Those Pesky Positive Feedbacks

Ever wonder why 30,000 climate scientists are nervous?

Ever wonder what a “positive” feedback is?

Scientists, in their efforts to figure things out, are pretty much slaves to math terminology. They use math terms to describe actions and reactions. Rarely, do they consider how the public will interpret their work, or how their work can be maliciously twisted.

We know, well beyond a doubt, that the earth is heating. We also know that this is primarily the result of us burning coal, oil, and gas. More than 97% of climate scientists are confident the earth is warming for these reasons. What they focus on today is how various factors of nature will either make things worse or will buy us time to fix how we source our energy.  Oceans, snow pack, arctic ice, tundra, forests, and even the soil itself are all suspect and under the microscope for these examinations.

Scientists, when examining these factors make assumptions. If their observations agree with their assumptions, then it is said the result agrees with the assumption and it is termed a positive feedback.

Please bear with this silly example. No pun intended. Let’s say scientists believe that the interaction of grizzly bears and man will lead to “unpleasant” consequences. They devise a way to observe interaction. They need a paid volunteer and you need the money, really bad.  I hold your beer.

Your first instructions are to simply find a bear and follow it no closer than 50 yards. The scientists observe that the bears simply ignore you. This is not an “unpleasant” encounter. It does not agree with the assumption, so it is negative feedback.

Next, you are told to get close and yell at the bear. You oblige the scientists. The bears growls and gives you what the Hawaiians call, “The Stink Eye”. The scientists log a small positive feedback given the unpleasant nature of the stink eye and the growl.

Next, they give you a sharp stick with instructions to poke the bear in the rear end. I do not know why you do it, but you do. The reaction is logged as very positive.

We have been poking Mother Nature in the rear with a sharp stick called greenhouse gasses for a long time. There are a lot of positive feedbacks being graphed by the scientists. For instance, as winter weakens there is a shorter season of snow and ice reflecting sunlight back to outer space. More heat is absorbed and trapped here. This is a positive feedback, because it accelerates the heating of the earth, especially in the arctic.

Warmer summers make forest fires more likely. Forest fires burn trees that, if alive, convert carbon dioxide into more tree while releasing oxygen. If they burn, they release more heat trapping carbon dioxide into air. Photosynthesis ends for that tree. We warm. This is a positive feedback, times two.

On hot days, many people use air conditioning. Often, the electric power to run the air conditioner is generated by coal fired power plants. Burning coal creates a LOT of carbon dioxide. We are cool inside our homes, but outside it gets even hotter from heat trapped by our coal pollution.

If climate “positive” feedbacks get large enough, they will be both the input and the feedback. They are then self-generating loops. At that point mankind is simply along for a hot ride.  This is what makes scientists nervous.

Mother Nature Bats Last. Our stick is no match for her bat. I suggest we look for ways to be energy conservative, and source the energy we use from non-carbon sources.