LJWorld.com

Posted by Vicky Lytle on November 8, 2008 at 4:49 p.m.

• permalink

Climate Science - it is not a religion

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and winner of Nobel Peace Prize recently reported: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures , widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level' I have done research on climate change,for over 30 years. I am repeatedly asked 'do you believe in climate change'? This is like asking 'do you believe the roads in Lawrence are in bad shape?' You can believe what you like, but the number of potholes does not change. Most people will not argue about the definition of a pothole, although clearly for the engineers who fix roads, there must be some rules about when a road needs patching as compared to complete repaving. Most people would also agree with an engineers report about the road conditions, although they might disagree about the timeline or expense required to repair them. Then why are we asked if we 'believe' a report on climate change? A report prepared by 1,000's of scientists worldwide and endorsed by the most esteemed science organizations in the country? A report compiled by the same group that won the Nobel Peace Prize. I am frustrated that when people learn what I do, they often ask 'do you believe in climate change?' Climate change is not a religion. It is a science. There are a lot of things we know about climate change, and there is a lot we still do not know. But, just because we have not solved everything does not mean the rest of it should be ignored. Would you refuse to 'believe in' a treatment for cancer because it only cures 80% of the patients, and the doctor couldn't explain every tiny detail? I want people to start asking me real questions, what do we know about climate, where are scientists still unsure? What do you know? Do you know how long it takes for your car exhaust to 'mix' and appear in average atmosphere over the rest of the world? (days to months). After water sinks from the surface of the ocean to the bottom, how long before it rises to the surface again? (decades to centuries). The earth is warming because more heat enters from the sun, than is radiated out to space. Where is this extra heat going? (Of the extra heat coming into the earth since 1961, 80% of it has been absorbed by the oceans.) What is the impact of volcanic eruptions on our climate? (following a cooling for the first few years, large eruptions usually increase the global temperature). What has been the major cause of sea level rise in the past decades (oceans warming and expanding and small glaciers melting). How will this change in the future? (The small glaciers are almost gone, Greenland may melt faster, and the ocean will probably keep warming and expanding). None of these are really hard to understand, yet how many did you know? The science of climate is relatively new. Few schools include climate science in their curriculum, virtually no teachers have formal training in the subject. The issue was hardly visible in the recent election. Yet, climate change, sea level rise, increased hurricanes and storms may be the most important issues facing future generations. We will probably get through the financial crisis, and we may even be able to improve our health care system, but the solution to climate change seems much farther off. We need to get past simplistic beliefs and try to understand the science before we can make good choices. Everyone needs to participate in the discussion from politicians, lawyers and energy companies to farmers, teachers and even Joe the Plumber. You could claim that this discussion is merely academic, what can we do anyway? Yet decisions on public money are being made now that will impact our ability to understand (and cope with) climate change. For example, NASA recently made a decision to delay launch of a satellite called ICESAT II. This is a replacement for ICESAT I (duh) which will soon die. The satellite has a laser which periodically measures the surface elevation of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. It is accurate to within a few centimeters (an inch). By subtracting measurements collected one year from those collected the next year, we can calculate the change in the surface elevation of the ice. Since its launch in 2003, scientists have used these results to monitor the surface elevation of these huge ice sheets to understand if they are melting or growing, and how fast they are changing. The choice NASA made to delay sending a replacement into space means there will be nearly a decade where we do not have this information. Can we afford a gap in these measurements? Do we need to know how much of the rising sea level is because the ice sheets are melting? What are the pros and cons of the decision that NASA made to delay the launch? Well, they did save money, and there is another satellite which can help sort of. The GRACE satellite orbits the earth and measures the gravity field. Again, we subtract two measurements taken in different years and this gives us the change in total mass of the ice sheets. Not quite the same as a change in elevation, but some indication of melting or growing. GRACE is even younger than ICESAT I and the results are not as precise as the answer we get from the lasers on ICESAT I. Do you think NASA made the right decision? How well do we need to monitor ice sheets and their impact on sea level rise? Do you care if we can predict what sea level will look like in you children or grandchildren's lifetime? This is not just an intellectual exercise for scientists, there are other decisions related to climate change that increasingly face private industry. When we hear that the Arctic sea ice has reached a new minimum, it opens up tremendous possibilities. If you are shipping goods (or oil) from Asia to the US, when will you be able to ship them through the Northwest Passage, saving both fuel and time? Some experts predict this could happen in the next 20 years. If you are fishing off the coast of Alaska, what new fishing grounds might open up? If you plan to purchase a ship which has a life of 30 years or so, you want all the information, even if it is not perfect. To make these decisions, does not required a 'belief'one way or the other, it requires knowing the facts. Climate science rarely provides absolute answers and there are lots of shades of grey. But it is heaps better than ignorance. ( I think we know far more about Climate systems than we do about economic systems, yet clearly decisions must be made on both issues.) Climate change will touch everyone for generations to come. The best decisions, whether to launch satellites, or buy an ice strengthened fishing boat require all the information, even if it is not perfect. It is time to stop the simple 'belief' argument and start learning the facts. In the meantime, if you know someone who could fix the potholes on my street let me know..:

Reply 59 comments from and 21 others