The Climate Conversation: Part One

Michael Gonsior is a Professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, USA. His research focuses on “the discovery of structures of deep ocean dissolved organic matter (DOM) molecules, so that we can use them as reactivity tracers to better constrain marine organic carbon turnover.” He was voted as one of the Top 20 Planet Protectors on The Analytical Scientist 2024 Power List.

Could you tell me a bit more about yourself and how you first got inspired to get involved in climate change efforts?
 

I’ve been following climate science and its evolution for a long time. My interest deepened significantly around 2008 or 2009 when I started to listen to some of the field’s most influential voices. One that had a lasting impact was Jim Hansen, a NASA scientist who’s been vocal about climate science since the 1980s. He tirelessly countered climate change denial by rigorously researching every counter-argument. His dedication, coupled with the access he had to resources at NASA, allowed him to address the climate science debate with comprehensive research and credibility.

My interest goes back even further to the early days of climate awareness. I’ve looked into when scientists first considered the potential impacts of a changing environment. Charles Keeling, for example, is a critical figure in this area. His work on atmospheric CO₂ – the Keeling Curve – was groundbreaking. He wrote an especially striking paper in 1970 that stated, “If the human race survives into the 21st century, the vast population increase that now seems inevitable [...] may also face the threat of climate change, brought about by an uncontrolled increase in atmospheric CO₂ from fossil fuels.” That quote could easily have been written today, yet it was written over half a century ago, two years before I was even born.

So, my background is in analytical chemistry, where I initially focused on traditional environmental chemistry – studying local or regional contaminants, their levels, and potential toxicities. But I soon became interested in the broader scope of Earth System Science. I’d argue that every Earth System scientist becomes involved in climate change research because understanding the Earth’s systems is crucial to predicting future environmental shifts.

My specific research has been on the marine environment, which is immensely important in our climate system. Our oceans are the planet’s largest ally in mitigating the effects of climate change – without them, we’d likely be experiencing some of the dire scenarios projected for centuries from now. But there’s still fundamental research to be done, particularly in understanding the marine carbon cycle, which has been my focus. I’m interested in finding accurate tracers for the residence time of organic carbon in the deep ocean. It’s surprising, but so far, we haven’t identified a single molecule in this long-lived organic matter that directly traces back to carbon fixation by surface ocean biology. Filling that gap is critical to our climate models and predictions.

In the past decade, how have you seen conversations about climate change evolve, particularly with both the public and within the scientific community?
 

Over the last ten years, there’s been a significant shift in how both the public and scientists approach climate change. I’d say the evidence is now far too substantial to ignore, and the majority accept that climate change is anthropogenic. Even though we still encounter some climate skepticism, it’s surprising to see it persists, given how overwhelmingly clear the data is. What’s particularly telling is that kids growing up today all know what climate change is – it’s woven into their daily lives and education, which is very different from a decade ago. People feel the effects firsthand now. You only need to turn on the news to see stories about catastrophic floods and extreme weather events. We’re not just talking about once-in-a-century floods anymore; these are thousand-year events happening all over.

In the scientific community, what’s really striking is that our initial models and worst-case projections from a decade or two ago are now looking conservative. Those “worst-case” predictions have moved into what we would now consider mid-range scenarios. This is largely because, despite the best efforts, we’re still working with an incomplete understanding of Earth’s systems. Climate models are only as accurate as the data and understanding we feed into them, and as we learn more, we’re realizing that our previous projections may have underestimated the severity.

This past decade has taught us a lot. We’re refining our models to better align with the fundamental science of Earth systems, but there’s still a long way to go. The stakes have certainly risen, and that’s pushing both the scientific community and the public to seek a deeper understanding and more immediate action.

What about funding for Earth system science research?
 

I think Earth system science is significantly underfunded, even though it addresses some of the most complex and urgent challenges we face. This field requires highly advanced skills and cutting-edge analytical capabilities, but it often doesn’t receive the funding needed to match the complexity of the systems we study.

In contrast, medical science receives substantial funding for understandable reasons – healthcare and immediate human impact are clear priorities. However, if we’re serious about addressing climate change and environmental degradation effectively, we need to increase support for Earth system science as well. Ironically, funding for fundamental research in this area has been decreasing over time.

We’re also seeing a push for “actionable science” without fully understanding the underlying systems, which can lead to misguided solutions. Underfunding fundamental research only widens the gap between action and understanding, which is ultimately unsustainable. 

How would you describe the role of analytical scientists in influencing policy decisions related to climate change?
 

Modern science has reached a stage where clear, accurate communication of our findings is critical, especially for climate change solutions. As scientists, we need to be part of the conversation at every level, from research to policy implementation. We have a moral responsibility to ensure that our findings are understood accurately and not rushed into policy without thorough analysis. This is particularly true for emerging areas like carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies, especially in marine environments, where there’s a push for action based on potentially incomplete data.

This creates a bit of a dilemma. While fundamental research is essential to develop precise models and understand processes, the rush to implement solutions can lead to poorly informed decisions. It’s essential we don’t repeat mistakes, like the one we saw with biodiesel. It was once hailed as an environmental solution, but we learned over time that it had its own set of issues and, in some cases, ended up being counterproductive.

One thing I’d stress is that CDR approaches should undergo thorough life cycle analyses. Just cherry-picking certain promising aspects of a solution without examining its full environmental impact can lead us down the wrong path. We need to build accelerator centers where fundamental and applied scientists can collaborate with policymakers, working through the science before any large-scale rollout. Right now, I’m seeing some CDR strategies moving forward that may ultimately not be viable or could even worsen the situation.

As scientists, it’s our role – and moral duty – to provide the most accurate understanding we can. In the example of oceanic carbon sequestration, some assumptions about organic carbon persistence are now being questioned. If those assumptions prove incorrect, it could fundamentally alter the effectiveness of deep ocean sequestration. That’s why a solid, science-backed foundation is critical before any large-scale implementation. In short, science and policy need to be more closely aligned, with a strong focus on open, clear communication.

Would you say that analytical scientists are actively involved in conversations with regulatory bodies and governments, or is there a gap in communication?
 

I’d say that this kind of involvement is still in its early stages. We’re starting to see more efforts to bring scientists and policymakers together in productive discussions. Organizations like the American Geophysical Union (AGU) have been instrumental in fostering these conversations, especially through collaborations with groups like Ocean Visions. There’s also a growing body of peer-reviewed literature that examines the intersection of science, policy, and climate solutions, which is a promising sign.

Additionally, we’re making strides in training the next generation of scientists to become more effective communicators. Analytical scientists, by nature, aren’t necessarily the most talkative group – at least compared to fields like biology. Analytical science often attracts individuals who are more introverted or detail-oriented, which can make communication outside our field a bit of a challenge. But this is precisely why we need to work on bridging that gap.

Regardless of these differences, it’s critical that we foster more open communication with regulatory bodies. Scientists need to actively engage with policymakers to ensure that the science behind climate change solutions is communicated accurately and clearly, which will ultimately drive more effective action.