Thongchai Thailand

Archive for October 2019

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

Summary: The climate impact of algal communities on ice shows that the Ecology and Climatology ideal that humans should live in a way such that there is no measurable impact of human activity upon the ecosystem, upon the climate, and upon the rest of nature, is itself unnatural.

 

AGW IMPLICATIONS OF CRYOCONITE & ALGAL COMMUNITIES ON THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET

  1. Cryoconite is a very fine powder-like dust consisting of fine rock particles, soot, and microbes. When deposited on snow or ice, it tends to accumulate and accelerate ice melt. The greater rate of ice melt is facilitated by the darker color of the affected areas as well as by the waste heat of the biological processes of the microbes and their growth in population. Of course, cryoconite does not seek out ice to settle on but they are easier to identify on ice surfaces and that creates a bias in their distribution in the data.
  2. Other organic matter blown on to icy surfaces include snow and ice”algal communities”. These are various varieties of ice algae that can also be blown on to ice surfaces where they grow and multiply to the extent that the affected ice is described as having been colonized. They can change the color of large areas of ice, ten or more square kilometers, to various hues of blue, brown, red, and purple so thick that the overall feature of the hue is one of blackness such that ice albedo of the affected area is greatly reduced and solar radiation absorbed can greatly accelerate the rate of ice melt.
  3. The effect is also described as an overall reduction in ice albedo in the climate system with the net effect of accelerated rate of global warming with the possibility of a runaway feedback effect that could cause rapid ice melt and instability of ice sheets such as the Greenland Ice Sheet (GRIS) that could in turn accelerate sea level rise.
  4. In fact, the GRIS is the focus of research in this area and most if not all of the cryoconite and algal community ice-melt events observed have been found on the GRIS. A bibliography of research in this area is included below. The importance of the year 2012 in this line of research is that it marks a year of significant GRIS melt that was at first attributed to the possibility of AGW stronger than previously thought but later amended to include the effect of the algal communities found on the affected ice areas.
  5. A related dynamic of the ice-algae connection is that algae are plants that carry our photosynthesis and remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This removal is not permanent of course but part of the life cycle and carbon cycle dynamics as in any other example of photosynthesis. Yet, the carbon capture feature of algae is an important part of their effect on ice in the AGW context.
  6. The use of algae affected ice melt can serve a purpose in the effort to push for climate action with the fear of the alternative along the lines of “worse than previously thought” because it is true that the melt rate of the GRIS is worse when the algae effect is included; and it is true that, if AGW theory is correct, fossil fuel emissions have increased the energy available to the algae affected areas of the ice.
  7. However, the algae ice-melt dynamic has a very different interpretation in terms of AGW. It shows that life on earth affects the climate system and the rate of ice sheet melt and sea level rise. It’s an organic and inclusive part of nature such that nature cannot be separated into isolated blocks in a way that the impact of humans on climate should be interpreted as an alarming, sinful, unnatural. and unholy relationship between humans and nature that will bring about the end of the planet. The Ecology and Climatology ideal that humans must live in a way such that there should be no measurable impact of human activity upon the ecosystem, upon the climate, and upon the rest of nature in general, is itself unnatural. Life forms on earth don’t live in isolation but in an interactive web and nature itself including the climate, atmosphere, the glaciers, the ice sheets, and the oceans are all part of this interactive web. It is neither possible nor desirable that humans should separate themselves from nature’s web. They are part of this web and not intruders from outer space. [RELATED POST]   

 

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

 

GREENLAND ICE SHEET ALGAL COMMUNITY BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. Wharton Jr, Robert A., et al. “Cryoconite holes on glaciers.” BioScience (1985): 499-503.  Cryoconite holes are water-filled depressions on the surface of glaciers. They contain microbial communities and may contribute to glacial melt and biological colonization of ice-free areas. 
  2. Uetake, Jun, et al. “Communities of algae and cyanobacteria on glaciers in west Greenland.” Polar Science 4.1 (2010): 71-80.  Communities of algae and cyanobacteria on two glaciers in west Greenland (the Qaanaaq and Russel glaciers) were analyzed and compared with the aim of explaining why the Qaanaaq Glacier (in northwestern Greenland) has a dark-colored surface in satellite images whereas the Russel Glacier (in western central Greenland) has a light-colored surface. We found that algal and cyanobacterial communities differed between the glaciers and that the amount of biomass was higher on the colder glacier (Qaanaaq Glacier). The community on the Qaanaaq Glacier was composed mainly of green algae, whereas that on the Russel Glacier was dominated by cyanobacteria. Despite the shorter melting period (due to colder air temperature) for the Qaanaaq Glacier, the biovolume of algae and cyanobacteria was 2.35 times higher than that on the Russel Glacier at a similar altitude, suggesting greater primary production on the Qaanaaq Glacier. We discuss the possible effects of temperature, nutrient concentrations, and cryoconite holes (melt-holes in the glacier) on the community structure and productivity of algae and cyanobacteria on each glacier, and consider the influence of the identified differences in algal and cyanobacterial communities on the amount of surface melt.
  3. Wientjes, I. G. M., et al. “Dust from the dark region in the western ablation zone of the Greenland ice sheet.” The Cryosphere 5.3 (2011): 589-601.  A dark region tens of kilometres wide is located in the western ablation zone of the Greenland ice sheet. The dark appearance is caused by higher amounts of dust relative to the brighter surroundings. This dust has either been deposited recently or was brought to the surface by melting of outcropping ice. Because the resulting lower albedos may have a significant effect on melt rates, we analysed surface dust on the ice, also called cryoconite, from locations in the dark region as well as locations from the brighter surrounding reference ice with microscopic and geochemical techniques to unravel its composition and origin. We find that (part of) the material is derived from the outcropping ice, and that there is little difference between dust from the dark region and from the reference ice. The dust from the dark region seems enriched in trace and minor elements that are mainly present in the current atmosphere because of anthropogenic activity. This enrichment is probably caused by higher precipitation and lower melt rates in the dark region relative to the ice marginal zone. The rare earth elemental ratios of the investigated material are approximately the same for all sites and resemble Earth’s average crust composition. Therefore, the cryoconite probably does not contain volcanic material. The mineralogical composition of the dust excludes Asian deserts, which are often found as provenance for glacial dust in ice cores, as source regions. Consequently, the outcropping dust likely has a more local origin. Finally, we find cyanobacteria and algae in the cryoconite. Total Organic Carbon accounts for up to 5 weight per cent of the cryoconite from the dark region, whereas dust samples from the reference ice contain only 1% or less. This organic material is likely formed in situ. Because of their high light absorbency, cyanobacteria and the organic material they produce contribute significantly to the low albedo of the dark region. 
  4. Cook, J. M., et al. “An improved estimate of microbially mediated carbon fluxes from the Greenland ice sheet.” Journal of Glaciology 58.212 (2012): 1098-1108.  Microbially mediated carbon fluxes on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) were recently quantified by Hodson and others (2010) using measurements of the surface coverage of debris (cryoconite) and rates of biological production associated with debris near the ice-sheet margin. We present updated models that do not assume the same spatial uniformity in key parameters employed by Hodson and others (2010) because they make use of biomass distribution and biological production data from a 79 km transect of the GrIS. Further, the models presented here also include for the first time biomass associated with both cryoconite holes and surficial algae. The predicted annual carbon flux for a small (1600 km2) section of ice surrounding the field transect is about four times that estimated using spatially uniform biomass and production in this area. When surficial algae are included, the model predicts about 11 times more carbon fixation via photosynthesis per year than the cryoconite-only models. We therefore suggest that supraglacial carbon fluxes from the GrIS have previously been underestimated by more than an order of magnitude and that the hitherto overlooked surficial algal ecosystem can be the most crucial contributor. The GrIS is shown to be in a relatively stable state of net autotrophy according to our model and so a strong link between bare-ice area and total carbon fluxes is evident. The implication is a biomass feedback to surface albedo and enhanced ablation as a result. Climate predictions for the year 2100 show that greater carbon fixation could also result from climate warming.
  5. Kamenos, Nicholas A., et al. “Reconstructing Greenland ice sheet runoff using coralline algae.” Geology 40.12 (2012): 1095-1098.  The Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) contains the largest store of fresh water in the Northern Hemisphere, equivalent to ∼7.4 m of eustatic sea-level rise, but its impacts on current, past, and future sea level, ocean circulation, and European climate are poorly understood. Previous estimates of GrIS melt, from 26 yr of satellite observations and temperature-driven melt models over 48 yr, show increasing melt trends. There are, however, no runoff data of comparable duration with which to validate the relationship between the spatial extent of melting and runoff or temperature-based runoff models. Further, longer runoff records are needed to extend the melt pattern of Greenland to centennial timescales, enabling recent observations and trends to be put into a better historical context. We have developed a new GrIS runoff proxy by extracting information on relative salinity changes from annual growth bands of red coralline algae. We observed significant negative relationships between historic runoff, relative salinity, and marine summer temperature in Søndre Strømfjord, Greenland. We produce the first reconstruction of runoff from a section of the GrIS that discharges into Søndre Strømfjord over several decades (1939–2002) and record a trend of increasing reconstructed runoff since the mid 1980s. In situ summer marine temperatures followed an equivalent trend. We suggest that since A.D. 1939, atmospheric temperatures have been important in forcing runoff. These results show that our technique has significant potential to enhance understanding of runoff from large ice sheets as it will enable melt reconstruction over centennial to millennial timescales.
  6. Anesio, Alexandre M., and Johanna Laybourn-Parry. “Glaciers and ice sheets as a biome.” Trends in ecology & evolution 27.4 (2012): 219-225.  The tundra is the coldest biome described in typical geography and biology textbooks. Within the cryosphere, there are large expanses of ice in the Antarctic, Arctic and alpine regions that are not regarded as being part of any biome. During the summer, there is significant melt on the surface of glaciers, ice caps and ice shelves, at which point microbial communities become active and play an important role in the cycling of carbon and other elements within the cryosphere. In this review, we suggest that it is time to recognise the cryosphere as one of the biomes of Earth. The cryospheric biome encompasses extreme environments and is typified by truncated food webs dominated by viruses, bacteria, protozoa and algae with distinct biogeographical structures.
  7. Yallop, Marian L., et al. “Photophysiology and albedo-changing potential of the ice algal community on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet.” The ISME journal 6.12 (2012): 2302.  Darkening of parts of the Greenland ice sheet surface during the summer months leads to reduced albedo and increased melting. Here we show that heavily pigmented, actively photosynthesising microalgae and cyanobacteria are present on the bare ice. We demonstrate the widespread abundance of green algae in the Zygnematophyceae on the ice sheet surface in Southwest Greenland. Photophysiological measurements (variable chlorophyll fluorescence) indicate that the ice algae likely use screening mechanisms to downregulate photosynthesis when exposed to high intensities of visible and ultraviolet radiation, rather than non-photochemical quenching or cell movement. Using imaging microspectrophotometry, we demonstrate that intact cells and filaments absorb light with characteristic spectral profiles across ultraviolet and visible wavelengths, whereas inorganic dust particles typical for these areas display little absorption. Our results indicate that the phototrophic community growing directly on the bare ice, through their photophysiology, most likely have an important role in changing albedo, and subsequently may impact melt rates on the ice sheet.
  8. Stibal, Marek, Marie Šabacká, and Jakub Žárský. “Biological processes on glacier and ice sheet surfaces.” Nature Geoscience 5.11 (2012): 771.  Glaciers and ice sheets are melting in response to climate warming. Whereas the physical behaviour of glaciers has been studied intensively, the biological processes associated with glaciers and ice sheets have received less attention. Nevertheless, field observations and laboratory experiments suggest that biological processes that occur on the surface of glaciers and ice sheets — collectively termed supraglacial environments — can affect the physical behaviour of glaciers by changing surface reflectivity. Furthermore, supraglacial cyanobacteria and algae capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into organic matter. Supraglacial microbes break down this material, together with organic matter transported from further afield, and generate carbon dioxide that is released back into the atmosphere. The balance between these two processes will determine whether a glacier is a net sink or source of carbon dioxide. In general, ice sheet interiors seem to function as sinks, whereas ice sheet edges and small glaciers act as a source. Meltwaters flush microbially modified organic matter and pollutants out of the glacier, with potential consequences for downstream ecosystems. We conclude that microbes living on glaciers and ice sheets are an integral part of both the glacial environment and the Earth’s ecosystem.
  9. Lutz, Stefanie, et al. “Variations of algal communities cause darkening of a Greenland glacier.” FEMS Microbiology Ecology 89.2 (2014): 402-414.  We have assessed the microbial ecology on the surface of Mittivakkat glacier in SE-Greenland during the exceptional high melting season in July 2012 when the so far most extreme melting rate for the Greenland Ice Sheet has been recorded. By employing a complementary and multi-disciplinary field sampling and analytical approach, we quantified the dramatic changes in the different microbial surface habitats (green snow, red snow, biofilms, grey ice, cryoconite holes). The observed clear change in dominant algal community and their rapidly changing cryo-organic adaptation inventory was linked to the high melting rate. The changes in carbon and nutrient fluxes between different microbial pools (from snow to ice, cryoconite holes and glacial forefronts) revealed that snow and ice algae dominate the net primary production at the onset of melting, and that they have the potential to support the cryoconite hole communities as carbon and nutrient sources. A large proportion of algal cells is retained on the glacial surface and temporal and spatial changes in pigmentation contribute to the darkening of the snow and ice surfaces. This implies that the fast, melt-induced algal growth has a high albedo reduction potential, and this may lead to a positive feedback speeding up melting processes.
  10. Takeuchi, Nozomu, et al. “Spatial variations in impurities (cryoconite) on glaciers in northwest Greenland.” Bulletin of Glaciological Research 32 (2014): 85-94.  Spatial variations in impurities (cryoconite) on the glacier surface were investigated on Qaanaaq Ice Cap and Tugto Glacier in the northwest Greenland in the melting season of 2012. Abundance of impurities ranged from 0.36 to 119 g m-2 (dry weight, mean:18.8 g m-2) on bare ice and from 0.01 to 8.7 g m-2 (mean:3.6 g m-2) on snow surface at the study sites. On Qaanaaq Glacier (an outlet glacier of Qaanaaq Ice Cap) impurity abundance was greatest at mid-elevations, with fewer impurities at upper and lower sites. Surface reflectivity was lowest in the mid-elevation area, suggesting that impurities substantially reduce ice surface albedo at mid-elevations on glacier surfaces. Organic matter content in the impurities ranged from 1.4 to 12.0% (mean:5.4%) on the ice and from 3.2 to 10.6% (mean:6.7%) on the snow surface. Microscopy revealed that impurities in the ice areas mainly consisted of cryoconite granules, which are aggregations of mineral particles, filamentous cyanobacteria and other microbes and organic matter, while those in snow areas consisted of mineral particles and snow algae. Results suggest that the spatial variation in the abundance of impurities is caused by supply of mineral particles both from air and ice, and microbial production of organic matter on the glacier surface.

 

EXTINCTIONREBELION

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

[RELATED POST]

 

SOME PROPOSED TRANSLATIONS OF EXTINCTION REBELLION LANGUAGE

 

  1. QUESTION: What’s the scientific basis for the claim that billions of people are going to die? ANSWER:  We don’t have a scientific basis nor do we need a scientific basis. Just take my word word for it. People are going to die. Exactly how many doesn’t matter.
  2. QUESTION: I looked through the IPCC AR5 and SR15 and I see no reference to billions of people are going to die or that children are going to die in under 20 years. ANSWER: We don’t like the IPCC AR5 or the SR15.
  3. QUESTION: Then where does the scientific validity of that claim come from? The billions of people that will die, how will they die?  ANSWER: Validity derives from how scary it is and the alarmist media provides plenty of that as for example mass migrations, drought, and wildfires all over the world from Indonesia to the Amazon and even Siberia and the Arctic.
  4. QUESTION: These are all really important problems and they can cause fatalities but they don’t cause billions of deaths. They don’t imply that our young people will all be dead in 20 years, as your co-founder Roger Hallam claims. ANSWER: OK so maybe it isn’t exactly 20 years but they will die. Trust me on this. Humans are mortal after all.
  5. QUESTION: You talk about weather related disasters, and people die from them but a hundred years ago, weather related disasters killed 500,000 people a year on average. Today that figure is 20,000 a year, a reduction of 96%. These numbers don’t support the Extinction Rebellion claim about the death of billions of people by climate change. ANSWER: You’re hung up on scientific validity and whether what we say is factually correct and ignoring the bigger picture of what we need to say to get people to take climate change seriously when they are not taking it seriously enough. It is a desperate situation and we must do what it takes instead of getting all hung up on scientific validity and whether things are factual. The truth is that scaring people works.
  6. QUESTION: It doesn’t work. I have seen school strike young girls on TV crying because they think they are going to die in 5 or 6 years. Crying because they don’t think they will ever see adulthood. And yet there is no scientific basis for the claims your organization is making. ANSWER: You’re dead wrong. The school strike children don’t worry that they will die 5 or 6 years from now. They worry about coastal regions going under water, entire countries, island nations going under water, the Maldives going under water, the mass displacement that is happening, the weather extremes.
  7. QUESTION: The IPCC says that its median projection is for sea level rise of half a meter by the year 2100. Half a meter of sea level rise will not result in the apocalyptic predictions your organization claims. ANSWER: These are very conservative numbers because IPCC projections are from pre-industrial data. They are looking only at carbon emissions but nor factoring in feedback loops. The IPCC does not understand climate science as well as alarmists like Michael Mann and James Hansen do. We are not using alarmist language.
  8. QUESTION: You ARE using alarmist language. A person from your organization has said that nearly everybody could be dead within several decades. 97% was the figure she put on it. The IPCC wants emissions to be cut in half by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. But your organization wants net zero emissions by 2025, only six years away. What would that require? ANSWER: I have no idea.
  9. QUESTION: And yet you went to Westminster to preach and demand climate policy???  ANSWER: Well, the experts DO have an idea and we are saying, listen to the experts. Policy makers are not listening to the experts. We know what the experts are saying although, as I said previously, I have no idea what if anything they are saying about what it would take to get to zero net emissions by 2025.
  10. QUESTION: The experts have consensus on getting to net zero emissions by 2050. But you’re saying 2025. That doesn’t sound like you are “listening to the experts”. ANSWER: Our expert is Professor Michael Mann, He says that the 2050 figure relies on unreliable carbon capture by gas energy storage. I have no idea what that means but Michael Mann doesn’t like that so we protest against it.
  11. QUESTION: One scenario of your 2025 plan is that it will require the confiscation of all petrol cars, state rationing of meat, and limiting families to one flight every 5 years. Do you agree with that? ANSWER: We need to do whatever it takes to bring emissions down. Whether the action needed is practical or doable is not the issue.
  12. QUESTION: I am not arguing about the consequences of climate change at all. But to reach your target you would have to stop all flights. Aviation will come to an end. ANSWER:  If aviation needs to go it must go. We must look at all aspects of the economy and whatever needs to go for the climate has to go.
  13. QUESTION: If we stopped all flights it would global temperature by 0.03C. And you would stop all flights for that?  ANSWER: That’s just a number. The 99% consensus science says that if we don’t bring emissions down we will descend into climate hell.
  14. QUESTION: Most homes are heated by gas. Most people cook with gas. All of that would have to go in 6 years for a 2025 target.  ANSWER:  It may sound impossible but for us humans, nothing is impossible and the proof of that is that we put a man on the moon and built the space station.

AN INTERVIEW OF EXTINCTION REBELLION BY ANDREW NEIL sadly with repeated interruptions by Neil that muddled some segments of the conversation.

 

 

[HOME PAGE]

[RELATED POST]

 

BRIEF TRANSCRIPT OF THE ANDREW NEIL INTERVIEW

  1. Andrew Neil: I’ve seen some of your activists claims on TV that billions of people are going to die in quite short order. One of your founders Roger Hallam said “Our children are going to die in the next ten to twenty years. What’s the scientific basis for these claims?
  2. Extinction Rebellion: So, these claims have been disputed, admittedly. There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying they’re simply not true but the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen. We don’t know exactly the numbers and it’s a little bit concerning to focus on just how many deaths. There will be deaths and mass suffering and any amount is enough as far as we are concerned.
  3. Andrew Neil: But most scientists don’t agree with this. Climate change scientists, those who know and say there is a problem and it has to be tackled, things have to be done, and more has to be done that is being done. I looked through the IPCC AR5 and SR15 and I see no reference to billions of people are going to die. or children are going to die in under 20 years.
  4. Extinction Rebellion: We don’t claim that what we said was derived from the IPCC AR5 or the SR15
  5. Andrew Neil: Then where does the scientific validity of that claim come from? The billions of people that will die, how will they die?
  6. Extinction Rebellion: Mass migration around the world is already taking place due to prolonged drought in South Asia. There are wildfires in Indonesia, the Amazon rain forest, Siberia, and the Arctic.
  7. Andrew Neil: These are all really important problems and they can cause fatalities but they don’t cause billions of deaths. They don’t imply that our young people will all be dead in 20 years, as your co-founder Roger Hallam claims.
  8. Extinction Rebellion: Perhaps not in 20 years, but I can’t speak to what Roger was meaning with that. He is indeed one of the members of Extinction Rebellion.
  9. Andrew Neil: You talk about weather related disasters, and people die from them but a hundred years ago,  weather related disasters killed 500,000 people a year on average. Today that figure is 20,000 a year, a reduction of 96%. These numbers don’t support the Extinction Rebellion claim about the death of billions of people by climate change.
  10. Extinction Rebellion: I think there is a danger of scaring people simply because we’re not taking it seriously enough and people are feeling desperately that we are heard on this and it is unfortunate that this language works which is why we are discussing it right now.
  11. Andrew Neil: It doesn’t work. I have seen school strike young girls on TV crying because they think they are going to die in 5 or 6 years. Crying because they don’t think they will ever see adulthood. And yet there is no scientific basis for the claims your organization is making.
  12. Extinction Rebellion: The young people I have spoken with aren’t  crying because they are going to die in a few years; it’s because they don’t see their generation as having a future and they worry about coastal regions going under water, entire countries, island nations going under water, the Maldives going under water, the mass displacement that is happening, the weather extremes, which may be on a downward trajectory but climate scientists ARE telling us that they will be on the increase,
  13. Andrew Neil: As for rising seas, yes, sea levels are rising. The IPCC makes that quite clear. The IPCC says that its median projection is for sea level rise of half a meter by the year 2100 and that will surely create problems from Miami to Bangladesh but half a meter of sea level rise will not result in the apocalyptic predictions your organization claims.
  14. Extinction Rebellion: These are very conservative numbers. I am not criticizing scientists. They do an incredible job. But a lot of their data are using pre-industrial levels of data. They are looking at carbon emissions but nor factoring in feedback loops. Things like that. All climate scientists are saying now that they think it’s a lo worse. James Hansen, ex NASA scientist is saying we are in a planetary emergency. So we’re using that language. We are not trying to use alarmist language. We are listening to what scientists are saying and using language that we feel is appropriate to the situation.
  15. Andrew Neil: You ARE using alarmist language. A person from your organization has said that nearly everybody could be dead within several decades. 97% was the figure she put on it. The IPCC wants emissions to be cut in half by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. But your organization wants net zero emissions by 2025, only six years away. What would that require?
  16. Extinction Rebellion: I am not here to give you solutions and to tell you what we should be doing. That’s not …. (interrupted by Neil)
  17. Andrew Neil: But you went to Westminster to preach and demand climate policy!
  18. Extinction Rebellion: We are saying, listen to the experts. Listen to what their ideas are, what they are saying, and at the moment we are not putting those plans in place, we are not creating policies that reflect what these scientists are saying. This is why we are protesting.
  19. Andrew Neil: The experts have consensus on getting to net zero emissions by 2050. But you’re saying 2025.
  20. Extinction Rebellion: There has been some interesting research into the IPCC reports that is more recent. This research was carried out by Professor Michael Mann who looked at where they come up with the 2050 figure and actually they are relying on carbon capture by gas energy storage. There is a problem with that. It is an untested technology and by relying on that there is a 50-50 chance that we will fail with the 50-50 target. 
  21. Andrew Neil: So you are relying on an individual against the main body of climate science represented by the IPCC. In any case, one scenario of your 2025 plan is that it will require the confiscation of all petrol cars, state rationing of meat, and limiting families to one flight every 5 years. Do you agree with that?
  22. Extinction Rebellion: I agree that we need to do whatever it takes to bring emissions down, to allow young people to have a future, to be able to have some hope for the future. I am not saying that because we are alarmists. I am listening to what they are saying. They are learning about the consequences of climate change at school and they are worrying about …. (interrupted by Neil).
  23. Andrew Neil: I am not arguing about the consequences of climate change at all. But to reach your target you would have to stop all flights. Aviation will come to an end.
  24. Extinction Rebellion: Possibly. This is something we need to look at. We need to look at the aviation industry. We need to do an analysis of what needs to happen. In all industries; agriculture, energy, everything. I don’t claim to be an expert in these areas.
  25. Andrew Neil: If we stopped all flights it would global temperature by 0.03C. And you would stop all flights for that?
  26. Extinction Rebellion: But what you just said was the IPCC report we both are in agreement we listen to that 99% consensus science. That’s great. We agree with that. That report is saying that if we don’t bring emissions down …. (interrupted by Neil)
  27. Andrew Neil: Most homes are heated by gas. Most people cook with gas. All of that would have to go in 6 years for a 2025 target.
  28. Extinction Rebellion: We put a man on the moon before we had the internet and mobile phones. We made and international space station. Sixteen countries worked together to make it happen, and send the parts into space independently using math and assemble it in space. With Dr. James Hansen, an ex NASA scientist, calling it a planetary emergency, if we really want to tackle this emergency, we can do it just like we could put a man on the moon and build the space station. We had 30 years to tackle this emergency and we didn’t do it. We are now out of time. We no longer have time to do this the comfortable way. We must do it the hard way.

 

 

CONCLUSION

We had 30 years to tackle the climate emergency and we didn’t do it. We are now out of time for climate action. We must now opt for climate adaptation. We put a man on the moon before we had the internet and mobile phones. We made and international space station. Sixteen countries worked together to make it happen, and send the parts into space independently using math and assemble it in space. With Dr. James Hansen, an ex NASA scientist on our side, if we really want to adapt to climate change instead of fighting it, we can do it just like we could put a man on the moon and build the space station.

 

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

SOME PROPOSED TRANSLATIONS OF EXTINCTION REBELLION LANGUAGE

 

  1. QUESTION: What’s the scientific basis for these claim that billions of people are going to die? ANSWER:  We don’t have a scientific basis nor do we need a scientific basis. Just take my word word for it. People are going to die. Exactly how many doesn’t matter.
  2. QUESTION: I looked through the IPCC AR5 and SR15 and I see no reference to billions of people are going to die or that children are going to die in under 20 years. ANSWER: We don’t like the IPCC AR5 or the SR15.
  3. QUESTION: Then where does the scientific validity of that claim come from? The billions of people that will die, how will they die?  ANSWER: Validity derives from how scary it is and the alarmist media provides plenty of that as for example mass migrations, drought, and wildfires all over the world from Indonesia to the Amazon an even Siberia and the Arctic.
  4. QUESTION: These are all really important problems and they can cause fatalities but they don’t cause billions of deaths. They don’t imply that our young people will all be dead in 20 years, as your co-founder Roger Hallam claims. ANSWER: OK so maybe it isn’t exactly 20 years but they will die. Trust me on this. Humans are mortal after all.
  5. QUESTION: You talk about weather related disasters, and people die from them but a hundred years ago, weather related disasters killed 500,000 people a year on average. Today that figure is 20,000 a year, a reduction of 96%. These numbers don’t support the Extinction Rebellion claim about the death of billions of people by climate change. ANSWER: You’re hung up on scientific validity and whether what we say is factually correct and ignoring the bigger picture of what we need to say to get people to take climate change seriously when they not taking it seriously enough. It is a desperate situation and we must do what it takes instead of getting all hung up on scientific validity and whether things are factual. The truth is that scaring people works.
  6. QUESTION: It doesn’t work. I have seen school strike young girls on TV crying because they think they are going to die in 5 or 6 years. Crying because they don’t think they will ever see adulthood. And yet there is no scientific basis for the claims your organization is making. ANSWER: You’re dead wrong. The school strike children don’t worry that they will die 5 or 6 years from now. They worry about coastal regions going under water, entire countries, island nations going under water, the Maldives going under water, the mass displacement that is happening, the weather extremes.
  7. QUESTION: The IPCC says that its median projection is for sea level rise of half a meter by the year 2100. Half a meter of sea level rise will not result in the apocalyptic predictions your organization claims. ANSWER: These are very conservative numbers because IPCC projections are from pre-industrial data. They are looking only at carbon emissions but nor factoring in feedback loops. The IPCC does not understand climate science as well as alarmists like Michael Mann and James Hansen do. We are not using alarmist language.
  8. QUESTION: You ARE using alarmist language. A person from your organization has said that nearly everybody could be dead within several decades. 97% was the figure she put on it. The IPCC wants emissions to be cut in half by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. But your organization wants net zero emissions by 2025, only six years away. What would that require? ANSWER: I have no idea.
  9. QUESTION: And yet you went to Westminster to preach and demand climate policy???  ANSWER: Well, the experts DO have an idea and we are saying, listen to the experts. Policy makers are not listening to the experts. We know what the experts are saying although, as I said previously, I have no idea what if anything they are saying about what it would take to get to zero net emissions by 2025.
  10. QUESTION: The experts have consensus on getting to net zero emissions by 2050. But you’re saying 2025. That doesn’t sound like you are “listening to the experts”. ANSWER: Our expert is Professor Michael Mann, He says that the 2050 figure relies on unreliable carbon capture by gas energy storage. I have no idea what that means but Michael Mann doesn’t like that so we protest against it.
  11. QUESTION: One scenario of your 2025 plan is that it will require the confiscation of all petrol cars, state rationing of meat, and limiting families to one flight every 5 years. Do you agree with that? ANSWER: We need to do whatever it takes to bring emissions down. Whether the action needed is practical or doable is not the issue.
  12. QUESTION: I am not arguing about the consequences of climate change at all. But to reach your target you would have to stop all flights. Aviation will come to an end. ANSWER:  If aviation needs to go it must go. We must look at all aspects of the economy and whatever needs to go for the climate has to go.
  13. QUESTION: If we stopped all flights it would global temperature by 0.03C. And you would stop all flights for that?  ANSWER: That’s just a number. The 99% consensus science says that if we don’t bring emissions down we will descend into climate hell.
  14. QUESTION: Most homes are heated by gas. Most people cook with gas. All of that would have to go in 6 years for a 2025 target.  ANSWER:  It may sound impossible but for us humans, nothing is impossible and the proof of that is that we put a man on the moon and built the space station.

We received our Made in China solar powered garden lights consisting of solar panels,  lights, wires, and remote control devices.  Here are the installation instructions in English. Any help in their translation into a clearer form of English would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

 

  1. Use two expansion screws to fix the solar panel on the wall. Plug the twist after the twist cap. The battery must be fully charged before using 3 – 5 rainy days.
  2. Solar lights in the factory has been charged with electricity. You can normally light. Please check the lights before installation. Whether it is working properly.
  3. The lamp and solar panels connected to the solar panel against the light, the light does not shine, unplug the connector light. Light sense normal.
  4. On the front of the lamp, 5 meters above the light by AUTO (red), the button lights flash 5 under the lights And remote control normal; Note: the remote control must be remote control receiver, or remote control is not sensitive remote control distance 8-15m.
  5. A: The lamp with two inflated studs on the wall, as schematically;
  6. B: The solar panel ANGLE adjusts according to the light intensity and time.
  7. C: lamps cannot be installed in low lying areas, so as not to soak;
  8. Plug the mate and female plugs and tighten waterproof cap and install it.
  9. After installation check the installation is solid, use the remote control of the lamp to check;

 

20191009_090124

FIGURE 1: EXTREME WEATHERquora-1

 

FIGURE 2: TEMPERATURE DOES NOT TRACK SOLAR ACTIVITYquora-2

 

FIGURE 3: TEMPERATURE TRACKS CO2quora-3

 

FIGURE 4: CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS CHARTquora-4

 

FIGURE 5: NASA INFRARED SPECTROGRAPHquora-5

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

ON AUGUST 1 2019, JOHN BRACCILI, FELLOW CHEMICAL ENGINEER AND AIChE MEMBER, POSTED AN OPINION ON QUORA [LINK] DEFENDING AGW SCIENCE. THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSES PRESENTED IN THIS QUORA POST. THE PRESENTATION IS IN TWO PARTS.

 

IN PART 1 WE PRESENT THE CASE FOR AGW BY JOHN BRACCILI

PART 2 IS OUR RESPONSE TO THE CASE FOR AGW IN PART 1

 

PART 1: THE CASE FOR AGW BY JOHN BRACCILI   [LINK] 

  1. If climate change is a hoax, why do so many scientists say it’s happening?
    John Braccili, M.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania (1977)
    Updated Aug 1.
  2. I’ve read most of the posts on this thread. It seems to me, the number one reason stated by climate “skeptics” is that climate scientists are on the take. I have news for them. Climate denial is a lot more profitable. Ask Willie Soon. You’re not getting rich as a climate scientist.
  3. All the “science” they claim disproves AGW has been disproven. Of course, there must be a vast conspiracy by climate scientists to cover up “the truth.” Climate scientists must be socialists trying to overthrow capitalism. The real reason that “climate denial science” never gains traction in the scientific community is because it has no merit. There is no cabal of scientists trying to take over the world.
  4. John Purcell made the only scientific argument I read against AGW. Here is what he said: ”However, calculations on the greenhouse effect of CO2 show us that its greenhouse effect should be only logarithmic, not even linear meaning that as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, more CO2 should have less and less of an effect. The effect overall is small, and there is no clear reason why it should actually be bad.”
  5. For a FIXED amount of IR radiation, his statement is correct. This theory is based on an experiment that was done many years ago and was generally accepted by the scientific community until the data proved otherwise. What’s wrong with the theory is that the earth is not a FIXED source of IR radiation. As the earth’s temperature’s rises, it puts out more IR energy that CO2 can absorb. The process is self-perpetuating. This is exactly how Venus became the hottest planet in our solar system at 460 deg C. If we endlessly dump CO2 into the atmosphere, the earth would be as hot as Venus.
  6. Let’s talk about the real science behind climate change: The first thing you have to realize is that at its very core, climate change is about a buildup of energy on the earth. Temperature change, melting ice, and extreme weather events are proxies for the energy buildup.
  7. All we know about the behavior of energy is encapsulated in the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is based on the principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I taught a thermodynamics class, and I used the following example:
  8. An instructor takes student A and student B into a room. There is a room air conditioner sitting on the floor in the middle of the room. The instructor plugs the air conditioner into a receptacle on the back wall of the room and turns it on. He tells the students that the room is perfectly insulated, and no energy can escape the room. The students can take any measurements they want, but they must determine if the temperature in the room rises, falls, or stays the same. Student A grabs a thermometer and measures the temperature of the room far from the air conditioner. He then measures the air coming out of the front of the air conditioner, sees that it’s colder, and declares the temperature in the room will fall. Student B leaves the room. He walks around the outside of the room and sees a meter on the wall that measures the electrical energy flowing into the room. He looks at the meter and sees that indeed, electrical energy is flowing into the room. Since that energy cannot be destroyed and cannot escape the room, he concludes that the temperature in the room will rise. Student B is correct. 
  9. Point #1 Once student B determines energy is flowing into the room; it doesn’t matter what is going on inside the room. You could have heaters and air conditioners, creating hot and cold spots. Fans whipping around the air. Ice melting in one part of the room and freezing in another part. The temperature in the room is still going to rise. Point #2 Why did student A get the wrong answer? He cherry-picked the data. Had he taken measurements at the front and back of the air conditioner, he would have gotten the right answer.
  10. Points #1 & 2 are directly related to the controversies over climate change. Climate denial pseudo-science either contorts scientific principles or uses “cherry-picked” data. When it is rejected by those who understand the science, then there must be a conspiracy to prevent “the truth” from reaching the public.
  11. Let’s apply the first law of thermodynamics to the earth. Draw a box around the earth. What adds to earth’s energy balance? The sun contributes 122,400 TW (terawatts). Human release of energy contributes 20 TW. Geothermal energy contributes 50 TW. The last two are so small they are usually ignored.
  12. The only source that subtracts from earth’s energy balance is the earth’s radiant energy. The amount of energy the earth retains is about 300 TW. 99.755% of the energy absorbed by the earth is radiated into space. The small size of the retained energy is unimportant. Energy cannot be destroyed. It just takes a long time for the effects to become apparent.
  13. All that is necessary to show that climate change is occurring is to show that energy is building up on the planet. Instead of using temperatures, let’s use a count of all types of extreme weather events around the world shown in Figure 1 above. The only way that graph looks like that is if energy is building up on the earth. Tying it to CO2 is simple. We know solar energy has been on the decline over this period as shown in Figure 2. Notice how the earth’s temperature tracks solar radiation until around 1960. Then they begin to diverge. Solar radiation has been in a downward trend since 1980. Yet, the earth’s temperature has been in an upward trend. I wonder why?
  14. Therefore, changes in solar energy can’t be the cause of the observed increase in extreme weather. It has to be something that is continually increasing or the curve on the weather events plot would be flat-lining. The only source that fits that criteria is CO2. Figure 3 shows that CO2 is indeed the cause because here we see how closely surface temperature tracks atmospheric CO2 concentration. Notice in Figure 3 how there isn’t much of a correlation between CO2 and the earth’s temperature change until about 1960. Then there is a strong correlation between CO2 increases and the earth’s temperature. Why is 1960 so important? Since 1950 we’ve dumped into the atmosphere 85% of all the CO2 we’ve ever produced. Look at the slopes on that graph. Around 1950 we turned our production of CO2 into overdrive. The earth has some capacity to absorb a rapid change like this and temperature change has a lag time, but by 1960 those buffers were used up.
  15. The graph in Figure 5 is provided by NASA. It is a composite spectrograph of the infrared energy of the earth from satellite data. The “blue” area is the earth’s infrared energy. The “pink” area under the CO2 label is the radiant energy of the earth that the CO2 15mm absorption band is preventing from radiating into space, about 9000 TW. The “green” area is the amount of energy that CO2 could block in the future, about 14,000 TW. As the earth’s temperature rises, the earth emits more radiant energy and the blue area moves to the right, increasing the amount of radiant energy CO2 can block. That should put to rest claims of CO2 being benign and not capable of causing climate change.
  16. CONCLUSION: AGW is not a hoax. It is an existential threat to humanity.

 

 

 

PART 2: COMMENTS ON THE AGW PRESENTATION BY JOHN BRACCILI

  1. Reference#1: “As the earth’s temperature’s rises, it puts out more IR energy that CO2 can absorb. The process is self-perpetuating. This is exactly how Venus became the hottest planet in our solar system at 460 deg C“: COMMENT#1: If this were the case warming would occur at any fixed level of CO2 without the need for fossil fuel emissions to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration. As the CO2 traps the earth’s longwave, the earth gets hotter and puts out more longwave. And that causes more trapped heat to return to earth which then gets hotter yet and so on and so forth. This means that at any level of CO2, warming is a feedback system out of control that will always go to the Venus state. But this is not the case because CO2 does not trap a given percentage of the longwave but at any given concentration, a fixed amount of heat. In this heat trapping mechanism, warming occurs only when atmospheric CO2 increases. This is the basis of the climate action demand that we must eliminate CO2 emissions with the possibility of having to remove CO2 if nature does not do enough of that for us.

  2. Reference#2: “Figure 3 shows a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature since 1960”:  COMMENT#2: AGW theory is not based on a correlation atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature but between the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature.
  3. Reference#3: “Figure 3 shows a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature since 1960“:  COMMENT#3: AGW theory is that warming since pre-industrial times is explained in terms of fossil fuel combustion by the industrial economy. The pre-industrial reference is marked as the year 1750 by the IPCC, by the year 1850 or 1880 by the HadCRU and GISS temperature reconstructions, and by the year 1861 in the RCP8.5 theoretical projection of temperature from climate models.
  4. However, as seen in this related post [LINK] , the empirical values of climate sensitivity in a moving 60-year window across these time spans is found to be extremely unstable with sensitivities ranging from λ=0 to λ=8. The theoretical values derived from fundamental principles in climate models show values of λ=2 (Manabe) to λ={1.5 to 4.5} (Charney).
  5. Climate science has responded to these difficulties by moving the start date forward until the sensitivity  values stabilize. For example, NASA has moved the date forward to 1950 [LINK] , climates scientist Peter Cox has moved it further along to “the 1970s” [LINK] , and many others such as John Braccili has selected an intermediate date in 1960. A rationale for this change has been proposed in Hegerl etal 2018 discussed in a related post [LINK] where the authors divide the original theory about “warming since pre-industrial times” into two segments that are referred to as “Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW)” and “Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)” so that the AGW start date can be moved forward of “pre-industrial times”. It is noted that this new revised theory of AGW was constructed from the data.
  6. Although these forward dates for the start of AGW produce much better empirical results, their use in empirical verification of theory suffers from a circular reasoning problem that can be described as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Briefly, the data used to construct a hypothesis cannot be used to test that hypothesis. Therefore, that statistically significant empirical support of AGW theory can be found by moving the date forward to 1960 does not provide empirical evidence for the theory that was derived from the data.
  7. A climate science anomaly in this regard is the so called TCRE or Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions, a metric that shows a strong correlation between surface temperature and cumulative emissions and thereby a reliable and statistically significant regression coefficient that measures the warming effect of each teraton of cumulative emissions. Since this relationship is stable from the start date 1850, there was no need to move the start date forward to stabilize this measure. The start date for AGW therefore stays at 1850 when the TCRE is used. Such anomalies of convenience do not engender a great deal of confidence in climate science, particularly so when a closer look at the statistics of the TCRE reveals that it is based on a spurious correlation as explained in these related posts [LINK] [LINK] .
  8. A related issue with respect to the TCRE is the formulation of ClimateAction in terms of the carbon budget. The carbon budget is the maximum amount of emissions possible to stay within a prescribed warming target. It is computed with the statistically flawed TCRE metric and is therefore itself subject to the same anomalous behavior of the TCRE itself. The many difficulties with the carbon budget including the “Remaining Carbon Budget” issue can be explained in terms of its fundamental statistical weakness [LINK] .
  9. Reference #4: “Let’s talk about the real science behind climate change: The first thing you have to realize is that at its very core, climate change is about a buildup of energy on the earth. Temperature change, melting ice, and extreme weather events are proxies for the energy buildup.”
  10. Comment#4: The “build-up” of energy on the earth is described in climate science in terms of a build up of atmospheric CO2. The higher the CO2 concentration the greater the greenhouse forcing of CO2 through the sensitivity equation that temperature is proportional to ln(CO2). The human cause in this equation is that the industrial economy of humans burning fossil fuels is injecting external CO2 that does not belong in the current account of the carbon cycle. It is claimed that the external and previously sequestered CO2 from fossil fuels dug up from under the ground is causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. This relationship between fossil fuel emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration is a critical element of AGW. Yet, there is no empirical evidence in the observational data outside of climate models to support this crucial and necessary relationship between emissions and changes in atmospheric composition [LINK] [LINK] .

 

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

 

THIS POST IS A SUMMARY OF A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE MOVEMENT PUBLISHED IN SEPTEMBER 2019 BY DR. PAUL ROSSITER ON WUWT. THE SEQUENCE OF THIS PRESENTATION FOLLOWS THE SEQUENCE OF THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS. LINKS TO SOURCE DOCUMENTS APPEAR BELOW. 

[ROSSITER1] [ROSSITER2] [ROSSITER3] 

 

  1. ROSSSITER#1: The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and climate change (CAGW) narrative pushed by NASA-GISS, NOAA, EPA, CSIRO and the UN ( IPCC, WMO, UNDP, WHO, FAO) contains factual and scientific weaknesses identified by a community of critical commentaries and blogs but it continues to roll forward unscathed with full support of the news media [Related Post] and gains momentum. The support of the media includes the marginalization and even vilification of skeptics. The equal but subtle support by social media emphasize climate activism content and minimize contrary views.
  2. In its current form, climate activism has engaged eco activists and school children [Related Post] into street protests claiming to be victims of capitalism greed that produces fossil fuels. The climate movement is fully supported by national governments possibly for ulterior motives. Critics have been successfully disenfranchised as agents of the fossil fuel industry and not credible because of their alleged ignorance of the scientific basis of CAGW.
  3. The oddness of the legitimacy gained by the movement is compared with Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray [LINK] as a kind of social dysfunction with climate activists as the good guys saving the planet and deniers and the capitalist fossil fuel industry cast as social misfits who stand in their way along with a direct assault on capitalism itself that implies a Marxist or socialist political agenda. No meaningful discourse is possible between the two sides in the context of this extreme form of vilification.
  4. In his two books, Rupert Darwall [LINK] [LINK] says that the climate movement has infiltrated and captured most Western governments ensuring a pro climate position at the government level; and the UN and the EU use the climate movement as a tool in their quest for global influence. Therefore, because the climate movement is really a social and political movement, the climate debate can no longer be understood purely in terms of climate science details.
  5. ROSSITER#2: Noble Cause Corruption is the use of unethical or illegal means or procedures to achieve an end result that is perceived by the actor to be a good thing in the public interest. When translated into climate science it implies that unscientific methods, confirmation bias, and data tampering are acceptable and even necessary as long as it is for a noble cause [Related Post] [Related Post] . Famous precursors  of such science that may serve as a model for climate science are Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring of the 1960s and the ozone depletion scare of the 1970s [Related Post] .
  6. In the wake of the oil embargo and other global emergencies of the 1970s, primitive computer models, inadequate data, and bad assumptions led to the Club of Rome principle that the world was running out of the resources that produced the economic growth thus far and that therefore there were Limits to Growth. Parallel developments were the idea derived 1960s environmentalism that the planet was small and vulnerable and at our mercy and the formation of the UNEP by Maurice Strong that defined environmentalism on a global scale and positioned the UN as a global environmental protection agency.
  7.  After the UN’s assumed high profile success with the ozone depletion scare and its Montreal Protocol [Related Post] in its new role as the world’s EPA, it was poised to take over as the administrator of the Climate scare [Related Post] . With the WMO a UN agency it played a key role in installing the IPCC to provide “objective scientific assessment of climate change and its impacts”. In its first assessment report the IPCC stated its position in line with climate alarmism that it was  “certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface”. 
  8. The 1988 Congressional Testimony by James Hansen arranged by Al Gore [Related Post] was the key climate alarmism event that set the context and the language for the further progress of climate fearology. The subsequent Club of Rome report in 1991 included climate change in its global agenda with the phrase “tackling global warming and to solve the energy problem”. In the context of global environmentalism by the UN against human caused global warming, the activism context set humans as the enemy of the planet and of humanity itself with hope of redemption lying in climate action to control climate change.
  9. The importance of climate activism was underscored by Stephen Schneider’s now famous quote that climate scientists can’t just stick to scientific details but must contribute to activism [Related Post] with Timothy Wirth providing further support for unsubstantiated climate activism fearology with the famous statement that even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Thus, with no bounds or constraints, climate activism grew to encompass both economic and political activism sustained by the noble cause fallacy that as long as the goal was to save humanity and the planet itself, methodology was mere detail.
  10. ROSSITER#3: In his “follow the money” post some pertinent financial data are provided with the implied hypothesis that money makes the climate scare go round. The collusion of government, business, and environmental activism in this big money enterprise is described as a climate industrial complex (Bjorn Lomborg).
  11. Some financial data for the 2017/2018 period: [the capitalization of the renewable energy industry is over $1 trillion], [funding of the climate alarmism, publicity, and lobbying NGOs exceeds $2 billion], [government research funding committed to the climate science exceeds $1billion]. [Globally, The renewable energy market was valued at $928.0 Billion in 2017, and is expected to reach $1,512.3 Billion by 2025, registering a CAGR of 6.1% from 2018 to 2025 with widely anticipated significant growth forecasts]. [An energy setting that guarantees affordable, reliable, sustainable energy for everyone, the use of renewable energy must increase from the present 25 % to 38 % by 2025. This would entail an annual investment of 441 billion dollars in renewable electricity generation (source: acciona.com ]. Roger Pielke Jr is cited: To get to zero carbon by 2050, it would require the construction of one nuclear plant per day every day.
  12. A breakdown of the renewable energy business is provided as follows: Wind turbine manufacture and installation with strong demand and bullish forecast will go up by 689 GW to 1,160 GW by 2027. 
  13. Solar manufacturers: The global solar energy industry is expected to reach $422 billion by 2022 from $86 billion in 2015, growing at a CAGR of 24.2% from 2016 to 2022. Technologies include solar heating, photovoltaic cells, and others. Source: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/solar-energy-market.
  14. Energy distributors with major renewable content. [Avangrid, Assets $32billion, 32GW, wind], [Innergex, Assets C$6.5billion, revenue C$57.6billion, hydro, wind, & solar], [Boralex Market capitalisation $2billion, wind, hydro, thermal, solar], [Berkshire Hathaway Energy, 32GW, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal].
  15. Other technologies: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc (US) (wave), On Power (geothermal), Tocardo BV (tidal river and ocean water turbine manufacturer), SynTech Bioenergy LLC (power from biomass feedstocks). Each major manufacturer typically employs around 5000 staff and 10’s of thousands are employed in the support industries.
  16. Companies providing goods and materials that go into the manufacture of the products, as well as the legal and financial services that provide support (see for example http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.021 
  17. Bjorn: Climate Industrial ComplexEven companies that are not heavily engaged in green business stand to gain. European energy companies made tens of billions of euros in the first years of the European Trading System when they received free carbon emission allocations.
  18. Bjorn: Climate Industrial ComplexU.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities — including Duke — spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months. 
  19. Research agencies feeding CAGW alarmism: NOAA (USA), $5.5 billion, Australian Institute of Marine Science (Australia), $67.9million, CSIRO Climate Science Centre. 100 staff, A$20 million, The ARC Centre for Climate Extremes receives A$4.4m from the ARC and A$6.7m in kind from the partners, The ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies has revenue of A$11.2m.
  20. NGOs: Climate Action Network International: NGOs with an interest in climate change are coordinated internationally through the Climate Action Network International (CAN), a body registered in Germany and boasting 1300 NGO member organisations in over 120 countries. http://climatenetwork.org/
  21. The number of NGOs from the main countries participating in CAN are: USA 193, Canada 103, Australia 69, India 46, UK 30, Denmark 25, France 23, New Zealand 16, China 9, Russia 9, Norway 9, Sweden 5, Germany 7, Finland 7, Hungary 4, Austria 3, Italy 3
  22. Union of Concerned Scientists (USA), $39.8m, 350.org (international), $19m, Greenpeace Australia, $19.7m, Greenpeace USA, $39.7m total $28.2m contributions, 25000 members, The Australia Institute, A$4m total, A$3m donations, Wilderness Society (Australia), A$13m total, A$10m donations, A$2m bequests, World Wildlife Fund USA $335.1m total operating revenue, $69.6m contributions, $46.8m govt. grants contracts, salaries $1.8m in USA, $53.3m international, World Wildlife Fund Australia, A$28m, A$20m donors A$6m corporate, govt., legacies, World Wildlife Fund Canada C$24.2m 70% donations 16% foundations, Friends of the Earth Australia A$1.4m, A850k donations, Friends of the Earth USA US10.9m total, $6.7m grants, bequests, contributions, 45 paid staff, Environmental Defence Fund Inc., $223m from contributions, memberships, foundations,
  23. Opportunists and Globalists: In September 2018, 29 philanthropists pledged $4 billion over the next five years to combat climate change. There are also foundations that have provided funds for individual projects in the renewable/climate/sustainability areas. These include Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc., ($1.1billion assets, $34m grants, $7.5m on sustainable development). William and Flora Hewlett foundation (assets 9.8billion, $465m grants, $30m on climate projects), (Elon) Musk Foundation (no financial data available) and the David and Lucille Packard foundation.($7.6billion assets, $288m grants, $2m in conservation and science).
  24. Finally on the money trail, there are individuals who have made large sums of money from renewable/Green schemes, like Al Gore whose personal worth is now estimated to be around $350m:
  25. CONCLUSION: There is money in the climate business. Lots of money. It’s the Climate Industrial Complex. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

svalbard-1

 

[HOME PAGE]

[RELATED POST ON JAN MAYEN TREND]

[ARTICLE ON JAN MAYEN FRACTURE ZONE AT MANTLEPLUMES.ORG]

 

THIS POST IS A PRESENTATION OF THE CLIMATE ODDITIES OF SVALBARD AND THEIR INTERPRETATION IN TERMS OF AGW CLIMATE CHANGE AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE ATMOSPHERE BIAS OF CLIMATE SCIENCE THAT OVERLOOKS SIGNIFICANT GEOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE SVALBARD ARCHIPELAGO.

 

THE VIDEO BELOW SERVES AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE USE OF SVALBARD IN CLIMATE ALARMISM

 

NORTH ATLANTIC CURRENT SYSTEM & JAN MAYEN VOLCANO 

  1. The map at the top of this post  shows that there are parts of Canada (Alert), parts of Greenland (Nord), parts of Europe (Svalbard and the Franz Yosef Islands), and parts of Russia (Severna Zemia) that actually touch or encroach into the Arctic circle. Of these only Svalbard, an archipelago of mountainous glaciated islands, has a permanent economically productive settled year-round community that is non-military, non-weather station, and non-scientific expedition. The economic activity of Svalbard was once dominated by whaling but at present it consists mostly of coal mining, tourism, and hosting of scientific expeditions.
  2. An oddity of Svalbard in the context of its Arctic circle location is its unusual climate given its high latitude. Summer temperatures are ≈5C on average and the winter average is ≈-14C. These temperatures are ≈2C warmer than the parts of Russia and Canada at the same latitude with the difference generally attributed to the moderating effect of the North Atlantic Current System shown above. In the study of the climate oddities of Svalbard, it is often described in the literature as “high Arctic archipelago”.
  3. The importance of Svalbard in the study of climate change is usually stated as “The Arctic is warming more rapidly than other region on the planet, and the northern Barents Sea, including the Svalbard Archipelago, is experiencing the fastest temperature increases within the circumpolar Arctic, along with the highest rate of sea ice loss and the greatest impact on ecosystems. An exploration of this line of climate impact research is provided below in the Svalbard bibliography. In this line of research it is acknowledged that the the North Atlantic Current System does not really explain all the climate oddities of Svalbard and a further explanation is offered in terms of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) climate change that uses changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to explain all climate and ice melt phenomena.
  4. The failed but much publicized anticipation of the ice-free Arctic in September and morbid but failed anticipation of the extinction of the polar bear and the Svalbard reindeer derive from this line of research as exemplified in these historical headlines from 2007 to 2017: Climate change threatens Svalbard’s 3000 polar bears, Svalbard is ground zero for climate change, Scientists say that Svalbard’s glaciers make up 60% of the land mass but are retreating literally before their eyes, Sea ice melting around Svalbard, Svalbard’s fiords that used to freeze over no longer do so, An overall loss of ice in Svalbard has caused habitat loss for species that include the reindeer. The intense interest in this region is apparently based on the so called Arctic Amplification and the anticipated feedbacks from melting Arctic sea ice and of an anticipated release of methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases from a thawing permafrost. A detailed list of these concerns about Svalbard and the Arctic region is reflected in the bibliography of climate impacts on Svalbard 1995-2018 listed below.
  5. Here we propose that this evaluation of the impact of climate change on Svalbard in particular and the Arctic in general in terms of rising temperatures, melting sea ice, receding glaciers, declining iciness of fiords, and the rain-on-snow issue, made exclusively in terms of the effects of atmospheric composition, contains an extreme atmosphere bias such that the effects of known geological features of the region are not taken into account.
  6. We now explore some of these features with reference to (1) A Related Post on the geological features of the Arctic relevant to climate change [LINK] , (2) an analysis of the Jan Mayen “fracture zone” posted online by MantlePlumes.org  [LINK] , and (3) an open access research paper available online for full text download [Blischke et al 2019] .
  7. Not generally known by the climate change audience and not generally acknowledged by the sources of climate change information is that the Arctic is geologically very active. A relevant feature of the Arctic in this regard is the Mid-Arctic Rift System shown in the graphic below provided by James Kamis [LINK] and Gillian Foulger [LINK] driven by a mantle plume system underneath Greenland and Iceland known as the Greenland-Iceland Mantle Plume. The spectacular 2010 eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull Volcano is a creation of this geological feature of the region. The more persistent and continual heat transfer mechanism from the mantle is by way of the two rift systems on either side of Greenland. The BBLRS (Baffin Bay Labrador Rift System) is west of Greenland and the bigger and more active MARS (Mid-Arctic Rift System) is on the east. These rift systems are drawn in the graphic below as red cross hatched lines.
  8. A rift is a region where tectonic plates in the lithosphere are moving apart with the pressure creating heat & magma release through volcanic activity and by other means. The red triangles drawn inside the MARS are locations of known active submarine volcanoes where volcanic activity tends to be more continuous and less spectacular than above land volcanoes but with equal or greater heat and magma release. The Mid Arctic Rift system is a monster. It begins south of Iceland and goes north 6,000 kilometers past Jan Mayen Island and the Svalbard archipelago clear across to the other side of the Arctic with more than 24 known active submarine volcanoes that are unevenly distributed. The portion of the rift that runs from Iceland to Svalbard is dense with volcanoes containing two thirds of the volcanoes in the rift system. It is called the Jan Mayen Trend.
  9. The underlying feature of the Jan Mayen Trend is a plate boundary where two plates collide one going under the other to create the energy that becomes evident on the surface as heat. The thesis of this post is that this energy flow from the mantle to the ocean plays a role in surface phenomena [LINK] . Therefore, all surface phenomena related to warming such as the relative mildness of Svalbard climate, sea ice melt, the rain on snow issue, and the effect of warming on ecosystems and animals such as the polar bear and the Arctic reindeer must not be assumed to be related to fossil fuel emissions such that they can be moderated by climate action consisting of reducing the rate of emissions.

bandicam 2019-07-01 16-29-44-526

JanMayenFig1_600

 

THE EISENMAN 2007 PAPER ON INTERMODEL DIFFERENCES ON SEA ICE EXTENT

Eisenman, Ian, Norbert Untersteiner, and J. S. Wettlaufer. “On the reliability of simulated Arctic sea ice in global climate models.” Geophysical Research Letters 34.10 (2007).  While most of the global climate models (GCMs) currently being evaluated for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report simulate present‐day Arctic sea ice in reasonably good agreement with observations, the intermodel differences in simulated Arctic cloud cover are large and produce significant differences in downwelling longwave radiation. Using the standard thermodynamic models of sea ice, we find that the GCM‐generated spread in longwave radiation produces equilibrium ice thicknesses that range from 1 to more than 10 meters. However, equilibrium ice thickness is an extremely sensitive function of the ice albedo, allowing errors in simulated cloud cover to be compensated by tuning of the ice albedo. This analysis suggests that the results of current GCMs cannot be relied upon at face value for credible predictions of future Arctic sea ice.

 

THE BEN WOUTERS MONTHLY MEAN SST MAP AROUND SVALBARD

EVIDENCE OF GEOTHERMAL HEAT

ben-wouters

 

 

 

SVALBARD & CLIMATE CHANGE BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. Salvigsen, Otto, Steven L. Forman, and Gifford H. Miller. “Thermophilous molluscs on Svalbard during the Holocene and their paleoclimatic implications.” Polar Research 11.1 (1992): 1-10.  Five species of guide fossils from the Holocene warm period in Svalbard are considered: Mytilus edulis, Modiolus modiolus, Arctica islandica, Littorina littorea and Zirphaea crispata. These are now extinct in Svalbard; Zirphaea crispata, especially, requires considerable higher water temperatures than occur there today. Known radiocarbon dates on Mytilus, Modiolus and Zirphala are given. Thirty-four dates on Mytilus edulis show that it lived in Svalbard from before 9500 BP to about 3500 BP, and probably again around 1000 BP. Five dates on Modiolus and Zirphaea indicate a climatic optimum in Svalbard from about 8700 BP to 7700 BP. The most favourable places then had conditions similar to the northeastern coast of Finnmark, northernmost Norway, today. Mytilus edulis is considered a good climate indicator, and a future warming of the marine climate in Svalbard could be indicated by its eventual re-immigration into the area.
  2. Dowdeswell, J. A., et al. “Mass balance change as a control on the frequency and occurrence of glacier surges in Svalbard, Norwegian High Arctic.” Geophysical Research Letters 22.21 (1995): 2909-2912.  The end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) in Svalbard (76–81°N), a climate‐sensitive region at the northern extreme of strong poleward heat transfer, was marked by an abrupt increase in mean annual air temperature of up to 5°C around 1920. Glacier mass balance has been consistently negative since this time, and large cumulative net losses of mass have occurred at most glaciers. Energy‐balance modelling confirms the sensitivity of Svalbard glaciers to climate change, predicting a negative shift in net mass balance of up to 0.8 m a−1 (water equivalent) per degree temperature rise. This climate‐related shift in glacier mass balance has reduced the intensity of glacier surge activity in Svalbard. One glacier, known to have surged since the end of the LIA, has since failed to accumulate the mass required to re‐initiate the surge cycle, and is also now cold at its base and incapable of rapid flow by basal sliding. Three overviews of the total number of actively‐surging glaciers in Svalbard between 1936–90 show a decrease from 18 to 5. This is significant compared with the expected numbers of surges based on LIA conditions. Post‐LIA climate change in Svalbard has therefore affected not only glacier extent, but also ice dynamics. This is trend will probably continue given CO2‐induced climate‐warming.
  3. Aanes, Ronny, et al. “The Arctic Oscillation predicts effects of climate change in two trophic levels in a high‐arctic ecosystem.” Ecology Letters 5.3 (2002): 445-453. During recent decades there has been a change in the circulation of atmospheric pressure throughout the Northern Hemisphere. These variations are expressed in the recently described Arctic Oscillation (AO), which has shown an upward trend (associated with winter warming in the eastern Arctic) during the last three decades. We analysed a 12‐year time series on growth of Cassiope tetragona (Lapland Cassiope) and a 21‐year time series on abundance of a Svalbard reindeer population. High values of the AO index were associated with reduced plant and reindeer population growth. The North Atlantic Oscillation index was not able to explain a significant proportion of the variance in either plant growth or reindeer population fluctuations. Thus, the AO index may be a better predictor for ecosystem effects of climate change in certain high‐arctic areas compared to the NAO index.
  4. Putkonen, J., and G. Roe. “Rain‐on‐snow events impact soil temperatures and affect ungulate survival.” Geophysical Research Letters 30.4 (2003). Field data from Spitsbergen and numerical modeling reveal that rain‐on‐snow (ROS) events can substantially increase sub‐snowpack soil temperatures. However, ROS events have not previously been accounted for in high latitude soil thermal analyses. Furthermore such events can result in widespread die‐offs of ungulates due to soil surface icing. The occurrence of Spitsbergen ROS events is controlled by the North Atlantic Oscillation. Globally, atmospheric reanalysis data show that significant ROS events occur predominantly over northern maritime climates, covering 8.4 × 106 km2. Under a standard climate change scenario, a global climate model predicts a 40% increase in the ROS area by 2080–2089. A compelling and growing body of observational evidence, supported by results from climate models and theoretical considerations, shows that the high latitudes are the most sensitive regions of the Earth’s climate system [IPCC, 2001; Serreze et al., 2000]. Snow covered land surfaces there are largely underlain by thermally‐vulnerable permafrost or seasonal frost [Washburn, 1980]. Since these areas are also home to delicately balanced ecosystems, an urgent concern is to better understand the impact of climate variability and climate change on boreal and arctic environments. Using field observations from a well‐established research site in Spitsbergen (latitude 78°57′N, longitude 12°27′E) [Dalsbo, 2002; Hallet and Prestrud, 1986; Hanssen‐Bauer et al., 1992; Putkonen, 1998] and nearby meteorological data, we demonstrate that wintertime rain‐on‐snow (ROS) events, although infrequent, are capable of exerting a considerable influence on mean wintertime soil temperatures. ROS events are therefore a powerful mechanism through which anthropogenic climate change may impact seasonal soil temperatures and, consequently, the long‐term survival of regional permafrost. The land surface components of global climate models do not generally represent the consequences of ROS events (the Genesis climate model is the only climate model we know of that accounts for ROS warming (Gordon Bonan, personal communication, Feb., 2002)) and, to our knowledge, have been left out of all studies which have examined the impact of climate on permafrost [Anisimov et al., 1997; Budyko and Izrael, 1993; Judge and Pilon, 1983; Kane et al., 1991; Lachenbruch and Marshall, 1986; Lunardini, 1996; Nelson et al., 1993; Osterkamp and Gosink, 1991; Pavlov, 1996; Riseborough and Smith, 1993; Smith and Riseborough, 1996]. Arctic ecologists have long known that ROS events are linked with large‐scale ungulate (reindeer, caribou, elk, musk‐ox) deaths in Spitsbergen [Aanes et al., 2000; Solberg et al., 2001], Scandinavia [Kumpula, 2001], eastern Siberia [Beltsov, 2002; McFarling, 2002], Canada [Miller et al., 1975], Greenland [Forchhammer and Boertmann, 1993] and suggested in Alaska [Griffith et al., 2002], all regions where reindeer herding or ungulate populations are an important part of the economy. ROS events result in soil surface icing, which the animals are unable to penetrate [Reimers, 1977; Reimers, 1982], and the resulting warmer sub‐snowpack temperatures promote growth of fungi and mold leading ungulates to avoid affected areas [Kumpula et al., 2000]. A climate‐change induced increase in the frequency and spatial coverage of ROS events may therefore have significant physical and ecological consequences precisely where permafrost is most vulnerable at its southern boundary, and where large herds of reindeer and caribou sustain native populations. Furthermore, ROS events are also known to be important triggers of avalanches in mountainous areas [Conway and Benedict, 1994; Conway and Raymond, 1993]. Over the past eighteen years we have monitored soil temperatures, soil thermal properties and micro‐meteorological forcing at our field site near Ny‐Ålesund, Spitsbergen [Putkonen, 1998](The records are not continuous over this period, but they are extensive enough to give us a good indication of the soil thermal behavior in response to climate forcing. The program was initiated in the summer of 1984 at a patterned ground site [Hallet and Prestrud, 1986]). Automated observations revealed episodes of significant and rapid soil warming under a thick (∼1m) snow pack (Figure 1). The warmings cannot be driven by changes in near surface air temperature alone. Temperatures at the soil surface showed neither a decrease of amplitude away from a source (i.e., the snow surface), nor an increasing time lag with depth, both of which are requirements for a pure thermally‐conductive system. It is apparent that a significantly more effective mode of heat transfer is required between atmosphere and permafrost to explain the observations. Examination of the local meteorological record showed that a nearby research station received rain or mixed snow and rain during the warming episodes. The anomalous warmings described above could theoretically also result from melting the snow, as is typically observed in the spring. However, we can rule this out because the warmings occurred during the Arctic polar night (no shortwave radiation available for melting) and the near surface air mass of a few degrees above freezing point cannot melt the snow at a sufficient rate. Rainfall, if in sufficient quantity, percolates through the snowpack [Conway and Benedict, 1994] and pools at the soil surface (If the rain percolates into the soil the thermal difference between thermal conduction and water advection and related release of latent heat is even larger as the latent and thermal energy bypasses larger domain of thermal inertia), because of the typically low infiltration capacity of the soil. As the water slowly freezes at the soil surface it gives up latent heat and warms the soil beneath and the snow above. The resulting ice/water bath constrains the near‐surface temperature of the soil to 0°C. A simple calculation illustrates the importance of ROS on seasonal soil temperature. The latent heat given up by the freezing of 50 mm of water is 1.7 × 107 Jm−2. Calculations from a permafrost model, described below, show that typically about 25% of this energy goes to heating the underlying soil. Now assuming an overlying snowpack of 1 m [Putkonen, 1997] (representative thermal conductivity 0.3 Wm−1K−1 [Sturm et al., 1996]), and mean winter air temperature of −15°C, it takes about 33 days for the remaining amount of heat to be conducted through the snowpack, during which time the soil surface temperature must remain at 0°C.
  5. Eisenman, Ian, Norbert Untersteiner, and J. S. Wettlaufer. “On the reliability of simulated Arctic sea ice in global climate models.” Geophysical Research Letters 34.10 (2007).  While most of the global climate models (GCMs) currently being evaluated for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report simulate present‐day Arctic sea ice in reasonably good agreement with observations, the intermodel differences in simulated Arctic cloud cover are large and produce significant differences in downwelling longwave radiation. Using the standard thermodynamic models of sea ice, we find that the GCM‐generated spread in longwave radiation produces equilibrium ice thicknesses that range from 1 to more than 10 meters. However, equilibrium ice thickness is an extremely sensitive function of the ice albedo, allowing errors in simulated cloud cover to be compensated by tuning of the ice albedo. This analysis suggests that the results of current GCMs cannot be relied upon at face value for credible predictions of future Arctic sea ice.
  6. Stempniewicz, Lech, Katarzyna Błachowiak-Samołyk, and Jan M. Węsławski. “Impact of climate change on zooplankton communities, seabird populations and arctic terrestrial ecosystem—a scenario.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 54.23-26 (2007): 2934-2945.  Many arctic terrestrial ecosystems suffer from a permanent deficiency of nutrients. Marine birds that forage at sea and breed on land can transport organic matter from the sea to land, and thus help to initiate and sustain terrestrial ecosystems. This organic matter initiates the emergence of local tundra communities, increasing primary and secondary production and species diversity. Climate change will influence ocean circulation and the hydrologic regime, which will consequently lead to a restructuring of zooplankton communities between cold arctic waters, with a dominance of large zooplankton species, and Atlantic waters in which small species predominate. The dominance of large zooplankton favours plankton-eating seabirds, such as the little auk (Alle alle), while the presence of small zooplankton redirects the food chain to plankton-eating fish, up through to fish-eating birds (e.g., guillemots Uria sp.). Thus, in regions where the two water masses compete for dominance, such as in the Barents Sea, plankton-eating birds should dominate the avifauna in cold periods and recess in warmer periods, when fish-eaters should prevail. Therefore under future anthropogenic climate scenarios, there could be serious consequences for the structure and functioning of the terrestrial part of arctic ecosystems, due in part to changes in the arctic marine avifauna. Large colonies of plankton-eating little auks are located on mild mountain slopes, usually a few kilometres from the shore, whereas colonies of fish-eating guillemots are situated on rocky cliffs at the coast. The impact of guillemots on the terrestrial ecosystems is therefore much smaller than for little auks because of the rapid washing-out to sea of the guano deposited on the seabird cliffs. These characteristics of seabird nesting sites dramatically limit the range of occurrence of ornithogenic soils, and the accompanying flora and fauna, to locations where talus-breeding species occur. As a result of climate warming favoring the increase of ichthyiofagous cliff-nesting seabirds, we can expect that large areas of ornithogenic tundra around the colonies of plankton-eating seabirds situated far from the sea may disappear, while areas of tundra in the vicinity of cliffs inhabited by fish-eating seabirds, with low total production and supporting few large herbivores, will likely increase, but only imperceptibly. This may lead to habitat fragmentation with negative consequences for populations of tundra-dependent birds and mammals, and the possibility of a substantial decrease in biodiversity of tundra plant and animal communities
  7. Alsos, Inger Greve, et al. “Frequent long-distance plant colonization in the changing Arctic.” Science 316.5831 (2007): 1606-1609.  The ability of species to track their ecological niche after climate change is a major source of uncertainty in predicting their future distribution. By analyzing DNA fingerprinting (amplified fragment-length polymorphism) of nine plant species, we show that long-distance colonization of a remote arctic archipelago, Svalbard, has occurred repeatedly and from several source regions. Propagules are likely carried by wind and drifting sea ice. The genetic effect of restricted colonization was strongly correlated with the temperature requirements of the species, indicating that establishment limits distribution more than dispersal. Thus, it may be appropriate to assume unlimited dispersal when predicting long-term range shifts in the Arctic.
  8. Coulson, Stephen James. “Terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate fauna of the High Arctic archipelago of Svalbard.” Zootaxa 1448.1 (2007): 41-68. An overview of the terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate fauna of the High Arctic archipelago of Svalbard is presented. Sixty seven additional species to the previous checklist are listed and the described terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate fauna of Svalbard now stands at 1,107 species. Species presented are cross referenced to the literature. A brief comparison with the invertebrate fauna of Greenland indicates that Svalbard may be under-represented in Hymenoptera, Hemiptera and Lepidoptera but over-represented in Collembola and Acari. However, since 82% of Svalbard primary source manuscripts originate from three locations along the west coast, there is a resulting likely bias in our knowledge of the invertebrate fauna. The west coast has a mild climate for the northerly latitude due to the influence of the West Spitsbergen Current, a northerly flowing branch of the North Atlantic Drift. The faunistically poorly known east coast is hypothesised to have a different invertebrate fauna due to the predominant winds and currents originating from the north east and hence this coast will have a different history of immigration and colonization from the west coast. The use of checklists is therefore cautioned due to possible sampling bias and omissions created by a concentration of work on popular groups and at a limited number of localities. However, this does not detract from their importance as baseline databases, especially during a period of rapid environmental change.
  9. Weslawski, Jan Marcin, Jozef Wiktor, and Lech Kotwicki. “Increase in biodiversity in the arctic rocky littoral, Sorkappland, Svalbard, after 20 years of climate warming.” Marine Biodiversity 40.2 (2010): 123-130.  Rocky littoral macroorganisms that live between the high and low water marks were sampled in the summers of 1988 and 2007–2008 in Hornsund Fjord and along the adjacent Sorkappland coast (76–77°N). The same sampling stations and methodology were used to collect the samples. Over the last 20 years, the study area has been exposed to well-documented increases in air and sea temperature, increased windiness, and marked decreases in both the duration and extent of sea ice cover. The study revealed a twofold increase in the number of species found intertidally, a threefold increase in the biomass of macrophytes, and an upward shift in algae occurrence on the coast. Subarctic boreal species occupied new areas, while arctic species retreated. There were no species new to the area in 2007–2008, and all newcomers to the intertidal zone were noted in 1988 in the sublittoral zone. The relative stability of intertidal flora and fauna after 20 years is explained by the fact that the warm Atlantic waters (the main warming agent) are distant from the Sorkappland coast. Current observations show a marked change in the coastal belt biocenosis (organism community).
  10. Stien, Audun, et al. “Icing events trigger range displacement in a high‐arctic ungulate.” Ecology 91.3 (2010): 915-920.  Abstract: Despite numerous studies of how climate change may affect life history of mammals, few have documented the direct impact of climate on behavior. The Arctic is currently warming, and rain‐on‐snow and thaw–freeze events leading to ice formation on the ground may increase both in frequency and spatial extent. This is in turn expected to be critical for the winter survival of arctic herbivores. Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus plathyrynchus) have small home ranges and may therefore be vulnerable to local “locked pasture” events (ice layers limit access to plant forage) due to ground‐ice formation. When pastures are “locked,” Svalbard reindeer are faced with the decision of staying and live off a diminishing fat store, or trying to escape beyond the unknown spatial borders of the ice. We demonstrate that Svalbard reindeer do the latter, as icing events cause an immediate increase in range displacement between 5‐day observations. Population‐level responses of previous icing events may therefore not accurately predict future responses if the spatial extent of icing increases. The impact of single events may be more severe if it exceeds the maximum movement distances, so that the spatial displacement strategy reported here no longer buffers climate effects.
  11. Węsławski, Jan Marcin, et al. “Climate change effects on Arctic fjord and coastal macrobenthic diversity—observations and predictions.” Marine Biodiversity 41.1 (2011): 71-85.  The pattern of occurrence and recent changes in the distribution of macrobenthic organisms in fjordic and coastal (nearshore) Arctic waters are reviewed and future changes are hypothesized. The biodiversity patterns observed are demonstrated to be contextual, depending on the specific region of the Arctic or habitat type. Two major areas of biotic advection are indicated (the North Atlantic Current along Scandinavia to Svalbard and the Bering Strait area) where larvae and adult animals are transported from the species-rich sub-Arctic areas to species-poor Arctic areas. In those Arctic areas, increased temperature associated with increased advection in recent decades brings more boreal-subarctic species, increasing the local biodiversity when local cold-water species may be suppressed. Two other large coastal areas are little influenced by advected waters; the Siberian shores and the coasts of the Canadian Archipelago. There, local Arctic fauna are exposed to increasing ocean temperature, decreasing salinity and a reduction in ice cover with unpredictable effect for biodiversity. One the one hand, benthic species in Arctic fjords are exposed to increased siltation (from glacial meltwater) and salinity decreases, which together may lead to habitat homogenization and a subsequent decrease in biodiversity. On the other hand, the innermost basins of Arctic fjords are able to maintain pockets of very cold, dense, saline water and thus may act as refugia for cold-water species.
  12. Derocher, A. E., et al. “Sea ice and polar bear den ecology at Hopen Island, Svalbard.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 441 (2011): 273-279.  The maternity denning of polar bears Ursus maritimus was studied at Hopen Island, Svalbard, Norway, using information collected by direct observation and live-capture of females and cubs during den emergence in spring of 1994 to 2008. The number of maternity dens observed annually varied from 0 to 36. The arrival of sea ice at Hopen Island in autumn shifted from late October to mid-December during the period 1979 to 2010. Fewer maternity dens were found on Hopen Island in years when sea ice arrived later in the autumn. There were no significant differences in body mass or litter size between female polar bears denning on Hopen Island and females caught elsewhere in Svalbard; however, females denning on Hopen Island were significantly younger than females denning elsewhere in Svalbard. Later arrival of sea ice in the autumn at Hopen Island was correlated with lower body mass of adult females and their cubs at emergence. The timing of arrival and departure of sea ice is highly variable but a trend of later arrival in autumn may be affecting the denning ecology of polar bears at the southern extent of their range in Svalbard.
  13. Metcalfe, Daniel B., et al. “Patchy field sampling biases understanding of climate change impacts across the Arctic.” Nature ecology & evolution 2.9 (2018): 1443.  Effective societal responses to rapid climate change in the Arctic rely on an accurate representation of region-specific ecosystem properties and processes. However, this is limited by the scarcity and patchy distribution of field measurements. Here, we use a comprehensive, geo-referenced database of primary field measurements in 1,840 published studies across the Arctic to identify statistically significant spatial biases in field sampling and study citation across this globally important region. We find that 31% of all study citations are derived from sites located within 50 km of just two research sites: Toolik Lake in the USA and Abisko in Sweden. Furthermore, relatively colder, more rapidly warming and sparsely vegetated sites are under-sampled and under-recognized in terms of citations, particularly among microbiology-related studies. The poorly sampled and cited areas, mainly in the Canadian high-Arctic archipelago and the Arctic coastline of Russia, constitute a large fraction of the Arctic ice-free land area. Our results suggest that the current pattern of sampling and citation may bias the scientific consensuses that underpin attempts to accurately predict and effectively mitigate climate change in the region. Further work is required to increase both the quality and quantity of sampling, and incorporate existing literature from poorly cited areas to generate a more representative picture of Arctic climate change and its environmental impacts.
  14. Descamps, Sébastien, et al. “Climate change impacts on wildlife in a High Arctic archipelago–Svalbard, Norway.” Global Change Biology 23.2 (2017): 490-502.  Abstract: The Arctic is warming more rapidly than other region on the planet, and the northern Barents Sea, including the Svalbard Archipelago, is experiencing the fastest temperature increases within the circumpolar Arctic, along with the highest rate of sea ice loss. These physical changes are affecting a broad array of resident Arctic organisms as well as some migrants that occupy the region seasonally. Herein, evidence of climate change impacts on terrestrial and marine wildlife in Svalbard is reviewed, with a focus on bird and mammal species. In the terrestrial ecosystem, increased winter air temperatures and concomitant increases in the frequency of ‘rain‐on‐snow’ events are one of the most important facets of climate change with respect to impacts on flora and fauna. Winter rain creates ice that blocks access to food for herbivores and synchronizes the population dynamics of the herbivore–predator guild. In the marine ecosystem, increases in sea temperature and reductions in sea ice are influencing the entire food web. These changes are affecting the foraging and breeding ecology of most marine birds and mammals and are associated with an increase in abundance of several temperate fish, seabird and marine mammal species. Our review indicates that even though a few species are benefiting from a warming climate, most Arctic endemic species in Svalbard are experiencing negative consequences induced by the warming environment. Our review emphasizes the tight relationships between the marine and terrestrial ecosystems in this High Arctic archipelago. Detecting changes in trophic relationships within and between these ecosystems requires long‐term (multidecadal) demographic, population‐ and ecosystem‐based monitoring, the results of which are necessary to set appropriate conservation priorities in relation to climate warming. Extract: Climate projections of the Svalbard Region indicate a future warming rate up to year 2100 that is three times stronger than that observed during the last 100 years (Førland et al., 2012). Winters are getting warmer (Førland et al., 2012; Hansen et al., 2014; Nordli et al., 2014), which is having significant impacts on the biodiversity, structure and functioning of Arctic terrestrial ecosystems (Ims & Fuglei, 2005; Hansen et al., 2013; Cooper, 2014).The average mid‐winter air temperature in the Longyearbyen area (West Spitsbergen, 78°15′N, 15°30′E) at the end of this century is projected to be around 10°C higher than at present (Førland et al., 2012; Hansen et al., 2014); air temperature data from other weather stations in Svalbard show a similar rate of warming (Fig. 2). Projections for precipitation indicate a continued increase up to the year 2100 (Førland et al., 2012). However, data on precipitation are not very reliable due to the difficulties in measuring solid forms of precipitation (Førland & Hanssen‐Bauer, 2000). In general, there has been a decrease throughout the Arctic in the maximum winter snow water equivalent depth and the snow cover duration (Liston & Hiemstra, 2011). Data on snowfall in Svalbard are relatively sparse, but the longest time series available suggests that snow cover duration and spring snow depth have significantly decreased in recent decades (Fig. 3). Snow measurements are influenced by many factors (Cooper, 2014) that vary across spatial scales, and the decrease in the seasonal duration of snow cover and snow depth observed in the Longyearbyen area (Fig. 3) may not necessarily represent other areas in Svalbard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

labor

labor

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH FINDING THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS CAUSED A DECLINE IN LABOR PRODUCTIVITY PARTICULARLY SO IN THE AREAS MARKED BY CIRCLES IN THE MAP ABOVE

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

  1. On 9/23/2019, an open access research paper appeared on Nature on the impact of climate change on labor productivity. CITATION: Exposure to excessive heat and impacts on labour productivity linked to cumulative CO2 emissions, Yann Chavaillaz, Philippe Roy, Antti-Ilari Partanen, Laurent Da Silva, Émilie Bresson, Nadine Mengis, Diane Chaumont & H. Damon Matthews, Scientific Reports Volume 9, Article number: 13711 (2019)[LINK TO FULL TEXT] .
  2. It finds that: ABSTRACT: Cumulative CO2 emissions are a robust predictor of mean temperature increase. However, many societal impacts are driven by exposure to extreme weather conditions. Here, we show that cumulative emissions can be robustly linked to regional changes of a heat exposure indicator, as well as the resulting socioeconomic impacts associated with labour productivity loss in vulnerable economic sectors. We estimate historical and future increases in heat exposure using simulations from eight Earth System Models. Both the global intensity and spatial pattern of heat exposure evolve linearly with cumulative emissions across scenarios (1% CO2, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The pattern of heat exposure at a given level of global temperature increase is strongly affected by non-CO2 forcing. Global non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions amplify heat exposure, while high local emissions of aerosols could moderate exposure. Considering CO2 forcing only, we commit ourselves to an additional annual loss of labour productivity of about 2% of total GDP per unit of trillion tonne of carbon emitted. This loss doubles when adding non-CO2 forcing of the RCP8.5 scenario. This represents an additional economic loss of about 4,400 G$ every year (i.e. 0.59 $/tCO2), varying across countries with generally higher impact in lower-income countries.
  3. The finding is  based on the observed correlation of heat exposure with cumulative emissions as described in this part of the paper where CCE = cumulative emissions. “At a global scale, the annual total heat exposure over land areas increases linearly as a function of CCE for the four lowest WBGT thresholds selected. In the 1% CO2 (CO2-only) scenario, heat exposure above the light threshold increases by 213.1±105.1K-days per trillion tonne of carbon (TtC) (see Fig. 1a–d and Supplementary Table S3). As current CCE are estimated at 555 PgC27, this represents an estimated increase in heat exposure of about 118.3±58.3K-days relative to the beginning of the pre-industrial period. Heat exposure above the extreme and deadly thresholds also increases with cumulative emissions, by 55.30±53.31 and 18.44±28.37K-days per TtC, respectively (see Fig. 1e,f); however, given the small signals and high inter-model spread, we were not able to demonstrate a statistically robust linear relationship with CCE. Across all WBGT thresholds, the RCP scenarios show a more rapid and more robust increase in heat exposure compared to the 1% CO2 scenario as a result of additional positive non-CO2 forcing.
  4. The methodology is described by these charts that show the relationship between cumulative degree-days (measured in degrees Kelvin) and cumulative emissions. The high correlation between these two time series supports the statistical significance of the regression coefficient that describes the the effect of emissions on degree days of heat exposure as an increase of 118 degK-days relative to pre-industrial. The impact of AGW on labor productivity is thus established.

cumulative-degree-days

 

THE SPURIOUSNESS OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CUMULATIVE VALUES

  1. It is noted here that emissions are always positive and the way degree days are defined in terms of degrees Kelvin, that series also consists of positive numbers. It is shown in related posts that a time series of the cumulative values of another time series has neither time scale nor degrees of freedom and that therefore their correlation has no interpretation; and that experiments with random numbers show that as long as the two time series being compared have a similar sign bias, i.e., mostly positive or mostly negative, their cumulative values will show a correlation by virtue only of the sign convention. Therefore such correlation cannot be interpreted in terms of the responsiveness of the object time series to changes in the explanatory time series. The statistical details of this argument may be found in these posts on this site: [LINK] [LINK] .
  2. We conclude from these considerations that the use of the cumulative values of  time series data in a statistical test for the impact of emissions on labor productivity does not and cannot lead to a the conclusion that emissions since pre-industrial have caused a loss in labor productivity. The findings of the reference paper that loss in labor productivity can be attributed to AGW is thus found to be a spurious and a figment of the loss in degrees of freedom when cumulative values of time series are computed.
  3. Below are four charts that demonstrate the spuriousness of correlations between cumulative values. The top two charts show that the cumulative values shown in the lower chart, of random numbers  shown in the upper chart, do not always contain a strong positive correlation but that their relationship is random. In the bottom two charts, a small bias is introduced in the first chart for the random number generator to generate mostly positive values; and here we see that this sign convention bias in and of itself can create a spurious correlation between the cumulative values. Such correlation does not serve as evidence that the object time series is responsive to the explanatory time series. The time series of the cumulative values of another time series contains neither time scale nor degrees of freedom and therefore no conclusions may be drawn from their apparent correlation that can only be taken to be illusory.
  4. A more complete analysis of this result is provided in a related post [LINK]  where it is argued that: “The near perfect proportionality between cumulative warming and cumulative emissions described by Matthews and others in 2009 [LINK] is a creation of the transformation to cumulative values. That proportionality is also found in the cumulative values of random numbers. This correlation derives from a sign pattern wherein emissions are always positive, and in a time of global warming, changes in temperature have a positive bias. It is shown here that under the same conditions the same correlation is found in random numbers. Therefore although strong correlation and regression coefficients can be computed from the time series of cumulative values, these statistics have no interpretation because they are illusory. The presentation of climate action mathematics by climate science in the form of carbon budgets derived from the TCRE has no interpretation in the real world because the TCRE is a creation of a spurious correlation. The instability and unreliability of the TCRE demonstrated in this work, has been noted in climate science research [LINK], [LINK], and in other posts on this site [LINK] . This work provides further evidence of instability along with a statistical basis for instability in the TCRE.”
  5. We conclude therefore that the correlation and regression analysis of cumulative degree days against cumulative emissions do not establish a causal relationship between them because of the spuriousness of correlations between cumulative values.

 

UNCON-SOURCE-GIF

UNCON-CUM-GIF

CON-SOURCE-GIF

CON-CUM-GIF

 

ocean-attacked-by-co2

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

An article in Nature published in September 2019 [LINK] summarizes and explains a new United Nations IPCC Special Report on the impact of climate change on the world’s oceans [LINK] . The Nature summary says that “World’s oceans are losing power to stall climate change. United Nations report predicts more powerful storms, increased risk of flooding and dwindling fisheries if greenhouse-gas output doesn’t fall”. The full text of the Nature article is included below. This post is a critical commentary on some aspects of the claims made in these documents. 

 

  1. OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: With respect to ocean acidification, it is claimed that CO2 in fossil fuel emissions is absorbed by the oceans thus “becoming more acidic, which threatens the survival of coral reefs and fisheries”. In a related post [LINK]  it is shown that in the 60-year period 1955-2015, inorganic CO2 concentration in the ocean has gone up at an average rate of 0.002 MM/L (millimoles per liter) per year but that correlation analysis fails to show that these changes can be related to fossil fuel emissions. In this study, in terms of ppm by weight, the CO2 concentration of the ocean had increased from 88ppm to 110ppm for a gain of 22ppm at a rate of 0.367ppm per year. During this period fossil fuel emissions increased from 7.5 gigatons/year of CO2 (GTY) to 36.1GTY with cumulative emissions since 1851 rising from 258 GT to 1,505 GT with a total amount contributed in this period of 1,247 GT equivalent to an increase of 0.91 ppm of CO2 in the ocean if all of the emissions dissolve into the ocean. Therefore, the observed rise of 22pm cannot be explained in terms of fossil fuel emissions. Natural emissions of CO2 from from geological sources in the ocean itself such as plate tectonics, submarine volcanism, hydrothermal vents, methane hydrates, and hydrocarbon seepage must be considered in the study of changes in oceanic inorganic CO2 concentration.
  2. OCEAN HEAT CONTENT: Measurement data show a rising trend in ocean heat content since the 1950s and AGW theory describes this change as human caused attributable to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) by way of fossil fuel emissions of the industrial economy. However, in a related post [LINK] it is shown that the warming of the ocean is not uniform, as one would expect if the source of the extra heat is the CO2 forcing of the atmosphere, but contains large regional differences and also a vertical difference that implies greater heating in the deeper ocean. Climate science explains this anomalous situation in terms of ocean currents as in this statement from the NOAA “Exceptions include the central South Pacific and the western tropical Indian Ocean, a feature that the State of the Climate authors attributed to an unusual eastward flow of warm surface water back toward the other side of the basin. Because of the Earth’s rotation, prevailing surface winds and currents near the equator are generally westward” [LINK] . However, there is an extreme atmosphere bias in this assessment because it does not take into account known large geothermal heat sources of the ocean that provide a more rational explanation for the non-uniform heat distribution. These sources are described in related posts [LINK] and their importance in terms of climate can be seen in their extreme effects in paleo climatology described in related posts [LINK] [LINK] . That submarine volcanism and the Pacific Ring of Fire are irrelevant in understanding changes in ocean heat content is not a credible position in the context of the enormous geological footprint of these features of the ocean [LINK] .

 

 

THE SOURCE DOCUMENT 

Nature article about the impact of AGW on the oceans. September 2019 [LINK]

The world’s oceans have long helped to stave off climate change by absorbing heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But that is changing, with devastating consequences for humanity in the coming decades, leading researchers warn in a high-level report commissioned by the United NationsThe rate at which oceans are warming has doubled since the early 1990s, and marine heat waves are becoming more frequent and intense ― trends that are reshaping ocean ecosystems and fueling more powerful storms. And as the oceans absorb CO2, they are becoming more acidic, which threatens the survival of coral reefs and fisheries. The special report on oceans and ice by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that without steep cuts to greenhouse-gas emissions, fisheries will falter, the average strength of hurricanes will increase and rising seas will increase the risk of flooding in low-lying areas around the globe.
The hard truths of climate change — by the numbers
The oceans “can’t keep up” with humanity’s greenhouse-gas output, says Ko Barrett, vice-chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington DC. “The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe.”

More than 100 scientists from 30 countries contributed to the report. The IPCC released a 42-page summary of the analysis on 25 September at a meeting in Monaco.

High-water mark
The report projects that sea levels could rise by up to 1.1 metres by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. That is about 10 centimetres more than the IPCC estimated in its last comprehensive report on the global climate, which it released in 2013.

Richard Alley, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, says that the latest report’s sea-level rise projections are conservative. That’s because scientists still aren’t certain about when rising temperatures might trigger a rapid collapse of ice sheets, particularly in western Antarctica. If that happens, ocean levels will rise much faster than the IPCC’s latest estimate.
Attack of the extreme floods
“Sea-level rise could be a little less, a little more, or a lot more” than the latest report predicts, Alley says. “But it’s not going to be a lot less.”

Those rising seas will increase the risk of flooding during storms, the report says, and high tides will become more frequent and severe. By 2050, flooding events that now occur once per century are likely to occur annually in many coastal cities and islands ― even with sharp emissions cuts.

But the report does make it clear that humanity can blunt the worst effects of climate change over the very long term. It projects that the sea level could be from 0.6 metres to 5.4 metres higher in 2300, depending in large part on whether and how quickly countries move to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

“We’re going to get sea-level rise for centuries,” says Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University in New Jersey and coordinating lead author on the report’s chapter on sea-level rise. “The question is whether it’s going to be manageable or not.”
‘Ecological grief’ grips scientists witnessing Great Barrier Reef’s decline
A draft version of the special report estimated that rising seas could displace 280 million people worldwide by 2100. The IPCC removed that figure from the final analysis, after scientists decided that they had misinterpreted the findings of an earlier study, Oppenheimer says.

Changing patterns
The IPCC report also examines the fate of the planet’s ice ― which it says will continue to shrink in the coming decades.

In the Arctic, where sea ice melts every summer and freezes every winter, the annual summer minimum extent has decreased by nearly 13% per decade since 1979. That rate of change is probably unprecedented in at least 1,000 years, the IPCC says. About 20% of the Arctic’s permafrost is vulnerable to abrupt thaw, followed by sinking of the soil left behind. By the end of the century, that could increase by half the area of the Arctic that is covered by small lakes.

And mountainous regions with small glaciers ― from the Andes to Indonesia ― could lose 80% of their ice by 2100.

The report’s overarching message, Barrett says, is that climate change is affecting water from the tops of Earth’s highest peaks to the depths of its oceans, and ecosystems are responding. Without steep emissions cuts, the total biomass of marine animals could shrink by 15% by 2100, and commercial fisheries could see their maximum catch decrease by up to 24%.
Trapped: why 300 scientists are locking themselves in Arctic ice
Such changes are already playing out in many locations, says Kathy Mills, a fisheries ecologist with the Gulf of Maine Research Institute in Portland. In the North Atlantic Ocean, for example, rising temperatures have sent right whales north in search of cooler waters. And that increases the animals’ chances of getting caught in lobster-trap lines.

“These ocean changes mean big problems for the future of people,” says Jane Lubchenco, a marine ecologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis and former head of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Lubchenco is an adviser to the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, which released its own report on climate change and the world’s oceans on 23 September. The analysis identifies a range of actions — including promoting renewable energy and sustainable fisheries, curbing marine shipping emissions and protecting coastal ecosystems — that could reduce global carbon emissions and limit the effects of climate change.

Lubchenco says those actions would also bolster coastal economies and help lift people out of poverty. “The reality is that the ocean is central to solving many problems,” she says. “The situation is quite dire and quite gloomy, but it is not hopeless.”

 



  • Ruben Leon: When your mind is made up you ignore the data and try to justify the bias you acquired as a juvenile and never questioned. The fact that the Antar
  • chaamjamal: Thank you for raising these interesting points. We live in strange times. Some day we may figure this out.
  • gregole: Funny after all that doom and gloom from Al Gore some years back I haven't seen much of him lately. Guess he made all the money he needed and is chil