You are here

Guest Column| Defending The Science That Explains Climate Change

Share

Editor's note: Adam Markham, director of climate impacts for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program and a co-author of the report “National Landmarks at Risk," has written the following rebuttal to Dr. Daniel B. Botkin's column on climate change and his thoughts on what is, and isn't, driving it.

My colleagues and I wanted to respond to a recent column by Dr. Daniel Botkin that criticized a report we wrote regarding the threats climate change poses to historic places and landmarks in the United States.

Dr. Botkin challenged the basic science on which we based our report, yet in February 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society released a joint publication in which they stated: “Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the basic patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.”

While Dr. Botkin rightly notes that sea level rise has been a problem for a long time, he doesn’t acknowledge that the rate of sea level rise is increasing as the ocean expands and glaciers and ice sheets melt due to global warming. Sea level is projected to continue increasing, threatening nearly all coastal areas. The future rate of change depends on how much heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere.

Dr. Botkin also points to hurricane landfall statistics to dismiss our conclusions about flooding at historic sites. But all storms, not just hurricanes, are made more destructive by higher seas. Some of the sites we examined, in fact, are at risk of flooding, or already experiencing it, during regular high tides because sea levels are rising. Downtown Annapolis, for instance, is expected to see 200 tidal floods a year by 2030.

In the report, we also point to the problem of coastal erosion, which can be exacerbated by higher water levels even if storm frequencies remain the same. For instance, in Alaska warming has caused the loss of the seasonal sea ice that used to protect the coast from erosion in winter storms. As a consequence, native villages such as Kivalina and Shishmaref will have to relocate to protect their residents, and archaeological sites that are more than 4,000 years old are being washed away.

Dr. Botkin also cited national fire statistics in his critique. While wildfires occur all over the United States, they are most prevalent in the U.S. West, where they have been increasing as the climate has warmed. While the Western wildfire season lasted about 5 months in the 1970s, it has now expanded to 7 months. Hotter and drier conditions in the U.S. West, along with shorter winters and lowered snowpack, are helping create the conditions that lead to larger fires. The scientific evidence is clear that climatic conditions are the primary factor driving changes in fire activity in the region. In our report, we focused on Western sites that face substantial risks from large and intense wildfires.

Archaeologists at globally important sites including Bandelier National Monument and Mesa Verde National Park have expressed deep concern about the impacts of larger fires and extreme rainfall events on thousands of ancient Pueblo sites.

Let’s also clear up how we wrote our report. The report was drafted by UCS staff, including a scientist who has been studying climate change for years. We carried out extensive literature reviews for each of the sites highlighted, drawing on the latest peer-reviewed publications and technical reports. In the process, we also interviewed many site managers and field scientists familiar with the sites about which we wrote. The final text and case studies were then reviewed by more climate scientists, archaeologists, historians and, indeed, many of the men and women who manage and preserve the historic sites we highlighted as vulnerable to the effects of climate change. (As an aside, Dr. Botkin erroneously described my colleague Kate Cell, a senior outreach coordinator at UCS as a fundraiser. In addition to other excellent work she did on the report, Ms. Cell also helped organize this exhaustive review process.)

The people in charge of these sites are, in many cases, already dealing with climate change. To cite one example, NASA is contemplating a ‘planned retreat’ from sea-level rise and land subsidence at Wallops Island in Virginia, where some of the nation’s early experiments in rocketry took place. Major efforts are also underway to protect the shoreline at the original colonial settlement site at Jamestown, Virginia due to erosion and flooding exacerbated by rising water levels.

Further, the National Park Service runs a climate change response program and has adopted an ambitious climate change action plan. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell who has traveled widely in the national parks since she was appointed has said “everywhere I’ve gone the impact of climate change has been very evident”  With regard to historic sites, a recent policy memo from National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis stated “Climate change poses an especially acute problem for managing cultural resources because they are unique and irreplaceable -- once lost they are lost forever”.

The parks themselves are also a rich source of information about our changing climate. As one study by National Park Service climate scientist, Patrick Gonzalez noted, “Field measurements in national parks have detected glacial melt, decreased snowfall and snowpack, earlier spring warmth and streamflow, sea-level rise, increased conifer mortality, and shifts of vegetation biomes, small-mammal ranges, and winter bird ranges. Analyses attribute these impacts to climate change.”

Ultimately, Dr. Botkin’s column was less about our report and more of a criticism of the science used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one of the authoritative climate science assessments upon which we relied.

The IPCC is the largest scientific assessment body in the world. Its reports are commissioned by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation, written by scientists, scrutinized through an exhaustive public comment process, and approved by member countries.

We used many other sources in addition to the IPCC, including the National Climate Assessment. Published in May 2014, it is the most comprehensive review of climate science ever carried out for the United States. It concluded that “global climate is changing and this change is apparent across a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities.”

The National Climate Assessment is produced by an independent advisory committee and finalized by more than a dozen federal science agencies, including the Department of the Interior, which houses the National Park Service. Its reports are authorized by Congress, open to public comment, and are considered the definitive guide to climate change in the United States.

Dr. Botkin is right to assert that climate change is not the only concern at the parks or sites we wrote about in our report. But it is happening and it makes many of the problems parks are already dealing with – including wildfires and flooding – worse than they would be otherwise.

Thankfully, the people in charge of these sites are paying close attention to the science. They are seeking to reduce climate risk and planning for long-term resilience because these sites are part of our heritage. These men and women are stewards, and they want to enable our children and grandchildren to enjoy these sites, even as the climate changes rapidly around us.

Featured Article

Comments

, shouldn't we be looking for ways to reduce those impacts before it's too late.

Not if it means tearing down the house.


I am inclined to agree Lee, I do not think the debate is not about the climate changing, both Dr. Botkin and Alfred Runte make the point very well. The issue is human caused pollution and how much of that is a factor. In my own less than expert opinion, I think we should try to reduce impacts, it is something we can control. Air quality is not just about affecting climate change, it is about human health, as is all forms of industrial pollution, pesticides use, etc. There are economic issues, as EC points out, but there are also opportunities. This is a very interesting conversation. 


While believers on both sides seem to agree that things are changing, they don't seem able to agree on the cause.  But as long as there is a strong possibility that human activities are a major driving force, shouldn't we be looking for ways to reduce those impacts before it's too late.

The attitudes of some people regarding this issue is the same as saying, "Yes, we can smell smoke but it might be expensive or difficult to do anything about it.  Let's wait until we can see some flames so we'll know for sure."

It's not necessary to destroy the building.  Instead you get out your infra-red detector and look for hidden hot spots behind walls or ceilings, just as infra-red detectors in satellites are doing with our earth.  Or you pull out your gas detector and sniff for carbon monoxide, just as we are doing to sniff out increasing greenhouse gasses within our planet's thin veil of atmosphere.

Wait for the flames to break out on their own and you'll almost certainly destroy the building.  There comes a point at which a hidden fire stops smoldering and obtains enough oxygen to suddenly flash over into a full blown four alarm blaze.

By then it's much too late.

If there are some people foolish enough to want to wait for undeniable proof of danger that's okay -- in their house.  Trouble is, ALL of us live in the same house.  The one we call Earth.  I'm not in favor of allowing foolishness to prevail.


Interesting tact Lee.  Altering your post without docuementing such after people have responded to your initial comment.

If my fire alarm keeps going off and there is no fire, I fix the alarm, I don't tear down my house. 


EC, geez!  Not only have the alarms gone off on many fronts, we can smell the smoke.  Climate change is accelerating, and the IPCC gives it a 90% certainty that it is indeed human caused.


Owen - if climate change is accelerating why has the temperature been flat for the last 18 years?  Why have the models - including those endorsed by the IPCC -  been so wrong?


EC, I don't know where you get your information.  I suggest taking the IPCC reports seriously.


Owen pointless to have the argument.  No matter what you say they will find a single point and harp on it even though they can't explain why ocean temperatures are still rising,  Acidification and CO2 content of the oceans is still rising, glaciers globally are melting using their theories, coral reefs globally are dying.  This article was disappointing again because it relied on too much anecdotal arguments and not general statements of fact.  The arguments are this year type arguments and in North America arguments instead of looking at the longer trends and global numbers.   This allows some people to counter any argument with anomalies like what about X year or in y location this is not happening.   Then there is always the classic argument of I don't believe their numbers.   So never are they required to actually validate their disbelief or prove anything.    We might as well resort to it was cold in the trolls yard yesterday so of course there is no global warming.       The most pragmatic and boring people in the world think global warming is a risk.  No its not scientists or politicians.   Actuaries have assessed the risk and dispute several of the non-believers claims. There is a very nice executive summary from the Society of Actuaries on the topic and if you have insomnia, get the detailed report. They at least are putting rates(money) where there mouth is and so will those who live on the coast in time.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.