Another Glance at Global Warming

The recent publishing of Barbara Kingsolver's latest novel, Flight Behavior (a drama created around the topic of climate change) inspired me to check in on what's going on, or up, with the climate.

On November 16, 2011 I published a post reviewing the increment of change in global warming based upon the predictions of Mark Lynas' 2008 book, Six Degrees. My post, titled At .188 Degrees Centigrade Warmer: All Is Well? is available for review in the archives of this blog.

I think it's time to take another look, but perhaps in a less detailed way, at Mr. Lynas' projections. To catch us up, Tuvalu (that group of islands in the Pacific) is still with us, although island overlapping is projected to occur mid to late this century. The rate of sea rise in that part of the Pacific Ocean is measured at 5.1 mm per year. That may seem slow - unless you live there.

Since 2011 the sea and & air surface temperature anomaly average was approximately .05 Degrees C of increase (over 2 years), slightly more comforting than the 2011 measurement of .188 degrees C of warming at that time (over four years). But before we grow ecstatic, remember that there have been flat periods before, yet the steady rise continued after them. In fact, every NOAA or NCDC or NESDIS graph related to global warming tends to look like a series of North Korean rocket launches: severe ups and immediate downs. But the average of the anomalies is steadily upward. With climate change, it is important to look at the big picture.

Lynas' prediction of increasingly arid conditions in the southwest United States is bang on. The drought we are currently experiencing began in 2012, the hottest year on record in the U.S., with several weeks in a row of 100-plus degree days in various regions. The result was drought conditions for a full two-thirds of the country.

His prediction of monsoonal rainfall in the eastern United States continues to be accurate. December 2012 ranked among the top 20 wettest in ten states. Again extremes, as predicted: the wet get wetter, the hot get hotter. There have been larger and more intense storms (the Oklahoma tornadoes, as just one example). Drier windy conditions are causing greater fire danger. Elsewhere there have been deep, debilitating snows, even in places unaccustomed to them…all as predicted.

In regard to Polar ice melt predictions, a clear trend has emerged over the space of a decade or more, showing a decrease of about 5% of average sea-ice cover per decade. While sea ice extent recovered slightly during the Arctic winters of 2008-09, the full extent of annual ice reduction or gain is seen in September of each year, at the end of the Arctic summer. That measure suggests the volume of multi-year ice has not recovered at all, and is in fact showing a steeply negative trend. (Polar Science Center, U of Washington)

It might be relevant to take a peek at the extinctions of species since 2008. In that year the Liverpool Pigeon was thought to be extinct. In 2010 we lost the Alaotra Grebe. In 2011 the Eastern Cougar and the Western Black Rhinoceros were declared extinct. The Japanese River Otter became extinct in 2012. That same year we lost "Lonesome George", the only remaining Pinta Island Tortoise. This year the Formosan Clouded Leopard disappeared from the earth. I do not claim that the sole cause of these extinctions was global warming. Yet we know that animal habitats are changing extremely rapidly, and some species simply lack the flexibility to adapt.

It appears that the warming of our globe is marching inexorably on. This march seems ponderous and slow. But we must reckon with momentum. Like a snowball rolling down hill, climate change gathers speed as it occurs, accelerated by more exposed seas, more gases released by melting perms-frost, and a host of other small but cumulatively important factors that will cause every symptom to grow in size and intensity. Yes, the march of global warming seems slow - unless you live there.

You may have noticed a hiatus from this column for several months, that due to publishing and re-publishing my new novel, final edits on my second (due September 1), and the development of a new website for my fiction and music. From this point onward I will post a column every fourth Wednesday of the month.   

It's Time To Bite The Bullets

It came right from the mouth of a fictional character, in an episode of West Wing when Josh responded to a question about his candidate's position.

"How will you control arms?" was the question. "We won't," was his response. "We won't control arms at all," he said. "The guns are already out there. There's no way to get them all back. But - we can control the bullets."

And instantly I saw that he was right.

It would be virtually impossible to reclaim all of the countless guns already distributed among the population. And all the large bullet magazines as well. Trying to limit guns is akin to closing the barn door after the horse has left the barn.

But control bullets? How absurdly simply. An assassin can't do much with his AK-47 without bullets other than use it as a clumsy club. Bullets run out and must be replenished. Bullets can be monitored. They can be distributed under the auspices of rifle ranges, hunting clubs, farmers organizations, even survival groups, if need be. Each organization would bear responsibility for its members. The officials of each organization would need to explain the distribution of bullets within it. And although ballistic fingerprinting isn't as infallible as human fingerprinting, it is sufficient enough that most bullets can be traced.

A fallacy with many gun control proposals is the assumption that the people we are today are the people we will be tomorrow. But people change throughout their lives. We experience emotional and physical trauma, bitter disappointments, self-esteem and social issues, and body chemistry changes. Any of these can alter our personalities, sometimes to a serious degree. Good gun legislation must be elastic; it must have the capability to tighten when necessary and ease up when not. This can be done with the flow of bullets.

If an individual should enter into a concerning state, whether it be mental health, drug use, or legal difficulties, the supply of bullets to that individual could be interrupted for a period of time. This will require good communication, of course (not a small issue, I know). The responsibility for this communication should be given to doctors and other care takers who are immediately concerned with the individual in question, as well as to members and leaders of the communities where alarming changes might be noticed soonest, and even to families. Loyalty considered, it's still better to stop the flow of bullets than to lose a loved one.

But those who are not dealing with such issues can carry on as if nothing has changed, purchasing and using bullets for their guns and their legitimate purposes uninterrupted.  Those who wish to have and to hold a collection of weapons may do so. But a stockpile of bullets and bullet cartridges for those weapons would be prevented.

Is bullet control an absolute answer? Of course not. Any comprehensive gun control plan must have many facets, ranging from education to re-registering (as you do for your drivers license.) But bullet control is a strong response to the huge number of guns already in (and out of) private hands.

It's sad, but our world today is just too crowded and too vulnerable not to put some limitations upon the use of arms, just as we put regulatory limitations upon other potentially dangerous items.

Note: My focus has been elsewhere lately, a result of writing deadlines in other areas. My intention is to return to this blog with more consistency. My plan is to post at least once month and, if issues prompt me to do so, I will post more often.