The purpose of this and the hopefully soon to follow series of diaries is not to infringe upon the other excellent science writers on the web, but to focus more on what I can contribute to this community of progressive-minded people. I think I can offer an "insider's view" of earth science (as the title suggests...) and all that goes along with the life of a scientist. In this diary I will discuss funding issues (the prospects were very grim, but there's hope for better days after 11-7-06), specific events (such as Al Gore's upcoming speech at the American Geophysical Union Fall Conference), governmental insanity (like James Inhofe's newest inflammatory press release), and the new South Pole Station below the fold...
This is my introductory diary and--my apologies for this indulgence--I think I should give a tiny bit of background.
I am in the latter years of obtaining my Ph.D. and I study processes on the earth that affect and are affected by climate change. Let's just leave it at that. Scientists who are already established have problems when they make public statements (see James Hansen's story, so what do you think would happen to scientists that have yet to begin their careers? I'd rather not find out. Alright, now that I've introduced myself, here's the rest of my diary...
First up, now that the Dems have control, it's time for scientists to celebrate! Right? The newest issue of Science Magazine has several articles discussing the changes to come for U.S. science. These are all by subscription only--sorry:
The next Congress will shift its environmental policymaking from reverse to forward, say environmental advocates celebrating last week's election results. Two major reasons for that new direction are the defeat of a powerful House member who, critics say, was bent on weakening the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the replacement of an influential Senate chair, who infamously called global warming a hoax, with a longtime proponent of cutting emissions of greenhouse gases.
A surprise to me was that Chair of the Resources Committee, Richard Pombo (who's revision/gutting of Endangered Species Act passed the house) was beaten by a "wind-power engineer" named Jerry McNerney! Why hasn't that gotten more press?
However, on the funding front, there isn't too much good news, yet (Link Here):
"I don't think there's any broad message for science in the election," says Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), a 13-year veteran who had hopes of chairing the House Science Committee had the Republicans remained in power. "Science continues to be largely bipartisan." Both Ehlers and Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ), who jokingly call themselves a two-person congressional physics caucus because of their Ph.D.s in the field, expect Democrats to push ahead next year with their own bills to improve U.S. competitiveness that contain major increases for research, education, and training, and clean-energy technologies. But if and when those authorization bills pass, it may be hard to find money to implement them.
Indeed, the stage for budget battles next year could be set in the next few weeks. That's when the lame-duck Republican Congress considers appropriations bills containing hefty spending increases for several science agencies. Science lobbyists fear that some of those bills, covering the 2007 fiscal year that began 1 October and based largely on requests from President George W. Bush, could be severely trimmed to meet another goal that both parties swear allegiance to: reducing next year's expected budget deficit of $335 billion.
I am a fiscal conservative and I'm a fan of a balanced budget, but nearly every project studying earth sciences is funded by the National Science Foundation and to tell you the truth--we are starving. The financial reward for being an earth scientist is, er, well, there isn't really much of a reward and now there are very good scientists that can't get their projects funded. It's a miserable position to be in because groundbreaking science takes money. Here's an example--oceanographers need to cough up ~$30,000 per day for most ocean-going vessels!
Second up, from the American Geophysical Union (AGU) 2006 Fall Conference website (scroll down):
Al Gore to address attendees
Thursday, 14 December
1230h-1330h
San Francisco Marriott Hotel, Fourth and Mission Streets, Salon 8
Session U42D
Former Vice President Al Gore will speak on "Climate Change: The Role of Science and the Media in Policymaking" at a special Union lecture open to all Fall Meeting registrants. This talk will focus on effective use of scientific understanding in the policy-making process. (It is not the lecture underlying Mr. Gore's recent film.) Although Mr. Gore's schedule does not allow time for a press conference, reporters are welcome to ask questions in the Q&A period following the talk. We will not schedule any press conferences in this time slot.
The AGU Fall Conference is one of the largest earth science conferences on the planet (I saw an estimate of more than 14,000 people to attend this year) and it will be very interesting to see the mass of people around this talk. I've scoured some Climate Denialist websites and they claim that "100s" of scientists are denying the claims made in Al Gore's
Inconvenient Truth. I wonder if there will be any of these "100s" of scientists at this talk? The lack of a Press Conference is disappointing, but I think there still will be some science talk afterward. I also plan on attending a well known climate denialist's talk...
Thirdly, James Inhofe has a press release. It pretty much speaks for itself:
Statement by Chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) at a press conference on Capitol Hill:
Thank you for joining us today. As you know, we had an election last week in the U.S. Many of you might be thinking that the Democrats' razor thin majority means that global warming legislation is somehow going to sail through the next Congress. Well, I can assure you that will not happen.
I look forward to leading the effort in the Senate to oppose any such legislation and am confident we will prevail.
In a few minutes, I will have much more to say about these issues and offer some analysis on the UN climate conference concluding in Kenya this week. But first, I want to introduce the scientists with me today. As you will hear, climate skepticism - or evidence-based science - is alive and well.
Joining me are Ben Herman, Joe D'Aleo, and Bill Gray - Each is expert in his area. Ben Herman is an atmospheric physicist and an established expert in areas such as satellite monitoring. Joe D'Aleo is a former Chair of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting and co-founded the Weather Channel. Bill Gray has spent more than 40 years researching tropical storms and some have called him the Father of Hurricane Research.
Funny how he needs to mention a "razor thin majority"--they are bitter, aren't they?
If you follow that link, you'll see a PDF file of the presentations by the scientists. It follows the usual (and easily refuted) arguments such as certain locations are cooling, heat island effects, yadda yadda yadda.
What the climate denialists fail to address is the basic physics--Carbon Dioxide allows shortwave radiation (from the sun) to pass through, but it traps the longwave energy that would normally be radiated (from the earth) back out to space. The presence of this gas (and other gases like Methane) is the reason that the Earth's mean temperature is above freezing (without these gases, the amount of energy coming in from the sun and leaving the planet adds up to a cold planet). It doesn't take a climate scientist to understand that increasing the concentration of this gas will have only one effect--less of the longwave energy (heat) will be leaving the Earth. There are some serious discussions as to whether the introduction of "black carbon" and aerosols from humans could have caused some cooling--possibly offsetting the amount of warming--but the skeptics don't discuss this.... this and more "evidence-based" climate science has all been covered much more completely at the Real Climate website by very good scientists.
Finally, I wanted to leave you with an excellent website to visit describing the new South Pole station that will be finished this winter (austral summer). There's also some great photos and discussion of the previous South Pole stations. I would upload an image, but this is my first diary and I'm not sure if that will go over that well. However, check out this official website--the station is truly an amazing feat of engineering. Maybe I'll have a reason to go down there sometime...
Until next time...