After the four panelists finished speaking, it was time for questions from the audience. Most of the questions were from people asking for more information on specificl potential problems for their locallized areas, so the different scientists took a crack at those.

I, being a meteorologist, have always been fascinated by the application of modelling to point to the outcomes on which they derive their scenarios and projections-- primarily because we weather guys always have trouble with models getting forecasts wrong even out just a few days, let alone decades. One of the scientists pointed out that the variability of the elements worked on by the models is on a time-scale of years, rather than the hours we look at. To me, that would seem to equate the two data-sets and their validity (hourly variables on daily models vs. annual variables on decadal models). Another one of the scientists pointed out a technique that they have used to attempt to perfect their models (meteorologists would simply see their model verify or not, and adjust algorithms accordingly). Climate models do not verify in anyone's lifetime, so perhaps their only option is called 'hindcasting'...which means they would draw up their algorithms so that they can correctly resolve exactly what has happend over the last 30 years in terms of the variables they want to project, and once that is done successfully, they would apply that to the future with the hope that it can do it's job effectively.

It was clear in the minds of all the scientists in the briefing that these models are by no means perfect, or perfect confidence was placed in any specific solution. However, they explained that greater confidence was gained when running slight variations of the algorithms (mathematical formulas that describe variable modification over time) simultaneously and observing the ensemble result. Meteorologists do this all the time as well, and it's a very good way to see what a 'most likely' solution would be, and which models would be an unlikely 'outlier'.

One of the things that climatologists and other scientists take from their research with ensembles, is that a global warming is 'in the cards' for the forsee-able future. In fact, none of the 'ensemble' solutions show any sort of 'cooling' projection. That's not to say something drastic couldn't happen to balance things out. In the early 90's Mt. Pinatubo erupted, spewing all sorts of things into the atmosphere, with the effect of cooling the atmosphere for entire years. Those are always going to be a possibility for which there can't really be an account.

The question then becomes..."What can be separated from this projected climate change as purely man-made, and what could be construed as natural?" (I wanted to know this too, so I asked it as well). This brought on a lively interaction between the scientists. It turns out, all through history, going back a reported 400,000 years, the global surface temperature has always been changing, modified climatically by about a 1C plus-or-minus buffer. They say that today, beyond all ice ages and warm spells, our climate has progressed (or is very near progressing) outside of this boundary that hasn't been crossed in paleoclimate record. Of course, the largest factor for this rise would be the man-made industrial contribution. But it was stressed that it still wasn't possible to get precise (for example, a CO2 number that is man-made vs. a CO2 total number in a given year)...One of the reasons for this is the absence of a parallel twin planetary system devoid of human dominance with which to compare atmospheres-- the concept of a 'control group' in the Scientific Method. But, there is greater than a 90% confidence in man-made negative influence in Greenhouse Gases, and the same type of confidence in its effect of elevating temperatures and sea-levels. One point of evidence the scientists indicated here was the 'current verification' of hindcasted climate models projecting forward from the 1990s (meaning, what they have projected for the early 2000s is currently verifying).

Another interesting topic of discussion, was on the Earth's natural ability to mitigate its own climate change. For example, if there's a pull in one direction, the Earth can often balance with a tug in the opposite direction. This is covered the concept of the 'Gaia Earth System'. Trees, long known for absorbing carbon dioxide as part of their photosynthesis process, also decay (especially the older ones) and are burned, both of which release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Likewise, increases in sea-surface temperature increases the amount of available water vapor in the air. This tends to form more clouds that would then help to cool areas that otherwise would warm more due to more common sunshine. These sorts of 'feedback' reactions to climate change are largely unprogrammable into climate models (the least of the reasons being the unknowable thresholds for their triggering, the diversity of feedback possibilities, and even a way to predict their intensity). However, in all this, there are a few things scientists say they do know:

1) Gaial Earth mitigation of climate change has a much larger time-frame than that of the key indicated Global Warming culprits. This perhaps is rather obvious: A plane flight across the country outputs a lot of carbon in just a few hours...A grove of trees may take a few years to ingest a similar amount of carbon to balance things out. This certainly can pose a few problems if we are attempting to use long-term balances to a short-term emission.

2) The Earth's regulating system may in fact establish a new balance at some other average surface temperature, or perhaps some new climate regime, instead of being called upon to restore conditions to an earlier level. Throughout planetary history this has occurred (with Ice Ages, Medieval warm-spells, etc.) It is easier to maintain a new 'line in the sand' in response to climate change than for a planetary system to attempt to regain a prior balance. It is expected by scientists that, even if human influence on climate remains unabated, that the Earth itself can indeed come to mitigate extremes and establish a new manageable balance for itself (rather than some unstable total eradication of life). However, (and that's a big 'however') there are winners and losers in this moderation. It certainly isn't likely that the Earth would have mankind's "top three wishes" in mind when re-establishing a more stable climate. In fact, it would stand to reason that any climate adjustments would result in some alterations for local human experience. In this, some species would win and some would lose over a given area. Some species are highly adaptable (birds can migrate, humans can even walk on the moon, etc.), others are not.

But, this has been an ongoing reality since the beginning of time. Dinosaurs were here and are gone. Many species have been wiped out with a simple climate modification (some we may have never discovered), others were allowed to flourish in a new area, or perhaps adapted in some evolutionary way. The question becomes then, "will we be satisfied with that new reality?" We as humans have been pretty accustomed to the 'status quo' from a climate/ecosystem perspective. We have an "Endangered Species" list, to keep around that which otherwise may have been wiped off the map...We like ski resorts where they are, like the types flowers in our garden, and all those things. Presumably the 'survival of the human species' may not be on the line here...But a growing share of our comfort may be.

Which brings us to a final thought: What do we do?

And here-in lies the debate. Scientists have suggested we can attempt to mitigate our own 'greenhouse gas' emissions (and perhaps reduce them), with the theory that if it is our over-and-above contributions are the key culprit in Global Warming, then this action should allow the Earth to establish a fine balance at a level much more our preference. The problem here, is that there are a lot of hard-forged habits and comforts that have been established on the back of these 'greenhouse gases' (plenty of horsepower for cars, comparably cheap prices for fuels, energy at beckon call, etc.) Attempting to reduce these gases carry with it increased hardship on the consumer (especially if already stressed expenses increase either to accomodate a reduction of energy supply, or to invest in the infrastructure of new energy).

Think about this way: If there's a hurricane well offshore, and yet there's a warning to prepare to evacuate and such, you are now faced with a decision: It takes a lot of money and effort to properly prepare your house to minimize loss against a hurricane, yet there's a chance the hurricane could completely miss you (wasted money and effort), and there's also a chance for a direct hit (costing you multiples more if you didn't spend the money to prepare), and further still the cost of the 'wait and see' approach could add yourself to the list of casualties besides the house.

When facing a predictive or projected threat, the threshold for convincing naturally becomes higher with the increased cost of proper preparation (people want to be "sure" something bad's going to happen before they agree to cut off an arm or leg to prevent it). The added element here with global warming, is that some may think they are satisfied with potential effects of rising surface temperatures, and feel they can adapt to any potential threat and thus believe it not worth the cost of preparation regardless if it verifies. A final element is that the topic of discussion is not a fastly approaching hurricane, but rather a possible calamity that more than likely, even if verifiable, won't itself cause significant hazards in our lifetime (but rather our descendants). So there's an internal debate in the minds of some as to their willingness to bother putting their money up front in an investment realized only in future generations if money's tight in the present.

I found this briefing by these scientific experts most fascinating, and was pleasantly surprised by their recognition of the dissonance involved in the realm of climate change mitigation. After all, the true debate on climate change has never been whether or not the Earth's surface temperature has been rising (or the sea-levels for that matter) over the past few decades. The evidence can clearly show that because we can go out and measure it. But there's a large area of conjecture as to what the future realities of a continued path would be. There is certainly debate on whether or not the danger is 'really' worth the absolute costs laid out by experts who have determined to know what it will take to stabilize climate change. And then, there are even those who are buying up northern property and beachfront land in Arizon, shouting "Bring on Global Warming!".

In today's world of superlatives, one side is saying that detractors are blindly denying climate change like the Holocaust, where the other side pushes away from the table, refusing to listen to those who don't recognize they're asking a lot of sacrifice to an uncertain threat they may never live to experience. There has to be a middle way. In the recent edition of "Windswept" (the quarterly bulletin of the Mount Washington Observatory), trustee Mark Van Baalen touches on this a little bit, by pointing out some key points of consideration when approaching the climate debate:

"...We must all acknowledge that our understanding of the Earth is incomplete and will remain so for the forseeable future...[however] we must not use lack of certainty as a justification for inaction...Reasonable and cost-effective alternatives, beginning with conservation, are in front of us...our civilization is engaged in an enormous climate experiment, the results of which are unknown." (Certainly not in advance).

Every climate issue has trade-offs. Every action has a reaction (including inaction). The climate issue is not a simple 'open-and-shut' issue of weather and environment. There are many dimensions of ecology and industry, of politics and goverment, (and even overtones of religion I might add). In order to get people to the table to discuss approachable, forward-looking goals, there has to be a recognition of a shared experience, and a simultaneous understanding of the uncertainties of climate change with potential multi-faceted benefits of energy conservation and renewal. As with all forecasting, we'll see what really happens.