Week Eight - Science Advice to Policy

One of the greatest challenges facing global climate change happens at the science/policy interface. It is at this point where the key research and findings from climate scientists are twisted and interpreted into policy. Most of the miscommunication happens here and it can really seen between policy makers and scientists.

When scientists work is interpreted at this interface, much of their work's relevance is lost in translation. A good example of this would be when it comes to matters of certainty. In the science world, the number of things that can be thought of as absolutely certain are extremely minimal. Scientists are taught to be skeptic, even of their own work. This means that even if a scientist and his or her peers observe something to be true 100% of the time, they will still question if what they are seeing happen, will still happen every single time. This thought process goes on over and over again until either it is concluded that what was observed happens every single time, in which case it will go on to be known as a theory and tested even more to see if it is true under other circumstances. If it is found to not be true, more research will go into findings out what is causing this variability and more findings will be found and tested in the same manner as described above.

This example can be a major player for some of our big carbon emitters in the world. They see this uncertainty in scientists work as a way to attack climate change. To them, if something is not 100% certain than it cannot be true. This is the message they send to the general public to ensue doubt about our scientists.

This interface between communication is one of the biggest hurdles that, if we overcame it, could allow us to take serious steps towards combating climate change. If we could figure out how to get the message that researchers are trying to convey, over to policy makers in a language that they understand, great strides towards a climate policy would be able to take root and make it into our world.

Week Four - Climate Theology

When it comes to Catholic theology, there is one core teaching that has fallen to the background which, in light of human events, needs to be brought to the foreground. It is that of stewardship of the earth. As Catholics we are taught to be stewards of the earth. The earth was created to sustain us and for us to statin and care for it. Most Catholics nowadays though have fallen into the thought pattern of “What can the earth do for me?”. This is only half of what we are taught as Catholics. Yes the earth is meant to be able to sustain us but in return we are supposed to care for it. If we keep taking from it without putting something back, we will end up with nothing left to take from. Where will we be then?

This is the path that we currently are on. We are taking from the resources of our earth without considering the consequences of what we are taking. By taking fossil fuels and burning them we are taking away from the natural cycle of the earth. We are obscuring what God had created the earth to do naturally and that is to heat and cool itself in general cycles.

Our actions can be seen in those less fortunate as well. We are called to care for our fellow brother and sisters less fortunate than us. Those less fortunate than us do not always have the resources or means necessary to combat the changes we are making in our earth. An example would be rise in sea level. Those in developing countries that are at sea level do not necessarily have the means necessary yet to build higher sea walls or relocate their developing cities due to rising flood waters. Yes they too are contributing to sea level rise but who are we to deny them the right to develop and rise their standard of living. It is up to us to help them raise their standards of living as well as using our new technology that we have to lessen its effect on our climate and environment.

It is up to us to combat these injustices seen in our world. We have the power to care for our earth and help those most in need. We can give back to the earth and care for her in the way God intended. We can develop new technology for developing countries to help stop the emission of carbon into our atmosphere. And, we can help those that are most in need while still being able to care for and protect our earth. 

Week Two - Climate Culture/Climate and Society

One of the biggest mistakes that has been made when it comes to climate change is invoking doubt or flat out ignoring the science that has been discovered about it. In my recent reading of Naomi Oreskes’ The collapse of Western Civilization, it is apparent to see what will happen if we ignore the scientific findings of lead researchers, saying that there is just too much uncertainty in their work. The thing that most people don’t understand is that there will always be uncertainty about any scientific work. It is especially true in the case of climate change, not only for the fact that something like this has never before happen in the history of our planet but also for the sheer fact that science is very rarely 100% certain. There will always be doubt in scientific findings. Even things that we generally think of as true have uncertainties about them. Take electricity for example. For the longest time, the space that electricity traveled through was thought to be made up of a substance referred to as ether (not the same as the ether we know today in chemistry). This ether was thought to be the medium that electromagnetic waves traveled through and lead to theories in optics that assumed that since light was an electromagnetic wave as well (EM wave) and that it too must travel though ether when propagating. The space between planets in space was thought to be made of ether but this caused confusion when looking at other theories in physics. It was later shown through the Michelson-Morley experiment that ether does not exist and later on Einstein used this to refute the idea of ether and develop more commonly recognized theories of special relativity.

The point of this example is that for the longest time, the existence of ether was thought to be truth. It was only after some discrepancies were found, that scientists were able to dig deeper find out that this theory wasn’t correct.

Since then we have learned from our mistake of taking most (if not all) scientific finding to be true. We now take them as theories and as something up for discrepancy even if we believe that we know all there is to know about it. Because now we know that there will always be something more to learn about a certain subject.

The same thing can be applied to climate change. We will probably never know all that there is to know about it in our lifetime. All the factors that go into understanding just one piece of what is happening takes perspectives from so many sides (and lots of them aren’t even scientific). If we are going to combat climate change we need to listen to what our lead scientists and researchers have to say. It may not be 100% true but if we can take what we do know now and apply it, we may find that we are able to find out more and more about our climate and then use that to be better able to combat our changing world before it is too late. We have to start now or by the time we are 100% sure of what will happen, we will already be past the point of no return or worse, already be experiencing the dreaded, predicted, end results.

Week One - Why Climate Matters

Hello fellow climate enthusiasts! This blog focuses on issues of climate from a variety of views such as those pertaining to cultural, political, and scientific emphasis. This week I would like to focus on a brief overview of climate change.

Climate change is one of the biggest threats that humanity is going to have to counteract in the upcoming years. The fluctuation of our climate has been due to changes in the environment that we as humans have caused ourselves. By releasing carbon into the atmosphere we have caused an occurrence in our natural cycle that the earth has never seen before. In a time where we are supposed to be headed into another ice age or cold period, we are seeing our global temperatures actually rise. This affects many areas of human existence including those related to economics, science, and culture in general. In order to counteract the effects felt by this change, we need to approach climate change from these angles as well. If were are able to figure out how other cultures view climate and the environment, what processes drive climate change, and how these will affect us economically, we will be able to take action towards climate change in 3 of the major areas that encompass it.

Resource Guide - Geoengineering

1.      Abdullah, K. (2005). Renewable energy conversion and utilization in ASEAN countries. Energy, 30(2-4), 119-128. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2004.04.027

This paper addresses geoengineering in developing countries, mainly the ASEAN region. Regions like the ASEAN have a big potential for renewable energy sources that would help to meet their growing energy consumption needs as they are developing. The thought is to get this region to use these new renewable energy sources to help to reduce GHG emissions (talked about in introduction). This article proposes good solutions when it comes to the thought of developing nations.

2.      Keith, D. W. (2000). Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25, 245-284. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245

This paper talks a geoengineering, mainly where it has come from and where it is headed. Topics covered include “low-mass space-based scattering systems for altering the planetary albedo, simulation of the climate’s response to albedo modification, and new findings on iron fertilization in oceanic ecosystems” (Keith pg. 245 (Abstract)). Geoengineering is also assessed based on “economics, risk, politics, and environmental ethics” (Keith pg. 245 (Abstract)).

3.      Oppenheimer, M. (2005). Defining dangerous anthropogenic interference: The role of science, the limits of science. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1399-1407. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6925.2005.00687.x

Through the example of ice sheets, this article aims to approach the question of how should we approach scientific findings. Many of natural science findings are interpreted as from the standpoint of the social sciences. This has both negative and positive effects. Natural sciences are questioned when it comes to longer timescales as well (this issue is addressed in this article as well).

4.      Virgoe, J. (2009). International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Climatic Change, 95(1-2), 103-119. doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9523-9

The governmental issues related to geoengineering are discussed here. (sites Keith article!) This article agrues that geoengineering might become more mainstream if it is seen that mitigation and adaptation procedures are seen to be failing. It also states that further research into how gepengineering effects political, social, and governmental features.(Virgoe, 2009)

5.      The Truthrevealed. (2015, May 12). Geo Engineering Documentary 2015 (This is a must watch). Retrieved November 06, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD2lABk16qE

This video talks a lot about the oposition to geoengineering. It makes me want to screa at the person talking when I watched it because I can disprove me many of his “well researched” facts but this will provide a great insight into what to talk about for opposition to geoengineering. (They also have a website www.geoengineeringwatch.org that has many opposing views)

6.      McPherson, Ian. Geoengineering... a good idea? (2012, November 23). Retrieved November 06, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW4qNBOZMBg

Learned about this “rough” geoengineering project in Troy Knights Climate Studies class last semester. Shows some of the “not so smart” things that geoengineers have done that have aided the public is not liking this science.

7.      The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Climate IV: What to Do? Geoengineering! (2010, March 08). Retrieved November 06, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=598sdVtSLtA

Another video that goes over the 3 major plans of geoengineering. The first is sinking it to the bottom of the ocean., the second is capturing it from the air, and the third is reflecting solar radiation back into space. All 3 possibilities are examined by top professors and people in this field.

8.      Shukman, D. (2014, November 26). Geo-engineering: Climate fixes 'could harm billions' - BBC News. Retrieved November 08, 2015, from http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197085

This article by the BBC offers some evidence based reason as to why people are so against geoengineering. When asked about this type of engineering, many scienctists say that more research needs to be done before affirmative action can be taken in this area. It’s just to complicated. Many computer models have suggested that there are a lot more sideeffects to geoengineering than originally thought and that is why more research needs to be done to understand the complex processes that we are messing with.

9.      Submission to Joint Workshop of Experts on Geoengineering. (n.d.). Retrieved November 11, 2015, from https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/application/pdf/bolivian_submission_on_geoingeneering.pdf

This is a copy of Bolivia’s submission to experts on geoengineering explaining why they are not in support of geoengineering. They claim that it focuses on fixing symptoms rather than addressing the cause of the problem. I would like to argue that yes, geoengineering does focus on the symptoms caused by anthropogenic activity but we need to fix that side as well as address the cause.

10.   Patterson, T. (2015, October 27). Will hacking nature protect us from climate change? - CNN.com. Retrieved November 07, 2015, from http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/tech/pioneers-carbon-sink-geoengineering-climate-hack/

Awesome CNN story about possibly taking CO2 out of the air and putting it into useful things that we use every day (car, clothes, ect) The process is expensive and limited to how much carbon we can actually take out of the air though. If it were possible though we would go back to pre-industrial CO2 levels by the end of a decade. THIS IS HUGE!!! (Also contains a video for anyone who doesn’t want to read).

11.   Schulman, J. (2015, March 28). This geoengineering scheme could halt climate change -- but it's probably a terrible idea. Retrieved November 11, 2015, from http://grist.org/science/this-geoengineering-scheme-could-halt-climate-change-but-its-probably-a-terrible-idea/

Putting aerosols into the air might seem like an absurd thing to do to combat climate change but it is one of the natural things our planet has been doing since its existence. The eruption of volcanoes is the major contributor to this. Scientists believe that by artificially simulating this we would also be able to cool our planet. The draw back from this are that it can mess with planet’s photosynthesis and cause acid rain. I also would only be ”covering up” the problem of CO2 instead of combating it head on so if we stopped putting aerosols into the atmosphere, global average temp would shoot up. It is a great idea but we need to do more research on the effects it would have on the environment as well.

12.   Marshall, C., & Climatewire. (2014, May 22). Glacial Melt Pours Iron into Ocean, Seeding Algal Blooms. Retrieved November 11, 2015, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/glacial-melt-pours-iron-into-ocean-seeding-algal-blooms/

Iron dumping into the ocean can be another great contributor to the reducing global average temp. It requires dumping iron into the ocean to promote algae growth which in turn absorb CO2. This CO2 then goes to the bottom of the ocean once the algae (or organism in the food chain with the algae) dies and sinks to the bottom of the ocean. This article has found a naturally occurring iron feed into the oceans from ice melts in the northern and southern hemispheres (mainly the north). This ice melt feed iron particles into the ocean which promotes the growth of algae. Scientists speculate that these ice melts account for about as much iron in the oceans as do dust particles in the wind (originally thought to be the only major contributor to iron in the ocean). There are many positives to this naturally occurring iron into the ocean including a lot of carbon being sunk to the deep ocean and the positives are thought to far outweigh the negatives, the negatives being that there will essentially be more algae in the ocean.