JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

New feature Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings View Demo

Hi there! Beta version

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Federal Election

Climate change needs a plain English guide

Bruce Mapstone
July 13, 2010

The science is solid but popular understanding of climate change lags.

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have emerged from the six-month ''climategate'' inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact. The challenge for scientists across the world now, however, is to communicate clearly the realities of climate change to a public that simply wants straight answers.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review in Britain, led by Sir Muir Russell, a former top civil servant, concluded that ''the rigour and honesty'' of the UEA scientists was not in doubt and there was no evidence that might undermine the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments.

There also was nothing found in the leaked university emails to undermine the reports of the world's leading climate change science research bodies or the IPCC.

A report released earlier this week by the Netherlands Environment Agency also found the IPCC was ''robust'' and the handful of mistakes did not alter the conclusions that modern climate change was occurring and was caused in large part by human actions.

Work will now begin on the Fifth Assessment report by the IPCC. More than 800 experts have been selected for almost four years of work. Their report is due to be published by 2014. Eight scientists from the CSIRO are among this highly qualified group.

The challenge of clearly communicating climate change to a public understandably alarmed about the associated changes to our world is as real in Australia as it is for people in other countries. Sir Muir has put the challenge for scientists into plain English: ''They should learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand.''

Tackling the challenges of climate change will require us all to understand not just the science of climate change but also what options we have to respond to it and mitigate further change. We must not just talk about the future, because there are essential steps that have to be taken now if we wish to prepare for the changes ahead. We must be clear about what is happening now and that information must be available to everyone.

Scientists working for the CSIRO and other organisations have studied and observed the many changes to our climate for several years. Recent debate about climate change has increased demand for practical information from the public, industry and government. The message has been clear: tell us what is happening now, as well as about the likely climate in the future.

The CSIRO joined forces with the Bureau of Meteorology to publish the State of the Climate snapshot earlier this year to update Australians about how our climate has changed in recent decades and what those changes mean. The snapshot can be accessed at the CSIRO website.

Across Australia, there has been a 65 per cent increase in very hot days (that is, the annual number of days with maximum temperatures greater than 40 degrees) and a 55 per cent decrease in very cold days (maximum temperature below 10 degrees).

While Australia's rainfall is highly variable, characterised by periods of drought and periods of wet, recent drought in the south-west of Western Australia and in south-eastern Australia has been particularly prolonged. In the south-west, autumn and winter rainfall has declined between 10 and 20 per cent since the 1970s, while in the south-east similar reductions have occurred since the mid-1990s.

Our sea levels have risen around the country since 1993, with increases of 7-10 millimetres a year in the north and west, and 1.5-3 millimetres in the south and east.

This is not a forecast but part of the snapshot of recent changes in Australia. If global greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow at rates consistent with past trends, warming is projected to be in the range of 2.2 to 5 degrees by 2070.

The consensus among CSIRO's climate scientists and those across the globe is that these and longer-term changes show climate change is real and happening now. In fact, climate scientists have been convinced by the evidence about this for years, but we recognise that there has been doubt among some people in the community.

It is important for all Australians to have confidence in the understanding of climate change that has been developed at the CSIRO and other agencies. The State of the Climate snapshot provided Australians with plain-English information about how climate has been changing within our lifetimes.

People need to understand these recent movements, and those expected, to plan for adapting to a shifting climate and to take action to reduce the extent and impact of climate change.

Dr Bruce Mapstone is chief of CSIRO's marine and atmospheric research division.

77 comments

  • Thanks for this, Dr Mapstone.

    Here's my attempt at a plain English guide.

    1. The earth's surface is warmed by absorbing short wave incoming solar radiation. Ice caps, being white, tend to reflect this radiation rather than absorb it.

    2. Earth's surface cools off by transferring heat to the atmosphere, evaporating water to gas and energising molecules of gases including water vapour. This heat is transferred upward through convection and through cascades of molecular collisions until it arrives at altitudes high enough for the air to be thin enough for the emitted thermal radiation to be radiated back to space without further molecular retention.

    3. Gases that are particularly good at retaining heat are those that have three or more atoms, such as water (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), methand (CH4). Above the lowest part of the atmosphere, the troposphere, there is very little water vapour because it condenses out and falls back as rain. At such heights, heat retention is therefore dominated by carbon dioxide. For this reason, changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide affects temperature at the earth's surface.

    4. Through combustion of fossil fuel and cement manufacture, Industrial man has added sufficient carbon dioxide (CO2) over the last two centuries to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Most of this has occurred over the last 50 years. Atmospheric CO2 is 390 ppm, rather than 430 ppm, because the rest of the emitted CO2 has been absorbed in the oceans, confirmed by observed ocean acidification.

    Cheers.

    Commenter
    David_FTA
    Location
    Queensland
    Date and time
    July 13, 2010, 7:24AM
  • First of all there needs to be balance in the communication. We have heard all of the bad stuff that could happen but what about the positive impacts of climate change.
    Also can someone explain to me how sea levels rise by different amounts in different parts of Australia?

    Commenter
    back to the future
    Location
    dingley
    Date and time
    July 13, 2010, 8:01AM
  • I think the problem that the science community faces is that the Public generally are too lazy to bother to actually attempt to understand the science. In an age dominated by instant, superficial and generally wrong or entirely misleading communications, they want to be spoon fed. Along with that goes a propensity for what Charles Mackay in 1841, described in his book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", as the capacity to willingly suspend disbelief in the unbelievable, so long as it was sold well and was not too complicated.

    That propensity has made us uniquely susceptible to the nostrums of the odd, the batty, the misfits and the peculiar who often infest the margins of true science. These are the people who seek to clothe themselves in a scientific mantle whilst promoting the absurd, the comical and the downright wacky. No doubt we will here much from them in the comments on this article.

    Commenter
    Lesm
    Location
    Balmain
    Date and time
    July 13, 2010, 8:08AM
  • Dr Mapstone may be a CSIRO "chief" but his total acceptance of the third English "whitewash" by a "Sir Humphrey", Muir Russell and his continual espousal of the "the consensus line" and the wonder of the IPCC, shows that he seems to limit his reading to press releases. I wonder if he has ever checked out the logical, reasoned, "scientific" demolition of the tenets of "Global Warming", "Climate Change" by the likes of Steve McIntyre or equally has he actually read the content of the leaked emails. Perhaps, even more relevant, which involves actually looking rather than computer modelling, he should take a walk to a local beach and try to find the sea-level rise which his well known fellows assure us will flood us out of our homes any day. Maybe a re-read of his university course in scientific method and a revision of statistics are in order.

    Commenter
    MichaelL
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    July 13, 2010, 8:15AM
  • MichaelL

    Your kidding right? I have never seen such agreement in the scientific community as there is with this. The people cited against climate change are usually not climate scientists and as far as I have seen todate, not peer assessed. Every analysis I have seen of 'climate gate' by people who have sifted through the emails and know what they are talking about, agree of the integrity of the scientists. Your counter argument about going down to the beach shows just how silly the 'debate' is becoming. You are not a climate scientist therefore you do not know what you are talking about. So sshhh.

    Commenter
    PromRB
    Date and time
    July 13, 2010, 8:44AM
  • This "guide" (but more of a religious text such as the Koran or Bible really) should be open to future revisions, because the science will never be settled. In my day job as an environmental advisor for one of Australia's ASX200 listed companies, I use my qualifications in environmental science and earth science to interpret much of the recently released peer-review science and advise our business on climate risk and adaptation requirements.

    There has been a huge recent momentum shift away from CO2 as the primary climate driver and some ground-breaking, startling work done on several influences. It appears we have grossly underplayed a number of factors - solar output UV, solar wind and magnetic strength as well as l-term ocean circulation. Then add recent groundbreaking research on the role of anthropogenic CFCs in climate change, and it changes the game completely.

    You'll actually find the GCM's that the IPCC and its devoted followers workship don't consider any of these influences. It's little wonder the observational evidence is not "compying" with the modelled predictions.

    Without an open mind, you cannot be a scientist, and scepticism is a fundamental to science. As soon as you stop playing 'devils advocate' in science, you succumb to indoctrination.

    People who think the science is settled seem to be people with extreme vested interests (who's very professional lifelihoods depend on Government funding - isnt that right Dr.Mapstone?!), engineers and accountants who have become f-time Greenhouse 'number-crunchers' (I have some sitting in the next office to me!!), ideologies smothered in double-standards or eco-religious fanatics.

    So Dr. Mapstone, if you're going to make a "guide", you should know as much as any scientist, that it will need future revision!

    Commenter
    Dr. Jones
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    July 13, 2010, 9:39AM
  • Thanks for this, Dr Mapstone.

    I see at ABC Central Victoria's website that Central Victoria resident Ian Chapman has actually devised a very simple experiment that demonstrates how atmnospheric CO2 content slows heat escape (http://www.abc.net.au/local/videos/2010/07/12/2950919.htm).

    If the worded explanation of my previous posting don't clarify the issue for people, Mr Chapman's demonstration will.

    Cheers.

    Commenter
    David_FTA
    Location
    Queensland
    Date and time
    July 13, 2010, 9:56AM
  • The anti-science was led and paid for, in the main, by the fossil fuel industry. In my views nothing explains the industry's contempt for science (and the planet) better than BP'S ( and at least four other companies) cynical , smart-arsed inclusion of the protection of the walrus in their Gulf of Mexico disaster plans. In other words their science is so bad they really believe walruses live in the Gulf or they were just giving us all the finger. Take your pick.

    Commenter
    KF
    Date and time
    July 13, 2010, 10:06AM
  • No doubt the usual suspects with their prententious names and idiotic arguments, will soon start swarming here: where are you Prince Planet, TBear (always refers to himself in the third person), Colin and all the rest?

    Commenter
    Tom
    Location
    Ripponlea
    Date and time
    July 13, 2010, 10:16AM
  • MichaelL-
    How ignorant are you? Instead of attempting to disprove global warming by putting lots of words in quotation marks, why not actually put forward some kind of argument to support your view?
    Quite possibly the reason why scientists use computer modelling instead of going to the beach is that- wait for it- the change is not perceptible to the naked eye!! Are you so deluded that you think a sudden tsunami is the only possible form climate change could take?
    Global warming is modelled to try and predict what will happen over the next few hundred years- not in the next few minutes. The change is quite slow- but at the same time, much faster than any natural warming event previously, which is why people are rightly worried.
    Plus- leaked emails and scientific hoohah isn't going to change anything. The climate's not just going to say 'oh well, IPCC really screwed up there so maybe I won't do anything after all', now is it? Climate change is happening regardless of what humans think, or want to believe.

    Commenter
    blondie
    Location
    melbourne
    Date and time
    July 13, 2010, 10:27AM

More comments

Comments are now closed