The State of the Arctic

A stunning update to the arctic climate research going on at the NOAA reinforces all the recent news that climate change at the poles is accelerating.


Old Ice vs New Ice - 1988, 199, 2001, 2005
[ download the PDF here ]

This AP article summarizes the basic conclusions, adding to the drum beat that we are heating things up:

"Signs of warming continue in the Arctic with a decline in sea ice, an increase in shrubs growing on the tundra and rising worries about the Greenland ice sheet.

"There have been regional warming periods before. Now we're seeing Arctic-wide changes," James Overland, an oceanographer at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Washington state, said Thursday.

For each of the last five years it was at least 1 degree Celsius (1.8 F) above average over the entire Arctic over the entire year, he said.

The new "State of the Arctic" analysis, released by the U.S. government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also reports an increase in northward movement of warmer water through the Bering Strait in 2001-2004, which might be a factor in continuing reduction of sea ice."

But there is some interesting cross-currents in the data, from the LA Times article by Robert Lee Hotz:

"Yet the researchers also found new patterns of cooling ocean currents and prevailing winds that suggested the Arctic, long considered a bellwether of global warming, may be reverting in some ways to more normal conditions not seen since the 1970s.

Taken together, these findings may be evidence, the researchers said, of the region struggling to keep its balance, as rising temperatures slowly overturn the long-established order of seasonal variations.

'This is a region that is fighting back,' said lead author Jacqueline Richter-Menge, a civil engineer at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H. 'There are things that showed signs of going back to norms, trying to right themselves under very dire circumstances.' "

The dude's name is Hotz.

The Tragedy of the Commons

I had suspected that there would be some way to reconcile our sense of justice (the meek shall inherit) with evolution (only the strong survive) -- that altruism and goodness are not just foils to some needed "survival behavior" (aggressiveness, greed) but true driving factors in the success of the breed.

A terrific re-cap of our situation from Julia Whitty under MoJo's current cover headline "Evolve or Die", with some insights as concerns global warming, and maybe some tools that would allow us to understand our behavior as a species...

"The Thirteenth Tipping Point"

I was particularly taken with her spin on the idea of the Tragedy of the Commons. My take: if we all live in a system wherein selfish behavior almost certainly guarantees success (comfort, wealth, power, however you want to measure it), but selfless behavior provides the greatest success for all -- people will continue to act selfishly. This is the refutation of the old "industrial" notion that what's good for business is good for the nation: the calculated acts of selfish entities will serve the selfish entities, not the general welfare of the nation or planet.

And thus the tragedy is truly Shakespearian in nature. We are driven to construct and then act out our own doom. But Whitty allows this hope:

"A recent study hints at the evolution of altruism. A team of Swiss and American mathematicians and population biologists ran a variant of game theory known as a public goods game, in which players contribute money to a common pot that an experimenter doubles, divides evenly, and returns to the players. In ordinary play, if all players contribute all their money, everyone wins big. If one player cheats, everyone wins small. If an altruist and a cheater go head-to-head, the cheater wins consistently. This paradox is known as the Tragedy of the Commons.

But in the new computer variant, population dynamics were introduced into the game. Players were divided into small groups that played among themselves. Each player eventually "reproduced" in proportion to the payoff received from play—thereby passing her cooperator or cheater strategy to her offspring. Mutations and dispersions were introduced, creating a shifting population of individuals divided into groups of changing sizes and allegiances.

After 100,000 generations, the results were surprising. Rather than succumbing to the cheaters, the cooperators overwhelmed them."

So we can see that in the short term, cheaters (the selfish) will win; but a view from the ages holds nearly certain victory for the selfless.

Then consider the corporation, built to compete, if possible dominate, in an environment of world-wide commercialism, often ruthlessly self-serving. It may take several human generations for the corporation to spawn and evolve; tho the span of that cycle appears to be shrinking with our post-industrial, "flat-world" globalism. Still, if it takes something on the order of 100,000 generations to see the successes of "the commons", we're in for quite a wait -- if we're holding out hope for cycle No. 100,000, how does it feel to be at cycle No. 42?

In addition, now that we've built this economy around a resource that, when consumed, is slowly destroying the planet -- can we affect the situation? Are we, like a Hamlet, destined to drive to a dark ending? If this is true, it's almost frightening to conclude: we need to accelerate the economy in order to see the true pay-off.

But, is there a way to cheat the system for the common good? Doesn't evolution require odd mutations and transformative breaks in the line? There are examples of large-scale human benefits of commercial ventures I can think of: Indian casinos, Saudi and Alaskan oil windfalls, charity branding (such as Product RED, etc). I'm sure there are more, but these examples seem to rely on our selfish natures to give a common-good payday (we like to gamble, drive SUVs, shop). Like a lottery system that pays for public schools -- how do we wean ourselves of the bad behavior once we introduce it to the system?

But if we don't capitalize on our selfishness, we are left with this puzzle: how do we commercialize and exploit our generous natures? Otherwise, what's the business model for altruism? And how do we ask our species to take responsibility for our actions without requiring frequent flier miles or the free prize in the box? What does a corporation built for the common good really look like?

I am always brought back to the Bolivian water protests. A harsh example, to be sure, but there was a time when developed countries would provide assistance to third-world nations through NGO's like CARE -- we would teach the people who were not benefiting from the knowledge how to pump their own clean water through sustainable systems that fit their economies. Now corporations like Bechtel will try to find ways to make a buck; they do not introduce sustainable systems, that is not in the interest of the corporation. But the people protested, and were able to, at least in part, take back some control; after all, unlike oil, water is truly required for life.

I dread hearing that without some incentive (money, titilation, fame), people are not driven (to work, build, create). Of course, the most efficient (and significant) economic entities in human history had access to free labor, and the best incentive is a whip and a spear -- our species has traveled some distance in 5,000 years. As in evolution, if you leave it in ocean waters long enough, a hippo will turn into a dolphin. The tragedy then, is if the hippo still thinks he's a hippo -- and that the change has taken so long, he just doesn't notice.

Eventually, we are getting better and better and the game is playing to the good. There is solace in that, but we don't have to be passive players. We can push the game to get better faster, and given the pace of global warming, we had better get on it. So I agree with Whitty in this: we do not lack incentives for this evolution. We lack leadership.

Massachusetts is the New South Carolina

A new comprehsvie climate survey from the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment that shows how the cliamte here in Massachusetts will soon (by the end of this century) be on par with the climate that we're familiar with in South Carolina (from Boston.com):


"The study also predicted less snow, more extreme storms and frequent droughts -– key events that could harm tourism, agriculture and the region's economy.

'The very notion of the Northeast as we know it is at stake,' said Cameron Wake, an author of the report and an associate professor at the University of New Hampshire’s Climate Change Research Center. 'The near-term emissions choices we make in the Northeast and throughout the world will help determine the climate and quality of life our children and grandchildren experience.' "

Global warming study: Boston temperatures could mirror highs in South

The report is available from the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment -- the report in PDF form:

Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast, a report of the NECIA

Herding the Security Cats

I flew out to the west coast last weekend. The security lines were not as bad as I thought they might be, but I flew out of Providence instead of Logan to avoid the real mess (and possibly loose concrete ceiling panels). Here's a quick report:

First, I saw perhaps a half dozen people on four flights with drinking bottles: water, gatorade, iced tea. Second, on two flights, there were passengers that insisted on talking on their cell phones long after the atttendants asked for them to be turned off. Third, I sat next to a lady doing needle point -- she had a pair of scissors.

Now, I'll admit that I find the security rules to be ridiculous. But to see these completely unnecessary violations of protocal really made me think: the US will never be safe because we are too spoiled to allow rules to govern our lives. Even rules that might save our lives.

One fellow with a cell phone (vulgar, annimated, and loud) was talking to a friend (?) about skateboarding and a skatepark he had recently seen. Dude, it was f-ing this and f-ing that. Totally!

I mentioned to one young lady with the bottle of water (which I'm quite sure was vodka): "Wow, you brought on a bottle of water." And she replied, "Yeah. Did I do something wrong?" I said, "No, I guess not if you're thirsty." Then she and her husband ordered tomoato juices and poured in some of the "water". Cheers!

Am I a wuss for thinking that I should follow rules I don't agree with -- for the safety and respect of my fellow passengers? It makes you feel like they'd deserve whatever they got. Except I'm on the same f-ing plane. Dude.

Peak Oil Is No Myth

A very interesting debate between progressive thinkers on Peak Oil going down -- Greg Palast and Richard Heinberg:

Why Palast Is Wrong

An Open Letter to Greg Palast on Peak Oil

I guess this is in anticipation of a new book from Palast -- the BBC reporter who did so much work to get at the facts of the Florida Election debacle (in his earlier book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy "). It sounds like Greg is splitting hairs on this, but it reminds me a lot of the spin-spin and counter-spin that added to the confusion around, for example, Global Warming (oh, it's not real, scientists disagree about it, it's effects are exaggerated for political reasons, etc.).

Cause it sounds like they agree on the big issues: conservation, alternative energy sources, environmental impact of a fossil fuel economy. Palast simply seems not to buy the fact that we are quickly running out of crude -- the rest appears to be a conspiracy (oil co's, govt, etc).

It's clear: the last barrel of oil is gonna be a whole lot harder to get than the first. Peak Oil is the point at which we have consumed as much as is left in the ground -- but we'll never get the total of the "second half". It seems important to understand this if we are to plan and manage a better scenario for the future. Even if we don't agree with an "oil crash" or other slightly more "apocalyptic" future-views, we can see the very serious implications of a country like China or India driving energy markets to price extremes that will make our economy strain.

While it's important to manage our fears, and check our businesses and government; it's more important to stay clear about the facts and focus on the truth. Eyes open folks; keep em open.

A Movie with Gore

Went to see "An Inconvenient Truth" tonight. A great movie and a great story. I had discussed the movie previous to seeing with a friend who was rather annoyed by two things: that it was "all about Al Gore" and that Gore used a Mac -- the constant product placement. Well, of course, Al Gore happens to be on the board at Apple Computer, so the product placement is rather a given (especially since the movie is basically about the "slide show" he has on his computer). But the personal stuff is the story in the movie -- I don't think the movie would have felt like a movie without that narrative. It would have felt like a slide show.

The scariest thing was the data graph showing the rising levels of CO2 -- when Al Gore gets on this electric lift so he can point out the "spike". Here is the study, conducted by a group from the University of Bern, specifically cited by Gore:

From a BBC News article:
"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years." (Thomas Stocker, study leader)

CO2 levels are higher than at any time in the last 650,000 year. Ack! And not just a little bit higher, but nearly 30-percent higher than at any time during that period. This is not a piddling look back a few hundred years, or even a few thousand years -- but over half a million years. Our civilization is just over 2000 years old. Our species is likely about 200,000 years old. We have never ever faced a crisis like this. Ever.

These are recorded levels (the lift is used to get to the predicted increase over the next fifty years); it gets pretty vertical!

Reading some of the blog posts in reply -- some millions or billions of years ago, CO2 levels were thru the roof. Al Gore is a nut case; he's Chicken Little. But the 650,000 year time frame is pretty much coincident with the appearance of our "species branch": modern man. Homo sapiens heidelbergensis dates back to approximately 800,000 years at the extreme. We have never lived through a geologic change of this scale.

The question is: why should we not do everything we can to assure that our species survives? That civilization can move forward beyond the next two generations? Why dismiss this?

One scene in the movie, Gore shows a slide that he says was from a Republican "slide show". It shows a scales with the word "Balance", and in one pan is a pyramid of gold bars, and in the other is the globe (I think representing "environmentalism"). Economy vs. ecology. Will some please explain to the Republicans how this is supposed to balance?

In the end, this is a very personal story; the movie was right about that. Even though it is a story that may touch and affect more than 9 billion people in less than fifty years, it is personal on a global scale. Each of our actions will have an intense and direct affect on everyone else. The politics of this are clear, too; as Robert Green Ingersoll famously said, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences.” The scale of those consequences are now readily apparent.

So I take the story very personally, too. And, hey, I get to write this blog on my very own PowerBook -- looks just like Al's.

Tech Support Guaranteed to Frustrate

From today's Boston Globe, an article by Keith Reed -- what's wrong with this concept:

"Next time your cable service is on the blink, log on to your computer instead of picking up the phone to get a little customer satisfaction. You might have to wait less to chat with a human being who can fix your problem than to talk with an agent on the phone. And they may be better equipped to help you."

What you don't see is the half-page photo-illustration in the paper edition: a man with a a notebook computer says, "My cable stopped working". Below, a service rep replies on another laptop, "Your cable modem appears to be swtiched off". An impossible scenario. Think.

You also don't see that on the front page is a little banner ad that reads "Online technical chat sessions are allaying computer angst".

Yeah, that's right. What if your cable service is your internet service? If your cable is out, how ya gonna chat? Wait less? Man, you are gonne be waiting a real long time. Didn't anybody catch this in editorial? I hate reading illogical twists like this -- especially since I've provided tech support on some fairly large scales. I know some nutty executive is going to try to convince his/her company to do away with phone support based on articles like this (I know cause it has happened to me).

What's worse is that the article is about ComCast, a company that I have to deal with almost daily, and a company that has just awful tech support. They are almost telling you that you need DSL or some other ISP if you expect support on your cable TV or phone service.

Stop the insanity.