miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2016

Clima y pánico


Leyenda de la figuraThe latest temperature data have broken all records (image from "think progress"). At best, this is an especially large oscillation and the climate system will be soon back on track; following the predictions of the models - maybe to be retouched to take into account faster climbing temperatures. A worst, it is an indication that the system is going out of control and moving to a new climate state faster than anyone could have imagined.


El debate sobre el cambio climático cubre tres aspectos que suelen ser soslayados, o mezclados, en los debates públicos sobre el tema: (1) ¿Existe un cambio climático en realidad? (2) si existe, ¿vamos hacia un mundo más cálido o hacia uno más frío? (3) El cambio climático, ¿es culpa del hombre y su industria u obedece a factores externos, incluso extra-terrestres (e.g., cambios orbitales)?

La primera pregunta puede ser razonablemente respondida de modo afirmativo. Sí, se verifica en la actualidad, y en tiempos históricos humanos, un fenómeno cuantificable de cambio climático. El clima ha cambiado a lo largo de la historia de la Tierra; cualquier especialista en geociencias o en disciplinas de la atmósfera lo puede atestiguar. De lo que estamos hablando es de un cambio sustancial que viene ocurriendo en los últimos doscientos años; digamos, de 1800 a la fecha.

La segunda pregunta también admite una respuesta: vamos hacia un mundo más cálido. Sí, chicos, en algunas partes del planeta (en el Hemisferio Norte) hace un frío de morirse en el invierno, pero eso es por un fenómeno de alteración de la circulación “Jet stream”, que hace que, en un circuito circumpolar, los vientos polares “bajen” hacia latitudes más bajas al tiempo que “suben” las masas atmosféricas cálidas en un circuito alternante.

Finalmente, la mayor parte de los climatólogos y estudiosos de las temperaturas atmosféricas coinciden en que la acción antrópica es la responsable de dichos cambios.  O sea, el Hombre. Muchos políticos y algunos climatólogos se oponen rabiosamente a esto, fundamentalmente porque si hay que tomar medidas para mitigar un cambio antrópicamente originado, esto implicaría bajar los niveles de consumo energético (fundamentalmente de los combustibles fósiles) y, en un mundo en depresión, esto sería una invitación al desastre.  Al respecto, Astroboy opina que la inoperancia humana es prodigiosa, que no se va a mitigar nada, y que por lo tanto tenemos que prepararnos.

Dicho esto, aclaremos que muchos climatólogos han entrado en cierto estado de pánico. Ya no se trata de que la temperatura promedio de la superficie planetaria va a aumentar en dos grados; muchos ya especulan que aumentará claramente cuatro grados, y algunos sostienen que se elevará ocho (¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ocho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) grados. De ser cierto esto último, chicos, nuestro nietos van a hacer un cursillo acelerado del EECO (acrónimo anglosajón de “Early Eocene Climatic Optimum”), esto es, un mundo con palmeras y cocodrilos de polo a polo, más o menos. En fin, preparate Catalina.

Algo de todo esto se dice en el post que copiamos a continuación. Su autor, el químico italiano Ugo Bardi, alerta en su blog El Legado de Casandra (http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com) sobre cierto ánimo de emergencia climática que está surgiendo en el mundo académico. Un estado de pánico, digamos. A ver si les gusta:


Título: The climate emergency: time to switch to panic mode?

Epígrafe: The latest temperature data have broken all records (image from "think progress"). At best, this is an especially large oscillation and the climate system will be soon back on track; following the predictions of the models - maybe to be retouched to take into account faster climbing temperatures. A worst, it is an indication that the system is going out of control and moving to a new climate state faster than anyone could have imagined.

Texto: James Schlesinger once uttered one of those profound truths that explain a lot of what we see around us: it was: "people have only two modes of operation: complacency and panic." So far, we have been in the "complacency" mode of operation in regard to climate change: it doesn't exist, if exist it is not a problem, if it is a problem, it is not our fault, and anyway doing something about it would be too expensive to be worth doing. But the latest temperature data are nothing but spine-chilling. What are we seeing? Is this just a sort of a rebound from the so-called "pause"? Or something much more worrisome? We may be seeing something that portends a major switch in the climate system; an unexpected acceleration of the rate of change. There are reasons to be worried, very worried: the CO2 emissions seem to have peaked, but that didn't generate a slowdown of the rate of increase of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. If nothing else, it is growing faster than ever. And then there is the ongoing methane spike and, as you know, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

What's happening? Nobody can say for sure, but these are not good symptoms; not at all. And that may be a good reason to switch to panic mode.

The problem is that societies; specifically in the form called "states" do not normally show much intelligence in their behavior, especially when they are in a state of panic. One of the reasons is that states are normally ruled by psychopaths whose attitude is based on a set of simple rules, mainly involving intimidation or violence, or both. But it is not just a question of psychopaths in power; the whole society reacts to threats like a psychopath: with the emphasis on doing "something", without much concern about whether it is the right thing to do and what would the consequences could be. So, if climate starts to be perceived as a real and immediate threat, we may expect a reaction endowed with all the strategic finesse of a street brawl: "you hit me - I hit you."

A possible, counterintuitive, panic reaction might be of "doubling down" in the denial of the threat. That could lead to actions such as actively suppressing the diffusion of data and studies about climate; de-funding climate research, closing down climate research centers, marginalizing those who believe that climate is a problem; for instance classifying them among "terrorists." All that is already happening in some degree and it may well become the next craze, in particular if the coming US elections will handle the presidency to an active climate denier. That would mean hard times for at least a few years for everyone who is trying to do something against climate change. And, perhaps, it would mean the total ruin of the Earth's ecosystem.

The other possibility is to switch all the way to the other extreme and fight climate change with the same methods used to fight terrorism; that is, bombing it into submission. Of course, you cannot bomb the earth's climate into submission, but the idea of forcing the ecosystem to behave the way we want is the basic concept of "geoengineering".

In the world of environmentalism, geoengineering enjoys more or less the same reputation that Saddam Hussein enjoyed in the Western press in the 1990s. That's for good reasons: geoengineering is often a set of ideas that go from the dangerous to the impossible, all ringing of desperation. For a good idea of how exactly desperate these ideas can be, just take a look at the results of a recent study on the idea of pumping huge amounts of seawater on top of the Antarctic ice sheet in order to prevent sea level rise. If it were a science fiction novel, you'd say it is too silly to be worth reading.


However, it may be appropriate to start familiarizing with the idea that geoengineering might be the next world craze. And, perhaps, it is better to take the risk of doing something that could go wrong than to do nothing, considering that we have been doing nothing so far. Don't forget that there are also good forms of geoengineering, for instance the form called "biosphere regeneration." It is based on reforestation, fighting desertification, regenerative agriculture and the like. Removing some CO2 from the atmosphere by transforming it into plants can't do too much damage, although it cannot be enough to solve the problem. But it may stimulate also other fields of action against climate change; from adaptation to switching to reneable energy. Maybe there is still hope..... maybe.

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario en la entrada