Find out why science is more important now than ever and water is the nexus of climate with two of the world’s leading scientists, Dr. John Pomeroy and Dr. Trevor Davies. Joining them is award-winning author, Bob Sandford, senior advisor on water policy and the 20-year Chair of Water and Climate Security at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health.
Professor Trevor Davies was Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the 1990s, a unit established in 1972 at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the first research unit to be dedicated to the study of climate change. When the Climategate crisis engulfed CRU and the global climate science community in 2009, weeks before the failed UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, he was UEA Pro Vice-Chancellor (Vice-President) for Research and played a central role in the response to the false assertions made by deniers.
Professor Davies discusses the challenges of communicating climate science now and then.
Professor John Pomeroy serves as Director of the University of Saskatchewan Centre for Hydrology and the Canmore Coldwater Laboratory and leads Global Water Futures, a Canadian water research network that is the largest university-led freshwater research program in the world. He has conducted research on water, snow, ice and climate.
Pomeroy explores the advantages of using science to inform government water policy and decision-making and how the scientific discovery of the increasing risk of floods and droughts caused by climate change can inform evidence-based policy and decisions, including responding to the need for greater national capacity to predict future water security.
Special thank you to Gennadiy Ivanov for the banner art painting entitled The Denier and the Bear.
Additional Links
Canada’s flooding crisis is spilling over our shores. Only urgent action can dam the breach
Alberta wrestles with its most critical resource: water
While We’re Grounded, Let’s Get Grounded | Daybreak Alberta with Russell Bowers
Additional Q&A
Q. Surgisphere/Lancet/NEJM case is wonderful example of the impossibility of holding ML/AI decisions to account—no way to know how data processed or conclusions reached. So peer reviewers faced with really difficult challenge here.
A. You’re right that machine learning/artificial intelligence presents major problems if the conclusions are divorced from the data. I think the establishment of causal mechanisms must always be a priority – but very difficult when “answers” are needed quickly, as in the case of the current pandemic. Peer review is not perfect but, generally, defective science is eventually picked up. From what I understand of the Surgisphere case, a large dataset appeared “out of the blue”, from many sources, which had been compiled by an organisation which seemed ill-equipped to build the dataset and undertake the analysis. Checking of the claimed sources of the data would seem to have been a minimum requirement in this case. Peer review is already very stretched – for a host of reasons – but there is no alternative to rising to the challenge. Somehow or other, we also need to do very much more to explain to non-scientists, including the media, the distinction between peer-reviewed publications and publications shared before review. Some see the peer-review mechanism as representing a cosy arrangement between established scientists (an assertion made during Climategate) but, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of scientists behave responsibly. There have been efforts to recognise the time and endeavour involved in peer review, but more needs to be done. A long-winded agreement with your point!
Q. Are there any examples of large-scale wetland restoration work being done in Canada, e.g., on the Prairies, for mitigation of future flood risk?
A. There are no large scale restoration projects that I am aware of.
Q. What other functions do wetlands serve for protection of flood and water security on the Prairies?
A. In addition to attenuating streamflow discharge during high flows including floods, Prairie wetlands serve functions for carbon sequestration, habitat, aesthetics as well as provide for enhanced groundwater research and baseflow for streams during drought.
Q. What do climate change models say about potential risks for flood events on the Prairies in the future?
A. Coupling of climate and hydrological models is required to estimate future flood events as climate models represent hydrology in very crude ways that are inapplicable for flood estimation. Coupled model runs are in their infancy in the region, but those on the mountain headwaters of the Bow River suggest diminished flood peaks in the future due to decreasing rain-on-snow flooding as mountain snowpacks decline. Coupled model results for Prairie-derived rivers show increasing flows including very high flows and calculations of rainfall show increasing intensity and duration and also increases in mid-winter and early spring rains. These factors will tend to increase Prairie flooding, though the extent and change in probability of flooding has not yet been calculated.
Q. Why are cisterns not employed more often in new subdivisions to use for non-drinking water needs?
A. This is not a question that we are qualified to answer. (Learn more about cisterns here)
Q. Could you point us to some online resources for bringing art and science together?
A. The answer will depend on age group, or level of interest, to an extent. For younger age-groups, these two might be useful: https://artclasscurator.com and https://www.bom.org.uk.
More generally, https://artistsandclimatechange.com is building up a resource which may turn out to be helpful. But we’re not aware of a resource which is fully-developed. If anyone does know of one/any, please do let us know.
These two show some of Gennadiy Ivanov’s paintings within the Global Water Futures Transitions project, and include accounts of how scientists and Gennadiy go about working together: https://issuu.com/nsag/docs/transitions/s/140988 and https://issuu.com/nsag/docs/transitions_2_issuu/s/10478819
Q. Do scientists believe what an art can help to fight for our planet and with deniers , and do they have any more ideas and ways how we crash the wall between of the commercial and non-commercial galleries and organisations to talk more about this? – Gennadiy Ivanov
A. DAVIES: Yes, I believe art can help cut through some of the nonsense peddled by the deniers. Artists have a long history of presenting reality in ways that can awaken others. “Art is truth” also seems to have had a long history as a quotations – with it being ascribed to many. Picasso had his own variant. Nina Munteanu (a Canadian) has written interesting things on this. I like your definition, Gennadiy – “art hurts”. I don’t have bright ideas to crash down walls in those galleries where there is a barrier to art/science work, other than to keep on producing great art!
POMEROY: We have entered a planetary climate crisis that threatens to ruin our current civilisation and communities, destroy our ecosystems, make our very home unrecognisable and that may threaten the continued existence of humanity. Yet we entered this crisis with our eyes open and with the hubris of believing that the science that sounded the alarm, which we still ignore, can also somehow save us without action. Science is not magic, the laws of thermodynamics still hold and science-informed solutions require strong action and bold leadership. We currently lack action and our self-centred, short-sighted leadership plays games to distract us from the transformations that we must institute to mitigate this crisis. Humanity needs every bit of strength and vision it can muster to find the right path forward and to inspire our leaders to stop playing games and lead this transformation. Art has a great and essential role to play in inspiring and envisioning that transformation.
Q. How do we get industry out of the research universities so that scientists can be truly independent?
A. Having industry/business involvement in universities is not necessarily bad. At UEA we had some collaborations which worked well (Shell was an early funder of the Climatic Research Unit!) and many other universities will have the same experience. There are, though – as you indicate – examples (too many) where industry calls the shots too much. Again- no easy answer, especially when funding is tight. Research universities should recognise that their long-term reputations depend on the objectivity and independence of their research. This needs to start with the drafting of research contracts with business/industry. It is crucial that sufficient research is funded by national agencies/research councils, and by the universities, to ensure that there is a driving core of excellent researchers who know that they are independent. This would require, across particularly important areas of research, levels of strategic collaboration – universities and national bodies – which are rarely seen.
Q. What would be the best video online (YouTube) that does a good job of discussing the real story behind the climate gate events?
A. There have been lots of articles and videos which have claimed to have told the real story of Climategate. These have not involved many of those who were in the middle of it. An interesting recent programme was broadcast on BBC4 a few months ago – Climategate, the science of a scandal. Not the full story but more of it. Besides people at UEA, there are contributions from Canadian denier Steve McIntyre, and Mike Mann from Penn State – an excellent scientist who was also a prime target during Climategate. I have just checked the BBC iplayer site and it doesn’t look as though it is currently available. I will check with the producers.
Q. This year the BC Interior has had lots of negative hydrology impacts mostly due to corporate industrial fibre mining (forestry). Any suggestions for dealing with impacts from industrial forestry?
A. GWF is conducting hydrological studies that examine the impact of land cover change including from forestry on hydrology under current and future climates. These studies are scheduled to be conducted in the Columbia and Fraser river basins in phase 2 of the program, which starts this year. Studies to date in the Bow River Basin show little impact from planned forestry activities, but great impacts from extensive wildfires, should they occur in the basin.
Q. The response to climate deniers cannot be effective by just focusing on the factual and scientific basis of information on climate change. Why has the science community shied away from responding to climate deniers by exposing the corporate connections involved in financing false science, manipulating media and corporate/ political connections?
A. A spot-on question. Scientists had assumed that they could rely on rational science, with increasing and better (but still not perfect) public communication, and that would be enough. We were all rather cowed by the accusations of “advocacy” if we strayed beyond the reporting of science and became “campaigners” and tried to distort the political process. I believe it was a false distinction between science and “advocacy/campaigning” – why wouldn’t we wish to highlight the challenges that were most likely to come and, once we were confident in our conclusions, explain the dangers of not addressing that challenge, and even suggesting possible solutions. But that was the frame of mind, and – in my opinion – produced a mindset where it was viewed even more risky to answer (false) criticism of the science by pointing out the source of funding, and the tactics of the deniers. More scientists are now doing this. But, by and large, the science establishment still does shy away. It is something to do with the mindset I spoke about in the presentation. We tend to rely on the excellent efforts of organisations like Greenpeace.
Creative Solutions for a New World
A Call for Enhanced Water Security Cooperation in Canada
Let’s Shift This!
One of the main ways we can help create the change we want to see, is to send letters and call our elected officials. The more people who do this, the better.
To simplify this process, we have drafted this letter which we invite you to cut, paste and share by email and on social media.
As well, as an added convenience, we have supplied the email addresses and phone numbers for the key people who need to know that there is public support for a new ecosystem management.
Please send this letter to everyone noted on this list, plus find your MLA with the link provided and add them too. Please cc info@creativelyunited.org. We will follow up with these elected officials to remind them there is public support. Having your voice, and that of your family, friends, co-workers and networks, is what we need to shift this. It will only take a minute or two of your time!
Anything is possible, let’s make this happen!
The Letter:
Subject: A Call for Enhanced Water Security Cooperation in Canada
Please support the creation of a Canada Water Agency to:
1. Create new analytical models for reducing the impacts of rapidly changing hydrology on our economy, environment and social systems
2. Develop a new national flood forecasting system to bring the best science to predicting and alleviating flood risk across Canada
Rationale
We start with a question. Why does every climate disaster movie begin with science being ignored? Incontrovertible scientific evidence now clearly shows that the global water cycle, the planet’s climate patterns and the Earth system are intimately linked and rapidly changing. We are suffering through a pandemic but the future cost of the changing water cycles will create greater and longer lasting damage to the economy.
The hydrology of this country is changing. Our glaciers, which represent “water in the bank,” in the West are on the way out. Because our planet’s atmosphere has warmed, the global water cycle has accelerated undermining the relative stability of the weather we have come to expect. Precipitation patterns are changing. Rainfall events are lasting longer, becoming more intense, increasing the frequency of flooding. Heatwaves are more common and wildfire more frequent and dangerous.
We cannot use the pandemic as an excuse to roll back water quality regulations, reduce monitoring, reporting and enforcement. Regulations provide a protection for all of us. They need to be reinstated and where necessary, strengthened.
The change in the hydrological cycle has been so substantial that the statistical analyses we used to rely upon to establish design standards for our subdivisions, roads, bridge and other infrastructure are no longer valid. In this changed world the old ways of managing water by way of chopping up river basins into separate jurisdictions is not only outdated, but a danger to public safety.
Deterioration of water quality in the lakes and ground waters of Central and Eastern Canada is also a growing concern. Protecting public health and the environment is becoming critical.
The status quo is not an option. We need new ways of managing water based on models which respond to future changes in hydrology. Researchers in Canada are on the threshold of creating such models that will be able to predict and forecast both floods and droughts on a national and continental basis. .
We also need a national flood forecasting system. Canada is the only G-7 country without one. Developing the modelling and forecasting capacity on a national basis will require the creation of a Canada Water Agency.
Given federal government support, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to create such an Agency right now.
It is time for Canadians to realize water is going to become more precious that we can even begin to imagine in the future, and to act accordingly. We are at a transformational moment in our history. We can choose our future; now is the time to do so.
Signed:
(Your name here)
Email this letter and/or phone:
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Jonathan.Wilkinson@parl.gc.ca
1-613-995-1225
Hon. Terry Duguid, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister Wilkinson
Terry.Duguid@parl.gc.ca
1-613-995-7517
Hon. Bernadette Jordan, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard
Bernadette.Jordan@parl.gc.ca
1-613-996-0877
Hon. Marie -Claude Bibeau, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Marie-Claude.Bibeau@parl.gc.ca
1-613-995-2024
Hon. George Heyman, Environment and Climate Change Strategy
ENV.Minister@gov.bc.ca
1-250-387-1187
Hon. Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development
FLNR.Minister@gov.bc.ca
1-250-387-6240
Also, please send a copy to your MLA. Find your MLA’s email here:
https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/members
Please be sure to cc: info@creativelyunited.org when sending your letter.
Thank YOU!