Engaging the Public Without Disengaging from Science

by Simon Donner; this is a re-post from the old site, in light of some discussions, rational and not, that followed Michael Mann’s recent op-ed “If you see something, say something” on scientists’ responsibility to speak up about the impacts of climate change:

A few years ago, I found myself at a retreat with a group of highly accomplished scientists from around the continent. Why, I don’t know. I suspect my invitation came much as it would to a team’s equipment person, who are still needed during practice drills on the road to fetch all the loose balls.

On the penultimate evening, the discussion turned to the challenge of balancing science and outreach. The very unscientific activities of the retreat had wore down the competitive academic armour that most successful scientists wear like second skin, and revealed a surprising vulnerability among the group. Most everyone held an existential fear of this mysterious force, which most often went by the moniker “they”.

You see, this “they” held ultimate power over careers and was adamantly opposed to scientists spending time on outreach, rather than research. At the time, I thought that young scientists starting out their careers should be afraid to do outreach because of judgement by people like those at the retreat. Yet here were some tenured faculty, people with, arguably, the safest jobs in the world, themselves feeling they did not have the freedom to do outreach. It was eye-opening.

Continue reading

Nature break: Elephant seals rushing ashore in California

by Simon Donner

Northern elephant seals come ashore in late fall every year in California’s Año Nuevo State Park to mate and to do battle. The videos below were taken in mid-December, after the American Geophysical Union Fall meeting.

Here’s a video of an seal coming ashore, slowly.

These are no ordinary seals. They are built more like whales or, as my nephews might say, Jabba the Hut. A bull elephant seal can weigh up to 2500 kg and be four to five meters long.

They can move surprisingly fast on land too, up to 10 km/hr, but only in short bursts. An elephant seal wouldn’t beat you in a 100 m sprint, but it would certainly commit a lane violation and crush you, and probably the rest of the runners, before anyone got out of the starting blocks.

Here’s a little scuffle between two bulls, one making the signature guttural grunt.

Finally, here are some young males “rushing” up the beach to avoid an adult male. This clip needs narration from John Cleese.

Shifting Baselines: Has our idea of winter cold snaps changed?

Temperatures will return to well above normal by the weekend

by Simon Donner

The quote of vortex week comes from Weather Underground climate historian Christopher Burt:

The only significant thing about the cold wave is how long it has been since a cold wave of this force has hit for some portions of the country–18 years, to be specific. Prior to 1996, cold waves of this intensity occurred pretty much every 5-10 years. In the 19th century, they occurred every year or two (since 1835). Something that, unlike the cold wave, is a truly unprecedented is the dry spell in California and Oregon, which is causing unprecedented winter wildfires in Northern California.

This week was extremely cold across much of North America, thanks to a dip in the jet stream bringing cold Arctic air far south into the United States. Many minimum temperature records were broken.

Broken records are a normal thing in a stable climate. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans means that low and high surface air temperature records are broken in some locations every year.

What’s abnormal is that the climate is warming, due to human activity. The average weather is warming and record cold snaps, like this week’s, are becoming less common. Thanks to that, our psychological baseline for weather has shifted. What today seems remarkable and unprecedented was actually not that unusual in past winters. We just have short memories.

Climate change is a challenge for current generations

The average Canadian born in our shiny new year is expected to live until the final decade of the century.

Twin girls born minutes apart with different birthdays: Dec 31, 2013 and Jan 1, 2014 (Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga, Ontario)

According to the World Health Organization, the life expectancy of Canadians is 82 years, which technically means a child born in 2014 will live, on average, until 2096, provided there is no change in mortality rates.

Predictions from climate models that you see on the news typically extend out to the end of the century. When scientists say that the planet may warm by 2-4 degrees C by the “end of the century”, they are typically describing the average of the years 2091 through 2100, though sometimes the average of the years 2081 through 2100.

In other words,  the climate predictions and the newborns have about the same lifespan.

A child born today will experience all the widely discussed impacts of climate change — the rise in temperature, the rise in the oceans, the change in heat extremes, the melting of sea ice, the decline of coral reefs, you name it.

We need to stop describing climate change as a problem for “future generations”. Those generations are here now.

The gaping hole in the National Energy Board’s Review of the Northern Gateway Pipeline

by Simon Donner

In the decision to recommend the Northern Gateway Pipeline for approval by the Canadian government, the National Energy Board ignored the very purpose of a pipeline: getting the product to market.

Embedded GHG emissions vs. B.C. targets

The panel did not consider the impact the pipeline would have on oil sands development – creating the product or the impact of using the oil that would be transported by the pipeline – getting someone to use the product.

This is like making a decision about a road without asking whether it would affect the communities the road is supposed to connect. For one, the emissions embedded in the oil that would be transported by the proposed pipeline make a mockery of provincial and federal greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Nevermind, said the Joint Review Panel. From the report:

Many people said the project would lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental and social effects from oil sands development. We did not consider that there was a sufficiently direct connection between the project and any particular existing or proposed oil sands development or other oil production activities to warrant consideration of the effects of these activities.

While we can sympathize with the panel, which has specific terms of reference that places some issues outside their mandate, the logic in the report is fatally flawed.

As Chris Turner writes, the core argument for additional pipelines from Alberta has been to encourage economic expansion, via increased operations in the oil sands. If the panel is correct, and the Northern Gateway pipeline would not lead to any further oil sands development, then why build the pipeline?

Either the panel is wrong, or the case for the pipeline is wrong. Which is it?