excited, and keep you updated, provided I don't have a close encounter with a bear or an abyss during our hike on Mt. Rainier.

For more info: http://www.graduateclimateconference.com/

Cheers!

The death of a legend: JP Auclair

It's with a sad heart that I write this new blog post after having been away for a while. However, I could not let this go without writing about it: we lost a wonderful human being and a huge inspiration yesterday.

JP Auclair, professional skier and climate change activist, died in an avalanche in Chile yesterday. An article on Powder's website does JP and Andreas Fransson's death more justice than I could, so read about it HERE.

Not only was JP a fantastic skier, who was looked up to and admired by many who share his passion for the sport, but he was also a hugely important influencer in the battle against climate change. With his organisation ALPINE INITIATIVES, he engaged the snow sports community in becoming aware of environmental and climate change issues, and to actively partake in mitigating them. The organisation's words: "AI engages the snow sports community in sustainable initiatives that connect people and planet."

Source: AI website. Bottom: ski collaboration with

Armada, the brand Auclair co-founded

I was lucky enough to communicate with JP about possibly setting up a project with AI, and getting my artwork involved for the website. In his last e-mail he told me he was on the road a lot, and just wanted to let me know not to worry if I didn't hear back for a while: he was excited to get this going but didn't have a lot of time at the moment.

I am still excited about setting up a project with AI, and am certain that there are dedicated people out there, ready to continue his work. But there are many grieving today, for their personal loss, for the snow sports community and for all he wanted to do but can't anymore.

JP, ski some clouds for us up there, and trust us to continue what you so wonderfully started. You won't be forgotten.  On that note: have a look at the AI website guys, and see how YOU can get involved.

Climate Change and rainy Midsommars

Hi all,

Back from Sweden and its summer weather: cold and rainy! But I spent Midsummer with a bunch of beautiful, intoxicated people, which made it all so worth it. However, having an international group of people inevitably led to comparisons with weather in other countries: Austria, England, the Netherlands, Germany.. and to people coming to the conclusion that it "didn't use to be like this".

So even though this rainy Midsummer weekend is part of climate variability, not climate change (for an explanation, read this post), there is some truth to the statement that things are changing. So what might this mean for future midsummer festivities? Yep: more rain jackets and scarves, and if we're lucky, sometimes a bikini.

Source: www.thelocal.se

As mentioned before, climate change will mainly manifest itself through the earth's hydro-ecological system, which includes changes in precipitation. Each type of climate will respond differently, based on its characteristics and geographic location. Geographic location influences not only solar irradiation, but also the effect ocean- and wind global circulations have. Swedish climate is generally temperate, with three official climate distinctions in the different parts. From South to North: oceanic, humid continental and subarctic. Because of the warming impact of the Gulf Stream on Sweden, its climate is much milder than other locations around the same latitude. Because of this important influence, large circulation variability because of climate change is likely to have significant effect on Swedish climate and weather (Busuioc et al., 2001).

Depending on the use of climate model, sea level pressure variability will have a moderate to severe effect. As researched by e.g. Busuioc et al. using HadCM2, and Bergström et al., (2001) using several General Circulation Models within the project SWECLIM, the definitive simulated effects depend on optimal statistical downscaling and vary with which model is used. Here are some general conclusions though:

• For all seasons, there is a correlation between sea level pressure and precipitation
• Especially summer and autumn precipitation will increase
• HadCM2 and ECHAM4 respectively predict a 4.5% and 6.9% increase in annual precipitation.
• The North and Middle of Sweden will get wetter, the South will locally get dryer
• Weather will become more extreme, meaning more highs and lows in especially summer

So what can we gather from this? There is a lot more research going on about this topic, but the general consensus is for Sweden that weather will become more wet, with some extreme outliers of increased temperature and solar irradiation. 

So about Midsummer: be prepared to celebrate in the rain, especially north of Stockholm. We might also get lucky some years, and be swimming and tanning while enjoying this wonderful, crazy celebration. But really, who cares: it's always good in its own way. Glad Midsommar, see you next year! 

Why we should not go on "Saving the the Planet"

Hi all,

First off, I have a new favourite website: NASA Climate Change FAQ. And even though I should be struggling my way through writing an add-on script in Python, I would like to share this with you. Go HERE!

It's a great variety of questions and answers, but in my opinion, an important one is missing. Climate change and glaciology have been prominent in the media over the past weeks, with the discovery of hidden canyons beneath Greenland and the irreversibility of West Antarctic Glacier Melt. And of course you then here the outcry "We need to save the planet! Look at what we're doing to it!"

My question and answer for today: 'Why is it NOT about "saving the planet"?'
The short answer will be in the words of comedian George Carlin, who's much more eloquent than I am and argues the same case.

"The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will be here a long, Long, LONG time after we're gone." 

-- George Carlin

As for the longer answer.. Saving the planet is an abstract notion that cannot engage more than a few, as saving (ie. preserving in its current/ some previous state) would require putting a stop to all anthropogenic activity. It is however, almost too easy to lose oneself in this abstract notion, because planet earth is the only home we know and have. In all of its beauty and usefulness providing ecological services, it seems to go against our instincts to say "It's not about saving the planet."

In 2001, De Paiva Duarte publishes an interesting article regarding the notion of the planet in an environmental protection mindset: "'Save the earth' or 'manage the earth'? The politics of environmental globality in a high modernity" (De Paiva Duarte, 2001). In this paper, he addresses exactly the question of this blog post, and labels the two streams of thinking 'ecocentric globality' vs. 'instrumental globality'. Ecocentric globality can be summarised as a worldview considering the earth a living thing, which humans are morally obliged to preserve. Instrumental globality conceives the planet as a system of resources, needing to protected for human consumption (De Paiva Duarte, 2001).

Danger lies in either of these world views, with on the one hand prioritising the preservation of planet earth regardless of the knowledge that it will find a new equilibrium. The danger in the instrumental globality exists in the disregard of the long term, extracting all the earth provides and hereby making 'her' (Gaia) unliveable for the future.

In my small opinion, the most important issue is to preserve earth so that it remains fit for humans to live under the rule of law. This means climate and environmental change mitigation to an extent that huge migration and thus political chaos can largely be avoided. Don't "save the planet" for the planet's sake. But for life under the rule of law, on this beautiful organic spaceship.

Pitztaler Gletscher: Melting over Time

Hi there,

Talking about somewhere close to home today: the Pitztaler Gletscher (Lat 46.919, Lon 10.863). This is a ski resort in the Ötztaler Alps, which because of year-round snow availability is especially popular for summer shredding. However, considering the overall negative mass balance of alpine glaciers, it is safe to assume also this glacier's ablation is greater than its accumulation. How much exactly, I'll show you below by using the Innsbruck based Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics (IMGI) glacier inventory.

The ski resort Pitztaler Gletscher (figure 1) stretches across two glaciers: the Brunnenkogelferner and part of the Mittelbergferner (figure 2). Their elevation, ranging from ca. 1500 - 3440 m., guarantees snow availability. While we do not have to worry yet, snow from the glaciers is decreasing rapidly, a process that is projected to intensify under the influence of climate change. As the IPCC AR5 report states, alpine regions are especially sensitive to temperature changes and longer ablation periods and will predictably undergo heavy snow and ice losses.

                           

Figure 1. The Pitztaler Gletscher Ski Resort Map. Source

 Figure 2. Pitztaler Gletscher on Satellite Imagery. Source

This process is documented in the IMGI Austrian glacier inventory, developed by M. Kuhn, J. Abermann and A. Lambrecht at the University of Innsbruc.
To view it, GIS shapefiles and csv data files can be retrieved for the years 1969, 1998 and 2006 respectively here (1969 and 1998) and here (2006, under 'other version'). From comparing area data and placing the layers over each other in ArcGIS or QGIS, the shrinking of the glacier can be clearly observed (figure 3). The data on area in km2 is in the table below.


                 Area  Brunnenkogelferner  (km2)                   Area Mittelbergferner  (km2)
1969                          1.831                                                              11.055
1998                          1.525 (-16.7%)                                                9.924 (-10.2%)
2006                          1.417 (-22.6%)                                                9.615 (-13.0%)

Figure 3. Glacier Area in 1969 (blue), 1998 (orange) and 2006 (purple)

As is displayed above, both glaciers have undergone significant shrinking since 1969, as have most Austrian glaciers. If you would like to know more, read THIS article by Abermann et al. (2009) or have a look at the glacier inventory yourself. As said before, this can be downloaded from the IMGI website. All you need is either ArcGIS, QGIS or another programme that reads shapefiles. Interesting also is a comparison with the Randolph Glacier Inventory or the World Glacier Inventory, for all of which shapefiles are available from the respective websites.

Research Update

Hello all,

I'd like to share a series of posts with you during this summer, keeping you up to date on the research I'm currently a tiny, tiny part of. I'm lucky enough to have been offered a spot in Innsbruck for the coming months, doing the research for my thesis. So right now I have a beautiful view of the snowy Patscherkofel, from the Innsbruck office.

In the project 'Multiscale Snow/Icemelt Discharge Simulation into Alpine Reservoirs' the spatial and temporal melt and discharge patterns of a glacierised catchment area in the region of Tyrol (Austria/ Italy) are investigated.
Coupling  a physically based snow/ice model, a discharge model and, in the future, a glacier evolution model, snow distribution and discharge is simulated. Airborne laser scan and station data from the catchment form vital tools for calibration and validation of the models.
Important goals for the project include the extrapolation to a larger temporal and spatial scale, assessing glacier melt, snow distribution and consequent river discharge under climate change scenarios as described by the IPCC AR5 representative concentration pathways (RCPs).

Orange dot: Innsbruck, red arrow: catchment area (roughly). Source

My teeny-tiny contribution to all of this is, for now, looking at the historic area changes of a glaciers in the Ötztaler Alps. This is done using several available glacier inventories, comparing the inventories' stored data and creating a GIS based 'area over time' map. Using the models mentioned above, I/we will run a hindcast of the catchment, once with station and once with interpolated satellite data. As a result, coupled model performance will be evaluated. Exciting stuff!

David MacKay and the IET's 2050 Pathways

Dear all,

First of all: sorry for the long posting silence. I could give you a long list of excuses, but I am not going to. I'm back! Today's topic: not directly related to the cold, nor to climate science per se. But on the most important climate change mitigation issue: energy. Demand, supply and storage: the 2050 pathways discussed by a group of experts (and some semi-knowledgeable-lucky-to-be-there people like myself).

Yesterday, I had one of these moments every scientist needs once in a while. The realisation: "Yes, this is why I want to be a part of the scientific community. This is what I am set out to do with my life."
Why this moment happened? Because I got to attend the Institution of Engineering and Technology Clerk Maxwell lecture at the beautiful venue of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. There I was: alone, intimidated and about 30 years younger than the average participant.

The speaker for this event was David J.C. MacKay, chief scientific advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change and Regius Professor in Engineering at the University of Cambridge.
His book "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" I consider to be the best book on the topic of renewable energy, because it quantifies the issues at hand, rather than using lengthy and empty 'green lobby' explanations. As the book's motto says: "Numbers, not Adjectives."  It is freely available for you to download as a PDF here, which I highly recommend you do. This book is also one of the reasons I got into climate science in the first place, so I was excited to hear David MacKay speak.

The lecture was centred around the 2050 Energy Pathways, meaning the way we will have to change our energy use and supply if the UK wants to reach its target of an 80% reduction in CO2 emission, from the 1990 baseline (DECC). In order to simulate several ways to reach these targets, the UK 2050 Calculator was developed. It is a tool that, as MacKay says, "Allows you to be the secretary of state or dictator of Britain for a bit." It is pretty self-explanatory, so have a look and play around with it HERE before you read the rest of this post.

  This is what the pathway calculator looks like. Source

MacKay started out with a brief explanation on climate science, being especially clear that natural variability occurs, the current hiatus is statistically meaningless and surface temperature is the most useful indicator of global warming. He did not dwell on the topic for long, because he (rightly) assumed that the crowd agreed climate change is a global challenge that needs to be addressed.

The next hour was devoted to constructing an "IET Pathway", involving discussion within the room and for each lever choosing the levels we thought desirable and realistic. Especially high-impact levers are e.g. thermostat setting and the choice for or against nuclear power.
However, by the end of the lecture  - by no means end of the discussion, but we ran out of time - we did not succeed in reaching the target of an 80% emission reduction. This, to me, is worrying for mainly these two reasons:

1) The majority of participants lasts night were engineers and scientists with the 'prerequisites' that they understand the threat climate change poses, understand energy demand and supply, and most importantly understand the importance of immediate action. They applied their expertise with the full intention of reaching the target, and through majority voting we reached answers that quite fairly represented the ideas of the crowd.
If this group could not even reach the target, factor in Britain's real life population. This population includes many that either don't understand the topic, do not care about it, or do not care enough to change their behaviour - all three necessary in order to actually succeed. Then there are the ones that understand, but value their personal short-term (ie. human life span) gain over future populations' problems. Considering the behavioural changes that would have to be made within the majority of British homes - thermostat down to 18C, extra insulation, taking the train instead of the BMW - and the likely protest against them, I am pessimistic.

2) In our "let's-make-Britain-better" discussion we did not consider policy implementation problems or cost. Our big plans for nuclear power for example - I'm all for it - are highly difficult in terms of politics.  Thank goodness we don't have an Angela Merkel size problem here, but still, substantial trouble could stand in the way of building ca. 65 GW capacity worth of new nuclear power stations.
Second, the costs of covering every single south-facing roof in Britain? Building new railway tracks because train travel needs to increase by 115%? Changing the infrastructure of every major city in Britain because we need a 10-fold (!) increase in cycling? (For all you pro-London-cycling: no, it is not safe enough yet. Nope. No way.)  These are immense costs we're looking at.
Cost is a part of the calculator you can play around with, which I will definitely do, but was not part of our discussion.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that regardless of how unlikely it is that the entire British population would want to work with our decisions, political issues and huge attached costs, we initially did not reach the target. We did finally reach the goal through MacKay deciding we would all just be a little more ambitious in terms of shipping, aviation and electricity storage. Our final IET Lecture Patyway you can find HERE.
The lecture was inspiring, it re-confirmed my determination to become a scientist, yet it also left me with a reality check once again of how incredibly difficult the task ahead of us is.


For now: please play around with the calculator and share your results with me. Also have a look at David MacKay's own blogpost on the evening, right here.

What does climate change cost?

Hi everyone, 

First: I've become slightly less tech-nitwit and found out how to put this thing onto BLOGLOVIN'. So go on, click the button on the top of this page! 

Today's post is on a topic I recently got interested in, because of a great lecture in our UCL course 'Politics of Climate Change', by Dr. Sam Randalls. I'll be talking about the economics of climate change - not cold specific, but so interesting I want to ramble on about it for a bit.

I'm not used to thinking of climate change within an economic framework. I am a scientist (or rather hope to be able to call myself one, in some far-away future), so the term 'climate change' makes me think: GCM simulations, glacier mass balance, orbital forcing, temperature trends and endless hours looking for the reason the matlab coding for my model run won't work. 

Aha, a cliché picture. Appropriate nonetheless.

Source

This particular course is more alpha/gamma than beta based and includes master's students from many different programmes, among which Environment, science and society, Aquatic Science and various ones from the politics and economics departments. Many of the students in the course have much less specific knowledge of climate change than us, but know much more about policy than the MSc. Climate Change people do. Many of them also consider Climate Change a global challenge of secondary or tertiary importance compared to other challenges, because they are more focused on e.g. economic development in the global South. 
Because of the interactive group discussion component of the class, this makes for interesting but sometimes frustrating discussions, because the differences in framing the problem are often so large. 

The economic framework introduced in the lecture only emphasized to me the difficulty of climate change mitigation policy. Also, it was another confrontation with how many policy makers but also fellow students don't seem to understand the urgency of the issue at hand. Again. A matter of framework and opinion. 

Here is a quote from the UN Framework Convention Article 3: 

“The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors.” 

Climate change has thus become an issue that by economists is weighed by cost/benefit principles. The Stern review is seen as the absolute document in this area; a cost-benefit analysis with ethical input, the second of which is now in progress (Randalls, 2014). In my head, it's the economic equivalent of the IPCC reports (any thoughts on this?). 

Cost-benefit analyses regarding climate change have been controversial since they exist, and very understandably so. They either focus on a specific goal derived from science - often, 2 degrees C as a "climate change limit" - or look for an optimal amount of climate change, where it e.g. improves Siberian agriculture to an extent that it is economically beneficial. 

So what are the main issues at hand? From what I gathered from lectures and readings: 

- The climate does not change homogeneously across the planet. Siberia suddenly being viable for agriculture might mean sacrificing a few islands in the Pacific or the Dutch shoreline and having 'Amersfoort aan Zee'. The same goes for glaciers and ecosystems that will vanish forever. We can roughly calculate the economic benefit of a warmer climate in e.g. Scandinavia. But what is the cost of losing Alpine glaciers for ever, or the entire species of Polar Bears? In short: how to put a price on this? How to compare the cost and benefit here?

-  When will it be too late? For many ecosystems or parts of the hydrological system, it is already irreversibly too late. "Waiting for more evidence" as many economists have been recommending for decades, will eventually lead to mitigation costs that are unbearable. Also; economists are often judged as climate-skeptics. Agree/disagree?

- How much can we put on future generations? How many of the inevitable mitigation strategies necessary can we burden next generations with? This again depends on economic projections: will they have the resources to take on this burden? To make a highly dramatic statement: with what 'climate debt' do you want your grandkids to come into the world? 



Finally, what are the viable economic strategies for mitigation? There are two: carbon markets (cap-and-trade and project based) and carbon taxes. Implementation: the issue with free trade undermining the benefits of a carbon market and the USA's full-on tantrum when it comes to carbon taxes. Also, these strategies will have an effect on the global South, who (understandably) argue for our moral responsibility to let them develop. 

Conclusion: DIFFICULT. Hugely interesting, terribly depressing, maybe even more so than my science-side-of-things-courses. But I hope to learn more, because policy is something we can't conveniently shove aside as an issue that doesn't concern scientists.

Please share your opinions, points of view, questions and ideas for future topics with me. I appreciate them!

Let me clear some things up!

Hi there,

First of all: yay, let's celebrate that from now on I don't have to overthink every word I post on here! Because finally, I will not be graded for it anymore. I'm very happy that my global environmental change course had us start our blogs, but I'm also very excited for not waking up in the middle of the night thinking "Did I actually cite that article?" or "Was that last post academic enough?".

So on to the order of business. I am going to clear a few things up in today's post. The reason for this: it seems to me that many people have a difficulty distinguishing between climate CHANGE, climate VARIABILITY and the ominous term GLOBAL WARMING. 

Not enough white stuff.. Look at it, so brown!

The lack of snow of the past month led to many conversations on the skilift that went as follows: "Oh there really is little snow this year, huh..?" "Yeah man, it's crazy! Never seen it like this." "Me neither. Damn climate change/ global warming."

And this makes me so incredibly angry! I realize this is slightly ridiculous, but as many of my friends know, climate change and nuclear energy are two very touchy, emotionally loaded subjects for me. Only talk to me about them if you are A) knowledgeable on the subject or B) interested and open-minded in learning something about it. Then I will enlighten you on the exact topic of this post and/or why nuclear energy is our only temporary energy option, if we want to reach the threshold atmospheric CO2 concentration of <350 ppm again. OK, sorry, back on topic..

So let's first discuss the ominous term that so many use but so few understand. GLOBAL WARMING. It's a physical process, and no, its definition is not that the UK is going to develop a tropical climate. It is however, indeed, a net increase in the energy contained in the earth's atmosphere, causing rising surface air temperatures. Also, the more correct term for it is RADIATIVE FORCING, which simply said is the increased trapping of longwave radiation because of a rising concentration of greenhouse gases. This is a gradual but alarming process, which is a DRIVER of our next topic.

Just to emphasize: global warming is a DRIVER of CLIMATE CHANGE. Climate change again mostly manifests itself through changes in the earth's hydro-ecological system. This includes desertification, glacial melt, sea level rise, and especially an increase in the extremes. This majority of the intensification in the system comes from a net transfer of freshwater from snow and ice, as well as increased vapour pressure leading to more precipitation and evapotranspiration. To make things easy: dry will get drier, wet will get wetter. Get ready for deserts, floods and storms. 

So essentially what climate change will intensify, is the term everyone neglects: CLIMATE VARIABILITY. It's been around since planet earth exists, because climate is per definition an average. Usually over a period of 30 years, which is the generally accepted definition by the world meteorological organization. Climate variability encompasses the anomalies, such as a very hot summer, or in this case, a winter with very little snow.

So in conclusion: there is no way we can attribute the lack of snow this winter to climate change. It is simply climate variability. So quit bullshitting that it's climate change. What we do know, is that global warming is leading to higher night-time minimum temperatures, and thus to less snow in the future. Climate change will be driving up the snow boundary, so lower-lying ski areas will be in trouble. So yes, climate change has an overall impact on the amount of snow. But it's climate variability you have to blame your lack of this season's powder runs on.


P.S. Sorry for the capitals, the italics and the bold print. But as I said; touchy subject for me.
P.P.S. Check out this Huffington Post article, which explains it quite well (or scroll down a few posts for the direct impact on the ski industry)

Still Concerned

Hi there,


As most of you know, I started and kept up this blog in the framework of our UCL course 'Global Environmental Change'. Over the course of the past months, I've been looking different places, researching the influence of climate and environmental change on "cold stuff" there - ice, snow, permafrost. From the Arctic, to Germany, over Austria and other places, back to Iceland. Each region has its own story to tell, and the concern for the cold is alive in all of them.

I hope that with this blog, I've perhaps informed you about things you didn't know before - polar bear/sea ice interaction, the (endangered) existence of delicious ice wine, how we affect the climate through the snowsports industry. Also, I hope I've pointed out some interesting literature, movies and websites, to enrich your own web of knowledge sources.

But much more importantly, I hope that I've brought to your attention how climate change hits much closer to home than you might realize. It affects everyday lives, regardless whether it does yours or not. So many ecosystems and people's existences are based around the cold climate of their area, for which they now have to fear. The planet will survive, the populations on it will not. Which is why the 'mañana mañana' attitude regarding climate and environmental change needs to turn around. Needs to turn into understanding. Into progressive thinking. Into solution-oriented discussion. 

Might be a cliché, but I'd like to be able to take the

same picture again in say, 50 years and still be standing

in front of an actual iceberg. Not at this rate..

(At Jökulsárlón, Iceland)

I am still concerned about the cold, if not more so than before starting this blog. I will keep it up, because I'm a passionate budding scientist in this area, hoping to devote my life to glaciology and climate change. So even though the blog might become a little quieter, keep on the lookout for new posts. Thanks to the ones loyally reading and commenting, it's been a great learning experience.

Couldn't help but posting...

... this article.

Have a laugh and have a think - it connects to my previous post.

Growing Ice Chills Global Warming?

Hi all,

Better late than never: happy new year, hopefully with interesting discoveries and experiences.

Today's post is something we have been seeing popping up over the past years: theories on how 'climate change isn't real'. Of course, this plays right in the hands of many sceptics, for whom climate change mitigation policies would be an inconvenience in the least.

I want to discuss the following Guardian opinion article: "Antarctica: record cold and growing ice chills global warming theories." The article argues that due to record cold and the growth of ice in Antarctica, the arguments of extreme heat, ice melt and rising sea level in other parts in the world become redundant. Also, it doubts the value of scientific research, because of its 'contradictory evidence'. "Perhaps, the chill of growing ice and the record cold in Antarctica have caused China to theorize that global warming is a hoax. (...) All of the “proofs” of global warming seem to be embarrassed by the observed data." (Gaul, 2013)

It displays little understanding of science, especially of climate dynamics. The concept of natural variability is one the author disregards entirely. Also, he is one of the many who regards the hiatus as proof against global warming. 

Personally, I am scared of these kinds of articles, because they are so conveniently convincing to the non-scientist. Firstly, they lead us into a false sense of security, causing us to believe that if the hiatus continues, we have nothing to worry about. Secondly, they make the public doubt the scientific community. Of course, a healthy dose of critical thinking is what science needs in order to stay truthful. But this article ridicules science with easy-to-believe false reasoning. 

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this article in particular, and the many others of its kind, as well as ideas on how to give the public non-opinionated information that is more easily understandable than a journal article.