As organizations and researchers strive to determine the impacts of their activities on energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and the environment, Koonin asserts that the world is extremely far from the knowledge required to make good climate policy. Therefore, the popular notion that ‘Climate science is settled’ is a misguided claim. Koonin observes that such a claim has poorly altered both public and policy discourses on matters related to “energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and the environment” (Koonin). Besides, it has also affected any meaningful scientific and policy discourse about the future of climate change.
The major scientific issue that Koonin raises is the potential change in climate “over the next century under both natural and human influences” (Koonin). Any possible responses to this question and other complex interrelations between ecosystems and human activities should guide future decisions about energy and infrastructure. However, these have been the hardest questions to solve climate change. These questions, in a critical manner, challenge what the current scientific knowledge can inform us about climate.
First, Koonin observes that while human influences may cause severe impacts on the climate, such effects are generally minor relative to the entire climate structure (Koonin). The climate system is highly inconsistent and therefore, such minor impacts could create an extremely high bar that may affect any significant attempts to project human consequences on climates.
Second, it is difficult to comprehend the future climate because of challenges in discerning the oceans. The oceans bear the most warmth and have a significant effect on the environment. Regrettably, accurate, inclusive data on oceans are only available for the past few years. Hence, the limited data cannot allow for an effective understanding of future changes in the oceans and potential impacts on the climate.
Third, there are inherent challenges with the feedback that is received. Feedback can alter the course of human and natural influences on climate. Feedback, however, tend to be uncertain. This implies that it must be evaluated for precision, details, and any other missing values.
Koonin asserts that beyond the three drawbacks above, there are critical challenges posed by the intricate computer algorithms used in the predictive analyses for potential climate patterns. Different computer programs have aimed at describing the dynamics and interactions of different elements of the Earth system, which include “the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things” (Koonin). While some of the algorithms are based on well-evaluated fundamental concepts, other models have been based on technically developed extrapolation. That is, there are inherent weaknesses with the complex computer models that analyzed the climate.
Koonin dismisses the idea of ‘scientific consensus’ regarding climate change because computer algorithms cannot support it. In most cases, there are insufficient details to ascertain the actual human influences on the climate.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has often shown the marked differences and failures among all the models deployed to understand the climate. Koonin observes that such inherent failures in the models are critical and cannot be simply ‘cleaned up’ by further research (Koonin). The observed discrepancies in the models erode confidence levels, particularly in projections. Koonin, therefore, suggests that climate experts should work to overcome challenges noted in climate models. Also, any meaningful approaches to the climate debate must acknowledge both scientific certainties and uncertainties, particularly in predictive approaches.
Works Cited
Koonin, Steven E. “Climate Science Is Not Settled.” The Wall Street Journal. 2014. Web.