Global Warming Adventure

I recently saw An Inconvenient Truth, which I recommend to everyone. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it is a documentary that discusses global warming. The title refers to the idea that global warming is an inconvenient truth, and that, because of the inconvenience, many people are denying, ignoring or questioning the truth. Al Gore is the star of the film, and I think he did a wonderful job communicating this important message in an honest and clear way.

Roger Ebert, the film critic, wrote in his review:
"In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to."

Please see the film as soon as you can, and bring all your friends. Also go to www.climatecrisis.net to see how you can help out in this most important of all efforts.

But I wouldn't have called this entry an "Adventure" if it were just a movie recommendation. I have a story to tell.

Reading about the film on Wikipedia, I learned that there is an organization called the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and that they have aired 3 ads in an effort to discredit the film and its claims. The ads can be found here:
http://www.cei.org/pages/co2.cfm
"They call it pollution--we call it life!"

Particularly watch the one about the glaciers. Someone on YouTube felt strongly enough to record a video response. I felt strongly too: what were these people talking about? What are these scientific reports they are referring to? Well, I checked them out. CEI was kind enough to link to the articles from their website. Here is the one I was most interested in:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1

Now, I don't know much about Science magazine (the journal in which the article appears). I gather from Wikipedia that it is quite a reputable publication. But the article seems strange. (Granted, I've only been able to read the abstract.) I had this reaction, which I emailed to one of the co-authors of the report, Ola Johannessen:

Dear Ola Johannessen:

Thank you for your research and publication on www.sciencemag.org, regarding the Greenland ice. Below is a link to the publication:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1

I have some questions I'd like to ask to help understand this publication better.

Your paper says that that the average measured altitude of certain "already high" regions of Greenland is increasing, while the average measured altitude of certain "already lower" regions is decreasing, but not by so much. The "spatially averaged increase" is positive, which to many readers of your report indicates that Greenland is growing and not shrinking.

My understanding of the alleged melting of Greenland is as follows: Pools of meltwater are appearing in many areas of Greenland. These pools have a tendency to "burrow" to the bottom of the ice, but the presence of a given pool of melt water should not affect your average measured altitude until it has burrowed all the way through to the bottom, allowing melted ice a way to run off of the glacier. Avalanches are occuring, especially near the shores of Greenland; ice is running off of Greenland and into the ocean. This decreases the mass of Greenland, but does not decrease your average measured altitude of your "low" (below 1500 m) region of Greenland, since the "lower" avalanched ice is not measured after the avalanche due to being in the ocean. In fact, since the lowest regions are the ones that tend to slide off into the ocean and cease to be measured, I would expect said average altitude of the REMAINING region below 1500 m to INCREASE as a result of avalanche.

Is my understanding sound? To me this means that, even as you make these truthful observations about measurements, Greenland may still be losing mass at an arbitrarily high rate. Do you think Greenland is losing mass?

Thank you for your considerate and speedy response.
Ryan Murphy

I will be sure to keep you all posted on Ola's reply, if any.

The importance of intense truthfulness regarding matters of our planet's health is so obvious that it shouldn't need mentioning. I wish I felt that the situation is in good hands, that the people in charge care about the Earth as much as I do, and that at the very least they won't deliberately deceive me. But right now I don't feel that way.

I'll appreciate your reactions and comments! Thanks for joining me in exploring this strange and important mystery.