Separated and Unified: One Earth
Separated and Unified: One Earth
Revision Posted: 20130224
In the previous blog I introduced the idea that the way we do scientific research has a significant impact on how we communicate science. In scientific research, we try to isolate problems that can be investigated to study cause and effect. In the traditional notion of science, we set up laboratory experiments where we can control all parameters, change one parameter, and measure how the others change. In the study of the Earth’s weather and climate, we are not able to make such controlled experiments, so we focus on specific features, for example hurricanes, or we focus on specific events, for example, ice-age transitions. In this approach, we reduce - we break the whole up into pieces. Then when we write and talk about our research, we talk about these reduced problems, the pieces. Given 100 scientists, we talk about 100 pieces of the Earth’s climate, not the climate as a whole.
There is another attribute of the scientific process that strongly influences communication – uncertainty. The scientific method provides us with a piece of knowledge, and a description about how certain we are about that particular piece. When we take the pieces all together, we end up talking about many pieces of the Earth’s climate and that each one of those pieces is uncertain. Sometimes we remember to say that all of those pieces fit together, but day-to-day we are not very good at putting the puzzle together. We just assure our audiences that they can be put together.
It is natural when we try to communicate that we seek metaphors and analogies. The whole conversation of the Earth warming due to carbon dioxide increasing in the atmosphere is called the “greenhouse” effect. This metaphor works to communicate with the idea that many people understand that it gets warm in a greenhouse. The metaphor extends to the glass or plastic in the greenhouse being like carbon dioxide; it lets solar energy in, and it traps the thermal energy that comes from heating the plants and the soil. Other metaphors include climate dice and the warming climate as weather on steroids.
These metaphors are intuitive and communicative, but they also add more pieces to the puzzle. When working with journalists, they search out such metaphors; they ask additional questions to break down the problem into communicative pieces. We are constantly in a process of identifying pieces and more pieces. We go through this process trying to make a complex system understandable. We forget that all of the pieces are defined by us to help us to investigate and to communicate. The pieces are not in any sense fundamental truths.
A motivation of this blog and the previous blog comes from the comments and the continual back and forth over one piece of data versus another, one study versus another. I am fully aware that focusing on isolated pieces of information and uncertainty is a tactic in argument and debate. Those using this tactic will dismiss what I write here. However, those who are scientists and those who are trying to communicate about the use of climate knowledge in policy development, preparedness planning, and adaptation planning need to rethink how we frame and communicate complexity. We need to communicate the essence of complexity in a better way than connecting together a myriad of pieces that have been built individually.
In my previous entry I wrote that we only have one climate. We have this one climate, and it is warming, and weather events exist in this one, warming climate. Weather events don’t exist in either an old, cooler climate or a new, warmer climate; they exist in our one, warming climate. To study weather events, however, scientists have to construct ways to isolate the event. Those constructions are to help us; they are defined by us; they are not in any sense fundamental truths. They queue up, however, how knowledge will be communicated in both the scientific and non-scientific realms. Communication is entangled in the constructs of scientific research.
I entitled the previous blog “One Climate.” Another idea that is discussed in the blog comments is whether or not, say, the impact of a storm is because of climate change or because we have too many people living in too many houses too close to the ocean. This focus allows those who want to dismiss the importance of climate change to do so. But again, climate and people are not really separated from each other. We have evolved with our climate, and we change our climate through how we scrape and pile the land and how we place our energy waste in the air, water, and soil. We are part of the biology, and the biology is part of the climate. People consume energy, and the waste from that energy consumption causes the planet to warm. Just because people choose to live in places and in ways that make them vulnerable does not make climate change any less real or any less consequential. It only tells us that we could make better choices. It also tells us that the warming climate will force us to make different choices. So our one climate is part of our one Earth.
As I think about climate change and our future, it makes more and more sense to frame the problem in terms of this inherent complexity. Reduction into disciplines and isolated problems is necessary to assist investigation, thinking, and communication. However, we need to be vigilant in recognizing that the pieces that come from the reduction are not in and of themselves representative of the whole. They are part of the whole. Communication and addressing climate change is a process of tying the pieces together in ways that find successful ways to represent the complexity, which can emerge into paths of behavior that allow a sustainable, one Earth.
Figure 1: Light folds (skilpaddene) are small, responsive light sculptures that seem to breathe in glowing and dimming light when left undisturbed. By Meghan Reynard
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 — Blog Index
I say this so much, I must be getting boring. The problem is both complex and simple- and it's all about money.
Fossil fuel companies stand to lose more than any other industry on the planet, should we "wean" from fossil fuels. The economy in my own state is precarious at best, and it would be absolutely wrecked without "king coal." Profits must be protected at all costs, no matter what the human cost.
Therefore, it makes sense to cast uncertainty on the facts of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels, and keep both the general populace and the political leaders on the side of the fossil fuel companies. You get to keep your profits, AND no one believes those sciencey-types who keep talking about what will happen (but offer no solutions).
The debate on how to wean ourselves off fossil fuels will finally get serious when there are no more profitable deposits to mine. When there are no fossil fuels, there are no profits to protect. With no profits to protect, research grants will begin to flow towards whatever new technology will be the energy source for the future. Then, finally, a solution will be sought and hopefully found. I have serious doubt it will happen while there is still any oil in the ground.
So yes, us as the above mentioned "sciency-types" do a lot of talking without offering a lot of solutions. But we will also be the ones who will do the research on new energy sources, once the end of profitable oil finally comes. The job of building the infrastructure and vehicles to match this new energy will fall to future engineers.
So- follow the money at all costs, until it costs too much. It all sounds like the tobacco industry in the '60's, doesn't it?
Since this is not a blog about insurance or pharmaceuticals, I will not address those directly. It's just another way to make money.
I'm sure you know burning fossil fuels increases the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate is changing; this is known. Human activities by way of burning fossil fuels is known to be behind rising CO2 levels. This is not new science, I first heard about this during college in the late 80's. If you can't see it, no one here can help you.
Using the solar radiation of just 4% of the world's desert is sufficient to meet all world electrical energy requirements today.
Summary and Conclusion from the study:
Transforming the sun’s energy into electricity has evolved from providing power to satellites in space, to remote off-grid village applications, and to plans for large scale systems in the world's deserts. Early schemes for large solar arrays showed the promise of abundant, clean energy. Yet, system costs and low conversion efficiencies kept solar power at the kilowatt scale for the past three decades.
The potential solar resource from desert regions is truly astounding. Several studies show that the entire global electricity demand could be provided from just 4% of the world's deserts. Many of the grand schemes place large arrays around the equatorial regions with high-voltage transmission lines delivering that energy to populated areas in the north and south.
Preventing such ideas were the costs of developing photovoltaic cells and the conversion devices. Now, annual industry growth rates of 20% per year and entry by major energy companies has driven costs down and efficiencies up.
Policymakers can assist the solar industry by cutting subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, providing tax incentives to solar purchasers, thus driving down the costs and creating a mass market for this clean fuel technology. For example, in the U.S., direct subsidies to nuclear energy amounted to $115 billion between 1947 and 1999 with a further $145 billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar combined during the same period totaled only $5.5 billion.
With energy demand projected to double in 30 years, mostly from developing nations, the business-as-usual energy scenarios predict dire consequences for the planet. Growing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are driving climate change, and transitioning to carbon free energy sources is a prime solution. Large solar arrays in deserts (VLS PV and CSP) provide the largest potential renewable energy resource to meet growing energy demands in a sustainable manner.
High-voltage transmission grids can carry the electricity over thousands of kilometers from regions with abundant solar radiation to our cities and industry. This paper offers several examples for the Gobi, Sahara and Mojave Deserts -- and utilities in Southern California are now pursuing 300MW - 900MWVLS photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP).
The benefits to millions of people through solar energy in desert regions is a sustainable way to solve both environmental and social problems. We see that large solar power systems could one day replace fossil fuels as the main energy source for society
Where Solar Is Found
Myths And Facts About Solar Energy
And for those of you who want to know more about this floating “megarock,” dubbed “2012 DA14,” CNN’s Deb Feyerick has got you covered. Indeed, she was there on Saturday to ask the tough questions: Did global warming cause this asteroid?
Yup.
Link
I'm beginning to think that meteorology is more like engineering than science in that it has a fundamentally practical focus in application, and doesn't really require a depth of understanding of science. It appears that you don't need a good knowledge of basic science, the scientific method, and the peer-review process to be really good at analyzing, tracking and forecasting storms and weather events. Weather "experts," both amateur and professional, can make some really cringe-worthy comments and support some really out-of-synch with science positions - and often defend them vigorously when they are obviously completely wrong with respect to established climate science.
The study and discussion of climate and climate change, (AGW/CC) OTOH, is based heavily in more pure science. The science of climate seems to be alien to many (but not all) weather/meteorology buffs, and even many meteorology professionals. While it seems logical at first glance that meteorology experts would understand AGW/CC, many obviously do not. Many WU weather regulars that I respect and whose comments I follow, appear to be hopelessly out of synch and poorly informed with respect to climate science and the current AGW/CC event.
The other thing that I notice about Dr. Masters' blog is that it is really like a high school club with juvenile bantering and cliques. It often comes across as a young-persons twitter/facebook/myspace type universe peppered with some older and wiser members. These "elders," including some dedicated mentors who work hard to help the youngsters, provides a lively space where things move so fast during hurricane season that it is nearly impossible to follow. And of course, there are a number of adult weather buffs who manage to simply talk about the weather.
By way of contrast, Dr. Rood's AGW/CC blog normally moves much more slowly - like the subject on which it is based. The small core of regulars here range from scientists to technicians to lay people who often have a good background in science, and may - or may not - be weather buffs.
The most obvious common thread between the two blogs is that the AGW/CC denialists at both blogs usually display a dreadful lack of understanding, or even display a gross misunderstanding of science that often precludes having rational discussions about actual AGW/CC science. Unfortunately, while even the longest lived tropical storms and hurricanes can last for several weeks, it takes years - and often at least decades - for climate trends to be firmly identified. However, I think (and some scientists agree) that we are approaching some tipping points where profound changes that will affect human civilization are approaching.
But please, don't demand "proof" of this. Simply use Google to search for "climate change tipping points" and you will find many articles, scholarly papers and discussions on this subject. The likelihood of tipping points is quite high, but timing of their appearance is very uncertain - and these uncertainties of timing are among the factors that, unfortunately, make the denialists froth at the mouth and spew their silliness.
Can doesn't mean they will as the props pitch could be variable or the position of Tic-26 can regulate the amount of flow to the turbine....For example: The range could vary anywhere between 1 and 8000 MW's based on system load...
I'm beginning to think that meteorology is more like engineering than science in that it has a fundamentally practical focus in application, and doesn't really require a depth of understanding of science. It appears that you don't need a good knowledge of basic science, the scientific method, and the peer-review process to be really good at analyzing, tracking and forecasting storms and weather events
Xulonn, Interesting that you should bring this up. My wife and I had evening meal last Friday night with friends. Mike is a Professor of Meteorology at the University of North Dakota here in Grand Forks. Our conversation around Meteorology/climate change was short due to glowering wives.
I am what you would call an applied scientist (engineer) versus a pure scientist. I had always assumed that Met was pure science. Mike pointed out that Met can be either applied or pure. Mike stated there is applied meteorology versus "pure" meteorology/science. I assume (he did not specify, glowering wives) that the pure science part probably deals more with climate (making 30 plus year guesses) and such, while the applied is your local met making a guess about what the weather will do in a few days.
The next time I see Mike I will ask him about the level of science understanding needed. I know that Mike has a good grasp of the peer review process, but he has to publish.
I also told him I had been reading a bit on Dr. Roy Spencer%u2019s site and that Dr. Roy stated that there were a lot of %u201Ccloset%u201D meteorologist out there, who did not get on with man made climate change. Mike found that to be highly comical, and commented that for the %u201Csupposed%u201D 100%u2019s of skeptics, there were 1000%u2019s of knowledgeable people who understood the science and were fully on board with CO2 being the root cause.
Mike, as well as two other mets I know, all %u201Cduck%u201D talking about climate change as much as they can. The common response if pushed on it (I want info) is that it is complex enough that for them to try to explain anything in detail is not really possible (most people do not have enough education/back ground to get into the details). This leads me to believe that on the main blog, all we see are the few who do not understand it very well, or for ideological reasons refuse to %u201Cagree%u201D even if they do understand it. The knowledgeable meteorologists either stay quiet, or are not there as the blog does not interest them.
A antidotal comment/story dealing with ideology and how it can mess with even a smart and educated person.
I have a friend who is about 32 years young, a Mech engineer, smart etc. He is also part of the 46%* in the US. One day while we were solving the problems of the world, I asked him how he could believe in a ~6000 year old earth in the face of all the physics, chemistry etc required to get his engineering degree. I pointed out that he has to understand radiocarbon dating. He agreed that he does understand how it works. He then went on to say that his existence revolves around the bible being literal; he was raised in a conservative religious way that left no room for %u201Cdoubt%u201D. He stated, for him to %u201Cbelieve%u201D in anything else, science or not, would shatter his world view and wreck his life.
He got a bit indignant when I pointed out that ideology from indoctrination was not a very good basis to form a world view on. At that point we moved on so as not to mess up a good friendship.
*46%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationis t-View-Human-Origins.aspx Link
June 1, 2012
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
Highly religious Americans most likely to believe in creationism
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question
I wish WU would upgrade this miserable editor so that if you go back and modify a comment after you post it, it does not get scrambled with "cussing" in the post.
I also see it will not let me put a plus sign in my verbiage. Anyone know if that is a function of Firefox or the WU editor?
Perhaps someone among our regulars can explain it better.
I use the latest FireFox, and I sometimes use the ascii "alt code" for the temperature degree sign when posting at WU. However, the editor gets confused when I re-edit a post, and changes the extended characters to HTML tags without the embedding characters. Then I have to manually replace the HTML tags with the original ascii alt codes each time I edit.
I'm sure that fixing it would be a simple job for a good coder.
I like the editor except for that one flaw, although for some of my long posts, I use my word processor with autosave to avoid slips of a finger that can delete a long post accidentally.
Also, the next time you friend talks about taking the Bible literally, tell him that "If we DID have a Christian country governed by laws based on good, old-fashioned Christian values and Biblical law, then Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani would have long ago been stoned for adultry, Mitt Romney for preaching the wrong religion, Mike Huckabee for disagreeing with the "king" George Bush, and John McCain for campaigning on the Sabbath."
Viewing: 101 - 112
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 — Blog Index