 |
| (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The idea that "Climate science is settled"
runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that
claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy
debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the
environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy
discussions that we need to have about our climate future.
My
training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of
scientific research, advising and management in academia, government
and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective
on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year
with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of
what we know, and don't know, about climate. I have come to appreciate
the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy
makers and the public are asking.
The
crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is
changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and
always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of
major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for
instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average
surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Nor is the crucial question whether humans
are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in
the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from
the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There
is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the
atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity
appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the
climate system itself.
Rather, the
crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the
climate change over the next century under both natural and human
influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels,
as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human
activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and
infrastructure.
But—here's the
catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in
a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.
Read the rest of this story:
Climate Science Is Not Settled - WSJ
No comments:
Post a Comment