"deadlines" for glaciers had better be solid numbers

[Jeffrey Kargel]

Dear GLIMS colleagues:
Just some of my advice, for the 2 cents it's worth:
Keeping in mind the present furor, please be sure that any expiration dates you set for glaciers are solid numbers.  Normally, a rough number that seems to make sense-- a strong educated guess-- would be perfectly fine to mention to a reporter, or to mention during a conference presentation or state in a paper, so long as the expiration date is qualified as such.  These are not normal times.  If you have a well-grounded numerical model (with some observations to support it) or strong set of empirical observations, or a really good back-of-the-envelope calculation that really makes sense and is well based (and well referenced to the extent needed), and your data would indicate a glacier's demise within reasonable bounds of high probability, then by all means say so.  In fact, get the word out. But if it is something that is highly assailable on scientific grounds, very uncertain, I think it's best to go on to a different conclusion and drop the expiration date. 
In my opinion, the matter is serious enough that if you have expiration dates in the "highly uncertain" or conjectural categories that are in press, I would stop the press.  It doesn't matter if it's Himalayan or any other glacier.  You might want to go through your website and see what it says.  We can all benefit from one another's review of our own material, and I certainly will do this for mine.   Gray literature references are also something you'll want to check and use very carefully, if at all.
--Jeff  		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://nsidc.org/pipermail/glims/attachments/20100125/952e96e5/attachment.html>