Photo by Jess Pron

The October lecture in the Presidential Community Enrichment Series took place Wednesday, Oct. 9 in the Susquehanna Room. Professor of engineering and geosciences Dr. Michael Scanlin presented on climate change to a full room of community members after a luncheon and a spirited introduction by Executive Director of College Engagement Opportunities Mark Clapper. Scanlin was described by Clapper as an environmentalist, as evidenced by Scanlin’s 100-acre property that includes crops, horses and forestry.

“It really is a labor of love for him,” Clapper said, showing Scanlin’s appreciation for nature.

The beginning of Scanlin’s lecture dealt with how civilization depends on a habitable climate in order to exist, citing how when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the planet was much too hot for human life to live comfortably. Scanlin then used this comparison to highlight how if the earth grows too warm, then human life cannot exist comfortably. Scanlin used a quote from Will Durant to summarize his point: “Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.”

Scanlin also said that science exists as a way to predict and map the future, and he used a photo of the arcade game Zoltar to make this concept relatable to the audience. The subject of relatability, Scanlin noted, is very important in his profession.

“You have to establish relevance and purpose each time you step into the classroom,” Scanlin said, referring to how he gets his students, science majors or not, to become invested in what he has to teach.

The middle part of the lecture was focused on how the climate on the earth functions. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor trap the excess heat not needed in Earth’s natural processes and then redirect it back towards the surface of the planet. Scanlin said this is good in small amounts, but it gets dangerous at higher levels.

Scanlin showed a chart showing the increase in CO2 presence in the atmosphere, using this to show how the higher level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing the change in climate. However, this chart caused a member of the audience to question the validity of Scanlin’s claims.

The issue with the chart, as stated by the audience member, is that there was no accompanying temperature trace to truly correlate the CO2 levels with the rise in temperature. The audience member explained the rise in temperatures over recent decades to a fallout from a mini-ice age occurring in the 1980s.

“As a scientist, I’m more persuaded by the overall average,” Scanlin said in response.

Throughout the rest of the lecture, there was a back-and-forth with the audience member and Scanlin over the reality of climate change, taking up a good majority of the remaining time. This led to frustration from the other audience members, who complained that this sort of conversation was best left in private and that Scanlin should get on with the lecture.

This was not the first instance of audience participation during the event. In fact, there were many questions in the earlier half that had Scanlin jokingly invite a member of the audience to his class because of her great questions and enthusiasm.

“I was thrilled by almost all of [the audience participation],” Scanlin said after the event, and he elaborated on why his answer was an ‘almost.’ “Sometimes people have an emotional attachment to what they want to believe in. They attempt to persuade others of their point of view.”

Because of certain disruptive questioning, there was a large portion of Scanlin’s lecture that was not explored due to time restraints. This would have included the concept of “climate amnesia,” which Scanlin described as humanity’s resistance to changing its behavior because the effects of climate change have become normalized as it worsens, such as the large hurricanes that are supposed to be “500-year” floods yet are occurring at a higher frequency and intensity.

Scanlin had one last takeaway for climate change deniers following the event.

“Individuals are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to manipulate the data in an attempt to discredit the science that supports the theory,” Scanlin said in a follow-up email.

Despite the disruption, the majority of audience members were interested in what Scanlin had to say, and Scanlin said that he expects to present again in the spring and to explore the topics left unsaid.