Climate science and the Indian scientist

=================================

By Sunita Narain

Will Indian scientists measure up to the challenge of climate change? I
ask this question because of the nature of the science as well as the
nature of our scientists.

Climate change science is young, being tutored and evolving. We know
much more today about what the future will hold if we do not reduce
emissions drastically. Yet our knowledge is still probabilistic. It
concerns changes we can model for climate sensitivity, using the best
evidence we have today. But all models are victims of their assumptions.
And all predictions are villains of their times. The challenge is that
even if we know little about how the accumulation of greenhouse gases
will impact us, we cannot afford to wait until we have all the answers.
We can't afford to be uncertain in our actions, even if we are uncertain
about our science.

Take glaciers. We know that glaciers melt. It is because of this melt
that we get water. But are these glaciers melting at an unnatural pace
today? Will such melting lead to more water in our rivers to begin with,
leading to floods, and then less, leading to water scarcity? The
answers, after much scientific skulduggery, are just beginning to
crystallise.

Western scientists agree that something is afoot. They know because they
can physically map the glaciers to see the pace of the recession. They
can also measure the mass-average ice thickness-to check for reduction.
In addition, complex statistical models-which combine evidence from
several observational datasets-are confirming the probability of this
rapid recession.

These models had initially not predicted that melt water would seep into
the crevices of the glaciers, lubricate them and so accelerate melting.
When this was physically noticed, it was factored into the models for
greater reliability. But there are many unanswered questions. For
instance, will there be a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet? There are
huge uncertainties regarding critical thresholds of collapse. But in all
this, uncertain science cannot afford to breed complacency. It has to
reveal what it knows, with what measure of reliability and also discuss
what it does not know, as yet, because of its own limitations of data or
understanding. It is growing, but after all, it is a young science.

In India, we are just beginning to map impacts on our glaciers because
of human-induced climate change. We can draw inferences from the changes
that are being observed and predicted in the rest of the world. But we
will have to do our own leg work-to understand both what is happening
and what the receding glaciers will do to our water security. The
question is: can we do this?

I ask this because in many ways climate change science, because of its
many variables and very many scenarios, is a game of chess which can
only be played by investigative and highly inquisitive minds. The
scientist will get clues and the answers will have to be tweaked: from
scientific evidence, from plain common sense and from what can be
observed in the real world.

It is not in the nature of our science to do this kind of imaginative,
investigative research. It is certainly not in the manner of our science
to draw inferences when there is uncertainty. In the easiest of times,
our scientists find it against their nature to cross over the threshold,
from what is already established science to what is emerging science.
They prefer to play safe with what they know. In the case of climate
science, they prefer to be cautious in their words, very conservative in
their assessment and take refuge in the inherent uncertainty of science.

For instance, it will be easy for 'safe' science to say that even if
glaciers are receding at a rapid pace, it is nothing new or surprising.
They are simply passing through a phase of recession as a natural cyclic
process. It will also be possible to say (and I have heard this said
very recently) that even if we know glaciers are melting, there is no
evidence to say that this melt will lead to any significant changes in
our hydrological systems. Why? Because our ongoing research does not
show anything deviant. It is another matter that the data or method used
for the research might be insufficient. Or that the scientist may not
have investigated the slim leads that nature was disclosing about herself.

Let's accept that there is a problem. The Indian scientific
establishment has been for far too long just that, an establishment. It
has chosen only to work with established science that is peer-reviewed,
empirical and unchallenged. Worse, because of the nature of its
institutions-which are closed to outsiders on the one hand but
subservient to officialdom on the other-it will not engage in any public
discourse.

But climate science demands new approaches. It demands breaking away
from what is already known to discover what needs to be known and how.
It will require crossing the line so that inferences can be drawn,
however tentative. It will require, most of all, active engagement with
the 'outside' world of ordinary people. It will need to pay careful heed
to everyday events and meticulous observation of scientific processes as
they play out in our gardens, in our agricultural fields and in our
glaciers.

Finally, if I can say (without offence), Indian science, to respond to
climate change, will have to get a little less male and perhaps even a
little less old. 'Male' science (if we can allow for some
generalisation) is not interested in soft issues like the environment or
nature. These are non-issues in a world of nuclear, space or rocket
technologies. Why young? Because climate change science (and the world)
needs all the impatience and the desperation of the young.