IPCC’s Lineal Projections of a Non-Lineal World

SR15

“Global Warming of 1.5°C,” an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty

Special Report SR15 (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/) recently released by the IPCC is a rehash of old policy conclusions and recommendations, repackaged to emphasize the projected effects of a 1.5°C increase in global average surface temperature over the 1850-1900 global average surface temperature.

SR15 states (A.1) “Human activities” have “caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels”;  (A.2) “Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia“; (A.3) “Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C.”

The report projects: “increases in: mean temperature …, hot extremes …, heavy precipitation …, and drought and precipitation deficits …”. The report goes on to project decreased species loss and extinction on land, a slower rate of sea level rise, reduced increase in ocean temperature and pH fluctuation, compared to the effects of a 2°C increase in GASP. But then …

Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human
security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of
1.5°C and increase further with 2°C.

It seems clear that someone or someones in the IPCC hierarchy has/have decided that 2.0°C of Global Warming is insufficiently scary to prompt world leaders to toe the Global Warming line and get on the IPCC Sustainable Development bandwagon.

Choosing between 1.5°C and 2°C of acceptable warming increase is akin to deciding which deck chair to throw over the rail of the Titanic to keep it afloat. In reality, nothing humans can do or not do will significantly change the rate and “direction” of climate variation. Allow me to explain:

The entire concept of Global Warming, aka Anthropogenic Climate Change, and the latest aka “Climate Disruption,” is based on (at least) three assumptions:

1) Global Warming (calculated as Global Average Surface Temperature or GASP) equals Global Climate Change;

2) Human produced CO2 is the thermostat for all observed climate variation since the ill-defined beginning of the Industrial Revolution; and

3) Presently observed climate variation will continue indefinitely into the future at the same rate or faster.

Temperature is only one variable of climate. We go outside. It’s warm or it’s cold. It’s warmer or colder than it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. Last year was warmer or colder than this year. Alaska is colder than Southern California.

Global Average Surface Temperature (GASP) is derived from some of the temperature measurements from existing instruments around the planet, adding them up and dividing by the number or readings. Raw data are frequently manipulated by a variety of correction factors thought to balance the widely differing characteristics of instrument stations around the world. (This is, of course, incredibly simplified, but you get the idea.)

So-called “Global Climate” is then depicted as a graph, usually as a time series of GASP, usually converted to “temperature anomalies” from an arbitrarily selected time period, for example, + or – differences from the global average surface temperature between 1850-1900. The result is promoted as significant and meaningful, and all manner of dire troubles for humans and all other life are variously interpreted from these simple graphs.

https://i0.wp.com/cdn1.globalissues.org/i/climate/global-temperature-anomalies-1800-2014.pnghttps://threegenerationsleft.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/crclimatep1.gif?w=700

https://i1.wp.com/climatechoices.co.uk/images/globalTempCO2.gifhttps://i1.wp.com/www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Global-warming-trend.jpg

What is ignored in these projections is that Global Average Surface Temperature is a meaningless calculation, and there is no global average climate to change.

In a 1964 published article (“The Problem of Deducing the Climate from Governing Equations,” Tellus 16 (1964), pp. 1-11), Edward Lorenz established that a highly complex adaptive systems such as weather does not converge to an average. In other words, weather variability is so complex that averaging the extremes produces a perception of “climate” that is meaningless in terms of predictability. Weather variability is the result of a complex system of interacting variables that cannot be predicted with any reliability beyond a day or two.

This reality is further complicated by arbitrary (or self-serving) choices of endpoints in comparisons of GASP trends. In the graphs above, start and end points of temperature anomalies, and the date range of the average to which they are compared, are chosen to emphasis a particular conclusion. The beginning points of the graphs are usually chosen as 1850, because that aligns with the almost universally held assumption that global warming and/or climate change began with human CO2 production as a result of the industrial production based on fossil fuels. This ignores the reality that today’s observed GASP increase began in the mid-1600s, not 1850, long before human CO2 emissions.

None of this matters to the IPCC, however, as it’s business is political policy recommendation rather than scientific theory confirmation. The IPCC produces projections of future risk assessment, not predictions of actual outcomes. That’s why their reports are couched in terms of scenario ranges rather than discrete events.

https://i0.wp.com/slideplayer.com/slide/8651031/26/images/4/IPCC+GHG+emission+scenarios.jpg

Even though weather and climate variability are nonlinear and therefore unpredictable other than in meaningless general terms, IPCC reports persist in deriving linear conclusions from the nonlinear data, as in A.1 through A.3 above. That’s the IPCC’s job, in support of the political and economic agendas that prompted the formation of the IPCC in the first place.

Global climate change consists of long term fluctuations in global weather patterns, such as the periodic change from from glacial to interglacial periods over the past several million years. Climate variability consists of shorter term fluctuations in global weather patterns within those larger cycles, such as the warming period we are experiencing now, coming out of the most recent cooling period of the Little Ice Age. This too shall pass as we make our way through the Holocene toward the next glacial period on the horizon.

Will the alarming prognostications of the IPCC come to pass? Will reducing our “carbon footprint” stop Global Warming or even change climate variation and climate change? No one knows.

What we can know is that we cannot predict what weather will be like in the future, so we would be well advised to organize ourselves and our material culture in ways that are more resilient in the face of inevitable change.

Ecosocialism: the alternative that isn’t

Yes, I know I promised to go through the Way of Nature elements. But first, I want to write about an element that is not included in my Way of Nature analysis:

green Marx.jpgEcosocialism

Now, before you click away from here in disgust at the term, bear with me for a moment while I explain why I’ve not included ecosocialism as an element of the Way of Nature.

 

From Wikipedia:

“Eco-socialism, green socialism or socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of socialism with that of green politics, ecology and alter-globalization or anti-globalization. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transnational structures.

“Eco-socialists advocate dismantling capitalism, focusing on common ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers, and restoring the commons.”

Delving into ecosocialism is a lot like stepping into a steaming swamp where you can’t see the firm bottom. It’s chief proponents, Ian Angus in Canada, Derek Wall in the UK and the late Joel Kovel in the United States, have written voluminously on the subject, as it has evolved over the past 17 years. Ian Angus’s Climate and Capitalism website is the best place to explore the history and current development of ecosocialism.

Why do I exclude ecosocialism from my Way of Nature?

Ecosocialism began as a breakaway political philosophy from standard, everyday Marxism, an admirable attempt to align classic socialist economics with modern understandings of the effects of human social systems on the natural world. Unfortunately, because of its basic Marxist underpinnings, it falls short in two important respects: human population, and human consumption of natural resources.

Population Control

Adherents of ecosocialism are unswervingly opposed to any form of population stabilization or control. This roadblock to thought and rational analysis arises from Marxist focus on economic justice. Ecosocialists hold than any form of population control would preferentially affect people of color, people in poverty, people of the global south. This refusal to consider the detrimental effects of increasing population is extended to immigration as well, holding that people should be free to move from place to place at will.

Consumption

One of the basic Marxist assumptions of socialism is that with the elimination of capitalism, production will be for use and not for profit, and therefore increased technological production would create enough to satisfy everyone’s needs, equally in every part of the human world. In such a “post-scarcity” world, human consumption of natural resources would decline and reduce impacts on the natural world.

I = P x A x T

These two ecosocialist assumptions ignore the formula for measuring and predicting global human impacts on the natural world developed by Barry Commoner, Paul R. Ehrlich and John Holdren in the 1970s:

I = P x A x T – Impact on the nonhuman world is a function of affluence and technology, multiplied by population.

While it may be true that a socialist economy of use value eliminating production for profit value would reduce per capita production and consumption (this has never been demonstrated historically), this positive result would be held hostage to a growing population, which would overwhelm any gains through a reduction in production.

Stabilizing population growth, even unto the point of reducing human population globally, need not affect any particular population over any other. An ecosystem-based analysis of local human population pressures could be used to stabilize global population by reducing population levels in areas of high impact and stabilizing populations in areas of lower impact. Methods of such population control would be implemented based on local cultures and economies.

Lifting restrictions on immigration ignores the realities of local ecosystems and carrying capacities. If humans are free to drift from place to place, in response to population and social pressures, local ecosystems will quickly degrade in areas where the human drift accumulates. While restrictions on immigration by arbitrarily designated state boundaries might not be desirable from a social standpoint, an ecosystem-based analysis of human population pressures must be used to avoid undesirable negative impacts on the local ecosystem. If social relations in  a particular region are undesirable, humans should solve their problems in place, rather than exporting them to other ecosystems that may be less capable of withstanding increased human impacts.

In the end, despite its optimistic appellation, ecosocialism is yet another anthropocentric philosophy that begins and ends with human benefit as its primary concern and only tangentially addresses the detrimental effects of human growth and technology on the non-human world.

Socialism, even ecosocialism, offers no inherent alternatives to capitalism with regard to human consumption and destruction of natural habitats.

Now then, back to The Way of Nature.

Putting it all together or taking it all apart?

jigsaw-puzzle

On one of my other websites, The Way of Nature, I’ve described many of the elements of an ecosophy that seeks to balance human activity with the natural world. These are philosophies and practices that I find attractive when thinking about the horrible mess this human world has created at the expense of the broader biosphere.

Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t see any way for the current dominant human way of life to continue much longer. There just aren’t enough resources on this the only planet we can inhabit to support 7+ billion human beings without destroying the habitats of the eleventy bazillion other inhabitants, including our own. The human world is caught up in social systems and philosophies antithetical to living in harmony with all other life. There is no sign at present of any serious movement to change to alternative lifestyles that offer any prospect for continuing into the foreseeable future.

Visualize Civilizational Collapse

A combination of environmental, social and economic collapse seems inevitable, most likely within the lifetime of those living today. A civilization (sic) based on unlimited growth coupled with exponentially increasing consumption of finite resources will inevitably expire in a much deserved collapse, just as previous civilizations and empires suffered the same ignominious end.

If there is such a thing as natural laws, this must be one of them. Any species that eats itself out of house and home will drag itself down the evolutionary porcelain parkway with alacrity. Rabbits do it. Caribou do it. Even plants do it.

The difference is that, unlike humans, non-human animals and plants have natural predators that keep their numbers in check, and that, providentially, strengthen the prey species by eliminating the halt and the weak and the diseased. But hubristic humans insist that “every sperm is sacred” and no individual shall be allowed to die without massive medical intervention to keep them alive and breeding… for a price.

So it seems truly well and good that human civilization should take its place in the good old dustbin of history and make way for what is to come afterwards.

What comes after Civilization?

It’s seems most likely that once human civilization has had its way with this planet, and descended into the abyss of evolutionary despair, there will be insufficient resources remaining for humans to claw their way back out of the hole they have dug for themselves and build a new shining city on the hill to hold dominion over all once again.

This is where the Way of Nature comes into the story.

Any future human world will, of necessity, be organized in harmony with natural cycles of resource availability, just as are all other extant species on the planet. It will be characterized by the same features as other species: diversity, adaptability, humility, cooperation and unswerving patience.

In other words, any post-collapse civilization will live by the Way of Nature.

Take some time to review the elements of the Way of Nature, and we’ll start going through them in the next post on Searching for Balance.

More reading on collapse:

  • Collapse, Jered Diamond
  • The Party’s Over, Richard Heinberg
  • The Enemy of Nature, Joel Kovel
  • Good News, Edward Abbey
  • Toward an Ecological Society, Murray Bookchin
  • Human Scale Revisited, Kirkpatrick Sale
  • The Twilight of American Culture, Morris Berman

Nature’s Way

e5dc0-horses
I’ve not been writing much of late, at least not in this forum. Tickling these plastic keys is less esthetically pleasing than scribbling in a notebook with a proper pen and ink. What to do with it then after it is written? It rarely survives the transition twixt page and screen.

But things must be said, after all. The state of the world hovers between chaos and collapse. It’s hard to tell which way we’re headed.

“More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” Woody Allen

If we’re lucky, we’ll have another recession soon, a good one, a thorough one, an economic collapse “with four part harmony and feeling.” Clear out the dross, bring down the high mucky-muck, unto the seventh generation. Everything is stretched thin and another economic blow might just break it permanently, with little resources left for recovery.

Yes, all will suffer, especially the high and mighty who have depended on this insane system of economic and environmental oppression at the the expense of trillions of living beings with no say in the outcome. Its about time. A season for everything. The pendulum swings.

We who still defend the wild and the wildlings stand on the shoulders of those who have lead the way before us. Those shoulders are dwindling, their voices stilled. And there are fewer shoulders growing up to take their places. Our voices are drowned out by the bombastic shouting of the growth maniacs and global economists, their political and military minions, and the general populace enthralled with consumerism.

Still, this too shall pass. That which cannot go on forever, doesn’t. A thousand years from now those still alive will be those who have accommodated to reality, learned to live in harmony with natural cycles, those who have settled back into living as one species among many, with no pretense of dominion over all.

It’s Nature’s Way, the only way there is.

The Wu Way

In my search for a sane and rational way of living that does not destroy biodiversity and natural habitats for all other species, I’ve looked to other worldviews and philosophies for examples of how other cultures and societies have thought and taught about the world we all live in.

The unfortunate thing about individually focusing on Taoism, quantum mechanics, consciousness, neuroanatomy or any other named discipline is that we can’t see the forest for the trees. It’s all of a piece; the names separate out the various parts. We get so mired down in the minutia, we don’t see the whole.

As it is in the Multiverse, so it is unto the quark.

Let me take this Way in striving for a model of the totality of reality, consciousness, the Multiverse/universes/Universe and everything.

In quantum physics we identify the Multiverse as the infinite set of infinite universes, which includes our own infinite Universe. Our Universe consists of eleven dimensions, time and three physical dimensions, plus seven other tightly wrapped dimensions of which we are not consciously aware. We use mathematics to describe our Universe, the Multiverse and their eleven dimensions, because mathematics is not burdened with symbolic meaning. The “words” of mathematics are clear, unambiguous and universally understood.

The universes of the Multiverse can and do interact in startling ways, as is demonstrated in the easily reproduced double slit experiment, which also shows us that human consciousness is an intimate part of the working of the Multiverse. The double slit experiment shows us the Multiverse/Consciousness in action. When we look for light as particles, we find particles. When we look for light as waves, we find waves.

In a like manner then, consciousness consists of the Universal Consciousness as the infinite set of consciousnesses, which includes our own personal Consciousness. What we identify in psychology as the subconscious is the connection between our personal Consciousness and the Universal Consciousness through the eleven dimensional computation matrix built into the structure of our brains, as a result of human evolution within the eleven dimensional Universe. Meditation, sleep dreaming, day dreaming, imagination, intuition, deja vu and altered states are descriptions of mental states that quiet the busyness of the brain’s internal dialog so that we can experience the connection to the Universal Consciousness. This experience is difficult if not impossible to relate in words because it transcends verbal expression, cannot be objectively verified and is meaningful only to the percipient. Yet the experience is universal.

This consciousness has been known for thousands of years, by people who have tried to express the experience in many ways, many of which have become distorted, manipulated and controlled as organized religions. Others maintain oral traditions, which we call myths, that are nonetheless grounded in experience with the ineffable, and combine them with practical experiences of being a human being in the natural region they inhabit. Raven stories, coyote stories, origin stories, all carry the seed of the contact with universal consciousness.

There are some who hold that this level of human consciousness is a fairly recent development in human evolution, which would fit in with the evolution of the human brain’s eleven dimensional computation matrix. One might speculate that this development may have been responsible for the success of Homo sapiens sapiens and the demise of Home sapiens neanderthalensis.

“Where are you going with this?” says the wag in the back.

Good question!

The point of Taoism is “The Way.” This is not a judgement call; there is no “Right Way” and there is no “Wrong Way.” There is only “The Way.”

The Way is the Multiverse. The Way is Consciousness. The Way is the eleven dimensional computation matrix we carry around in this head thing of ours.

When we go against The Way, when we force things, control things, lord it over others, when we push the rope, make it happen, press on regardless, we fight against the flow of the Multiverse.

When we go with The Way, when we allow things to rise of themselves, when we wait for the cusp, pause until grokking is, go with the flow, swim with the stream, we cooperate with the flow of the Multiverse.

Our Modern Western Civilization, if that’s what it is, goes against the Way in every respect. It is the antithesis of the flow of the Multiverse. It is the cause of immense suffering in humans and untold destruction of the non-human world.

An alternative approach is wu wei, not doing, arising of itself, doing what’s natural, going with the flow. If it doesn’t arise of itself, if it feels like pushing the rope, if it resists at every turn, don’t do that!

This is a simple approach, probably too simple to have any effect. We have to start somewhere.

NOTE: I’ve referenced a lot of esoteric stuff herein without citations. If something above piques your interest, or if you respond with “Huh?” let me know and I’ll supply a bibliography. It’s about time I worked one up anyway, so I can remember where I’ve read things.

Climatism is Industrialism, not Environmentalism

0614-07CrumbEcotopian-750452
The Eco-Alternative – R. Crumb

In a recent post, Climatist Manifesto, Ron Clutz gave me a hat-tip (Thanks, Ron!) for my earlier expression of the “dismay many environmentalists feel at the damage climatists have done both to science and to efforts to protect the planet from real pollution.”

In his Climate Manifesto post, Ron expresses concerns that climatism (belief in human caused climate change and its solutions) threatens present industrial society.

“Political leaders are willing, even enthusiastic dupes, while climatist tactics erode the foundations of industrial society.”

However, climatism derives from and defends that very same industrial society. It is the foundations of industrial society, industrialism, that are the ultimate cause of the myriad impacts on the non-human world, and that must be changed if humans are to reduce these impacts on all life on Earth. Climatism is the industrial approach to natural climate variation, assuming that climate change is caused by human action and is therefore subject to human control and technocratic solutions.

Industrialism is more than the technological results of the Industrial Revolution, ca. 1800. Industrialism is characterized by hierarchical social organization, the concept of progress, and technocracy based on science, technology and bureaucracy.

Industrialism embraces efficiency and expediency above all values, including the appropriation and exploitation for human use of raw materials, defined as “resources,” including living beings and the very air, water and soil on which all life depends. Industrialism goes beyond the dualities of capitalism/socialism, North/South, East/West, science/religion. Industrialism portrays technological change as progress, regardless of negative impacts on natural environments or human communities. Industrialism portrays economic and technocratic growth as desirable and inevitable and views lack of growth as stagnation. Industrialism is the basic assumption of all western societies, and, increasingly, those of Eastern traditions.

It is not the mission, nor even the intent of climatists to deindustrialize civilization. On the contrary, climatists seek means by which industrial society can continue unchanged, and define that as “sustainability.”

It is environmentalists who seek to move away from industrialism to reduce human pollution and destruction of natural habitats. It is environmentalists who propose non-hierarchical, decentralized human societies built on ecological principles, accommodating to natural cycles of resource availability and climate variation. It is environmentalists who threaten industrial society.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

Climate Change and Road Congestion

action_area_cities

This is a post about cause and effect, or rather, the lack of cause and effect.

Climate change and road congestion are related, not in a causal relationship, as one might unthinkingly conclude, but as emergent phenomena in complex, chaotic systems far from equilibrium.

If you made it through that paragraph unscathed, I’ll explain further. If not, see my post on Chaos HERE.

Climate prognostication and traffic planning exist in a world of linear relationships, the “If you push something hard enough, it will fall over” world. Every effect has direct discernible cause(s), such that planners can always count on a predictable outcome from any given action. For instance, climate change is caused by human produced CO2 in the atmosphere; traffic congestion is caused by insufficient capacity in highways. Thus, the stories go, if we decrease human produced CO2, climate change will stop or at least decrease; if we add lanes to the highways, traffic congestion will decrease. It seems intuitive.

While this approach has served humans well for generations, in our modern world of 7 billions and counting, with our global societies and ubiquitous technological innovations, linear cause and effect is overcome by the complexity and chaos of our social and technological relationships.

Climate is an emergent phenomenon of chaotic nonlinear relationships among numerous variables and feedbacks, a spaghetti tangle of natural cycles on the Earth, in the solar system and beyond, including human industrial activity and land use changes.

We know that climate changed long before human activity had any other than very local effects. Assuming that modern observed climate variation is “caused” by human production of CO2 is not only factually wrong, it diverts attention from the reality of natural climate variation, misapplies enormous human resources and economies, and ignores the inescapable necessity that humans accommodate to natural cycles rather than attempting to control them.

We know from observation that traffic congestion is often the result of accidents or tailbacks at off and on ramps. Sometimes we run into a clot of cars on the freeway that has no discernable cause and that clears up for no discernable reason, leaving no car parts on the verge to reveal its dynamics. We also know that widening the highway may temporarily relieve existing traffic congestion, but in a relatively short period of time congestion returns in the newly created lanes and ramps.

These seemingly disparate observations are the result of increasing numbers of cars interacting within the complex system of individual driving habits and distractions, on and off ramps and local road conditions, resulting in non-linear responses to small changes in driving conditions. Increasing highway capacity only increases the complexity of these interactions and does not address the root causes of traffic congestion.

If humans fail to learn that we cannot control climate by reducing CO2 production, and that widening the highway will not reduce traffic congestion, then we fail to explore social changes that accommodate to natural climate variation, and reduce dependence on automobiles and truly reduce traffic congestion.

It’s time for a new approach to human growth and development, technology and society. It’s time to apply our growing understanding of chaos and complex, non-linear systems to everyday problems of moving about on a planet with highly variable and unpredictable climates.