Dangerous Intersection

On tipping points and feedback loops

Brynn Jacobs — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:33:20 +0000

Malcolm Gladwell popularized the concept of tipping points with his book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Although his book was mainly dealing with pop-psychology, the utility of the term has led to its spread throughout several disciplines. But the arena where it has really come into its own is the environmental movement.

Scientists have struggled to find a way to explain complex environmental changes in ways that will make them comprehensible to the layperson. The concept of tipping points is just such an explanation. Wikipedia gives us an example of how tipping points can simplify the understanding of climate changes:

A climate tipping point is a point when global climate changes from one stable state to another stable state, in a similar manner to a wine glass tipping over. After the tipping point has been passed, a transition to a new state occurs. The tipping event may be irreversible, comparable to wine spilling from the glass—standing up the glass will not put the wine back.

In much the same way as you can gradually tip a wineglass to the side, climactic or ecological changes can accumulate slowly. Once the tipping point is reached however, gravity or some analogous force takes control and the situation can change rapidly.

A related concept is that of “feedback loops“. Changes in one area have consequences in other areas, and those consequences can amplify the effects of the changes in the first area. The classic example of positive feedback in climate change is melting of the arctic permafrost caused by global warming. The thawed permafrost releases methane gas (a potent greenhouse gas) which had been trapped in the frozen ground, which then increases global warming.

Another example– crops that are under stress from the effects of climate change also release methane at an accelerated rate. A University of Calgary study found that “when crops are exposed to environmental factors that are part of climate change — increased temperature, drought and ultraviolet-B radiation — some plants show enhanced methane emissions. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas; 23 times more effective in trapping heat than carbon dioxide.” So the released methane goes on to amplify the effects of global warming, continuing the feedback loop.

Understanding these two concepts (tipping points and feedback loops) are crucial to understanding climate and ecological science. The problem is one of predicting where the tipping points are in advance.

To see how these factors work in a real-life situation, consider the phenomenon of “overfishing”. There are two main ways that overfishing can seriously alter ecosystems. First, fish of a certain species may be caught to the point where there are no longer sufficient adult fish to produce offspring, leading to a population crash. The second way is through what’s known as “ecosystem overfishing”, where a certain species or type of species is fished until it changes the whole balance of an ecosystem. For example, if large predatory fish are depleted, those changes can ripple through an ecosystem, perhaps leading to an abundance of smaller, foraging fish.

To see how rapidly these changes can take place, let’s look at the case of cod fishing off the coast of Canada. This graph from Wikipedia shows the numbers of fish caught over the years.

The tipping point & collapse of cod. Image via Wikipedia

Cod had been caught in these waters for the past 500 years, but “sustainably”. That is, the cod were caught at a low enough rate to allow for the fish stocks to replenish themselves. Beginning in the 1950′s however, a number of factors converged which led to the eventual collapse of the cod populations. Technology for fishermen was improving rapidly, and technologies like sonar imaging allowed fishermen to catch much greater numbers of fish than ever before. Cod fishing was also important socially and economically to the area. Many people took a part of their identity from being fishermen, and the economic impact of fishing is difficult to overstate. However, our understanding of the ocean and its complex ecosystems had not kept pace with either the technology of fishing or the greed and myopia of the various stakeholders, and the cod population went into a steep decline. Finally, in 1992, the Canadian government was forced to declare a moratorium on cod fishing after the biomass level had fallen to one percent of its former levels. The collapse of the fish stocks led to a similar collapse in the localities that depended upon the catch– Wikipedia notes that “in Newfoundland alone, over 35,000 fishers and plant workers from over 400 coastal communities became unemployed.”

Nor did very many people see the collapse coming. The easy money from the catch and steadily-improving technological advances made it seem as if the area had won the jackpot. The fish catch was improving yearly, and the warnings of scientist were ignored. The BBC reports that we still have lessons to learn:

The alarming thing about the experience of Newfoundland is that despite 10 years of the moratorium, the cod still has not returned in significant numbers.

…

What no one knows is when or whether the old way of things will return.

So what are the lessons for the North Sea?

Marine scientist George Rose is concerned to hear European fishermen challenging the warnings of scientists because they can still find plenty of cod. This echoes the claims of trawlermen on the Grand Banks in the late 1980s, but it turned out that they were observing a phenomenon he calls “hyper-aggregation”, in which fish cluster in ever-greater densities when their environment is under pressure.

“If you look at the data on the catches-per-unit of the trawler fleet, the highest ever recorded in this fishery were in 1992, when the stocks were on the verge of collapse,” said Professor Rose.

“So if fishermen are still saying they can find concentrations, that’s good news for now, but it should give no reassurance that you couldn’t take those last bits of fish down and push the whole thing right over the edge.”

Nor are cod the only species where this type of collapse has happened. The Atlantic salmon catch went from 4 million in 1979 to a mere 700,000 in 1990. Today, if you buy a fish labeled “Atlantic salmon”, it’s likely to be a farmed fish, not a wild one. But farmed salmon come with their own problems, leading to proposed solutions like the genetically modified salmon. A recent article in Time magazine touting the franken-fish as a necessary evil points out just how precarious our situation is:

Fish species are the foundation for all ocean life, and no one can say what will happen to the world food chain if 90% of ocean life forms collapse, which is likely to happen by 2048, according to a study in the immensely prestigious journal Science. The main reason the study gave wasn’t global warming, or the great Pacific garbage patch or toxic runoff from industrial production. The reason was overfishing.

The collapse of 90% of ocean life forms is considered “likely”!? Given the difficulties in predicting the tipping point in the collapse of fish stocks, it’s imperative that we do everything possible to avert this collapse. But why is it that creating a new fish by inserting genes from other organisms is considered prudent, even necessary, while stopping the damage to the fisheries is not even on the table? After all, if we stopped the damage to the natural ecosystems, we could allow them time to replenish themselves, meaning the need for genetically-modified fish would disappear.

It’s not just ocean life that’s at risk– a recent survey of freshwater fish in Africa found that between one-fifth and one-half of freshwater species are at risk of extinction.

About 7.5 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are thought to depend on fisheries.

“If we don’t stem the loss of these species, not only will the richness of Africa’s biodiversity be reduced forever, but millions of people will lose a key source of income, food and materials,” warned William Darwall, manager of the IUCN’s freshwater biodiversity unit.

Fisheries around the world are at risk– it’s truly a global problem. Even before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Gulf of Mexico was in big trouble. This trouble stems from a dead zone which is threatening the collapse of the Gulf ecosystem. Fertilizer runoff that is brought to the Gulf from the Mississippi river creates algae blooms which pull oxygen from the water. Fish cannot survive in this type of environment, so they either die or move elsewhere. A recent story on CNN explains the phenomenon and its impacts:

As summer approaches and the Louisiana air gets hot and wet, Dean Blanchard says, he can tell that the dead zone is forming because shrimp leap onto the beach.

“They pretty much commit suicide,” he says.

Blanchard, who owns a large-scale seafood wholesaling business in Grand Isle, Louisiana, says he never saw that phenomenon until six or seven years ago.

Scientists first recorded an oxygen-dead zone in the Gulf in 1972. Since then, the size of this underwater coffin has fluctuated, but it is growing. In 2009, the dead zone smothered an area of about 3,000 square miles. This year, it is more than twice as big — and is the fifth largest on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which monitors the area.

The longer the phenomenon persists, the weaker the Gulf ecosystem becomes, said Rob Magnien, director of the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research at NOAA.

“If the area grows large enough, the consequence is, at some point, we’ll reach a tipping point where some of our major commercial and recreational species [of fish, shrimp and oysters] would be severely affected,” he said.

No one knows for sure when the Gulf will cross that threshold, but the wait may not be long, Magnien said. Early testing indicates that the ocean ecosystem is already under intense stress: It takes less fertilizer pollution today, for example, to produce a large dead zone in the Gulf than it did several years ago.

That’s a sign that the dead zone will continue to grow unless fertilizer levels are cut drastically.

In the meantime, people in the Gulf seafood industry, like Blanchard, say they have to work around the dead zone each summer. Blanchard says he loses up to $250,000 of his $35 million total revenue per year because of the phenomenon.

And shrimpers may not be able to avoid the zone forever.

“They avoid the dead zone areas and are able to catch shrimp in other areas, but at some point, the zone is going to grow to a size where they can’t reach the shrimp anymore or they simply have insufficient habitat to maintain a robust population,” Magnien said.

The one hopeful thing about our situation is that feedback loops and tipping points work both ways. Feedback loops can start to work in our favor, rather than against us, if we only give them a chance. A 2006 article explaining how feedback loops are likely to mean higher temperatures than most models are accounting for explains how this could work:

The feedback loop from greenhouse gas concentrations also has a reverse effect, the authors state, in that reduced atmospheric levels can enhance the cooling of global temperatures. This presents at least the possibility of extra rewards if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere could be rolled back, but the challenge is great as Harte explained.

“If we reduce emissions so much that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide actually starts to come down and the global temperature also starts to decrease, then the feedback would work for us and speed the recovery,” Harte said. “However, if we reduce emissions by an amount that greatly reduces the rate at which the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere increases, but don’t cut emissions back to the point where the carbon dioxide level actually decreases, then the positive feedback still works against us.”

Whatever the case, we must take action soon to prevent a series of crucial tipping points from being breached. Once we cross that threshold, the ramifications are difficult or unpleasant to predict.

My kind of house

Erich Vieth — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:29:42 +0000

Unlike Tony Coyle, I’m an introvert (I’ve tested off the charts as an introvert). Also, the pace seems to be getting too frenetic down in the city these days. My life seems to be in balance about like this hammer and ruler. You see, I’m not in a Koyaanisqatsi phase.

Therefore, when I found this site, I starting thinking that I’d like to live in one of these houses, just for a month or two or three.

Why income disparity matters

Erich Vieth — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:03:52 +0000

In a series of articles that he calls “The Great Divergence,” Timothy Noah advises that in the United States of Inequality, income disparity is rapidly growing and it does not bode well for our country? Here’s an excerpt from today’s posting at Slate.com:

Income distribution in the United States is more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador. Income inequality is actually declining in Latin America even as it continues to increase in the United States. Economically speaking, the richest nation on earth is starting to resemble a banana republic. The main difference is that the United States is big enough to maintain geographic distance between the villa-dweller and the beggar. As Ralston Thorpe tells his St. Paul’s classmate, the investment banker Sherman McCoy, in Tom Wolfe’s 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities: “You’ve got to insulate, insulate, insulate.”

Wikipedia offers much more information on income distribution in the United States.

Tennis via wheelchair

Erich Vieth — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:04:32 +0000

Tennis is a difficult sport to play. The court is large for one person, so you need to be able to move quickly and in coordinated fashion. It also helps to have a powerful tennis stroke, to allow you to drive the ball deep into the opponent’s court.

I saw all of these qualities in the top contenders playing in the USTA (United States Tennis Association) Wheelchair Tennis Championship in St. Louis. I took a few minutes of video of the Men’s Singles final match between Shingo Kunieda of Japan (the number one seed, who won the match) and Robin Ammerlaan of the Netherlands. Kunieda probably didn’t surprise many by taking the top spot, given that he has now won more than one hundred consecutive matches. Just prior to the Men’s final, Ester Vergeer of the Netherlands beat Jiske Griffioen, also of the Netherlands, for the Women’s Singles title. Vergeer has won more than 120 consecutive matches. Here are the final standings for the St. Louis Tournament.

It was stunning to watch the speed and coordination of these players. It was especially impressive to watch how they anticipate. I took some still photos of the Kunieda/Ammerlaan match and posted them in a gallery to this post (if you don’t see it here, just click on the title to the post). For additional photos, including photos of the women finalists, go here. I also took a few minutes of video–this video mostly demonstrated the lack of precision of my cheap DV camcorder (it’s sometimes hard to see the ball), but it will also give you a good idea of the power of the ground strokes these players can muster, along with illustrations of their precision and speed. [Note: the first 20 seconds are actually the end of the pregame warmups].

Again, these are excellent athletes. I hate to sound naive, but before this weekend, I never knew that people using wheelchairs could play competitive tennis. I’ve long known that people using wheelchairs could engage in all kinds of vigorous sports, but I assumed that the size of the court couldn’t be tamed in a wheelchair. Well, one adjustment to the rules does the trick. In wheelchair tennis, the ball is in play for two bounces (rather than one bounce for the standard game).

On Friday, my wife and I watched parts of several matches between some players who had their racquets wrapped onto their arms. I inquired and was told that these are the “Quad” players, men and women who not only have physical deficits with their legs, but also with their arms (see the rules here). One of the “Quad” players had no ability to throw the ball up with his non-racquet hand. Instead, he “threw” the ball into the air by grabbing it on the ground with his racquet and his foot and flicking it up, then smashing it with an underhand serve loaded with topspin.

As we watched the finals yesterday, I couldn’t help but think that I was watching great athletes do extraordinary things, all to a relative smattering of clapping by the crowd of perhaps 500, many of whom were players and their families and friends.

If you have an opportunity to see a USTA match someday, whether in St. Louis or elsewhere, I’d highly recommend it.

Blue eyes, brown eyes.

Erich Vieth — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:30:48 +0000

Here is an article suggesting a reason why so many people like blue eyes. I’m tempted to put this one in the “just so story” category,” but the theory might someday have legs, if someone can put it to the (scientific) test.

The real cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Erich Vieth — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:09:40 +0000

What is the cost of the U.S. invasion of Iraq? The cost, which will continue to mount for decades, is staggering, even insane. It wasn’t $50 B, as W stated; it’s already in the trillions. Here are the numbers from the Washington Post. The reason for the U.S. invasion and occupation? Unknown. The deleterious effect on the soldiers, their families and the U.S. economy? Long term and devastating. For the hawks, it was fun going in with all those fancy weapons blazing, but they are not offering any ideas as far as cleaning up this catastrophic mess. And those hawks have absolutely nothing to offer to the massive number of Iraqi refugees, who have spilled all over the Middle East, placing an enormous burden on Syria and Jordan.

And combat is not “over,” per the recent lies of the Obama Administration. And the corrupt corporate media is, for the most part, not calling out the Obama Administration for this recent fabrication any more than they confronted the U.S. for the fictitious “reasons” for invading in the first place. The media excels at serving as official stenographer for U.S. politicians whenever the topic is war (and see this piece on a documentary by Phil Donahue, and this article regarding Amy Goodman’s views about the additional failures of the media). The corporate media bears thus much of the blame for the bleak economic future of the U.S.

It looks like the U.S. didn’t plan this “war” any better than they figured out how to make airplanes safe from terrorists prior to 2001. Hundreds of high-paid counter-terrorism experts on the U.S. payroll and they couldn’t figure out to lock the cockpit doors to keep a suicidal terrorist (of which many were known prior to 2001) from disabling the pilot and crashing the plane. And then we come up with a brilliant plan that forbids passengers from bringing finger nail clippers onto the planes.

I’m convinced that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was caused by bigoted conservatives who were seething after the U.S. was shown to be inept as far as airline safety, allowing non-Caucasian men armed with only box-cutters to wreak havoc. They couldn’t bear to look in the mirror and accept the blame, so they lashed out by raining bombs all over Iraq, even though the exercise helped to destroy the U.S. economy. It was like going home after work and kicking the dog because your boss yelled at you. The invasion of Iraq looked attractive because we were pissed and embarrassed, and what Iraq amounted to was causing more damage to the U.S. Long term damage to our economy, which means starving our schools, libraries, research, and infrastructure, just so we could brag that we took out Saddam. Or, perhaps, that Saddam was merely the excuse for public consumption, and the real purpose of the “war” was mainly to make immense amounts of money for military-related industries that had members of Congress in their pocket.

The history yet to be written will judge us to be fools. Maybe that judgment will provoke us to invade yet another country and squander what we have left of our economy. Maybe Americans will try to defend themselves by claiming that they had good intentions. They should have known better, however. As Hannah Arendt wrote long ago, far more damage is caused by the failure to think things through than by trying to cause damage.

How to refuse to look at evidence and how to evade simple questions

Erich Vieth — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 04:05:54 +0000

The arrows of my title are not being directed toward Richard Dawkins, one of the two people engaged in this extraordinary conversation. My title is directed toward creationist Wendy Wright. Her obstructionist tactics suggest that it is simply not fruitful to discuss evolution by natural selection with someone who doesn’t understand it and doesn’t want to understand it.

I’ve pasted Part 2 of 7 of this exchange above. The other parts are available at Youtube. Richard Dawkins is a model of patience here. Ms. Wright repeatedly invokes a handful of tactics to stretch out this ostensible conversation endlessly. One tactic is to change the topic whenever Dawkins tries to focus upon real world facts. Another is to send out broad accusations, such as accusing Darwin of racism when, in reality, the Victorian world was filled with people who held views that would now be considered racist and, in fact, Darwin and his writings were notably not racist. In fact, Darwin expressed abolitionist views.

In a recent comment I wrote the following:

I’m tempted to begin a new “policy” from today forward. Those disparaging the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection must, in order to deserve a reply (other than a copy and paste of this comment) must, in their own words, describe the basic elements of the theory and at least a few of the many types of evidence supporting the theory. They must also make it clear that they know how a scientific theory differs from pure speculation.

It is my repeated impression that those attempting to criticize the facts and theory of evolution by natural selection are actually attacking some something else, something that biologists, geo-biologists, geneticists, botanists and other scientists do not support. In short, they are attacking straw men. The only reasonable reply to such attacks is to direct the commenter to set aside a few hours and to read a good book on natural selection.

There’s a lot more discussion about this video a website with a most extraordinary name: WhyWontGodHealAmputee.com. Soricidae’s Blog offers a play by play for one section of the Wright-Dawkins exchange.

Refusing to recognize marriage

Erich Vieth — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 03:07:22 +0000

Tom Ackerman has an provocative approach for dealing with a constantly simmering problem here in America: gay marriage. Whenever someone mentions their husband or wife (or their “marriage”), he makes a blunt statement that he “doesn’t recognize marriage.” His reason? “[N]obody should have marriage until everybody does.” That gives people who have been privileged with the ability to marry a bit of the perspective of those are aren’t allowed this privilege. Here’s how he does it:

Yesterday I called a woman’s spouse her boyfriend.

She says, correcting me, “He’s my husband,”
“Oh,” I say, “I no longer recognize marriage.”

The impact is obvious. I tried it on a man who has been in a relationship for years,

“How’s your longtime companion, Jill?”
“She’s my wife!”
“Yeah, well, my beliefs don’t recognize marriage.”

Fun. And instant, eyebrow-raising recognition. Suddenly the majority gets to feel what the minority feels. In a moment they feel what it’s like to have their relationship downgraded, and to have a much taken-for-granted right called into question because of another’s beliefs.

Yellow journalism nation

Erich Vieth — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:41:16 +0000

Author Jeffrey Feldman nails one of America’s main problems, the re-emergence of yellow journalism:

Most of us probably cannot remember the last time we debated, let alone acted upon, a national issue devoid of yellow politics.

Taxes? Tea Party! Health care? Nazi extermination! Environment? Global conspiracy! Afghanistan? Collusion with terrorists! Education? War on Christmas! Economy? Socialist takeover! Manufacturing? Communist takeover! Family? Homosexual takeover! Urban planning? Muslim terrorists! And on, and on. There is no end to this new run of yellow politics. And as a result, we have become a nation that does nothing — a nation that can do nothing, apparently, but keep churning through yellow stories.

From Wikipedia, “yellow journalism” is:

a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension “Yellow Journalism” is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.

Is USDA Organic Certifiably Insane?

Tony Coyle — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:06:25 +0000

I saw a very brief and hurried post from ERV on ScienceBlogs. In it, she noted that organic farmers let their animals die from treatable diseases, because to do otherwise would deny them the valuable ‘organic’ label.

WTF?

In Europe, organic livestock MUST be treated humanely, and may receive therapeutic medication (including antibiotics) – to do otherwise is a complete denial of everything science and medicine has learned in the past three hundred years.

But, apparently, that’s what Organic means in the US!

As ERV says

‘Organic’ farmers? All concerned about their free-range, cage-free, at harmony with the Mother Goddess animals? They let their fucking animals die from treatable diseases, because if they treat them with even one dose of antibiotics, the animals are no longer ‘organic’.

She quotes Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the Organic Consumers Association

Allowing one-time therapeutic antibiotics is “a slippery slope”, and would “undermine consumer confidence in organics. It’s the same position [I have] as on human vaccines. They are dangerous, and that’s why I didn’t vaccinate my kid.”

Never mind the epic FAIL in Ronnie Cummin’s statement about the dangers of vaccines – that woo is worthy of a post all by itself! The issue is that animals are allowed to die, often painfully, from completely preventable and treatable diseases.

Why is this so?

ERV linked to her source (this article at the blog “In These Times”). According to that article,

Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations defining organic standards mandate that if [a] calf had gotten one dose of antibiotics, even to save her life, she could never give organic milk—even after the two years it takes for her to become a milker, and even though neither she nor her milk would retain any trace of antibiotics.

So why would the USDA have such nonsensical standards for ‘organic’? It seems that

In the 1990s, an embattled organics movement defeated agribusiness’s attempt to allow all drugs, toxic pesticides and genetic engineering to fall under the proposed USDA organic label. Some speculate that when agribusiness saw that its strategy to eviscerate standards would fail, it began advocating regulations so strict that few farmers would adopt them, and those that did would become uncompetitive.

Who would have thought that agribusiness and hard-core tree-huggers would ever be on the same side, but apparently so. The National Director for the Organic Consumers Association is aligned with Agribusiness in making organic a side-show rather than a central plank of ethical food production.

Some organic proponents (myself included) recognize that a 100 percent ban on antibiotics ~~is brain-dead stupid~~ needs to be re-examined. Animal welfare, and the Organic label, should mean more than ideological purity – it should mean doing the best we can for our food-stocks, while limiting approaches that actively harm the environment (such as epidemic use of low-dose antibiotics, unrestrained use of excess fertilizers, mono-cultural crops, ultra-high density factory farming, and the like).

We need to apply ethical and sustainable approaches to food production. That does not mean we throw the baby out with the bath water.