“Phenology” is the science that studies the influence of climate upon of plant and animal phenomena as the budding and flowering of plants, and the migration of animals.   Many of us are already phenological scientists; bird watchers  routinely record migration and nesting data, while many gardeners record flowering, harvesting and other data.    The USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN) depends upon volunteers to observe and share their data, and to organize and analyze previously collected data.  To be an observer, you can watch the same tree in your front yard, and each year report when the leaves appear, or fall.  Such data collected by many can tells us a great deal about climate change, and help us prepare for the future.

You are obviously using a computer to read this; if it is yours you can donate some computer time to a climate change project (if it is not your computer you don’t want to do this!).  Climateprediction.net is a a project to produce predictions of the Earth’s climate up to the year 2100, and to test the accuracy of climate models.  Based at Oxford University, the project utilizes “distributed computing”, which depends upon the donation of time on individual, personal computers.  The project utilizes a free, open-source software program, “BOINC” developed at the University of California-Berkeley for volunteer and distributed grid computing.  BOINC is currently running on nearly a half-million computers belonging to over 300,000 volunteers and organizations. 

To participate in an distributed computing project you load BOINC on your computer, and then select a project to receive your donated computer time, of which Climateprediction.net is just one.  Other projects include topics such as the control of Malaria, mathematics, protein analysis, and genetics.   Climateprediction.net recently published a ground-breaking study based on computation conducted on approximately about 60,000 donated computers.  The entire process of setting up a computer for this use takes less than 15 minutes.  The program then runs in the background, using only unused computer cycles, and automatically shutting down when it might slow, or otherwise interfere with your usage.  As most computer tasks typically use only a small percentage of computer capacity, the Climateprediction.net is using only wasted resources and is invisible to the user. 

These are but two of many volunteer opportunities that require very little time and effort, but where the collective contribution of many volunteers is of great value.  And in each case, you can watch the progress and results of the project in which you are participating.  Visit http://usanpn.org for more information about phenology,  http://climateprediction.net for information on climate modeling projects, and http://boinc.berkeley.edu for open source grid computing software and to volunteer for various projects. 

The study surveyed 2030 adults, selected on the basis of U.S. Census distribution, who were asked 43 questions to test their knowledge of climate change, and 12 questions about their sources of information.  Based on the number of correct "knowledge" answers, only 1% of the respondents received an grade of “A”, while 77% received either a “D” (25%) or an “F” (52%). 

The authors’ summary of the study⁽²⁾ is:

"Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change reports results from a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming. Among other findings, the study identifies a number of important gaps in public knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change.

Overall, we found that 63 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why. In this assessment, only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F. The study also found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system. These misconceptions lead some people to doubt that global warming is happening or that human activities are a major contributor, to misunderstand the causes and therefore the solutions, and to be unaware of the risks. Thus many Americans lack some of the knowledge needed for informed decision-making in a democratic society. For example, only:

• 57% know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat;
• 50% of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities;
• 45% understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface;
• 25% have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification. 

Meanwhile, large majorities incorrectly think that the hole in the ozone layer and aerosol spray cans contribute to global warming, leading many to incorrectly conclude that banning aerosol spray cans or stopping rockets from punching holes in the ozone layer are viable solutions.

However, many Americans do understand that emissions from cars and trucks and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to global warming, and that a transition to renewable energy sources is an important solution.

In addition, despite the recent controversies over “climategate” and the 2007 IPCC report, this study finds that Americans trust scientists and scientific organizations far more than any other source of information about global warming.

Americans also recognize their own limited understanding. Only 1 in 10 say that they are “very well informed” about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more about the issue. Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach our children about climate change and 68 percent would welcome a national program to teach Americans more about the issue."

If we, as a society, are to make the intelligent decisions and choices that are necessary to adapt to climate change, and reduce global warming, our citizens must have far more complete understanding of basic climate science.  We must all Learn, Teach others, and Act!

The Yale study was restricted to the United States – how do the results compare to your country?  Leave a comment and let us know.

___________________

1.)  Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. &  Marlon, J.R. (2010) Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge2010.pdf

2.)   http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/knowledge-of-climate-change

Two environmental events gained national attention in 1969, one was the massive, 200,000 gallon, Santa Barbara (California) oil spill which started on January 29th, and in June the heavily polluted Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio caught on fire.  The Santa Barbara oil spill quickly resulted in an unprecedented volunteer effort to cleanse and care for oil-coated seabirds.  This rescue effort rapidly became a major news story.  While the Cuyahoga River fire had burned on several previous occasions, and the June fire was readily extinguished, it also received national publicity and was widely used to illustrate how polluted the Nation’s rivers had become.

In the fall of 1969, Senator Gaylord Nelson was returning to Washington, D.C. from an visit to the Santa Barbara oil spill site, when he  conceived  the idea that would become Earth Day.   Senator Nelson, who while serving as the governor of Wisconsin had been nicknamed the “Conservation Governor”, had been reading an article about the “teach-ins” that were then spontaneously occurring on college campuses around the nation.  Why not, he reasoned, have environmental teach-ins?   And if they were all held on the same day would they not gain maximum publicity?  Senator Nelson later mentioned the idea in a Seattle speech and it was soon reported in the press.  Senator Nelson had envisioned the idea as one of locally organized and managed events, not one that was nationally organized.  However, as his senate office rapidly became overwhelmed with requests for information he established an Environmental Teach-in organization and hired a young Harvard graduate student, Denis Hayes, to manage the organization in supply of information and support.  While interest rapidly grew beyond college campuses, the date of April 22 was chosen strictly because of college spring break and exam schedules.  No doubt it did not hurt that the Spring equinox occurred on April 22 in 1970.

A mere eight months after Senator Nelson had the idea, 1 of every 10 Americans actively participated in Earth Day 1970 activities.  From a crowd of over 100,000 people on Fifth Avenue, New York to small groups of school children planting trees, Earth Day was celebrated across the nation.   One unanticipated, but remarkable consequence was the number of local coalitions that resulted from the emphasis on grassroots planning as local organizations came together to promote a common cause; and which resulted in truly community-oriented Earth Day celebrations. 

While organized locally, most Earth Day celebrations had common elements of educational events, service activities such stream or park cleanups, entertainment and of course, speeches.  While the  major environmental emphasis was on pollution, population was also a major issue at the time and was a component of many Earth Day celebrations. 

Earth Day was not without its detractors.  Fanned by releases from the John Birch Society some felt that it was an attempt at a communist take-over of the United States since April 22 also happens to be Lenin’s birthday, and organizations from the Daughters of the American Revolution to the anti-war movement denounced it as subversive, or detracting.  And or course, just as today there were a number of “deniers”  who claimed that pollution did not exist, or was a sign of progress, or not worth spending money to clean up.  But the the massive outpouring of public interest and involvement was a surprise to many, and could not be ignored.

Presidential papers show that President Nixon didn’t really understand many of the environmental concerns and was not particularly interested in environmental matters; but, as a result of Earth Day he recognized that environment issues had broad public support. Therefore in July he proposed the formation of an Environmental Protection Agency, and the EPA was authorized by Congress in December.  Congressional support for the EPA was no doubt enhanced by the fact that environmental support became a major issue in the 1970 mid-term elections, contributing to the removal of several dissenting members of Congress by candidates who pledged support on environmental matters.  With the support of both the administration and Congress a landslide of environmental legislation was enacted, including:  significant amendments to both the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act (1970), the Environmental Education Act of 1970, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.  Ironically, President Nixon rejected any attempt to control automobile emissions, believing it to be bad for the (then faltering) economy.

Forty years later we still celebrate Earth Day, but sadly not with the enthusiasm, nor broad public support, that marked the 1970 event.  In fact today it is difficult to imagine that 1 out of 10 Americans joining with other members of their community to partake in such an event.  It is also difficult to imagine that our elected leaders would respond as they did in 1970.

In the years since Earth Day 1970 the concern about population has all but evaporated, while the U.S. population has increased from 203 million in 1970 to 309 million today. In the same time period the world’s population has increased from 3.7 billion to over 6.8 billion, and on average 1 person a second, or 36 million people a year now die of starvation. 

On the other hand,  the laws passed in the ‘70s have provided significant protection for our air and waters.  However, in many regards the laws and regulations have not kept up with the threats, and current health concerns.  For example, water standards for heavy metals and organics are deficient or lacking, while the concentrations of both are increasing in many of our surface waters.  And, one does not need to look beyond the emission of greenhouse gases as an example of current air pollution concerns.  In the 40 years since 1970 the CO₂ concentration of the atmosphere has risen from 325ppm to 391ppm, an increase of 20%.

The lasting legacy of Earth Day 1970 is true to Senator Nelson’s vision of an environmental teach-in.  Earth Day is now celebrated in nations around the world, an annual reminder of our responsibility to planet earth and those who will inhabit her in our stead.  There can be no doubt that the inhabitants of Earth are now far better informed about the environment than they were in 1970; but, while that knowledge is far broader,  the intensity of concern, and the commitment to environmental protection appears to be far less. 

If we are to make meaningful progress in curtailing global warming broad public support and involvement will be necessary.  Attempts to gain such support have received little attention, and examination of the disparity of public attitudes between the U.S. and other nations even less. There can be no question that the sciences will become increasingly important in the future of mankind.  Technological advances in electronics, medicine, and communication have altered lives in the developed nations and promise to rapidly transform the developing nations in unforeseen ways.  An understanding of science is also necessary to the understanding of climate change and, critically, our adaptation to a changing environment. Much of the responsibility for enhancing the role of science must fall on scientists.  In fact,  as a scientist I feel that because we have shirked our responsibilities to our fellow citizens in the past we don’t know how to react now to those who are skeptical of our motives.  I wonder if part of our problem as scientists trying to communicating with a lay audience is that we do not present a consistent message.  Apart from humans being predisposed to being against any apparent threat, the climate deniers are effective because they have a clear, simple and consistent message. On the other hand, due to the very nature of science our message is constantly being altered as new information becomes available. I fear that by attempting to being super-accurate, we are perceived as inconsistent and lose our creditability with the lay-public. I am rapidly becoming convinced that those of us concerned with with the future role of science in the United States and in presenting the climate change message might be wise to re-focus our efforts to embrace three core objectives:

1. The re-establishment of the Office of Technology Assessment within Congress. After 20 + years as a Congressional agency, the 200 person OTA was eliminated as a budget reduction action in 1995. Their mission of providing impartial advice and analysis to the Senate and House has not been replaced and is sorely needed as in addition to climate change Congress will face increasingly complex scientific issues in the future.  Currently Congress relies on lobbyists and others with a special interest to promote for information.  As employees of Congress, staff of the OTA was accountable to Congress, not some outside, special interest.  The reestablishment of the OTA should help avoid such debacles as the ethanol program and would be a tremendous bargain for the taxpayers.
2. Strengthening science education in our schools.  Educators say that students really need a solid understanding of science to readily accept the reality of global warming, when once achieved the task becomes simple. An a broader basis, a solid foundation in the sciences, math and engineering will be necessary to merely cope in an increasingly technological world, and absolutely critical for a competitive workforce.  The Obama administration has recently an additional $250 million in support of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) program.  In announcing this public-private venture, John Holdren, Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, stated “we really need all hands on deck from the private sector and the philanthropic sector because the government can’t foot the whole bill for this”.   I would say that we can’t afford not to foot the bill for this.  We must make the scientific education of our children a national priority.   And by the way, the White House (executive branch) has an Office of Science and Technology Policy – why doesn’t the legislative branch have a comparable office?
3. Scientists must learn to effectively communicate with the general public – and then actually do it!  Scientists are currently trained in “scientific writing”, a style of writing designed to ensure accuracy and objectivity.  Due to the increasing complexity and specialization of science, scientific articles are best understood only by fellow-scientists in the same specialized field, and are often totally incomprehensible even to scientists in other fields.  Unfortunately, scientists are not trained in communicating to non-scientists and thus lack the skills to translate their results so that they may be readily understood by a lay audience.  Additionally, science is an increasingly competitive endeavor and many scientists are either unable or unwilling to devote time to activities that do not hold the promise of an immediate return.   Especially for publicly supported university and government science this situation should no longer be acceptable.  Training of scientists should include social responsibility and communication skills.  Public outreach and communication should be a job requirement for every scientists on public funding. If we keep hiding in our labs and communicating only with each other scientists will have no one to blame but ourselves when we are ignored by the public whose support we need.

We as citizens must demand more from our legislators, educators and scientists. The need for immediate action on global warming is critical and cannot wait for the education of a new generation of scientists.  However, we also have an obligation to ensure that future generations will have the skills and knowledge to make wise decisions and deal with the changing climate that will be our legacy to them.