Science – Page 54 – a sibilant intake of breath

The Age of Stupid

The Age of Stupid is a poignant and timely film, based around the conceit of sending a warning to people today through fictional retrospective, based on real climatic science and the consequences of continued inaction. It forcefully conveys the point that climate change is the overwhelming moral and political issue of this era. If we deal with it, other things will have importance; if we allow runaway climate change to occur, it will eclipse any other failures. The film is a good example of climate change art, and should especially be watched by those who basically accept the science of climate change but don’t feel the level of motivation necessary to produce real change. It’s not about using fewer plastic bags – it’s about pushing for a new energy basis for human civilization. We need to take personal responsibility – and agitate for systemic change – in ways that go beyond the symbolic and the trivial.

The film makes a number of key points in a convincing and accessible way. Climate change must be managed internationally in a way that respects the importance of poverty reduction in the developing world, as well as the vital point that the pattern of fossil fuel-fired development followed in the West cannot be repeated (contraction and convergence). It stresses how lags in the climate system mean we need to take decisive action long before the full consequences of our choices become visible. On one critical point, the film is both clear and correct: we simply cannot burn all the remaining fossil fuels. There is a maximum level, corresponding at the very most to the lower threshold of runaway climate change. We need to work out what that amount is, and then find a way to divide it among all of humanity, cutting to zero before we exceed it.

The film also stresses how air travel really cannot be part of a sustainable future, when one long flight represents three years’ worth of of acceptable total emissions for a single person, at the levels that need to become ordinary within the next few decades. Especially in the states where per capita emissions are highest (and where the deepest and fastest cuts must be made), we all need to be moving towards lives that do not include such extravagances.

The film also effectively conveys how foolish ‘Not in My Backyard’ (NIMBY) resistance to renewable energy projects really is. People who resist wind farms because they fear their views would be spoiled are completely failing to understand the scale of the challenge we face. While the film doesn’t make the point, the same might be said of those who have a knee-jerk hostile response to big dams, nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, etc. Indeed, it seems inevitable that people fifty years from now would watch this film with interest – either deservingly patting themselves on the back for having achieved a historic transition to zero-carbon energy, or ruefully kicking themselves after being reminded that the consequences of humanity’s selfishness and failure of think at scale were predictable in 2008.

One neat little detail capped off the presentation for me. During a montage showing a succession of years, overlaid with sound and video describing runaway climate change emerging and taking hold, someone around 2030 is quoted asking whether climate change is really happening or not. It is truly frustrating that the understanding of climatic science within the general population is so poor, and has been so effectively confused by the status quo lobby and the failure of individuals to show imagination and empathy.

The Age of Stupid didn’t leave me any more confident that humanity will be able to deal with this problem, but it did re-affirm my commitment to pushing for a sustainable outcome. That would be one that forever replaces the energy basis of our global society, shifting from one based on dwindling hydrocarbons – the by-products of which are wrecking the climate – to one that we can maintain forever.

The military importance of space

Given that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are not yet particularly autonomous, for the most part, they are generally operated remotely by people. Apparently, the transmission system and encryption used between UAV operators in Nevada and the drones they are piloting in Afghanistan and Pakistan introduces a 1.7 second delay between commands being given and responses being received. As a result, take-off and landing need to be handled by a team located within the theatre of operations, since these activities require more nimble responses. The Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system being considered by the US Navy will require much more dynamic communication capabilities, of the sort that can probably only be conveniently provided from orbit.

This is just one example of the way in which the operation of armed forces – and especially the American armed forces – is increasingly dependent on their capabilities in space. From communications to intelligence to navigation, satellites have become essential. That, in turn, makes the capability to interfere with satellites highly strategic. The umbrage taken by the US and others to the 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test is demonstrative of this. The test also illustrates the major dangers associated with creating debris in orbit. If enough such material was ever to accumulate, it could make the use of certain orbits hazardous or impossible. The 2009 Iridium satellite collision is a demonstration of how debris clouds can also arise from accidental events, which will become both more common and more threatening as more and more assets are placed in orbit. That crash created about 600 large pieces of debris that remain in Low Earth Orbit.

In the next few decades, we will probably see a lot of development where it comes to the weaponization of space, including (quite probably) the placement of offensive weapons in orbit, the proliferation of ground-based weapons that target satellites, and the deployment of weapons intended to counter those weapons (a significant secondary purpose for ballistic missile defence technologies

Supporters of 350, understand what you are proposing

The 350 movement is a group concerned about climate change that has adopted an upper limit of 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere as their target. The target is a good and extremely ambitious one, and the group is doing well in the media. That said, I worry that some of the 350 proponents don’t understand what they are arguing for.

The carbon cycle

To understand climate change, you need to understand the carbon cycle. In a normal situation, this refers to carbon in sugars being released as CO2 when animals, bacteria, and fungi metabolize them. This adds CO2 to the atmosphere. In turn, green plants use sunlight to make sugars out of CO2, releasing oxygen. These processes happen in a balanced way, with more CO2 emission in the winter (when plants are inactive) and more CO2 absorption in the summer.

Alongside the biological processes are geological ones. Two are key. Volcanoes emit greenhouse gases, and the erosion of certain kinds of rock locks up CO2 underground. The latter process happens very slowly. It is very important to understand that this is the only long-term phenomenon that keeps on drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere. The oceans will suck it up when CO2 accumulates in the air, but only until the seas become more acidic and come into balance. CO2 likewise accumulates in the biomass of living things, but there can only be so many forests and so much plankton on Earth.

When we burn fossil fuels, we add to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Before the Industrial Revolution, it was around 280 ppm. Now, it is about 383 ppm and rising by 2 ppm per year.

What 350 means

It isn’t impossible to get back to 350 ppm. This is because the oceans haven’t caught up with the atmosphere yet. If we suddenly stopped burning coal, oil, and gas the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere would start to fall as more of it went into the sea. That being said, if we keep burning these fuels in the way we are now, getting back to 350 ppm will become impossible.

When you argue to cap the atmospheric concentration at 350, you are arguing to cut the net human emissions of the entire planet to zero – and to do so before we cross the point where the oceans can’t draw us back under the number. The same is true if you argue for stabilizing at a higher level, such as 450 ppm or 550 ppm; those scenarios just give us more time to keep emitting before we reach zero net emissions. When you support 350 ppm, you are committing to keeping the great majority of the carbon bound up in remaining fossil fuels underground and unused by human beings. ‘Net’ human emissions means everything that goes up into the air from burning fossil fuels, minus the trickle of CO2 into rocks (as described above) and possibly minus whatever CO2 we can suck out of the air and bury (a costly and energy-intensive procedure).

Cutting net human emissions to zero is a laudable aim. Indeed, it is the only way concentrations (and global temperatures) can ever be kept stable in perpetuity. I just hope that more 350 supporters will come to understand and accept that, and realize that achieving that ambition requires massive societal change, not just marches and savvy media campaigns.

P.S. If all that isn’t enough of a challenge, remember that there are also positive feedback effects within the climate system where, once we kick off a bit of warming, CO2 concentrations rise on their own in response. These feedbacks include melting permafrost and burning rainforests. Keeping below 350 ppm requires cutting net human emissions to zero before these positive feedbacks commit us to crossing the threshold.

Why Bury Coal? explains this in more detail.

More misrepresentation of climate science

A YouTube user called greenman3610 sometimes puts up videos in a series called the ‘climate change crock of the week.’ One that he put up recently is illustrative of how scientific information about climate change is misrepresented in the media.

The initial remarks concerned how there is always random variation around the overall warming trend being caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The featured later media discussion suggests that the original speaker has now abandoned the view that greenhouse gasses cause warming – something that is blatantly contradicted by the original transcript.

The fact that such misrepresentation occurs is depressing for two reasons. First, it shows how low the ethical and journalistic of at least some media outlets have become. Second, it reveals the extent to which people in general are too ignorant of climatic science to identify which claims are credible and which are absurd.

Thankfully, sources like DeSmogBlog and RealClimate put a lot of effort into rebutting faulty arguments that find purchase in the media.

The Greatest Show on Earth

Despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution, Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution is depressingly necessary. Even in rich countries with good educational systems, large numbers of people believe patently false things about themselves, life, and the universe: among them, that the planet is less than 10,000 years old, that all life forms emerged simultaneously in their present forms, and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Dawkins refutes all of these claims with logic and scrupulous evidence: considering the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, artificial selection (such as plant and animal breeding), and other demonstrations of how life and our planet have changed together. While some of the content is technical, this is a strong book for many audiences, from those already well versed in evolutionary theory and the evidence for it to those wavering and looking for more information to develop their own understanding.

Having personally read almost all of Dawkins’ books, this one nonetheless contained a lot of new and interesting information (as demonstrated by the string of posts it prompted while I was reading it). As ever, Dawkins is skilled at using analogies and examples to illustrate complicated concepts – a talent he shares with the best of science writers. The subject matter of this book also gives him the solid grounding necessary to come across as justifiably passionate, rather than the somewhat abrasive persona he sometimes projects when discussing topics less closely married to empirical evidence. Along with The Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow, I think this is Dawkins’ best work.

The evidence for evolution is truly overwhelming. The truth of it is shouted out by the embryological development of animals, by the common elements in the developing biochemistry of nature, by the genetic linkages between all species, by fossil records and isotope ratios, and by observations of evolution across human timescales, such as when bacteria evolve to resist antibiotics. Dawkins touches on all of these, using illustrative and often unusual examples. Even those who have studied a lot of biology are likely to find many of them novel and engaging. All this makes it rather tragic that there are still educational institutions that shrink from teaching it, or insist on presenting it alongside theories for which there is not only no evidence, but excellent evidence contradicting key tenets, such as the fact that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Quite simply, students learning biology in a way not infused with evolutionary theory are being an inferior education and needlessly blinded when it comes to the true character of the world. Hopefully, Dawkins’ continued advocacy will help play a role in resisting that insidious phenomenon.

My one complaint about the book is that the hardcover edition seems to have been cheaply printed, on rough and fast-yellowing paper. A book that goes to such lengths to be a celebration of the wonderful character of life on Earth ought to display it all in a somewhat more splendid way. That said, I can appreciate how the advocacy agenda of the text favours a $25 printing, rather than the $50 kind usually associated with slick glossy nature books.

Prior posts inspired by the book:

Natural selection and species self-destruction

Late in The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins reiterates a key point from his earlier book The Selfish Gene: namely, that there is nothing in natural selection to prevent a species from engaging in behaviour that is profoundly self-destructive in the long run. As he evocatively puts it:

“But, the planning enthusiast will protest, when all the lions are behaving selfishly and over-hunting the prey species to the point of extinction, everybody is worse off, even the individual lions that are the most successful hunters. Ultimately, if all the prey go extinct, the entire lion population will too. Surely, the planner insists, natural selection will step in and stop that happening? Once again alas, and once again no. The problem is that natural selection doesn’t ‘step in,’ natural selection doesn’t look into the future, and natural selection doesn’t choose between rival groups. If it did, there would be some chance that prudent predation could be favoured. Natural selection, as Darwin realized much more clearly than many of his successors, chooses between rival individuals within a population. Even if the entire population is diving to extinction, driven down by individual competition, natural selection will still favour the most competitive individuals, right up to the moment when the last one dies. Natural selection can drive a population to extinction, while constantly favouring, to the bitter end, the competitive genes that are destined to be the last to go extinct.” (p.389 hardcover)

The natural response to reading such a passage is to consider how it applies to human beings. A superficial reading is a dangerous one, as Dawkins describes at length in The Selfish Gene. It is possible for human beings to plan and to avoid the kind of deadly spiral he describes; it simply isn’t an inevitable product of evolution that we will do so. Probably without realizing it, Dawkins uses a terrible example to try to illustrate this human capability. He cites the “quotas and restrictions,” limitations on gear, and “gunboats patrol[ling] the seas” as reasons for which humans are “prudent predators” of fish. Of course, we are anything but and are presently engaged in a global industrialized effort to smash all marine ecosystems to dust. Nevertheless, the general capability he is alluding to could be said to exist.

In many key places, we need to accomplish what Dawkins wrongly implies we have achieved with fishing: create systems of self-restraint that constrain selfish behaviour on the basis of artificial, societal sanctions. Relying upon the probabilistic force of natural selection simply won’t help us, when it comes to problems like climate change. So far, our efforts to craft such sanctions (which would probably include ‘positive’ elements such as education) have been distinctly unsuccessful.

Perhaps if people could grasp the fact that there is nothing in nature – and certainly nothing supernatural – to protect humanity from self-destruction, they will finally take responsibility for the task themselves. The blithe assumption that a force beyond us will emerge to check the excesses of our behaviour is dangerously wrong. Now, if only people could show some vision and resolve and set about in rectifying the most self-destructive traits of our species, from indifference about the unsustainable use of resources to lack of concern about the destructive accumulation of wastes. In this task, we actually have an advantage in the existence of states that exist largely to constrain individual behaviour. The kind of behaviours that produce the self-destructive spiral in Dawkins’ lions can potentially averted by putting their human equivalents into the shackles of law.

Our flawed retinas

In one of the later chapters of Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth, he discusses a couple of curious characteristics of the sort of spherical lensed eyes that humans and other animals possess. Specifically, he describes how the human retina is essentially ‘backwards,’ with the light sensing components at the back and the nerves conveying the information in front of them. Because the nerves are in front, they need to assemble somehow and get through the retina, which they do by means of the blind spot (mentioned before). It would surely be more sensible to have the light sensors at the front, with an unimpeded view and the data-carrying nerves behind. The problems associated with the reversed arrangement are largely compensated for by the ways in which our brains process the information from our eyes; among other things, you need to use a test like the one in the post linked above to be able to see that you even have them.

Dawkins is pretty convincing in arguing that this is not the sort of ‘intelligent design’ we might expect if the spherical lensed eye was something consciously created by an intelligent being. Rather, the roundabout organization is the product of sexual selection and chance mutations. Like the corrections made to the flawed mirror on the Hubble Space Telescope, the ‘software’ processing of human vision allows for some of the problems associated with the physiology of our eyes to be mitigated.

When it comes to blind spots, cephalopods like squid, octopodes, and cuttlefish are one up on us. Their eyes have no blind spots (since the photo receptors are in the front), and are also sensitive to the polarization of light. Perhaps one day people will splice squid genes into their children, in exchange for improved vision.

CO2 and the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet

Research published in Nature explores the origins of the Antarctic ice sheet during the Oligocene transition, 33.5 to 34 million years ago. The formation of the sheet was apparently triggered by a drop in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) below a critical level. The researchers were able to estimate CO2 levels in this time period by examining boron isotope rations in fossils from Tanzania, an approach that was necessary since it is not possible to go so far back on the basis of data from ice core samples. The researchers estimate that the CO2 concentration during this transition period was about 760 parts per million (ppm). That is about twice the level of current atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If the world carries along on its current trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will be above 1000ppm by 2100.

The operation of the global climate is highly complex, with many significant inputs and internal feedbacks. The researchers specify that the ice sheet displays “a nonlinear response to climate forcing during melting.” Nonetheless, it is worrisome to think that we are on track to exceed the atmospheric CO2 concentration at which the Antarctic ice sheet started to form, and do so well before the end of this century. That being said, even if we do push the climate into a state where the serious or total melting of Antarctica becomes an inevitability, the process may take hundreds or thousands of years to occur. Such long-term impacts seriously complicate economical and ethical analysis of climate change.

Peak fish

Daniel Pauly, of the UBC Fisheries Centre, has a sad but compelling article in The New Republic. The basic message is a familiar one: governments have allowed, and even encouraged, the wholesale destruction of marine fisheries by industrial fishing fleets. While they contribute less to GDP than hair salons, they have gained disproportionate power and given license to literally smash some of the world’s most productive and important ecosystems.

Pauly argues that we are reaching the end of the line:

The jig, however, is nearly up. In 1950, the newly constituted Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations estimated that, globally, we were catching about 20 million metric tons of fish (cod, mackerel, tuna, etc.) and invertebrates (lobster, squid, clams, etc.). That catch peaked at 90 million tons per year in the late 1980s, and it has been declining ever since. Much like Madoff’s infamous operation, which required a constant influx of new investments to generate “revenue” for past investors, the global fishing-industrial complex has required a constant influx of new stocks to continue operation. Instead of restricting its catches so that fish can reproduce and maintain their populations, the industry has simply fished until a stock is depleted and then moved on to new or deeper waters, and to smaller and stranger fish. And, just as a Ponzi scheme will collapse once the pool of potential investors has been drained, so too will the fishing industry collapse as the oceans are drained of life.

He cites a study published in Science which argued that by 2048, all the world’s commercial fisheries will have collapsed, and will be producing less than 10% of what they were at their peaks.

Sometimes, it is utterly disgusting to see how humans behave. The fishers who are destroying their own future and a resource that could serve human needs indefinitely; the governments that are so happy to be corrupted in exchange for jobs and political support; the general public that is indifferent to the origin of the seafood they eat.

It’s all quite enough to feed the lingering feeling that seems pervasive in the modern world: that the emergence of humanity as Earth’s dominant species has largely been for the worse, and that the world might be better off without us.

Climate change and drought

There are many reasons to worry about the connections between climate change and drought. As temperatures increase, they change precipitation patterns for several reasons. These include changing the rate of evaporation from rivers and lakes, altering the composition of ecosystems, and other impacts. Forests, in particular, play important roles in the hydrological cycle. Some, like Kenya’s Mau forest, are hydrologically critical for large regions. If climate change makes forests change composition, dry out, and burn, it could have big effects on downstream agriculture.

Another major danger is loss of glaciers and summer snowpack. Both play a moderating role when it comes to river levels: accumulating snow in winter and releasing it as meltwater in summer. When rivers lose this buffer, they expand in wet times and shrivel in dry ones. This is dangerous not only for agriculture, but for electrical generation as well. The Colorado River, host to a slew of dams, may encounter serious problems of this sort in coming decades. Lake Mead, located on the Colorado and serving Las Vegas, is drying up dramatically. So will many others. Himalayan glaciers are especially concerning, given how important they are to the flow patterns of major rivers that serve densely populated areas.

Desalination, as an alternative to fresh water use, has major problems of its own – foremost among them that it uses a lot of energy. If that energy is coming from fossil fuels, the use of desalination may well worsen water problems in the long term, by contributing ever more to the stock of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

Responding to all of this requires more than just climate change mitigation. It also requires more intelligent water policies, such as discouraging the overuse of non-renewable aquifers and ensuring that farmers and industrial users of water pay for it at a level that encourages responsible use. People who argue that ‘water is a human right’ and should therefore be free are ignoring the fundamental problem of scarcity. If we allow heavy users unlimited license to take what they want for next to nothing, we risk depriving other people of the more basic right to the quantities required for basic consumption and sanitation. The alternative is to effectively subsidize drought. States should also be thinking about ways in which they can import ’embedded water’ in the form of crops from wetter regions. Growing wheat in deserts is a folly some states have indulged in so far, but may do well to abandon in a more water-constrained (and riverflow-variable) future.