In reply to ianstevens:
> > I’m a glaciologist by trade, so get riled by incorrect reporting and use of terminology.
You know what Ian? It doesn't matter what you think.
Precisely because you're a glaciologist. You already know the deal. Yay Ian!
What matters is getting across the essence of the message to millions of people who might read the article. Now, picture a lay reader as you capture 30 seconds of their time, and use the words 'Himalayan Icecap' and when you use the term 'Cryosphere' - which gets the idea across best? The aim is communication, not expertise.
What's the cost of The Guardian getting the words wrong here? Will people suddenly stop trying to reduce their emissions because icecap is wrong and cryosphere is right? Will people be more willing to save a 'cryosphere' than an 'icecap'?
I'm usually as pedantic as they come about words and terminology, but in this case I can see industry accuracy needs to take a back seat to mass information on such a critical issue. It's that kind of narrow minded pedantry that held scientists back for years from making a significant contribution to public debate on climate change - I saw that first-hand. You had your chance and you blew it.
And anyway, the Cryosphere refers to the whole mass of frozen water on earth, not specifically the Himalayan regions. A million people won't run short of drinking water because the Seward Glacier melts.