December 6, 2010 — andyextance

Considering that its basic principles are in many ways in conflict with human nature, I often think it’s surprising that science is as successful as it is. Science relies upon objectivity – the need for scientists to try and ignore what they feel might happen, and draw their conclusions based on their observations. Yet we all have our own feelings and bias that must in some way influence what we think, including scientists. When taking science into society more broadly, this subjectivity can then make the science controversial, as can be seen by how strongly people can feel about climate change.

Some scientists who have talked to Simple Climate this year have tried to tackle how to make this move from science to society when explaining climate change. It’s those answers that are included in this week’s poll to choose the best explanation. Read these efforts to make the science personal and discussions about how hard it is to do this. Then please vote for your favourite and/or comment at the end to help me with one of the aims of my blog – producing a single, simple explanation of climate change. If you haven’t already voted in them, the first two polls – one on the direct explanations of the physics underlying climate change and one rounding up the one-line and metaphorical explanations – are still ongoing, and I’d appreciate your votes in them too.

So here is the next set of answers to my request for a simple explanation of climate change:

Paul Hanson, biologist, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Tennessee, US

What I tell my non-science friends and relatives is that the scientific evidence accumulated today, when interpreted through mechanistic models of how the Earth’s atmosphere, land and oceans function, suggest that greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere to unprecedented levels. Our best explanation for this increase points to man’s abundant use of fossil fuels along with land use modifications. Then I point them to the same material that I read and encourage them to consider the information for themselves.

Joeri Rogelj, climate modeller, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

The rate with which the climate currently changes is higher than observed in our records of the entire period in which humans developed civilisations. Observational evidence points out a very strong link between human-produced CO2 emissions and global warming. Although the Earth won’t disappear when it becomes warmer, these changes risk inflicting significant challenges to our societies. It is up to society and policy makers to decide how they want to cope with these risks for the future generations.

Louis Codispoti, marine scientist, University of Maryland, Cambridge, US:

The big problem of our age is that the rate of change is accelerating. Increasing population multiplied by increasing per capita consumption is leading to drastic changes in several areas, not just climate. So stand back, and look at the graph of population versus time, fossil fuel consumption versus time, and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Would it not be surprising if such rapid changes did not have an impact on planetary systems?

Simon Donner, climatologist, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada:

I prefer to describe global warming in person, rather than in print. But here’s a rough idea.

I’d start with talking about how it can be hard to “believe” that people can change the climate. For thousands of years, we’ve assumed that only powers greater than us could possible influence something as vast as the atmosphere. That’s enshrined in most cultural and religious traditions. But today, there are so many people on the planet, and we consume so much energy every year that we generate enough waste products – greenhouse gases – to alter the climate.

I’d then stress separating the science from the politics. The science tells us that human activity is changing the climate. How you want the world to respond to that information is a value judgement. As a scientist working on this subject for a number of years, I can provide you a reasonably informed opinion on the costs and benefits of different responses. But the choice is not mine alone.

After all that, if the person was still awake and interested, I’d then talk about the scientific evidence.

Wei-Jun Cai, marine scientist, The University of Georgia, Athens, US:

When I take the shuttle bus from the airport, the driver says, ‘I don’t believe in climate change, or global warming,’ or people say, ‘Are you sure CO2 is the reason?’ All I can answer is: First, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there’s no doubt about that. Second, glacial melt and all the other important issues have a very strong connection to CO2. And third, I do not myself study those CO2 models or measures, but we have to trust our colleagues.

First they model the natural change, and then you add on the anthropogenic changes and compare with what is measured. When you add these together there is strong evidence that CO2 is driving the current changes but if you ask me if I have doubt about that, sure, I do. It’s not my directly studied area so I can’t tell anyone for 100% sure that’s the case.

Brian Chase, physical geographer, Institute of Evolutionary Sciences, Montpellier, France:

I wish I, or anyone, could, but I personally don’t believe that a simple explanation of ‘climate change’ presently exists. Many people who suggest otherwise are, while often with good intentions, trying to sell something.

ANY CHARACTER HERE

ANY CHARACTER HERE

ANY CHARACTER HERE

ANY CHARACTER HERE

ANY CHARACTER HERE

ANY CHARACTER HERE