CO2 levels are changing High and Fast, why it matters?

Can we
Act?
opinion

Atmospheric CO2 levels have changed over the last two centuries. As best Science can
measure or estimate they have exceeded levels Nature can generate by itself ( taking
the last 800 thousand years as a reference). They have also changed at an
unprecedented rate, i.e. about one hundred times faster than Nature has been able to
do in the past.

The debate on Climate change fuels by models from the scientific community is based
on multiple assumptions, unverifiable models, and mostly far from general public
understanding. As science is not a " one absolute truth forever", there is a debate
among scientists, NGOs and politicians. It looks as if it is more important to “ be the one
with the very elusive “Truth” and reducing complexity to " temperature change" than
anything else.

I, for one, am not convinced by the modeling and the deterministic "science" proposed
in order to predict the future ( of the climate). 

Without going into details, let's just remember science needs and is based on a very
simple cycle: observation, theory, and verification. The last step is impossible to carry
out in the climate issue, Science is not complete and models, even those produced by
the best scientists are not Science. 

This does not mean one has to reject all scientific opinions on the matter, it just reminds
us that Science is a complex mechanism with, like all others, its own limits.

CO2 is not the most preeminent greenhouse effect gas, Water is. Water ( vapor in the
air) is very unpredictable in time and in space. It is thus impossible to " model it"
globally.

CO2 and Methane are globally evenly spread minority components of our
atmosphere(0.04%) that act almost as hormones do in our bodies. It is an important part
of our ecosystem both the result of many different phenomena ( decay combustion, ...)
and the cause of many others ( plant growth, ocean acidity, carb-date formation, even
our respiratory rate...). CO2 is at the heart of many regulation loops. Situations like this
when they impact many " particles" ( there are a lot of molecules in the oceans and the
atmosphere) over extended periods of time ( the earth is many millions of years old) are
called "complex systems".

A Nobel Prize has been awarded to Mr. Prigogin, partially for discovering that complex
systems can not be modeled by deterministic methods ( the very same type of model
which is used today) and that Climate is the result of a very very complex "System".
Common sense refers to this as the "butterfly effect". 
Let's also remember that historically ( as best Science has been able to observe)
atmospheric CO2 levels have changed ( ups and downs) as the result of the Earth's
atmospheric changes ( ups and downs) due to the recession of the earth axial rotation,
orienting more of the earth's solid surfaces ( continents) to more direct sunlight angles
every 100 thousand years or so. The result is that historical CO2 levels depend on
atmospheric temperature, not the opposite. The time scale of the observed effect is
about 900 years. In other words, a measurable change in temperature results in a
measurable change in CO2 900 years later. In life, not all things are reversible and we
have no fact allowing us to be sure that artificially changing the dependent variable
(CO2), will indeed affect the independent variable (temperature), and even less idea of
the time scale this effect could need.

But measured changes and rate of change of CO2 levels need not be digested by
intricate and incomprehensible science methods to guide our Societies' need for
caution.

Common sense is all we need. And common sense should alarm us.

Let's re-qualify what we know or are almost certain we know as irrefutable facts.

Atmospheric CO2 level today is higher than at any time in recent (pre)history( last
800 000 years).

This first fact should already attract caution as we know that this fact is only the result of
Human activity and massive CO2 release from our (fossil-fueled) energy needs. To put
our energy needs in perspective, We consume the equivalent of three years of
production of all farms, grassland, and wood growth on earth every year.

We do not know ( and we can't know) if Nature will consider this a small, medium or
hard "push" and thus it is very risky to attempt defining numbered, predictions.

But everyone can relate to easy childhood schooldays pushing around not knowing
whom you push or how hard, is not very smart and usually leads to memorable
unpleasant results.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are changing today 100 times faster than Nature has
done in the past

As a scientist and human, I know not of nor have I ever experienced a change ( here
the CO2 level ) being driven 100 times faster than normal without drastic, primarily
negative, consequences. 

Nature as we know it is governed by time/frequency-related phenomenons. Altering

natural frequencies usually has negative consequences.
Let's rephrase this in everyday words. Breaking with my car to a red-light sign is ok,
doing it 100 times faster is called a crash. Putting some logs to burn in the fireplace is
ok, burning them 100 times faster is called an explosion. Caressing my dog is ok, doing
it 100 times faster is called hitting; changing the frequency of a nice of music a
hundredfold is not harmonious anymore, etc.. I am sure any reader can identify
instances where increasing the speed of change results in highly undesirable effects. 

The rate at which atmospheric CO2 levels are changing is very far from nature's habits.
We don't need any theory to tell us what our gut feeling already knows.

Nature, raw Nature, is a very harsh and hostile environment and mankind has been
busy learning to cope with and isolate itself from it. We have not yet learned to cope
with a Nature that is reacting to the unusual stress we impose, both in terms of
magnitude and in terms of speed.

So far, what we see is a globally increasing occurrence of massive weather phenomena

( droughts, hurricanes, typhoons, floods, heat, and cold waves) which are “ in line” with
what one might expect as a classic reaction to a “ fast change”. Fortunately for us now
these reactions are spread over the globe and in time with no one feeling the constant
“heat". 

This " fortune" is also our misfortune since isolated events ( as far as states/countries
are concerned) are insufficient to promote change.

Common sense should also guide us regarding actions we should aim for; i.e fight the
most potentially disruptive action. Clearly, it is the rate at which we change CO2 levels
that is potentially the most troublesome. It is also the only one we can hope to change,
as we can’t reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere

One last piece of common sense is the right use of tools or the use of the right tools.

Everyone knows that a hacksaw is not the right tool for changing a tire. And yet? 

Yet we seem to expect our political systems and our political representatives can tackle
the issue at hand.

Everywhere on earth, those who have been put in charge of driving our societies
towards “better”, i.e. our political nominees, are primarily focused on power (getting it,
keeping it, and increasing it), restricted areas ( a country), and short time scales ( the
election cycle). Those three limits are totally irrelevant to Climate issues.

Climate does not care about who is in power, is not restricted by country boundaries nor
recognizes election cycles.

Climate change, because of its nature, acts indifferently all over the globe and in time.
This turns out to help the Political bodies discard the issues as their only focus is their
part of the world, where they have achieved power.  And when actions are taken locally,
they are usually costly and inefficient.

Common Sense again tells us this is probably not going to work.

Our earth is in a situation where we have lost common sense and confused the issue of
climate change to depend on “the ones who know”, just as we did a thousand years ago
with the druids in Europe, or even before with Dodona in Greece. Then and now the
same mechanisms are at play, in order to reassure us, we try to rationalize a
phenomenon beyond rationalization.

Our earth is in a situation where we are trying to use the wrong tools to tackle the
issues.

Is this hopeless? It looks like it, but Life and history also show us that whenever
necessary, mankind has developed the right tools to help itself, usually late and under
chaotic and extremely stressed conditions.

Democracy and democratic governments are wonderful tools to manage State affairs
( i.e. bits of lands and the people living on them).

Yet State Democracy, for all its merits, was not designed to solve Mankind and Life’s
Survival at a global scale and for long times.

Furthermore, we can all witness the difficulty with which People and Organizations
accept change decided " above".

The UN was created to attempt to solve " over the state level " issues. However, its
efficiency has been and is still dwarfed by People in power reluctant to have other
People in power above them, and the VETO system installed.

Is there a solution? most likely. CO2 emissions and many other environmental
disruptions are the results of technical mechanisms to which there are technical
solutions. Which ones to use? As common sense tells us, each technical issue has a
specific set of solutions. The innovation world is very active in this area. The key seems
to be a critical mass problem, a situation where enough ( difficult to define how many)
people/organizations start applying multi-dimensional solutions so that the whole world
is also in a situation of wanting to do the same.

Critical mass issues, as needed here, do not depend on political decisions, they depend
on enough people and organizations applying and demonstrating changes; only then
will polo-icy follow suit.

2019 Marc Noël / MGE sprl