Caution: This article is not suitable for children. Adults, read with caution or in supportive company.

“We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

**************

Alvy’s mother: He’s been depressed. All of a sudden, he can’t do anything.
Doctor: Why are you depressed, Alvy?
Alvy’s mother: Tell Dr. Flicker. (To the doctor) It’s something he read.
Doctor: Something he read, huh?
Alvy: The universe is expanding…Well, the universe is everything, and if it’s expanding, some day it will break apart and that will be the end of everything.
Alvy’s mother: What is that your business? (To the doctor) He stopped doing his homework.
Alvy: What’s the point?
Alvy’s mother: What has the universe got to do with it? You’re here in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is not expanding.
Doctor: It won’t be expanding for billions of years, yet Alvy. And we’ve got to try to enjoy ourselves while we’re here, huh, huh? Ha, ha, ha.
_______________________________________From the Movie: Annie Hall written by Woody Allen

**********************************

“The Arctic sea-ice may disappear entirely as early as 2013, and climate scientists are shocked by what they are seeing.”

If it isn’t nice to ‘fool Mother Nature,’ it is even worse when Mother Nature fools scientists, as she’s doing now. She’s doing things that they don’t have models for, so they just have to “wait and see” what she’s going to do next. She’s committed the sin that women, as a group, are accused of: being fickle and unpredictable. In his paper entitled “The Big Melt: Lessons from the Arctic Summer of 2007 dated November 4th, 2007, David Spratt gives a systematic review of not only what it means to live with melting ice caps, but, inadvertently, the intensity of emotional reactions of scientists faced with an unpredictable future and grossly flawed models. He hopes his report acts to “provide education and advocacy” and “offers a message of hope.”

Filled with emotionally charged words that reflect intense language for scientists, like “catastrophic,” “shocked,” “doomed,” “faster than we thought,” “unprecedented in science,” “disintegrating at a frightening speed,” [resulting in] “rapid non-lineal collapse” and “a hundred years ahead of schedule.” “[I]t’s really quite astounding,” said one shell-shocked scientist. First, let’s take a look at what’s worrying the world of climate science, and then we’ll look at the psychological frame and language itself. I’ll offer my own psychological translation along the way for those of you who have eye “glaze-over” when percentages and CO2 emissions are discussed. A handy Peak Shrink recap is provided to those too frightened to read this entire blog entry.

The Carbonized World

Thanks to Al Gore, it is no secret that CO2 emissions are rapidly rising and humans (at least a few with names and addresses) play a huge role. This report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates a rise of 1.1 percent from 1990-1999 to more than 3 percent from 2000-2004. Still, “no region is decarbonizing its energy supply.” (Translation: No one is doing squat.) The World also appears to be getting fewer bits of “wealth” for its fossil fuel dollar. (Translation: Humans are burning it more and enjoying it less.)

“Emissions are increasing faster than we thought… [and] the impact of climate change will also happen even sooner than expected.”

What impacts are we expecting? “Without further action…we may be heading for temperature rises of at least three to four degrees above pre-industrial levels….We have a window of only 10 to 15 years to avoid crossing a catastrophic tipping point. These would have serious consequences for our economic growth prospects, the safety of our people and the supply of resources, most notably energy.” [Translation: Catastrophe would definitely be bad for business, the stock market, and fossil fuel prices.] The speakers in this case are not scientists, but politicians: Tony Blair and Jan Peter Balkenende warning European leaders in 2006. The scientists, it appears, have larger concerns than “economic growth.”

”Beyond What Was Expected Even 2-3 Years Ago”

Scientists speak in odd ways. Tim Lenton told conference goers “we are close to being committed to a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet.” What does it mean to be “close to being committed?” Is this like almost engaged? What are they saying they are almost committed to? It is sort of like a ham and egg breakfast: “The chicken’s involved but the pig is committed.”

Apparently, temperatures are rising very fast, turning bright reflective white ice and snow into heat absorbing (and warming) wet darkness. The pace is happening so fast, it is racing beyond the “tipping point,” the “threshold [after] which glaciologist think the (Greenland) iced sheet may be doomed.” Chunks of ice glide into the ocean on “rivers of water.” Think of it as a sort of ‘water slide’ for glacial ice. More and more chunks of ice race down the water slide at “three times faster” or “up to 10 times more rapidly” than scientific model measurements thought and the speed is “increasing in time.”

The Greenland ice cap drops chunks into the oceans that are so massive that they trigger earthquakes. All of this, we’re told “implies the potential for us to lose control [because] we cannot tie a rope around a collapsing ice sheet.” We aren’t “losing control,” mind you. These nasty chunks are only ‘implying potential for us to lose control.’

“Nobody knows now how quickly it will melt…This is all unprecedented in the science …Until recently we didn’t believe it possible, for instance, for water to permeate a glacier all the way to the bottom. But that’s what’s happening. As the water pools, it opens more areas of ice to melting.”

[Reader's Digest Translation: To quote Mary Poppins: "Impossible things are happening every day." ]

[Translation: We feel helpless and we are out of control because this stuff is so massive, so GLOBAL, that if some of us even IMAGINED that it could happen, we thought it was going to be a long time from now, so we were in no hurry to talk about it. We are scientists, though, and not crazy Doomers, so we use words that are calming like “implies” and “close to being committed” instead of waving our hands and shouting "DO SOMETHING!”]

Blue Arctic Ocean Free of Sea Ice by the Summer of 2013

The Arctic is melting, and when it does, so goes Greenland. The melting of Greenland has profound implications for global sea levels, never mind to the ecosystem of the Arctic and Greenland itself. This, we are told, is only a “likely scenario:” “off the record,” because there are no verifiable models yet proven.” (Translation: In order to have scientifically valid models, we’ll just have to wait for Greenland’s ice to melt first.) But climate scientists, when they use their imaginations, envision frightening new reality.

As Above, So Below

Those scary satellite pictures of the shrinking ice cap, as startling as they are, only tell half the story. Thinning is happening under the water as well. Warmer air temperatures, as well as warming sea, are melting these ice caps quicker than anyone expected.

What’s worse, warmer and more acidic seas may kill off phytoplankton. Phytoplankton typically removes up to 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year from the Earth’s atmosphere (as much as all plant life on the planet’s surface). It is also the very foundation of the ocean’s food chain. Apparently, they don’t like to live in a toxic waste dump. As the oceans become more acidic, they will soon be considered poisoned enough to be labeled “industrial waste” by the US’s own “strict” water quality standard. “It’s overwhelming our marine systems.” [Translation: When the phytoplankton die, game over. Another dramatic understatement from our men and women of science.]

Drinking Water

Drinking water comes in large part, from underground water reserves, and more than 2 billion (that’s right, Billion) people depend on it. As the seas rise, these aquifers will contaminate with salt water. “Long before the rising tides flood coastal cities, salt water will invade the porous rocks that hold fresh water…The problem will be compounded by sinking water tables due to low rainfall…and the rising water usage by the world’s growing and increasingly urbanized population.” [Translation: Two billion of us won’t be able to drink the water.] Is this in addition to the one billion that don’t already have adequate fresh water now? Does it include the multitudes who currently face a rain-free climate?

“Whilst big figures about large sea-level rises may seem abstract, a rise of one metre will have a devastating impact on the densely-population river deltas in the developing world as homes and agricultural land is lost and damaged by storm surges. In industrialised regions, there will be severe impacts on coastal infrastructure from small rises: loss of beaches, ports and shipping infrastructure, flooding of access and connecting transport links, and the inundation of underground civil services, including sewers, water, electricity transmission and communications, as well as the loss of industrial and domestic buildings.” [Translation: In other words, we don’t have to wait until NYC is under water to feel dramatic impacts of the rising oceans.]

“Half an hour using Google earth with a sea-rise level overlay suggests that the lesson from the Arctic summer of 2007 is that we recognize that we now face a global warming emergency, requiring an emergency plan…” He suggests a 5 metre rise in sea level by the turn of this century is possible. Others say to expect 25 metres if things keep going. Google’s overlay just isn’t that pessimistic. It stops at 14 metres.

“There’s Trouble All Around Us!”

That’s a quote from one scientist in the movie: What a Way To Go: Life at the End of Empire. It turns out, he knew what he was talking about:

“Forests will be among the ecosystems to experience problems first because their ability to migrate to stay within the climate zone they adapted to is limited…If the rate should exceed 0.4 degrees C per decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed, opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2. Temperatures are now increasing at a rate of more 0.2 degrees C per decade with some IPCC scenarios showing the speed rising to 0.4 degrees C by mid-century, to which few species will be able to adapt.” “…a previous unexplained surge of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere in recent years is due to more greenhouse gas escaping from trees, plants, and soils. Global warming was making vegetation less able to absorb the carbon pollution pumped out by human activity.” [Translation: Forests can’t pick up roots and relocate because the climate changes. As the quality of the environment breaks down, the trees and indigenous plants slow down their absorption of CO2. Following this, as they die, they start releasing the CO2 that they would otherwise be using. When soils heat up: it causes faster organic matter decomposition and greater CO2 release. Hotter, dryer conditions also lead to more forest fires, and wildfires, which today, currently release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the trees absorb naturally. As it gets dryer and dryer, they will catch fire more easily, and that, of course, will also speed up the CO2 emissions as well. What starts out as human generated CO2, becomes a snowball effect from 'natural' causes.]

It is an environmental “run away train.” The pollution we put into the Earth yesterday, compounds our problems today. The good news? We no longer have to feel guilty about leaving this legacy to our children and grandchildren. The impact “we’ll feel ourselves, today.”

Renewables to the Rescue?

But what of a “massive” growth in renewables after 2030? The Earth just isn’t healthy enough to wait. These cuts will come too late, which is why it is laughable (if it weren’t so serious) for nations to propose minor CO2 emissions adjustments for 2050 or beyond, or stylish new electric cars that will increase coal burning in electric plants. With the oil company stranglehold on the US political process, we can now say good-bye to any hopes of governmental tax breaks for solar or wind technology for individuals. The tremendous arrogance and short-sightedness. How many boats can they jet-ski behind?
Big Oil: 1. Earth: 0

The Earth isn’t responding according to predictive models. “It’s a hundred years ahead of schedule.” Think “compound effect.” Think “exponential function.” Think the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” “It’s really quite astounding” our scientists tell us, “that the Arctic sea ice is now only one metre deep, or about half what it was since 2001.” And it wasn’t very thick back then, either. It was 3.5 metres in the early 1960’s. That means that it has lost 80% of its volume in 40 years. And when it reaches ½ a meter in thickness, everything will speed up much more rapidly. Melting ice is happening above AND below the water. [Translation: A lot of really bad, bad stuff is happening that we never thought possible, and we are completely and totally blown away by it.]

The Power of the Model

Some of our top minds think we might need to re-examine the models themselves: Lenny Smith: “We need to drop the pretense that [the models] are near perfect. [There are] too many unknown unknowns…We need to be more open about our uncertainties.”

[Translation: Open about our uncertainties? As opposed to keeping the likelihood of catastrophic change a secret? We thought we knew the answers, Smith tells us, but now we just aren't sure. And what could fill the scientists with doubt and uncertainty in such strong measure? What have they been reluctant to talk about? Will there be a climate collapse? If so, it could be the beginning of CYA time?]

One concern is the time it takes to get the “climate change Bible” in front of people. This four-year process involves the submission of scientific papers with deadlines two years in advance of publication, and the Earth is apparently changing a lot faster than that. IPPC according to Spratt, is filled with “scientific reticence” and a lot of data is “out of date before it hits the presses.” In a science as volatile as this one, if “tipping points [are] looming, and we may not even be aware that they are at hand” why not? Who are the central players in the World’s stage in the field of climate science & glaciology? Are they on your charitable holiday giving list? In the US, climate change is largely a governmentally funded affair. Cui bono?

If You Can’t Say For Certain, Don’t Say Anything At All

So what do scientific reports tell us, when “no one knows?” They tell us very little or are “dangerously conservative” about the worst of it according to Spratt. When models can’t explain changes in the world around us, scientists remain silent. Or worse, they seriously understate the problem. They are embarrassed by incomplete models that fail to take into account a planet that doesn’t correspond to the linear, orderly, and predictable models they prefer. Their scientific methods rely on objective skepticism, and while this conservative bias may help maintain consensus, or grant funding, it does little to warn us of the devastating, looming planetary disaster. They don’t want to upset anyone. Neither do I. But if the stakes are so high, why are these disasters given innocuously sounding names or framed in such tentative ways? It is as if the possibility of economic setback takes priority over catastrophic planetary destruction. Even the most money-hungry capitalist or conservative scientist still needs to live on this Earth. And still, we are offered bizarre phrases for planetary upheaval…such as “novel and disappearing climates.”

The Miraculous Disappearing Climates

The IPPC report’s low- and high-emission scenarios found 12-39% and 10-48% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface may respectively experience novel and disappearing climates by 2100. Some say these changes will happen a lot sooner than 2100. Some look around their own communities and say it is happening now. According to Steve Jackson, referenced in Spratt’s report, a novel climate will happen “in a few decades,” and result in “climates in many areas [that] will be unlike any in our current experience.” Current climate zones will “disappear” and be replaced by climates “unlike anything known today.”

What could this phrase mean: “novel (10-12%) climates” and “disappearing (39-48%) climates.” Novel just sounds so positive. It is such a happy word. “Refreshingly new and different,” my dictionary says, “often in an interesting, unusual or inventive way.” Disappearing climates couldn’t be a problem, could they? If they just disappear, we don’t need to worry about them, do we? Couldn’t they “re-appear?”

The actual descriptions are a lot more grim.

These are strange new climate beasts, of sorts, seemingly taken out of some bad science fiction movie. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution describes Mega-Tornadoes. Category 5 Hurricanes. Stagnant air that chokes cities with their own suffocating smog that used to be carried elsewhere on atmospheric breezes. Planetary ocean currents that pause, slow down, or stop because of the influx of fresh ice cap waters. This change creates mega-droughts and mini-ice ages of frozen glaciers. A “novel” world where the Earth (not ALL of the EARTH, just possibly sections of it, as reader points out in his comment. Some areas will be deserts and some I’m sure, will be “just right”…) freezes solid in less than one hour, or snow-cover appears and doesn’t leave for thousands of years. Folks, this is a description of ecosystem die-off, and it’s not a science fiction movie. You can’t leave the theater when it’s over, and you can’t move to a happier place, because it is happening everywhere.

But how do ecosystems die? When we look at these maps, we notice the red areas are, not surprisingly, the same spots where corporations and their local representatives have actively destroyed the ecosystem, or are the ruinous results of urbanization and no environmental planning. The US ‘Dustbowl’ which facilitated the Great Depression was a “novel” climate brought on by industrialized plowing. What do our climate experts say about who is reconfiguring the climates of Brazil, Indonesia, Australia, the West, or the Southeast US?

Agriculture in drought-plagued lands is “disappearing.” But once climates themselves change, at what point does the transitional label ‘drought,’ change to the more atemporal term “desert?” The Sahara desert isn’t in ‘drought’ is it? Are we only now calling Atlanta’s climate “novel?” Will we soon refer to Georgia as the epicenter of North America’s “Great Southeastern Desert?”

“The new and refreshingly different Amazon. Now, drier and with no trees or annoying mosquitoes!”

We’ve already seen such commercialization of planetary upheaval and destruction, as countries compete for drilling rights and rights of passage in the new “open waters” in the Arctic. Professor Jackson, himself a specialist in ecological consequence, continues to put the disaster in decidedly human and professional terms: “That poses huge challenges for predicting economic, agricultural, and ecological consequences.” “Consequences” that are novel and disappearing.

And the professional worry? Again, the lack of predictability:

“The frightening thing about our analysis is that it shows that climate change will take us into uncharted waters,” says Jackson. Uncharted indeed. Who cares if the waters we navigate are industrial cesspools? The real problem is that we lack accurate maps.

With accurate maps, even telling us terrible things, it will be, (and I quote) “…good news for scientists because it shows our models are correct. But it’s bad news for everybody else.” [Translation: It’s been said that scientists live in a world of their own. We now have first hand confirmation. To quote the movie, "The Producers": “Springtime for Hitler and Germany! Winter for Poland and France!”]

At least one of the world’s most eminent climate scientists speaks in refreshingly direct ways about what we face: He gives us 10 years to dramatically shift direction or, he warns, we’ll see “a planet without Arctic sea ice, a catastrophic sea level rise…of about 25 metres, and a super-drought in the American west, southern Europe, the Middle East and parts of Africa.” And that’s only the tip of the (nonexistent) iceberg, because while the Earth’s core doesn’t have a creamy nugget center, the Arctic sea ice does: Methane.

“Such a scenario threatens even greater calamity, because it could unleash positive feedbacks such as melting of frozen methane as occurred 55 million years ago, when more than ninety per cent of species on Earth went extinct.” Unfortunately, while they haven’t designed models for that, they are pretty sure it can happen because it did. Hansen’s words are refreshingly direct and need no translation: He calls for dramatic action or we’ll see super-droughts and the death of 90% of the species (like the human species) on the Earth. Heck, we are losing 200 species a day right now.

“I just don’t see a happy ending for this” scientist Struck tells us, and frankly, neither do I.

When 90% of the species on Earth becomes extinct, there is no promise you’ll be among the 10% that will survive, or that you’d want to be what’s left over (think: cockroaches). As Stan Goff points out: There have only ever been around 15 billion human beings on the planet (period)…almost half that number is alive on the planet right now, and a quarter of us died in just the last century.” Three-quarters of all the living humans have been alive in the last 100 years, since the start of humankind. We’ve been a busy species this century. But is population alone destroying the planet? Nope. In fact, most of us don’t use much in the way of fossil fuel, as John Weber points out. And while that is changing, we still have the “developed” (exploiting) world’s people and corporations to thank for having the biggest polluting footprint, and spreading this pollution throughout the “developing” world.

My farmer-mentor travels regularly to see family in Costa Rica, and has noticed a disturbing trend: litter. In the fifteen years she’s been traveling there, people have always tossed garbage by the side of the road, and the garbage they tossed was biodegradable. Now, however, it is not. It is plastic. Plastic not only does not biodegradable, but it doesn’t ever go away. It just breaks up into smaller and smaller pieces, and eventually finds its way into landfill and oceans. We can point our finger at the Costa Ricans themselves, and teach them to be more “environmentally conscious,” or we can step back and point to the “invisible hand” accelerating these disappearing climates. We “environmentally sensitive” urbanites would no longer think of throwing our ‘recyclables’ in the trash, but instead toss them into neat plastic blue or green buckets to be placed on the sidewalk and picked up. What happens to them from there? We hope for the best. How long would it take if we expected our lawns and parks to absorb our trash? The answers are obvious when sanitation workers go on strike.

But who is providing “developed” and “developing” countries these plastic containers? Who drives peasants off the land to develop agribusiness and sends them into cities where they are forced to rely on products derived from fossil fuels?

Those that are killing our planet have names and addresses. ‘Nature’ simply doesn’t die because she’s tired of living. There is a context and an elaborate social construction both of consumerism itself, and what is on the menu to be consumed.

Individuals make their choices from a pre-selected menu designed by corporate decision-makers. It is comforting to think we “change the world” when we “change a light bulb,” but do we deny the power that is wielded by international corporations with massive global environmental impact? They make our cars, stack our supermarket shelves in plastic-covered food, re-zone our land use and destroy public transportation infrastructure.

While our glaciologists might argue that such political rhetoric is beyond their discipline, their escape into more “benign” and “neutral” terms such as “novel and disappearing climates” denies not only the horror of our predicament, but the truth behind the markings on the maps. Those ‘disappearing climates’ don’t just disappear by themselves. They are clear-cut and dammed, and strip-mined, pumped and poisoned, and corporo-farmed. As we look from our distant satellites, we see only part of the news, whether it is of the glacial melt or the tropical clear-cut. Even the frame “Developing nations” is a misnomer. “Raping and Pilfering Nations” are more fitting. When we look up-close and personal, we see poachers supplying a global market with exotic woods, or woods set on fire to be sold to other nations or subsistence farmed by peasants driven off agriculturally friendlier ancestral homes.

When we look at the oceans, we see an entire floating continent of our organic milk bottles, yogurt containers, and individual servings. Think it isn’t a problem? Try putting these plastics in a closet for a week, and watch what happens. Of course, we can ask ourselves to stop the ravenous consumption, but try buying your yogurt in cardboard, or your chicken feed in cloth sacks. Let’s make the invisible hand visible, and strip away the folksy sounding names like “Back to Nature” aka “Kraft,” or “Odwalla” aka “Coca-Cola,” Celestial Seasonings” and “Hain:” aka “Heinz.” Our largest “natural food” producer have names we recognize like General Mills and M&M Mars and Dean and Kellogg. Let’s invite them to step forward and declare themselves as major world polluters. It isn’t a ‘Natural Touch’ or the ‘Seeds of Change’ when these food processors create “strategic alliances” with polluters.

Maybe we need to send them back to their manufactures in large boxes saying “no more like this.” Or better yet, do it with friends and communities. If you must shop, unpack your Christmas gifts, removing the plastics and crapolla before you leave the stores and say “I won’t need this, please throw it away.” It may not help our Earth, but it may destroy the delusion we are under that there is some “away” to “throw.”

If there is any hope in this article, I didn’t find it. I find no comfort in the promise of “one more decade” to do something. Like the glaciers that were suppose to melt in one hundred years, the Earth isn’t cooperating with the model. The wrath of the planet will soon be upon us, folks. Time for rational disaster planning worldwide. Unlike the upcoming climate changes, however, we won’t like the “novelty,” and we won’t be able to “disappear.”

***************************

So, for those who want the Peak Shrink recap:

Humans are burning more fossil fuel and making less money doing so.
Politicians say: Planetary Catastrophe would definitely be bad for business, the stock market, and fossil fuel prices.
Scientists say: A lot of really bad, bad stuff is happening that we never thought possible, and we are completely and totally blown away by it. We feel helpless and out of control, because if some of us even IMAGINED that it could happen, we thought it was going to be a long time from now. We are scientists, though, and not crazy Doomers, so we use words that are calming; like “implies” and “close to being committed” instead of saying we’re screwed.” It’s been said that scientists live in a world of their own. We now have first hand confirmation. In order to have scientifically valid models, we’ll just have to wait for really bad stuff we can’t imagine, like Greenland’s ice sheet, to melt first. Two billion of us won’t be able to drink the water as the melting continues. If the phytoplankton die with the heating and acidification of the waters, the game is over. Soon our oceans will be considered industrial waste water by the US environmental agencies, because of the acid levels. There is a run away train of CO2 emission: Forests can’t pick up roots and relocate because the climate changes. As things break down because of climate change, the trees and indigenous plants slow down their absorption of CO2, and then, as they die, start releasing CO2 they are holding. This is also true when soils heat up: it causes faster organic matter decomposition and greater CO2 release.
Hotter, dryer conditions also lead to more forest fires, and wildfires, which currently release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the trees absorb naturally. As it gets dryer and dryer, they will catch fire more easily, and that will speed up the CO2 emissions as well. We call these changes “novel” and climates “disappearing,” but these are confusing terms that mean that our ecosystems and everything now in them will be destroyed. We don’t know how, because it will be destroyed in tremendously novel ways we have no models for. We scientists like models, but the Earth isn’t conforming to our models anymore and this is freaking us out. But we can predict one thing: The Arctic Sea Ice as a big surprise in the center: Methane! When methane is released, if it still acts like methane, and not like creamy nugget, 90% of the species on Earth will become extinct. “I just don’t see a happy ending for this” confided one scientist. We can use cloth toilet paper if we want to but the corporations have a huge role to play. The wrath of the planet will soon be upon us, folks. Time for rational disaster planning worldwide.