Habitability Havoc

Anyone who is paying attention to our environment or is not supportive of the fossil fuel industry has to be concerned with climate change, and may even be inclined to use the term “global warming,” without being concerned that they may be targeted by the powers that be. It is amazing that the fact of human-caused climate change remains off the political agenda on the part of most politicians—especially in the US.

I have been taking an online course offered by Sweden's Stockholm University, titled “Planetary Boundaries.” The term refers to an exhaustive study being conducted by a consortium of university researchers around the world. Their goal is to define the various kinds of environmental boundaries beyond which we might go, with the result that a tipping point happens, which flips the environment into a new realm, from which we cannot return. 

An example is the level of ocean acidification that will kill off all the world's coral reefs and the refuge they provide for many kinds of marine life. Another example is the triggering of glacier melting to the point that they cannot be re-formed. Each of these trigger points leads to a runaway situation that will tip the planet into a new era that has not been seen for millions of years.

These teams of scientists are quantifying the climate change process, so as to be able to describe accurately the ramifications of increased carbon dioxide, or air pollution, or water pollution, etc. Two recent remarkable results of their analyses struck me as particularly telling. Let me see if I can explain them adequately.

Currently the proportion of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is a little over 400 parts per million (ppm). Many environmental groups maintain that a safe limit is 350 ppm—a boundary we've already crossed. Analyses by the Stockholm scientists show that if we can stay below 450 ppm, for example, we have a 1.8% chance of exceeding a 6^o C (11^o F) rise in world temperature. To put this in perspective, a 6^o C rise in temperature would definitely create an uninhabitable planet for most of today's creatures—including us. Massive extinctions would occur—maybe even including humans.

But some people might look at the other side of this CO₂ analysis and say, “but wait, we also have a 98.2% chance of staying below a 6^o C rise. Isn't that an acceptable risk?” No. If we accepted that kind of risk in another area—say a 1.8% chance of airplane crashes—we'd be experiencing some 1500 crashes a day! We'd never accept that level of risk for air travel. Why do we seem to be so complacent about the planet's habitability?

Another example of a tipping point that we narrowly and blithely have already missed: In the 1960s the refrigeration industry chose chlorine as its coolant material. It could have just as easily chosen bromine, rather than chlorine; their chemical refrigerant properties are quite similar. In the 1980s scientists noted a huge hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, caused by the escaped chlorine compounds. Had the refrigeration industry 20 years earlier selected bromine instead, it would have caused the complete collapse of the planet's ozone layer, crossing a tipping point that would have made the Earth uninhabitable for most species. We'd all have fried under the high levels of ultraviolet radiation, from which the upper atmospheric ozone layer protects us.

These atmospheric scientists have defined nine different kinds of planetary threats—three of which have already crossed their safe boundaries. Humanity seems headed towards some frightening consequences, as we carry on with business as usual, because the polluting industries have much sway over politicians.

Restoring Nature—Part 2

Another disturbing notion offered by some technologists, is to repair the damage we've done by bringing back some species that have become extinct, in order to correct the imbalance we've imposed on nature. Many people understand that human culture has caused countless species to disappear—from large predators like giant bears and lions, to large herbivores like mammoths, to tiny creatures like miniature rainforest frogs. Each critter that becomes extinct upsets the balance of the natural system, and causes it to degrade.

Now that our knowledge of genetics appears to have advanced to the point that we can recreate and clone extinct species, some technologists are trumpeting this approach to bringing back the natural balance that once prevailed in nature. It has the appeal of solving a big problem through biological accomplishments.

OK, maybe it might be possible to recreate a frozen mammoth's genome and induce a female elephant to give birth to a revived mammoth. That's a pretty neat trick, but is it any way to try to correct for our damage? Even if a herd of mammoths could be created (imagine the cost!), it's doubtful that they could flourish on today's changed planet. It's the height of arrogance to think that this approach would take us back to a healthier world.

The disturbing thing about these technological fix-it ideas, as I wrote earlier, is that it would put us in a place where we're trying to play God... but we'd be in way over our heads. It'd be like turning over the management of modern societies to a group of three-year-olds. We comprehend far less than we think we do about the workings of nature.

Our tweaking of the environment would likely cause huge ramifications about which we could never guess. When DDT was regarded as a miracle insecticide that would save agriculture from insects and people from malaria, no one had a clue that it would cause the shells of birds' eggs to weaken to the point that the eggs collapsed before the embryonic bird had developed. We nearly caused many large bird species—like bald eagles and some hawks—to become extinct. And they represent far more usefulness to the environment than simply keeping an admired species from going extinct.

Why do we insist in rushing forward, heedless to the mess we're causing? Why don't we have the courage and the morals to change our ways? Is there some basic flaw in the human psyche that relentlessly drives us ever more deeply into calamity? I'd like to believe that maybe some day we'll wake up and change our ways, but I wonder how much more impoverished our world will become, before we wise up.

Restoring Nature—Part 1

We humans—supposedly the smartest critter on the planet—have been industrially fouling our nest for centuries. Back when we were primitive and our numbers were few, these environmental attacks had minimal impact on the natural world. But as our big brains conceived of ever-increasing ways to advance our technology, we became increasingly adept at causing damage. Add to that a population explosion that has sent our numbers sailing past seven billion, and we're becoming very adept at environmental damage.

Scientists have understood for a few decades now that we are headed towards big problems, if we continue our profligate ways. They have tried to inform the public and those in power that something needs to be done to alter our course, before we smash into an environmental brick wall and suffer the many dire consequences that our behavior is leading to. Unfortunately, the leaders and the majority of people have turned a deaf ear to the warnings. Worse yet, powerful interest groups have dominated the media and convinced many people (especially in America) to carry on with business as usual: not to worry, no need to back off from the pursuit of whatever appeals to us. Go buy another car; build a bigger house.

Even worse yet, these powerful forces have attacked scientists and have attempted to show that the scientific findings and predictions about climate change are specious and irrelevant. The unfortunate consequence is that many scientists have been forced either to go on the defensive, or consciously mollified their statements, or even have abandoned their attempts to inform humanity of the truth of the matter. They find it too painful to tell the truth.

This last point has led to a very disturbing development that has recently emerged: the inclination for some scientists to give up the struggle and pursue a dangerous alternative tack. They recognize that it's already too late to correct course—that we've gone beyond the point of no return (we haven't been able to check ourselves), and we must therefore look to technology to get us out of this fix. Their thinking seems to be: we can't convince people to change their ways—to back off on their relentless pressure to consume and proliferate—and it's getting too late, so maybe the only alternative is to use our powerful technologies to try to compensate for our damage.

I find this last argument very troubling, because it continues to avoid and/or deny the truth of what we are doing. Worse yet, it's a form of playing God—as if we think we know enough to restore the environment to the condition it was, before we upset it; without having to change our problematic ways. Many of these ideas seek to tinker with the environment, in an attempt to counter what we've done. This approach is arrogant enough to think that we understand the complexities of nature, to the extent that we can engage in worldwide experiments to reduce or counter the effects of all the CO₂ we've dumped into the atmosphere—simply by a creative technological fix.

One of these schemes is to dump huge quantities of iron into the oceans. Another would purposefully scatter particulates into the atmosphere to cool things down. Yet another would rocket jillions of tiny mirrors into space to reflect some sunlight away from us. While these notions could theoretically bring about some global cooling, they will also likely cause side effects that could make things worse, or send the whole delicately-balanced atmospheric system spiraling out of control. Yes, we've developed an impressive understanding of how Earth's climate works, but as yet we have the most primitive grasp of the nature of the many complex interactions going on. You'd think that maybe we'd have learned from some of our past catastrophes (remember DDT?) of unintended consequences, but it seems that we haven't.

More on attempts to restore nature next time...

Amiable Earth

There is a sad irony about what is recently happening to planet Earth. For most of the time that our planet has existed (some 4 ½ billion years), the environment was too harsh for humans to thrive—let alone even survive. Earth has gone through extremely hot or cold periods, has had an atmosphere that was poisonous to us, was once dominated by monstrous critters who would have easily gobbled us up, or was subject to natural disasters such as meteorite or asteroid collisions, earthquakes, or horrendous volcanic blasts.

In the last million years or so the planet has gone through numerous alternating glacial and torrid periods. Finally, in just the last 10,000 years—since humans have settled into a sedentary lifestyle—Earth has calmed down and become a very gentle and benevolent place; much like a Garden of Eden. For our entire written history, that congenial ambience is all we have known. We have had no exposure to the harsh conditions that prevailed for most of Earth’s past. We have been spoiled.

The sad irony is that we humans seem hell-bent on destroying this amiable Earth—and the tragedy is that we are either in denial about it or blissfully ignorant of the extent of our damage. During this last 10,000 year period—just as Earth was becoming congenial—we became the top predator and, in doing so, came into possession of an unimaginable amount of power. Rather than wisely use that power to nurture our planet, we have been foolish; fouling our beautiful nest. In the wink of a geological eye, Earth is turning uncongenial—and this time we are the cause.

The even sadder situation is that we blindly continue our foolishness as conditions worsen. We are playing with a type of fire that is far more powerful than we are. Our shortsightedness and disinterest in the larger reality of our world keep us numb to the consequences.

There is no question that we are steering this beautiful planet into grim times. No one can predict what the future will bring. Conjectures span the range from little change at all (believing that our undeserved comfortableness will somehow continue indefinitely) to the end of the world approaching. I believe that the latter guess is overly extreme. Planet Earth has weathered unimaginably tough conditions in the past—far nastier than we humans could ever bring about. Gaia will survive the next harsh period, and we humans also likely will. Our habitat, however, will become far more unpleasant than we’ve ever experienced. It’s not going to be fun. 

What’s sad is that it needn’t be this way. We needn’t have been so irresponsible.

Siberian March

I have been collecting daily weather data for nearly 30 years now: high/low/average temperature, precipitation, etc. At the completion of each month and year I play with all my data, computing things like total precipitation, average temperatures, heating and cooling degree days per month and season, the winter's amount of wood burned, monthly electrical usage, snowfall, number of days of temperature extremes, first and last days of frost, drought and heavy rain spells, and a few other eccentric calculations.

That's why I know that March 2013 set a 30-year record for the coldest March, here on the old homestead. When a month's average temperature is 3-4 degrees above or below the long-term average, we can subjectively feel it. When it's 7-8 degrees different, we really feel it! All month long this March felt very chilly to us and the month's end statistics confirmed our impressions: the average daily high temperature was 10^o below normal! The days of March simply refused to warm up.

March may metaphorically come in like a lion and exit like a lamb, but this one stayed Siberian the whole time. Those normal, warm, late-March afternoons induce plants to bud and bloom, as they prepare themselves for a showy April. But not this March! Wisely, the buds kept themselves tightly rolled up from the cold, and the daffodils hunkered down close to the ground, leery of poking their delicate heads into the frigid air.

We stayed mostly inside, stoking the wood stove far more than usual, as we chomped at the bit to get outside and prepare the garden for another summer's bounty. Warm up, dammit!

In stark contrast, last year brought an unusually warm March—the days' high temperatures were 18^o higher than this year. Eighteen degrees! That's the equivalent of having last year's March be as warm as April, while this year's March was more like February! Now, that two-month spread has got to be confusing to Mother nature's flora and fauna. Yet they've dealt with it, rolling with the hot or cold punches.

Climate doubters will scorn any thoughts of global warming, in the face of an unusually cold month like this March. They simply misunderstand the difference between climate and temperature. As the climate gradually warms, cold spells will still visit us. In fact, colder temperatures at our latitude can be directly chalked down to a warming arctic region, because the warmer weather up there disturbs and forces the jet stream farther south, bringing that chill down here.

I don't mind a cool early spring period, however, because it keeps those delicate blossoms under wraps longer than usual, so they are less likely to be damaged by a late April frosty night. After last year's warm March, we lost all of our fruit crop, because the warmth had made all the blossoms open too early. They all got zapped by that April night's chill. Maybe this year the fruit trees will bear a bounty!

Earth's Climate Swings

This precious planet of ours has gone through numerous changes in its climate, over its lifespan (4.5 billion years). For most of that time, the climate was not one that we humans (or most other existing plants and critters) could even have survived in. More often than not, the atmosphere was composed of gases that would have choked us: carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, methane, and other suffocating gases.

 

The temperature swings in Earth’s past are another factor that made our type of life impossible. At times the entire planet was covered with ice and on other occasions it was so hot that we would have turned into grilled meat in short order.

In fact, only in the last 500 million years have climate conditions allowed any form of life larger than single-celled microorganisms to survive. And for most of that time period, our species could not have endured. As recent as a few million years ago the climate swung wildly from icy cold to blazing hot, every few thousand years.

In stark contrast to that history of nasty environmental swings, the last 10-15 thousand years on Earth have been unusually stable, mild, and gentle. Since our written history extends only a few thousand years back, we have no comprehension of the tough conditions that our deep ancestors had to contend with.

We barely have an understanding, for example, that a super volcano exploded in Toba, Indonesia some 75 thousand years ago, and came close to wiping out the human species by creating massive climate change. It led to an extended volcanic winter, wherein the worldwide temperature dropped some 5-9^oF. Most humans died. Only a few thousand of our ancestors managed to squeeze through, hunkered down in Africa. It was the largest super volcano in the last 25 million years.

In a similar fashion, we are not really able to appreciate the kind and gentle climate that Earth has given us in the last few thousand years, that has allowed our population to swell to seven billion people.

Maybe that’s partly why so many people seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that the current benevolent climate period is drawing to a close. Modern Homo sapiens has enjoyed a friendly world and has come to take it for granted. We expect the good times to keep rolling on, but it ain’t necessarily so.

In fact, the good times are ending. The tragic irony of the situation is that the current swing towards an unpleasant climate is not being caused by a crashing meteorite, a volcano, or a shift in the planet’s magnetic axis, but by the dominant species that has most benefited by the recent idyllic situation: us. Climate change this time around is our responsibility. We’ve pumped so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that the benevolent times are over. Polar ice is melting, the temperature is rising (along with the sea level), and superstorms like hurricane Sandy are becoming commonplace.

The future is very uncertain, and it’s being pushed toward the scary side by our stupidity and inaction. Hang on, folks… the ride is about to get bumpy.