I was at the U of T Institute for Aerospace Studies today, working with our wind-tunnel model, and in the downtime while epoxy was curing, I managed to catch a lecture that was part of a seminar on aviation and climate change.

The lecture I saw was an overview of the mechanisms behind climate change related to jet emissions, and despite my lack of background in science (these were lectures given largely by engineers to engineers) I found it really fascinating. I had read that jet flight produces an overall climate impact disproportionately greater than its CO2 emissions alone might indicate (potentially double, or even more), but had no idea about the particulars.

The lecturer, an atmospheric scientist (who I suspect had worked with the IPCC, from what I was able to glean) drew a lot of interesting connections, not only in the realm of science, but also between science and policy. In addition to CO2 (which is largely understood), he spoke of jets’ nitrous oxide emissions and their effect on ozone and methane in the stratosphere, of the effects of contrails, of particulate emissions and their impact on cirrus cloud formation, all of which subtly affect the atmosphere.

Rather than being dogmatic, he was very candid about the many uncertainties involved in the modeling of these extremely complicated dynamic systems (though at the same time, was optimistic that they were eminently solvable challenges, given sufficient research). Given that open acknowledgment, it makes me wonder how many climate change skeptics, especially ’scientific conspiracy’ theorists, have actually heard a credible expert speak on the subject.

Beyond just the science involved, however, one of the points that seemed most urgent to him was the importance of open dialogue, not only between scientific experts in various climate metrics, but between scientists and policymakers. Right now there is a disconnect between the analysis of emissions and climate models and what potential impacts those may have in the real world, or that are happening even now. While the IPCC continues to summarize its research for policymakers, the dwindling role of direct scientific advice in government is happening at exactly the wrong time.

It’s crucial for scientists, engineers, and policymakers to come together and present a snapshot of what we would like the atmosphere to look like in the future, and develop cohesive strategies for bringing that to fruition. While damage has already been done, between research, technology, and policy, there’s tremendous opportunity now to mitigate future calamity. A disjointed effort undertaken by any one party is bound to fail, and that is a failure we may not be able to afford.