Weather, Water, Energy 1-25-07

They just don't get it. Okay, the Australia PM has finally signed onto climate change, maybe, you know, because politics there clearly indicate that the public is getting tired of his act in opposition. Get this quote from idio . . . Mr. Howard: "I regard myself as a climate-change realist. That means looking at the evidence as it emerges and responding with policies that preserve Australia's competitiveness and play to her strengths." Please. Realist, my ass. What if the reality and climate don't allow AU to “preserve its competitiveness”? What then? This gets at my current sore point about how politicians and their apologists are framing this, as if climate change will allow them to direct what's going to happen, as if we even know what's going to happen enough to plan for anything other than everything being unpredictable. In the last 3 decades we've gone from "climate change? that's extremist" to "climate change, but by humans? that's extremist" to "climate change by humans but drastic changes in economies and lifestyles beyond our technology to control? that's extremist." Sense a pattern here? Paths stop, I know, but isn't it time to ask who's "extreme" here? Those who have consistently seen what's happening or those who refuse to (sorta like those who knew Iraq would be a disaster and those . . . never mind, that didn't happen). Could "nothing unusual's going on" be right? Sure. But we don't have previous records of this under these known conditions (such as today's CO2 levels). Could "yes, but it won't be that bad" be right? Well, maybe, but we've been working with that supposition for several years now. It's a little old and worn now. My point is, yes, the Kuntslers and other "extremists" portray futures beyond our willingness to grant. Therefore, they must be wrong. I agree. Maybe they are, but what if they're being too optimistic? This never gets considered, probably because it doesn't fit the "two sides, reasonable middle, rational center" construct that guides so much reporting and rhetoric on this. But the other end of this nonlinear, ahistorical situation is not necessarily Kuntsler. It's open-ended, it could be anything, because WE DON'T KNOW. Consider these quotes from a couple of other articles today:

"It is very likely that the ecology of the Arctic will change dramatically over the next decades. These changes will occur and are occurring to an ecosystem that we know very little about," said Richard Bellerby, a researcher at Norway's University of Bergen.

According to the director of the Norwegian section of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Rasmus Hansson, the change "is happening so extremely fast, much much faster than we have seen in thousands and thousands of years. It could have an unpredictable result."

Pascale Delecluse, deputy director of research at Meteo France, says models are also crimped by a newly-discovered phenomenon called "positive feedbacks."
These, in essence, are vicious circles. For instance, warming will thaw the permafrost in northern latitudes, releasing methane that had been stored for millennia in the frozen soil. The methane, a potent greenhouse gas, thus stokes the warming.
Other likely feedbacks include saturation of the oceans, whose plankton also absorb CO2, and loss of snow and ice cover in high latitudes and altitudes (snow and ice reflect the Sun, so when they disappear, the uncovered ground warms quickly, thus melting more snow on neighbouring ground).
"Most scenarios work with the state of the Earth as we know it today. Models are still incapable of factoring in the effects of feedbacks," admits Delecluse.

We have no mental constructs ready to explain and manage the future world these folks are describing. No human who could leave a record has lived through CO2 levels and the other things that we're doing. Do I think things will be even as bad as what Kuntsler predicts? No. BUT I'M JUST GUESSING. And so is anyone else who pretends they can predict. Those who use evidence-based models are likely closer, but as the quotes reveal, those folks really sound more confused than anyone. So, when Howard or Bushnev or any "reasonable" MisterRogers type expounds on "balancing" and not sacrificing our way of life as we deal with climate change, keep in mind that they are worse than fools. . . . And as proof, turns out Bushnev's global warming plans, by emphasizing ethanol, will actually likely add to greenhouse gas emissions. C'mon. Not really surprised, are you? . . . Also, if we actually reduce gasoline use, poof! there goes the funding of our highways. . . . OTOH, some people do get it. Alaska actually have a climate impact assessment commission doing planning to be prepared to address the problems as they come and be proactive in meeting in them. So let's leave on that message of hope. Maybe someday the whole nation will have leadership.