Hot enough for you? With apologies to my readers overseas, we in the United States are in the midst of a searing heat wave, which should remind us that human activity is warming the Earth's surface. I say should remind us because there is always that significant fraction of the human population that denies that such a thing is possible. These are the same geniuses who believe Disney Land is a fair approximation of the wonderful world we live in today.
The connection between the heat wave and the climate was the subject of Is High Heat The New Normal? which aired yesterday on the NPR radio program On Point with Tom Ashbrook.
“Heat dome” has to be the phrase of the week. Everybody talking about heat dome, heat dome. Killer temperatures — too often literally — over a huge section of the country.
The hottest place on Earth two days ago: Minnesota, for heaven’s sake. It’s a summer for the record books. One thousand record highs across the country.
And this word from the weather and climate gurus: there’s more to come. Hot hot summers, with climate change, for years. How will we cope? With our habits, our buildings, our crops, our clothes.
This hour On Point: coping with a hot, hot, hot new normal.
I recently described how extreme weather events like this month's heat wave are related to climate change in Floods, Drought And Heat Waves. Read that post for some background. You might also look at an Op-Ed in the New York Times called The Sizzle Factor, which was written by Ashbrook's first guest Heidi Cullen.
The snapshots of climate history from NOAA can also provide a glimpse of what’s in store locally in the future. Using climate models, we can project what future Julys might look like. For example, by 2050, assuming we continue to pump heat-trapping pollution into our atmosphere at a rate similar to today’s, New Yorkers can expect the number of July days exceeding 90 degrees to double, and those exceeding 95 degrees to roughly triple. Sweltering days in excess of 100 degrees, rare now, will become a regular feature of the Big Apple’s climate in the 2050s.
The Big Apple in the 2050s? Give me a break. It is remarkable to listen to programs like yesterday's On Point discussion. Normal, relatively "successful" people like those on Ashbrook's show simply can not grasp the immensity of the shitstorm that is rapidly approaching, not only with respect to climate, but in all other facets of life on Earth—marine and terrestrial ecosystems, fresh water, the food supply, energy availability, economic and societal breakdown, and so on.
These people on Ashbrook's show are not depressed (or cynical or resigned or disgusted) like the ones who have a better grasp of the situation facing Homo sapiens in the 21st century. Privately of course it may be a different story. But in public, people must put on a brave face as they talk about our obviously disintegrating world. In public, they appear clueless. They are chosen for guest spots on shows like On Point because of the ease with which they soft-pedal disaster.
These normal, successful people like to use words like adaptation. You hear this word a lot, especially in the context of the present heat wave, where people really do have to adapt to stay cool and hydrated. But what of the future? It's 122° outside? We'll adapt. No fish in the oceans? We'll adapt. The American midwest is a desert? We'll adapt. It really is ridiculous. But my favorite word is challenge. Listen for it, note how it is used. We humans face many challenges in the 21st century. The word challenge is code for up shit creek without a paddle.
Among these many challenges, there is always the overarching challenge of getting that first clue. People always seem to come up a little short with that one.
I do get tired of hearing the people on NPR and elsewhere discuss the 'paradigm shift' which always flies in the face of ecological realities. There was a nobel prize winning economist on Charlie Rose's show recently--with a straight face discussing the implication of China's economy being double its current size within another 10-15 years. This is the type of idiocy from 'smart' people that just drives me crazy. As if China can somehow double its economic production, during the end of cheap energy, and without further ecological destruction. I think they are going to struggle just to feed their population and keep the lights on this decade in many places, they can't reasonably build 100's of coal plants and enough Nuke plants to even keep things 'growing'.
Growth in the industrial world, often is synonymous with ecological destruction. As long as people are wed to the mass delusion, and trying to sustain this delusion, denial and the lies will continue. The only technology that in theory could provide the end to resource constraints would be highly advanced nanotech, where we program nanobots to turn garbage into whatever we want. Technology as it stands now, continues to be both a salvation to some, and tyranny and nearly a guarantee of increased unemployment. Machines ultimately remove more jobs than they create, and of course they have allowed 'outsourcing' to the cheapest labor pools, or the most desperate kleptocracies.
Posted by: Mitch | 07/23/2011 at 11:59 AM