NATURE AND CHANGE

Great column in today's Wall Street Journal by a retired biology prof about how the entire global warming construct is fundamentally flawed because it assumes nature is in a steady state, almost static, when in fact it is constantly changing in ways we cannot foresee.


He tells the story of canoeing around Isle Royale one evening and watching a bull moose display what could only be called puzzling, bizarre behavior. It took him years to realize the moose was an apt metaphor for the true character of nature:

Most of the major forecasting tools used in global-warming research, including the global climate models (known as general circulation models of the atmosphere) and those used to forecast possible ecological effects of global warming, paint a picture of nature more like a Hudson River School still-life than like the moose that kicked at the shore. These forecasting methods assume that nature undisturbed by people is in a steady state, that there is a balance of nature, and that warnings the climate is at a tipping point mean that the system is about to lose its balance.

In fact, however, nature has never been constant. It is always changing, and life on Earth has evolved and adapted to those changes. Indeed many species, if not most, require change to persist. So there is something fundamentally wrong in most approaches to forecasting what might happen if the climate warms. The paradigm is wrong and has to change. But such fundamental change in human ideas never comes easily, and it is often resisted by those whose careers have been based on the old way of thinking. In addition, the general circulation models are such complex computer programs, and have been developed over so many years, that a fundamental change in the entire way of thinking about climate dynamics and its ecological implications is all the more difficult.


Anyone who has spent much time in the woods and fields would know he's right. The only thing constant about nature is change. Yes, there are patterns you can discern, but just when you think you have it all figured out, nature throws you a curve you never saw coming.

Here's one I saw myself and actually managed to capture:

Yes, that is in fact a groundhog in a tree. Groundhogs aren't supposed to climb trees, but don't tell them that. This one climbed a tree because my dog chased it and it couldn't make it back to one of its holes. It probably wasn't in any danger from my Lab--she's more into eating baby rabbits and mice than tackling something this large--but the groundhog didn't know that. So even though he's supposed to be a completely terrestrial creature, this groundhog got airborne because he had to.

I've never read about tree-climbing groundhogs before, but people who hunt or otherwise spend a lot of time in the woods will tell you it's not a freak accident. Animals--like nature in general--adapt to changing circumstances. Isn't that what evolution is all about? Adaptation?

But you don't really need groundhogs in trees to know there's much about nature that's beyond our ken. Just study the tiny hummingbird if you want to be humbled.