Thongchai Thailand

Archive for January 2020

 

 

DIFFERENT WAYS TO TELL TIME

  1. THE FALANG WAY: About 600 years ago, in Europe, falangs invented the clock to tell time precisely. The clock divided the diurnal cycle into 24 intervals called “hours” and each hour into 60 intervals called minutes. Leaving out the second for this analysis, the diurnal time cycle was thus divided into 1440 intervals each of them long enough to breathe about 20 times. However, in normal day to day conversational use time can be expressed in conversation in terms of half hour intervals or 48 time events per day described as “O’Clock“. Thus an appointment for breakfast could be set for “8 O’Clock” or “8:30 O’Clock” or for late risers may be “10 O’Clock”. So to this day this is how falangs tell time and how they communicate time and how they make appointments for work and recreation.
  2. THE THAI WAY: A more human and non-machine-like approach to time of day is taken in Thailand. The day is divided into seven intervals of time that are different from each other in terms of how we humans experience them. Each interval is called a “wela” meaning time of day. The 7 welas, from morning to night,  are as follows:
  3. Wela#1: Chhao-Chhao = “early in the morning”. In terms of falang o’clock terminology this may fall somewhere in the interval between daybreak (6am) and 8am or 8:30am or so before the heat of the day begins to set in. Depending of the season and the latitude, 9am may also work.
  4. Wela#2: Sai-Sai= “late in the morning”. This is the part of the morning where the sun is climbing up the sky and it is getting warm. It is time to get out the umbrella or at least that little pocket towel to wipe the sweat off your brow. Though warm enough to sweat, it is still a comfortable time of day good for visiting neighbors or doing some gardening. In terms of falang o’clock terminology this may fall somewhere in the interval between 9 or 9:30 am to around 10:30 or perhaps 11am depending on time of year. It is a feeling thing and not a machine thing. But certainly it is before noon. That is a hard falang-like specification because noon is a very important time of day in Thailand.
  5. Wela#3: Tiang = “Noon”. Tiang is when the sun is at the azimuth and in terms of falang o’clock time it may fall somewhere between 11:30am and  12:30pm or so. 1pm could also work. Once again it is a feeling thing and not a machine thing. Tiang is a wonderful time of day in Thailand because it is our big meal of the day called “AHAN TIANG” (lunch), the meal of the time of day when the sun divides the daylight hours into their two halves. Restaurants are packed during this time. Book ahead.
  6. Wela#4: Bye-Bye: Or maybe pronounced more like Baii Baii. It is the afternoon. Nice sweet lazy time of day when you could take a nap or make love or read a book or as in my case, crack open a cold Chang and write a new blog post. A sweet and relaxing time of day when you could fall asleep at your desk at work and the boss would just let you because it’s baii baii. If you have an irrigation pump that pumps water from the irrigation canal to your rice field, this is a good time to run it. Or you could just sit around with friends and drink beer. In terms of falang o’clock terminology the Baii Baii Wela may fall sometime between 2pm and 4pm or maybe 1:30pm and 4:30 pm. It’s hard to tell because it is a feeling thing. It is Baii Baii as long as it feels like Baii Baii. Hope that makes sense because that is the best I can do. 
  7. Wela#5: Yen-Yen: The word yen means cool. This is the time of day when the midday heat is abating and a cool breeze is moving into  your rice field and garden and beautiful white egrets are prancing around looking for God knows what. In terms of falang o’clock time this may fall sometime between 4pm or 4:30pm to dusk that may arrive at 6pm or so. This is the time for sports. The golf driving ranges are packed. Young and old alike are jogging along the road oblivious to speeding cars that are grazing them at 100km/hr. The badminton and tennis courts are all taken. The public swimming pools are packed. Some will mow the lawn or just do some gardening. Yen-Yen is when the tropics comes to life. 
  8. Wela#6: Myuth Myuth: Night time. Darkness has fallen upon the earth. The fancy girlie bars are open for business. Fancy restaurants and bars of all colors are serving food and entertaining their customers with loud music. There are bright lights of all colors. It is nice and cool. Everyone is happy. Or as they say in Thailand “happy happy”. In terms of falang time it may fall anytime between 8pm and 11pm or so give or take.
  9. Wela#7: Tiyang Khyun: Midnight or more correctly, the dead of night. May fall sometime between 11pm and 2am or so or maybe 3am. Who knows. I am never up at that time of day so not sure what goes on except that much of the bar girl business is done during these hours. From there we go right back to chao-chao.
  10. The reason it is important for falangs to know the Thai time of day markers is that it improves communication that involves time as for example an appointment or a work schedule. For example, if a falang tells a Thai worker to come to work at 10am O’Clock the worker will internalize that information as “sai sai” and that could mean that even 11am will work. Conversely, if a Thai person makes an appointment with a falang for chao-chao, the falang could take that to mean first thing in the morning and not fully understand the large uncertainty band in the chao-chao time interval. Thus for better time communication between Thais and falangs for work or for leisure appointments such as golf tee times, it is important to understand how each will internalize the time specification for their shared experience. It still won’t work but at least you will know why it didn’t work. The issue here is that falangs find it difficult to comprehend time uncertainty the way the Thai people do. What we have here is failure to communicate. 

failure

 

Myuth Myuth

 

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE CLAIM THAT AGW CLIMATE CHANGE IS DISSOLVING THE SEA FLOOR. IT IS PRESENTED BELOW IN TWO PARTS. THE CLAIMS MADE BY CLIMATE SCIENCE ARE PRESENTED IN PART-1. THEIR CRITICAL EVALUATION FOLLOWS IN PART-2  

 

PART-1: REPORTS THAT OCEAN ACIDIFICATION BY AGW CLIMATE CHANGE IS DISSOLVING THE SEA FLOOR. 

  1. SOURCE: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY. DATE: NOVEMBER 2018 [LINK] : With increasing carbon dioxide from human activities, more acidic water is reaching the deep sea and dissolving some calcite-based sediments. The seafloor has always played a crucial role in controlling the degree of ocean acidification. When a burst of acidic water from a natural source such as a volcanic eruption reaches the ocean floor, it dissolves some of the strongly alkaline calcite like pouring cola over an antacid tablet. This neutralizes the acidity of the incoming waters and in the process, prevents seawater from from becoming too acidic. It can also help regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over centuries to millennia. As a result of human activities, the level of carbon dioxide in the water is high enough that the rate of calcite (CaCO3) dissolution is climbing. These findings appear this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Calcite-based sediments are typically chalky white and largely composed of plankton and other sea creatures. But as the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants has climbed over recent decades, more and more acidic water is reaching the seafloor, at least in certain hotspots such as the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean, where the chalky seafloor is already becoming more of a murky brown. For decades we have been monitoring the increasing levels of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as it moves from the atmosphere into the abyssal ocean. While expected, it is none the less remarkable that we can now document a direct influence of that process on carbonate sediments. Because carbon dioxide takes decades or centuries to travel from the ocean surface to the seafloor, the vast majority of the greenhouse gas created through human activity is still near to surface. The rate at which CO2 is currently being emitted into the atmosphere is exceptionally high in Earth’s history, faster than at any period since at least the extinction of the dinosaurs, and at a much faster rate than the natural mechanisms in the ocean can deal with, so it raises worries about the levels of ocean acidification in future. It is critical for scientists to develop accurate estimates of how marine ecosystems will be affected, over the long term by the human caused acidification. Researchers created a set of seafloor-like microenvironments in the laboratory, reproducing abyssal bottom currents, temperatures, chemistry and sediment compositions. These experiments helped them to understand what controls the dissolution of calcite in marine sediments and allowed them to quantify its dissolution rate as a function of various environmental variables. By comparing pre-industrial and modern seafloor dissolution rates in this laboratory model of the sea floor, they were able to extract the human-caused fraction of the total dissolution rates. The speed estimates for ocean-bottom currents came from a high-resolution ocean model. Just as climate change isn’t just about polar bears, ocean acidification isn’t just about coral reefs. Our study shows that the effects of human activities have become evident all the way down to the seafloor in many regions, and the resulting increased acidification in these regions may impact our ability to understand Earth’s climate history.”“This study shows that human activities are dissolving the geological record at the bottom of the ocean.
  2. SOURCE: SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE. DATE: NOVEMBER 2018[LINK] Parts of the Ocean Floor Are Disintegrating and It’s Our Fault. Calcium Carbonate on the sea floor is dissolving due to the excess carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions. Ocean acidification is a worrying by-product of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is “climate change’s equally evil twin“. Drops in ocean pH are believed to be having a devastating effect on marine life, eroding corals, making it difficult for certain critters to build their shells and threatening the survival of zooplankton. The effect of acidification extends all the way to the bottom of the ocean, where parts of the sea floor may be dissolving. For millennia, the ocean has had a nifty way of both absorbing excess carbon in the atmosphere and regulating its pH. The bottom of the sea is lined with calcium carbonate, which comes from the shells of zooplankton that have died and sunk to the ocean floor. When carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is absorbed into the ocean, it makes the water more acidic, but a reaction with calcium carbonate neutralizes the carbon and produces bicarbonate. The ocean, in other words, can absorb carbon without “throwing [its] chemistry wildly out of whack. In recent decades, however, the large amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere has upset the balance of this finely-tuned system. Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed some 525 billion tons of carbon dioxide and calcium carbonate on the seafloor is dissolving too quickly in an effort to keep up. As a result, parts of the seafloor are disintegrating. When it comes to most parts of the ocean floor, the pre- and post-Industrial dissolution rates are actually not dramatically different. But there are several “hotspots” where the ocean floor is dissolving at an alarming rate. Chief among such “hotspots” is the Northwest Atlantic, where between 40 and 100 percent of the seafloor has been dissolved “at its most intense locations. In these areas, the calcite compensation depth,” or the layer of the ocean that does not have any calcium carbonate, has risen more than 980 feet. The northwest Atlantic is particularly affected because ocean currents usher large amounts of carbon dioxide there. But smaller hotspots were also found in the Indian Ocean and the Southern Atlantic. The ocean is doing its job just trying to clean up the mess, but it’s doing it very slowly and we are emitting CO2 very fast, way faster than anything we’ve seen since at least the end of the dinosaurs. Ocean acidification is threatening corals and hard-shelled marine creatures, like mussels and oysters, but scientists still don’t know how it will affect the many other species that make their home at the bottom of the sea. If past acidification events are any indication, the outlook is not very good. Some 252 million years ago, huge volcanic eruptions shot massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, causing the rapid acidification of the world’s oceans. More than 90 percent of marine life went extinct during that time. Some scientists refer to the current geologic period as the “Anthropocene,” a term that refers to the overwhelming impact modern-day humans are having on the environment. The burn-down of seafloor sediments once rich in carbonate will forever change the geologic record. The deep sea environment has entered the Anthropocene.
  3. SOURCE: LIVE SCIENCE. DATE: NOVEMBER 2018 [LINK] :  Our carbon emissions are dissolving the seafloor, especially in the Northern Atlantic Ocean. Climate change reaches all the way to the bottom of the sea. The same greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the planet’s climate to change are also causing the seafloor to dissolve. And new research has found the ocean bottom is melting away faster in some places than others. The ocean is what’s known as a carbon sink: It absorbs carbon from the atmosphere. And that carbon acidifies the water. In the deep ocean, where the pressure is high, this acidified seawater reacts with calcium carbonate that comes from dead shelled creatures. The reaction neutralizes the carbon, creating bicarbonate. Over the millennia, this reaction has been a handy way to store carbon without throwing the ocean’s chemistry wildly out of whack. But as humans have burned fossil fuels, more and more carbon has ended up in the ocean. In fact, according to NASA, about 48 percent of the excess carbon humans have pumped into the atmosphere has been locked away in the oceans.
    All that carbon means more acidic oceans, which means faster dissolution of calcium carbonate on the seafloor. To find out how quickly humanity is burning through the ocean floor’s calcium carbonate supply, researchers led by Princeton University atmospheric and ocean scientist Robert Key estimated the likely dissolution rate around the world, using water current data, measurements of calcium carbonate in seafloor sediments and other key metrics like ocean salinity and temperature. They compared the rate with that before the industrial revolution. The good news is that most areas of the oceans didn’t yet show a dramatic difference in the rate of calcium carbonate dissolution prior to and after the industrial revolution. However, there are multiple hotspots where human-made carbon emissions are making a big difference and those regions may be the canaries in the coal mine. The biggest hotspot was the western North Atlantic, where anthropogenic carbon is responsible for between 40 and 100 percent of dissolving calcium carbonate. There were other small hotspots, in the Indian Ocean and in the Southern Atlantic, where generous carbon deposits and fast bottom currents speed the rate of dissolution. The western North Atlantic is where the ocean layer without calcium carbonate has risen 980 feet (300 meters). This depth, called the calcite compensation depth, occurs where the rain of calcium carbonate from dead animals is essentially canceled out by ocean acidity. Below this line, there is no accumulation of calcium carbonate. The rise in depth indicates that now that there is more carbon in the ocean, dissolution reactions are happening more rapidly and at shallower depths. This line has moved up and down throughout millennia with natural variations in the Earth’s atmospheric makeup. Scientists don’t yet know what this alteration in the deep sea will mean for the creatures that live there but future geologists will be able to see man-made climate change in the rocks eventually formed by today’s seafloor. Some current researchers have already dubbed this era the Anthropocene, defining it as the point at which human activities began to dominate the environment. Chemical burn-down of previously deposited carbonate-rich sediments has already begun and will intensify and spread over vast areas of the seafloor during the next decades and centuries, thus altering the geological record of the deep sea. The deep-sea benthic environment, which covers ~60 percent of our planet, has indeed entered the Anthropocene.\

 

 

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON THESE CLAIMS

  1. Since 1751, the Industrial Economy of humans has emitted 1,570 Gigatonnes of CO2. This number can be expressed as 1.57E12 tonnes. We have 1.29E18 tonnes of water in our oceans. In the unlikely and impossible event that all of these CO2 emissions of the Industrial Economy ended up in the ocean, the CO2 concentration of the ocean would rise by the insignificant amount of 1.21 ppm. However, according to the IPCC, most of the CO2 emissions of the Industrial Economy go to the atmosphere and to photosynthesis with approximately net 20% of the emissions going into the ocean. In that case, the increase in oceanic CO2 concentration since 1751 is about 0.242 ppm.
  2. The pH of sea water lies somewhere in the alkaline range of 7.5 to 8.5 with measurement errors of +/- 0.14. Within this uncertainty rate, a measurable perturbation of oceanic pH with fossil fuel emissions is not possible given the relatively insignificant amount of CO2 involved. It is therefore necessary to consider other sources of ocean acidification, as for example in the geology of the sea floor where most of the planet’s geological activity takes place.
  3. An example of ocean acidification in the paleo record is seen in the PETM event that occurred about 50 million years ago [LINK] when intense geological activity of the sea floor caused a massive oxidation event in the ocean that at once consumed all the ocean’s oxygen and increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by 70% from 250ppm to 430ppm within an uncertainty margin of +/- 100 ppm. It was not a case where the atmosphere drives changes in the ocean due to the greenhouse effect of CO2 but a case where the ocean drives changes in the atmosphere due to geological forces and geological carbon in the ocean floor.
  4. Incidentally, the PETM caused a significant mass extinction event in the ocean where many species went extinct but also where many new species were created. One of the new species created by this mass extinction event was the modern land-based mammal from which we are derived. The climate change driven ecological view that humans must manage nature such that mass extinctions must not be allowed to happen is inconsistent with the role of mass extinctions and their species explosions in nature’s evolutionary dynamics.
  5. Farther back in time, about 200 million years ago, the paleo data show a horrific geological sea floor cataclysm and ocean acidification that caused one of the largest mass extinction events in the paleo record [LINK] . Dr Willis Hames, Professor of Geosciences, Auburn University writes about this event as follows “A singular event in Earth’s history occurred roughly 200 million years ago, as rifting of the largest and most recent supercontinent was joined by basaltic volcanism that formed the most extensive large igneous province (LIP) known. A profound and widespread mass extinction of terrestrial and marine genera occurred at about the same time, suggesting a causal link between the biological transitions of the Triassic-Jurassic boundary and massive volcanism. A series of stratigraphic, geochronologic, petrologic, tectonic, and geophysical studies have led to the identification of the dispersed remnants of this Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP) on the rifted margins of four continents. Current discoveries are generally interpreted to indicate that CAMP magmatism occurred in a relative and absolute interval of geologic time that was brief, and point to mechanisms of origin and global environmental effects. Because many of these discoveries have occurred within the past several years, in this monograph we summarize new observations and provide an up-to-date review of the province. {Hames, Willis, et al. “The Central Atlantic magmatic province: Insights from fragments of Pangea.” Washington DC American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series 136, 2003}.
  6. Here, as in the PETM, and quite unlike the AGW climate change model of ocean acidification, the source of the carbon is the sea floor itself or perhaps even underneath the sea floor in the mantle. Such geological horrors of the planet should serve as a gentle reminder that we are carbon lifeforms that evolved in a carbon planet and that our minute and insignificant ability to put carbon in the atmosphere cannot be assumed to be the driving force that determines the acidity or the fate of the sea floor
  7. An additional consideration is that the dissolving of the sea floor by fossil fuel emissions is described as localized such that they are found only in certain peculiar areas that are described as “hotspots“. Such localization of the effect does not suggest a uniform global cause in the form of atmospheric CO2. Rather it points to the sea floor hotspot locations themselves as the cause in the form of geological carbon hotspots.
  8. Yet another issue is that most of the sea floor consists of large igneous provinces as described by Professor Willis Hames. These ocean floors consist of rocks that are mostly basalt. Basalt is a high pH basic substance and its prevalence on the sea floor ensures that whatever insignificant amount of carbon based acid that humans can produce will be readily neutralized by the basalt on the sea floor. 
  9. It appears that humans have grossly over-estimated their role at the planetary level such that it is popularly assumed that the fate of the planet will be determined by humans. Consider in this respect that the crust of the earth consisting of land and ocean on which we live and from which we draw our planetary relevance is 0.3% of the planet and most of that is ocean limiting the direct experience of us land creatures to less than 0.1% of the planet. Most of the rest of the planet is at and below the sea floor. It is neither necessary nor possible for us to be the managers of the planet such that we must or that we can fine tune the pH of the deep ocean and the sea floor. 

 

 

 

THIS POST IS A PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE POLITICS EMAILS RECEIVED FROM THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS IN JANUARY 2020

 

PART-1: CONTENT OF THE UCS STATEMENT

  1. When the going gets tough, we get voting. Union of Concerned Scientists ucsusa.org: Dear UCS supporter, It may be a new year, but we’re still up against some of the most pressing issues of our time — global warming, nuclear weapons, and the relentless assault on science, truth, and facts.
  2. But 2020 is a major election year, and that’s where every single person can make a difference. Each and every one of us must use our democratic power to elect candidates who value science-based solutions. This is a critical year, which means we can’t take anything for granted. The closer we get to the election, the louder our call must be to restore science to its rightful place in our democracy.
  3. We know that you’re paying attention to this election. You want to elect candidates who will stop sidelining science and look out for people’s health and safety. But what about the people around you? Research shows they are more likely to get invested in this election—and to vote—if a friend like you invites them to get started. We have the perfect way to encourage your social circle to get involved—if you haven’t already, sign up to host a debate watch party today and we’ll send you a party pack with everything you need to get started. Stand up for Science. READ: Nine Trendy Words for the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Science.  JOIN: Our Unhealthy Democracy: Where Voting Rights Meets Environmental Justice Webinar. SHARE: Profiles in Cowardice: EPA’s Abysmal Failure to Protect Children’s Health.
  4. Ask a Scientist: Why is it so important for people to vote? And, if voting is so important, why don’t more Americans exercise that right? The more people who have a say in collective decision making through voting, the lower the probability that any one individual or group of individuals will be able to use the levers of government to exploit others.
  5. Voting, like all activities, is costly in the sense that it takes resources—time, attention, and organization, for example—so people with more time, education, and organization are more likely to vote. Besides that, anything that makes it more difficult to vote is going to exacerbate inequalities in voting. We are seeing a massive, systematic effort to suppress voter turnout in 2020, and while there likely will be a record turnout this year, in a competitive election it does not take a lot of voter suppression to alter the outcome.
  6. Meet Our 2019 Science Defenders. Amidst all the attacks on science in 2019 there was an impressive slate of people who bravely continued fighting to make things right. Our 2019 Science Defenders include youth activists righting a wrong in their country, PR professionals working with scientists to protect their neighbors from the deadliest impacts of climate change, and researchers dedicating time to share their work directly with the community. They have all refused to be silent and are standing up for science and we hope that their courage inspires you.
  7. On our blog: EPA Science Advisors Tear Into Agency’s “Transparency” Proposal: In the media: The Young Turks – The Conversation: Trump’s Nuclear Weapons Policy: On our podcast: Rush Hour In Orbit: The Science and Politics of Keeping Satellites Safe: On social media: NOAA finds that 2019 is the fifth consecutive year in which 10 or more billion-dollar weather and climate disaster events have impacted the United States.
  8. DEFEND SCIENCE:  Donate! Your commitment to UCS ensures that scientific facts inform decisions that affect our environment, our health, and our security. Donate Today! Science for a healthy planet and safer world.
  9. As a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the Union of Concerned Scientists does not support any candidate for office. All gifts are tax deductible. You can be confident your donations to UCS are spent wisely.

 

 

TRANSLATION

IF WE HAD A SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT TO MAKE, WE WOULD HAVE SIMPLY PRESENTED THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND THE APPROPRIATE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. BUT SINCE WE DON’T HAVE A SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT TO MAKE, WE JUST USED THE WORD SCIENCE AS MANY TIMES AS WE COULD {AS IN “SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENTIFIC  SCIENTIFIC SCIENTIFIC SCIENTIFIC SCIENTIST SCIENTIST SCIENTIST SCIENTIST SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE}. IMPRESSED? GREAT! AND NOW THIS: SO YOU DON’T FORGET SEND IN YOUR DONATION BEFORE MIDNIGHT TONIGHT. THANK YOU.

BTW, WE ARE A NON-PROFIT SO WE CAN’T REALLY BE DOING POLITICAL ACTIVISM FOR OR AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE. UNLESS IT’S AGAINST TRUMP OF COURSE

 

RELATED POST ON ACTIVISM IN SCIENCE:  [LINK]

 

 

bandicam 2020-01-18 19-45-01-496

[LINK TO YOUTUBE VIDEO]

 

THIS POST IS IN TWO PARTS. PART-1 IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE LECTURE. PART 2 IS A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE LECTURE ABOUT ANTHROPOGENIC OCEAN ACIDIFICATION. 

 

 

PART-1: TRANSCRIPT OF THE LECTURE 

  1. It’s an emotive title isn’t it? Ocean Acidification. Makes me think I can’t go swimming in the sea without my face melting off. But is it an example of gross exaggeration to play up to the mainstream media or is it a precise description of what’s actually occurring? To be honest, I didn’t have the answer to that. So I thought I better go and find out.
  2. Quite recently my dad bought a Soda Stream which he is very pleased with and which is certainly helping him to reduce unnecessary water and plastic waste; but it occurred to me that there is another way you can use it. So I bought my own and here it is.
  3. Now, this thing is a kind of pressurized carbon dioxide. In fact, the CO2 they use in these things is primarily a by-product of other industrial processes. That’s not to say that those processes should not be moving to a carbon free energy source – of course they should. But at least in the meantime, they’ve got some sort of carbon capture process which is by no means the solution but it’s better than nothing. Oh yeah, the irony of Pepsi, the world’s second favorite sugary water producer having just bought Soda Stream wasn’t lost on me either.
  4. Anyway, these things (soda-stream) work by forcing carbon dioxide into water at pressure and that then dissolves in the water before bubbling up to try and escape. And that’s what makes all fizzy drinks fizzy. But it also causes a chemical reaction that we can measure using a pH indicator. No I didn’t have a pH indicator lying around the house; and yes I did go our and buy one just for this experiment; and yes that is quite a nerdy thing to do; and no I don’t care. So there.
  5. I will pour some water from this bottle into the jug so we can measure the pH. It says that the pH=7 which is bang on neutral on the pH scale. So let’s get that out of there and pour it back in our bottle and give it some CO2 and see what happens. If we pour some of that out into here again and pop it back in here we we can see what’s going on and put out pH indicator back in and it comes out to pH=4.7. A pH of 4.7 is very acidic. bandicam 2020-01-19 13-47-53-366
  6. Essentially, that’s what our scientists are telling us is happening on our ocean. So here is how it works. It turns out that the oceans are extremely good at absorbing CO2. Since about 1750 our industrial systems have pumped enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere and our oceans have absorbed about 30% to 40% of it. Which is just as well because without that our planet would be a lot warmer than it already is. After CO2 is absorbed in the ocean, this happens. Carbon dioxide plus water becomes H2CO3 which is basic chemistry I can remember from school and which I can just about manage even now as H2O + CO2 => H2CO3 and H2CO3 is carbonic acid. This next bit gets a bit weird. H2CO3 <> H+ & HCO3-. <> 2H++ CO3 –. Carbonic acid molecules can release one of their Hydrogen ions to become a bicarbonate and not content with that the bicarbonate molecule can release another hydrogen ion to become a simple carbonate. At normal temperature and alkalinity level, the simple carbonate can then combine with calcium to make Calcium Carbonate CaCO3 and that is what coral and shells are made of. bandicam 2020-01-19 13-59-29-201
  7. The surface of the ocean about a hundred years ago had an average pH value of about pH=8.25 which is clearly on the alkaline side of neutral. But today the average pH is about 8.14. So that’s a decrease of 0.11 which sounds pretty insignificant but the pH scale is logarithmic which means that two is not two times more than one but ten times more than one and three is ten times more than two or a hundred times more than one. So our 0.11 reduction is actually a 30% increase in acidity and apparently that is significant. But pH=8.14 is still alkaline isn’t it? So why is it so important? It turns out that the whole reaction we looked at earlier is reversible. It works both ways depending on temperature and alkalinity and that means as the CO2 concentration of the oceans increases and more and more of the Hydrogen ions start floating around causing trouble, the simple carbonate can recombine with a Hydrogen ion and go back to being a bicarbonate. bandicam 2020-01-19 15-17-42-823
  8. The BJERRUM PLOT: THE BJERRUM PLOT: The vertical axis is logarithmic indicating concentrations of carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate. The horizontal axis shows the pH range from very acidic on the left to very alkaline on the right side. When the water is very acidic you get mostly carbonic acid with just a little bit of bicarbonate action going on down here. When the water reaches pH neutral the bicarbonate becomes dominant. Then as the water moves into alkaline territory the simple carbonate end of the reaction becomes the most prevalent, which is good news for shells and corals and all of that. So if we draw a vertical yellow line for pH levels a hundred years ago and another one at today’s pH level we can see the direction of travel. As more and more CO2 gets dissolved into the ocean simple carbonate levels go down and bicarbonate levels go up and that means less carbonate available to combine with calcium to make calcium carbonate and that means that shell fish and coral are less able to grow and repair themselves. bandicam 2020-01-19 15-34-33-039
  9. Like most things that go on in our ocean and our atmosphere, the process involves many other variables so it’s extremely complicated and it is not black and white at all. For example, there is an argument that as the sea gets warmer, the metabolism of all organisms get faster and that includes phytoplankton (microscopic ocean algae) and phytoplankton take in CO2 as they grow (as in photosynthesis) just like trees on land do. So that’s a good thing, right? Other studies like the one from the AGU (Capotondi, Antonietta, et al. “Enhanced upper ocean stratification with climate change in the CMIP3 models.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 117.C4 (2012). ABSTRACT: Changes in upper ocean stratification during the second half of the 21st century, relative to the second half of the 20th century, are examined in ten of the CMIP3 climate models according to the SRES‐A2 scenario. The upper ocean stratification, defined here as the density difference between 200 m and the surface, is larger everywhere during the second half of the 21st century, indicative of an increasing degree of decoupling between the surface and the deeper oceans, with important consequences for many biogeochemical processes. The areas characterized by the largest stratification changes include the Arctic, the tropics, the North Atlantic, and the northeast Pacific. The increase in stratification is primarily due to the increase in surface temperature, whose influence upon density is largest in the tropical regions, and decreases with increasing latitude. The influence of salinity upon the stratification changes, while not as spatially extensive as that of temperature, is very large in the Arctic, North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific. Salinity also significantly contributes to the density decrease near the surface in the western tropical Pacific, but counteracts the negative influence of temperature upon density in the tropical Atlantic.) suggest that the nutrient the phytoplankton needs grow is supplied from deeper water and as the oceans get warmer you get more temperature separation between the different depths since there is less mixing of the layers that make these nutrients available and this causes phytoplankton growth and CO2 uptake to decrease which results in more available CO2 in the water. And of course different parts of the ocean have slightly different pH levels anyway as these charts show. So the effects will vary around the globe. bandicam 2020-01-19 16-01-44-037
  10. And what we really don’t know is how much more CO2 humans will spew our in the course of the next 50 years or so. But if we stay on the path the scientists call RCP8.5, which is the worst case representation concentration pathway, otherwise known as the business as usual scenario, which is the curve we are following at the moment, then according to the IPCC, we can expect the further lowering of the average pH by about o,3 to 0.4 by the year 2100. That will drop the pH level to about pH=7.8 which is very likely to have a negative impact on the eco system of our ocean. Here’s a pteropod swimming around in pH of 8.1 Pteropods are tiny little marine snails which are really a kind of plankton. They play a very big role in the oceanic food chain and eco system. Here is what happens when it’s put in water at pH=7.8 which is what we might get to in 2100 if we continue on the way we are. It may take a month and a half for this to happen but essentially the shell dissolves as carbonate reacts with the free hydrogen ion to make bicarbonate. bandicam 2020-01-19 16-25-56-264
  11. While we are on the RCP 8.5 business as usual, renewable energy technology is advancing at breathtaking speed and social and political will is changing fast despite the noise coming out of the White House. So it’s unlikely that we will stay on that trajectory all the way to 2100 and in fact we probably wouldn’t get there if we did. That’s not an oxymoron. A study by the Royal Society in 2014 which carried out a combined survey of the water and the pteropods along the Washington, Oregon, California coast in August 2011 shows that large portions of the shelf waters are already corrosive to pteropods. They found that 53% of the onshore and 24% of the offshore pteropods had severe dissolution damage. The study estimated that the incidence of pteropod severe shell dissolution due to anthropogenic ocean acidification has doubled in near shore habitats since pre-industrial times across this region and is on track to triple by 2050. {Bednaršek, N., et al. “Limacina helicina shell dissolution as an indicator of declining habitat suitability owing to ocean acidification in the California Current Ecosystem.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281.1785 (2014): 20140123, ABSTRACT: Few studies to date have demonstrated widespread biological impacts of ocean acidification (OA) under conditions currently found in the natural environment. From a combined survey of physical and chemical water properties and biological sampling along the Washington–Oregon–California coast in August 2011, we show that large portions of the shelf waters are corrosive to pteropods in the natural environment. We show a strong positive correlation between the proportion of pteropod individuals with severe shell dissolution damage and the percentage of undersaturated water in the top 100 m with respect to aragonite. We found 53% of onshore individuals and 24% of offshore individuals on average to have severe dissolution damage. Relative to pre-industrial CO2 concentrations, the extent of undersaturated waters in the top 100 m of the water column has increased over sixfold along the California Current Ecosystem (CCE). We estimate that the incidence of severe pteropod shell dissolution owing to anthropogenic OA has doubled in near shore habitats since pre-industrial conditions across this region and is on track to triple by 2050. These results demonstrate that habitat suitability for pteropods in the coastal CCE is declining. The observed impacts represent a baseline for future observations towards understanding broader scale OA effects}.
  12. So what’s to make of all this complicated information? Well, ocean acidification doesn’t mean that our oceans are all full of acid so I can park my irrational fear of going swimming and melting my face but the science is telling us that the direction of travel is toward a less alkaline composition. And when a reaction like that takes place in a body of water as vast and as fundamental to life as our ocean systems then it must surely be something that we need to keep a very close eye on.

 

 

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY 

  1. If ocean acidification is driven by fossil fuel emissions there ought to be a detectable statistically significant detrended correlation between emissions and oceanic CO2 concentration to establish the responsiveness of the rate of increase in oceanic CO2 concentration to the rate of fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale. That is, years with very high rates of fossil fuel emissions should show larger increases in oceanic CO2 than years with low fossil fuel emissions. This test is carried out in a related post [LINK] . No such correlation is found in the data [LINK] . The relevant chart from the linked post is reproduced below.  DETCORR-TEMP-ADJUSTED
  2. An additional consideration is the mass balance. In a related post oceanic CO2 concentration data 1958-2014 are presented that show average annual increase 0.002 millimoles of CO2 per liter of ocean water in the top 5000 feet of the ocean for a total increase of 0.114 millimoles/liter (MMPL) in the study period 1958-2014. CO2-TREND
  3. The total cumulative fossil fuel emissions in this period 1958-2014 was 328 gigatons. Even in the impossible scenario that all of the fossil fuel emissions ended up in the ocean uniformly distributed throughout the ocean, it could cause an increase in CO2 concentration by 0.021 MMPL. However, since the oceanic CO2 data presented above are taken from the top 5000 feet of the ocean (approximately 80% of the ocean in terms of volume), we assume that fossil fuel emissions change CO2 concentration in only the top 5000 feet of the ocean. In that case, the maximum possible increase in oceanic CO2 concentration is 0.021/0.8 = 0.026 MMPL.
  4. The mass balance presented in paragraphs 2&3 above show that fossil fuel emissions cannot explain the observed change in oceanic CO2 concentration. Therefore causes other than fossil fuel emissions must be considered particularly since the the assumption in paragraphs 2&3 above that ALL fossil fuel emissions end up in the ocean is unlikely given the IPCC figures that show that CO2 in emissions go mostly to photosynthesis and increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
  5. In addition to the the mass balance and correlation problems in the attribution of ocean acidification to fossil fuel emissions there is a vertical concentration gradient issue. If the atmosphere were the source of the CO2 found in the ocean we would expect a vertical concentration gradient with high concentration near the surface and lower concentration in deeper waters; but that is not the case. As the chart below shows, the vertical gradient shows higher concentrations in deeper waters. CO2-DEPTH
  6. The analysis and evaluation of oceanic CO2 data in terms of fossil fuel emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration is yet another extreme example of the atmosphere bias in climate science and the corruption of scientific principles with anti fossil fuel activism [LINK] . This approach to understanding the ocean ignores significant paleo data that demonstrate the impact of the ocean itself and its geological sources of carbon and heat in climate phenomena [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] . It is likely that the ocean acidification fear of AGW climate change is derived from the PETM event when the ocean had poisoned itself with CO2 with a horrific oxidation event involving geological carbon that depleted the oceans oxygen and caused mass extinctions that on the plus side gave rise to land based mammals from which we humans are derived. The climate science assumption that mass extinctions are a bad thing and should not be allowed to happen ignores the important evolutionary function of mass extinctions of species that are normally followed by mass explosions of new species.
  7. An additional argument often made in the ocean acidification scenario is the CO2 warming feedback horror that when the acid gets to the ocean floor where dead shellfish have sequestered carbon, the acid will melt the shells and release the carbon back into the ocean-atmosphere climate system. This scenario is not consistent with the known properties of the ocean floor much of which is made of large igneous provinces that consist of basalt, a high pH basic substance that will surely neutralize the relatively insignificant amount of acid that humans can produce.
  8. To summarize: No matter what kind of horror can be painted in terms of ocean acidification chemistry, until it can be shown that it is a creation of fossil fuel emissions and that it can be moderated by taking climate action in the form of changing the global energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels, the presentation has no relevance to the climate change issue. 

 

 

 

bandicam 2020-01-15 11-51-47-431

 

[LINK TO THE HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE]

 

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF A YOUTUBE  LECTURE ON AN ICE FREE ARCTIC BY TBGY [LINK]

THIS POST IS PRESENTED IN TWO PARTS

THE FIRST PART (23 PARAGRAPHS), LABELED “TRANSCRIPT” IS A  TRANSCRIPT OF THE TBGY LECTURE

THE SECOND PART, LABELED “CRITICAL COMMENTARY” FOLLOWS THE TRANSCRIPT AND PRESENTS A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE TBGY PRESENTATION

 

 

FIRST PART: TRANSCRIPT OF THE LECTURE

  1. At the risk of using unfortunate phraseology, Arctic sea ice has been a hot topic for many years now. The Arctic is often called the world’s air conditioning system because of the pivotal role it plays in controlling the planet’s climate largely due to the enormous ice sheet sitting on top of Greenland and the vast body of sea ice that ebbs and flows in the Arctic Ocean. So if those two bodies of ice start to diminish, then you can expect the air conditioning effect to change as well.
  2. There seems to be a constant debate about accuracy of measurement up in the Arctic. The implications of single year anomalies in the dataset get disputed as does the accuracy and calibration of different measuring instrumentation, margins of error in climate modeling, and value differences from calculating techniques from one monitoring agency to another.
  3. But really speaking, it doesn’t matter which organization you prefer or which dataset you choose to use from one year to another or even which graph or chart you find easiest to read. My personal favorite is Jim Pettit’s spiral graph, by the way. The trend line of every single reputable Arctic sea ice dataset, graph, and chart is an inexorable trajectory downwards toward zero. bandicam 2020-01-15 12-42-22-784
  4. And when I say zero, I should probably clarify a couple of important caveats. The first is that “zero” in climate science terms means a sea ice extent that is less than one million square kilometers. The second is that there is no suggestion that this will be a year-round phenomenon – at least in the short term anyway. It is likely that the first time we get an Arctic sea ice extent that is less than one million square kilometers it will stay that way for a couple of weeks towards the end of September before building back up again when the colder months start to encroach but the heat that will have got into the water while the ice was missing will make it extremely likely that once we’ve had a Blue Ocean Event , we’ll continue to get them every year thereafter. bandicam 2020-01-15 15-03-47-967
  5. And there is an understandable human curiosity that drives the climate science community to try to make predictions about when that zero mark might actually be reached. At one extreme end of this prediction scale 2017 was touted by some as an almost guaranteed date for the first Blue Ocean Event right up until the 2017 minimum actually arrived and the sea ice bottomed out at about 4.7 million square kilometers. At the more conservative end of the scale, organizations like our own UK Met Office point to the slowdown in the Atlantic Overturning Meridional “Currents” as an indicator of a much longer timeline perhaps to the end of the century. bandicam 2020-01-15 15-18-47-868
  6. Conversely, the American Geophysical Union or the AGU has just released a new report pointing to a long term warming phase in the tropical Pacific which they suggest may mean a Blue Ocean Event could occur in the next twenty years or so. bandicam 2020-01-15 15-23-38-448
  7. Others use different extrapolations to of graph trends to hit various possibilities. This graph of prior ice measurements from 1980 to the present day has no fewer than five different overlay fit-lines including a straight linear trend line, an exponential fit, a second order polynomial fit, a log fit, and even something called a Gompertz fit. Pick your favorite line on this graph and you can have a Blue Ocean Event anywhere from about 2024 to 2050. All of that is fascinating stuff. It’s a bit frustrating and confusing for the non-scientific on-looker. bandicam 2020-01-15 15-47-13-056
  8. But attempting to put our finger on when in the next 80 years this Blue Ocean Event is likely to descend upon us is perhaps distracting us all from the real question which is what will happen after a  Blue Ocean Event and what can we do now to mitigate its worst effects. So this video contains no predictions from an English layman about Blue Ocean Event timelines. Instead we will have a look at the inextricably interconnected nature of the Arctic and its local environment and the wider global climate to establish the top ten most significant potential outcomes of an ice free Arctic. bandicam 2020-01-15 16-14-44-019
  9. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#1: LATENT HEATAs long as there is ice in a body of water, then any surrounding heat energy is carried towards the ice to try and make it melt. But the energy needed to make it change state or phase from solid ice to liquid water is the same amount of energy that would heat an equivalent volume of liquid water all the way up to 79C. So that’s your first problem. Once all the ice is gone, the water gets much warmer very quickly indeed. And then you’ve got consequence #2 which is Albedo change. 
  10. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#2: ALBEDO CHANGEOnce all the ice goes you no longer have a nice big sheet of reflective white stuff to bounce the sun’s heat safely back out into space. Back in program 17 we did a little experiment with a digital thermometer, a couple of halogen lights, and some black and white cards and it was pretty obvious that the dark cards was immediately absorbing loads more heat than the white card. And that’s exactly what happens when ice disappears from the top of a dark blue ocean. So all that energy that was previously being reflected back by the ice were now being absorbed by the water. bandicam 2020-01-15 16-41-35-357
  11. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#3: ALBEDO CHANGE:  ACCELERATED MELT OF THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET:  But hold on I hear you say. The Greenland Ice Sheet is on land not in the sea, so it’s a completely different thing, right? Well, yes. But the rapid warming of a continent size of water right next to the land mass means that ambient air in the region will also be getting warmed up. That warmer air will be pulled inland and across the surface of Greenland and it is this that will contribute to the accelerated melting of the ice sheet. 
  12. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#4: ALBEDO CHANGE:  INCREASE IN WATER VAPOR:  So we’ve got more liquid water from the melting ice and we’ve got a warmer atmosphere because of the various feedback loops that we just looked at. Physics tells us that for every 1C of warming, our atmosphere can hold about 7% more moisture. So now we’ve got more water vapor in the skies directly above the Arctic and water vapor is itself a very potent greenhouse gas. As dense low clouds drape a warming blanket over the land and sea, we get ourselves one more feedback loop to add to the list. 
  13. But because our global climate system is so interconnected, all the extra moisture in the air coupled with the warmer atmosphere also means a huge increase in energy to whip up storms, hurricanes, cyclones, and extreme flooding all over the world. We’ve already got just over a degree of warming compared to 1850 levels and that’s quite clearly having a big impact on extreme weather events around the world. According to a recent report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), most of the natural hazards that affected nearly 62 million people in 2018 were associated with extreme weather and climate events with 35 million hit by floods. Hurricane Florence and Hurricane Michael were just two of 14 $1 billion disasters in 2018 in the United States. Super Typhoon Mangkhut affected 3.4 million people and killed 134 mainly in the Philippines. Kerala in India suffered the heaviest rainfall and worst flooding in nearly a century.  bandicam 2020-01-15 18-20-17-993
  14. And all of that is without a Blue Ocean Event . The regularity and severity of these things will most likely see a very rapid increase as a result of an Ice Free Arctic and all that extra water will also result in consequence #5. bandicam 2020-01-15 18-30-46-946
  15. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#5: SEA LEVEL RISEAs water gets warmer, it expands and as the Greenland Ice Sheet melts at an ever increasing rate, that melting ice will flow down into the sea, an both of those things together will result in rising sea levels; not just in the Arctic but all around the globe. They are already rising as a consequence of human induced climate change of course but after a Blue Ocean Event, we’ll stop talking in tenths of millimeters a year and start talking in tens of centimeters a decade or so. And then it won’t just be hundreds of millions of people in vulnerable places like Bangladesh who suffered the loss of their homes and livelihoods as well as famines, disease, and premature deaths, something we’ve become a bit numb to here in the West because it only happens on the telly as far as we’re concerned. No, no! Now the water will coming after us comfortable affluent <people> as well. Most of the major cities in the financial centers of the world are in coastal areas and most of them face significant or even catastrophic destruction as water levels encroach on the lower lying districts. But there are some political leaders out there who wave a bit bravado about and tell their citizens they will simply use human ingenuity and technology to keep the water out. Miami for example, is already spending $500 million to install a massive pumping system to pump water back out into the ocean. And you know, good luck with that! bandicam 2020-01-15 19-46-55-059
  16. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#6: SEVERE JET STREAM DISRUPTION : A Blue Ocean Event will significantly accelerate the phenomenon known as Arctic Amplification for all the reasons we just talked about. The Arctic has already warmed by nearly 2C just over the last 30 years – much faster than the rest of the planet. And that is reducing the differential in temperature between the high latitudes and the equatorial region. And that causes the jet stream to slow down and meander about much more. A slower more meandering jet stream drags colder Arctic air down to lower latitudes for prolonged periods of time giving us things like The Beast from the East that we got in Europe in the year 2018; and many of the severe cold snaps that North America has been suffering in the last couple of years. But crucially, it dragged warm equatorial air much farther north way up into the Arctic Circle also for prolonged periods. So we witnessed ridiculously high temperatures like +11C in the North Pole in September. And of course that amplifies the Arctic warming still further and strengthens all the effects we’ve already looked at. 
  17. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#7: METHANEWe’ve all probably seen headlines like the 50 Gigaton Methane Bomb; or The Ticking Time Bomb of Methane . So what’s this all about? Where is all this methane coming from? And why does it need to be included in this Blue Ocean Event consequences? The 50 Gigaton number was first brought to light by scientists specializing in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) as far back as 2008 during the European Geophysical Conference. The ESAS continental shelf is extremely shallow, only about 50 meters deep. In a 2013 paper by Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope, and Peter Wadhams. They explain that as the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50 gigaton reservoir of methane stored in the form of hydrates exists on the Siberian Arctic shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the sea bed warms steadily over 50 years or so. Or suddenly! According to Peter Wadhams, even if only 8% of the methane were released, this would very rapidly add about 0.6C to our global temperature; and rapidly rising temperatures will have a DEVASTATING effect on the main food growing regions of the world. bandicam 2020-01-16 10-44-43-879
  18. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#8: Global Food Crisis:  Abrupt global warming will mean that “these vital food growing regions”  {Brazil, Argentina, Indian Subcontinent, China, SE Asia}, will begin to experience such extreme temperatures and weather that agriculture will become practically impossible. The report in Time Magazine [LINK]  summarizes the predicament very well. Globally we rely on a very slender thread of genetic diversity. More than 50% of all human calories come from just three plants – rice, maize, and wheat. And the rice maize and wheat come from {Brazil, Argentina, Indian Subcontinent, China, SE Asia} all of these regions are going to be MASSIVELY affected by climate change and global warming – especially following the Blue Ocean Event. Our current human activity puts us on a path toward 4C warming above pre-industrial by the year 2100.  The map of the world at that stage will look something like this. bandicam 2020-01-16 12-40-24-493
  19. It is noted in the map above that Canada will grow most of the world’s crops, Northern Europe under huge pressure for habitable land, Russia has arable land and a habitable zone, the SW USA is a desert, North Africa, the Middle East, and Southern USA are uninhabitable, Africa is mostly desert, Southern Europe suffers from desert encroachment, Southern China is an uninhabitable dust bowl, Amazonas is an uninhabitable desert, Bangladesh and South India are abandoned after Himalayan glaciers have melted, Australia is useful only for Uranium mining, and Patagonia remains an arable zone.
  20. So the comfortable insulation and detachment we currently enjoy in the West will be pretty much shattered as we struggle to find enough food to feed our population. Here in the UK for example, we get 50% of our food from outside the country much of which is sourced from these vulnerable countries. And these huge swaths of once fertile land now turns into a dust bowl with summer temperatures exceeding 50C, a temperature way to high to grow anything. They will become places where human activity is more or less impossible. bandicam 2020-01-16 12-49-12-326
  21. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#9: CLIMATE REFUGEE CRISIS:  Commentary from Alfredsdottir, Icelandic lawmaker and former Minister of Foreign Affairs in a 2017 NATO report. It says that the refugee crisis shaking political stability throughout much of the Middle East and posing serious problems in Europe could be a harbinger of things to come. The huge economic and social costs linked to mass movements on this scale are self evident. It is distinctly possible that global climate challenges could trigger mass movements particularly in regions which no longer have the water and agricultural resources needed to support life. 
  22. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#10: REGIONAL AND GLOBAL CONFLICT.  In that same NATO report, Philippe Vitel, French legislator, says that it is a moral imperative to reduce hunger and thirst in the world. But it is also a strategic imperative. If the Middle East and North Africa cannot achieve sustainable food and water security, we will see many more crises in the years to come. Alfredsdottir concludes that the potential for conflict between regions affected by climate change should not be ruled out. And that’s ultraconservative NATO speaking, not Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth.  bandicam 2020-01-16 17-37-20-939
  23. Of course none of these consequences represents an existential threat to the planet itself . Our earth doesn’t care what the temperature is or what the relative concentration of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are. Its self regulatory systems have always re-calibrated themselves over long periods of time so that they always get back to equilibrium. The point is that for the last 11,000 years, since the dawn of human civilization, we’ve been able to design our entire societal infrastructure in every corner of the globe about a remarkable stable and predictable climate with an average global temperature that has never varied by more than 0.4C in all of that time until now. Our governments are perfectly well aware of what lies ahead but they are not taking the radical actions necessary partly in fear of the fossil fuel money that controls the modern political landscape, and partly in fear of inducing panic and unrest amongst their population. So thet need to be shown that their populations do want them to take radical action. That’s the objective of groups like 350.org and Extinction Rebellion.  And not forgetting of course the kids school strike movement inspired by the astonishingly determined and focused Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg. You might feel there is very little you can do as an individual to mitigate such an enormous issue but that doesn’t mean there is nothing you can do at all. If you feel it’s within your gift, get involved with one of these groups or the very least hassle your elected representative and don’t take no for an answer. On a practical level, take your money away from those doing harm. Change your energy supply to a green energy supplier or better still get solar powers on your roof. And don’t give up if you live in an apartment block. Get together with the other residents and sort out a communal system. That’s already happening in many European cities. Change your bank, your life insurance, your pension provider if you’ve got one, to an organization that has divested all its funds away from fossil fuels. If you can, get rid of your internal combustion engine car and walk or cycle wherever possible. And if you do need to have a car from ability reasons or you’ve got 5 kids, then the next time you buy a new one, make sure it’s an electric vehicle. Change your diet to minimize the amount of meat you consume specially beef. A kilogram of beef is 30x more impactful on the environment than a kilogram of plant protein. Ideally, move to a plant based diet altogether. It’s much cheaper and it’s far healthier for you anyway. Each of us has a personal choice to make about how we respond to this climate crisis. I know a lot of you out there are really taking positive actions of your own.

 

 

SECOND PART: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

 

HYPOTHETICAL NATURE OF THE BLUE OCEAN EVENT:

In paragraph #3 above, TBGY says that the long term trend of year to year changes in September minimum sea ice extent is “an inexorable trajectory downwards toward zero” with the clarification that anything under 1E6 sq-km of Arctic sea ice extent counts as zero and that this state of Arctic sea ice extent, previously called the ICE FREE ARCTIC is described by TBGY as a Blue Ocean Event (BOE). After quoting some forecasts about when the BOE might happen, TBGY admits that all prior forecasts of the BOE have turned out to be wrong.

The long list of failed BOE forecasts is presented in a related post as “the ice free Arctic obsession of climate science[LINK] and a recent forecast of the BOE {Thackeray, Chad W., and Alex Hall. “An emergent constraint on future Arctic sea-ice albedo feedback.” Nature Climate Change 2019} is discussed. Like TBGY, the paper acknowledges failures of prior BOE forecasts but attributes these failures to deficiencies in climate models that the authors claim have now been corrected by re-calibrating climate models with the deep seasonal cycle of sea ice extent. Based on the re-calibration, the authors predict an ice free Arctic (BOE) at some time between 2044 and 2067. Unlike prior forecasts of an ice free Arctic (BOE), this forecast uses a long time horizon of more than 20 years into the future and a large error margin > 20 years. It is a sign that climate science is now weary and apprehensive of the BOE game having failed so many times in the past.

In this lecture, TBGY takes a very different and radical approach in the strategy to continue the BOE game in the face of dramatic and humiliating failures of the past and it is in this context that he says in paragraph#5 above that “And there is an understandable human curiosity that drives the climate science community to try to make predictions about when that zero mark might actually be reached. At one extreme end of this prediction scale 2017 was touted by some as an almost guaranteed date for the first Blue Ocean Event right up until the 2017 minimum actually arrived and the sea ice bottomed out at about 4.7 million square kilometers. And now the AGU forecasts the BOE in 20 years and the UK Met Office projects a BOE by end of the century. These statements are an acknowledgement of the failure of climate science to predict the BOE.

It is here and in this context, that TBGY makes the defining statement of this lecture when he says that {attempting to put our finger on when in the next 80 years this Blue Ocean Event is likely to happen is distracting us all from the real question which is what will happen after a  Blue Ocean Event and what can we do now to mitigate its worst effects. So this video contains no predictions about Blue Ocean Event timelines. Instead we will have a look at the inextricably interconnected nature of the Arctic and its local environment and the wider global climate to establish the top ten most significant potential outcomes of an ice free Arctic}. THEREFORE THIS LECTURE DESCRIBES A HYPOTHETICAL STATE OF THE WORLD AFTER A BOE HAS OCCURRED. THIS HYPOTHETICAL STATE OF THE WORLD IS DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic

TBGY identifies the top ten climate consequences of a BOE as:

  1. SPO#1: LATENT HEATAs long as there is ice in a body of water, then any surrounding heat energy is carried towards the ice to try and make it melt. But the energy needed to make it change state or phase from solid ice to liquid water is the same amount of energy that would heat an equivalent volume of liquid water all the way up to 79C. So that’s your first problem. Once all the ice is gone, the water gets much warmer very quickly indeed.
  2. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#2: ALBEDO CHANGEOnce all the ice goes you no longer have a nice big sheet of reflective white stuff to bounce the sun’s heat safely back out into space.  When ice disappears from the top of a dark blue ocean all that energy that was previously being reflected back by the ice are now being absorbed by the water.
  3. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#3: ACCELERATED MELT OF THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET:  The rapid warming of a continent size of water right next to the land based Greenland Ice Sheet means that ambient air in the region will be warm and that warmer air will be pulled inland and across the surface of Greenland by the cold causing an accelerated melt of the Greenland ice sheet.
  4. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#4: INCREASE IN WATER VAPOR: Physics tells us that for every 1C of warming, our atmosphere can hold about 7% more moisture. So now we’ve got more water vapor in the skies directly above the Arctic and water vapor is itself a very potent greenhouse gas even as dense low clouds drape a warming blanket over the Arctic. 
  5. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#5: SEA LEVEL RISEAs water gets warmer, it expands and as the Greenland Ice Sheet melts that melting ice will flow down into the sea, and both of those things together will result in rising sea levels; not just in the Arctic but all around the globe in tens of centimeters a decade. And then it won’t just be hundreds of millions of people in vulnerable places like Bangladesh who suffered the loss of their homes and livelihoods as well as famines, disease, and premature deaths. Most of the major cities in the financial centers of the world are in coastal areas and most of them face significant or even catastrophic destruction by sea level rise. 
  6. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#6: JET STREAM DISRUPTION : Blue Ocean Event will cause Arctic Amplification. The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world and that is reducing the differential in temperature between the high latitudes and the equatorial region making the jet stream slow down and meander and drag colder Arctic air down to lower latitudes and to drag warm equatorial air up into the Arctic Circle. So we witnessed +11C in the North Pole in September.
  7. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#7: METHANE : Peter Wadhams says that as Arctic sea ice declines the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. There is 50 gigatons of methane hydrates on the Siberian Arctic shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the sea bed warms steadily over 50 years. Or suddenly! Even if only 8% of the methane were released, this would add 0.6C to our global temperature; and rapidly rising temperatures will have a DEVASTATING effect on the main food growing regions of the world.
  8. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#8: Global Food Crisis:  The BOE will cause abrupt global warming making agriculture impossible in vital food growing regions. More than 50% of all human calories come from rice, maize, and wheat. And the rice maize and wheat come from regions that are going to be MASSIVELY affected by climate change and global warming following the Blue Ocean Event.
  9. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#9: CLIMATE REFUGEE CRISIS:  A Blue Arctic Event could trigger mass movements particularly in regions which no longer have the water and agricultural resources needed to support life creating a global refugee crisis. 
  10. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#10: REGIONAL AND GLOBAL CONFLICT.  If the Middle East and North Africa cannot achieve sustainable food and water security, there is a potential for conflict among regions affected by climate change.

 

Though the ten “consequences” of a hypothetical Blue Ocean Event are painted in horrific terms in over-hyped fear mongering language, the reality is that none of these events have happened and none is likely to happen because they are projections of a purely hypothetical scenario. What the actual data show is a repetitive pattern of high pitched alarms about an imminent and catastrophic ice free Arctic in September. This pattern can be traced from at least as far back as 1999. An unacceptable number of these alarms have been invoked on a regular  basis since then and all of them, except for the ones that are still in the future, have been proven false because they did not happen [LINK] .

The BOE alarm about an ice free Arctic in September assumes that the observed year to year decline in September Minimum Sea Ice Extent (SMSIE) in the Arctic is driven by fossil fuel driven AGW and that therefore it can and must be attenuated by reducing or eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Yet, the required relationship between climate change warming and SMSIE has simply been assumed. No supporting empirical evidence has been provided. In fact, no such evidence exists. As shown in related posts on this site, correlation analysis between surface temperature and SMSIE does not show that that SMSIE is responsive to changes in AGW surface temperature [LINK]  [LINK] . The single-minded obsession of climate science with fossil fuel emissions [LINK] makes it impossible for the science to include natural geological sources of heat in their analysis of ice melt phenomena even in regions known to be geologically active [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]

 

CONCLUSION

That climate science must now resort to a hypothetical BOE scenario to present the fear of AGW in terms of the alarming “consequences” of the BOE is not evidence of things to fear but an admission of the failure of the science. The science is proven wrong and its forecasts of the horrors of an ice free Arctic are discredited.

The admission of these failures and the attempt to sell the fear of hypothetical future horrors of climate change in the face of such failure is yet another example of an assumption in climate science that the less they know the greater the fear of the potential cataclysmic impacts of climate change [LINK]

This logic derives from the oddity that catastrophic AGW climate change and the urgent need for climate action constitute the null hypothesis in climate science; with the alternate hypothesis being the negation of this scenario. If climate science really were a science the hypotheses would have been in reverse.

It is this trickery of climate science and the consequent use of the “shift the burden of proof ” fallacy that preserves the scientific credentials of a failed science in the popular press with fear based activism and a faux argument that consensus proves the correctness of the climate science theory of catastrophic AGW climate change and the urgent need to move the world’s energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels [LINK]

OVERPOPULATIONTRAIN

PRINCIPLES AND PRECEPTS OF ECO FEAROLOGY

PRINCIPLE #1: THE NATURAL AND THEREFORE THE DESIRABLE STATE OF THE PLANET  IS ONE WITH NO HUMANS ON IT: A clean and pure pristine primeval planet earth existed for a billion years in natural perfection, wholeness, and wholesomeness – unpolluted, untainted, untarnished and uncorrupted in the perfection of the harmony of nature.

  1. The geology, biology, and climatology were in a state of perfection.
  2. The climate was stable and unchanging with no extreme weather.
  3. Living creatures both plants and animals lived in peace and tranquility as essential elements of nature itself.
  4. There was no ozone depletion, no climate change, no skin cancer, no hurricanes and no species extinction from bad weather.
  5. Modern day ecofearology is a yearning of humans for this humanless state of nature – a yearning by humans for a return to what the planet was like before humans came along.

 

PRINCIPLE #2: HUMANS ARE POLLUTION: Meanwhile a planet far far away was being poisoned to death by evil humans. After their planet died from fossil fuel poisoning these humans set out to find a new planet to live on. They found the planet earth.

  1. The devil thus appeared on earth in the form of humans who came on spaceships from outer space . Humans are not part of nature but an external force alien to nature and an abomination. They will soon turn this heavenly planet into a living hell with human activity because their nature is to consume and destroy.
  2. At first the alien humans were relatively harmless living off the land as hunter gatherers in harmony with nature. But they were just biding their time and waiting for their numbers to grow.
  3. When their population reached 6 million, they made their first move for the conquest of the planet. It was a fundamental change in human behavior that has come to be called the Neolithic Revolution.
  4. In the Neolithic Revolution, the humans gave up their eco-friendly hunter-gatherer lifestyle and cleared forests to build homes and farms and to grow crops and raise animals in an extensive and intensive land use change that would forever alter the ecology of the earth. The strategy was immensely successful for the humans who now commanded incredible wealth and power over all other life forms. Their numbers grew rapidly in a population explosion from 6 to 60 million.
  5. By the year 1750 the population of humans had surged to one billion. Their affluence from agriculture, tool-making, medical care, and new knowledge about the earth had rapidly increased their power against nature. But the greater and more devastating change was yet to come in the form of the Industrial Revolution.

 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 3: THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION OF THE HUMANS IS THEIR GREATEST ECOLOGICAL EVIL:  The Industrial Revolution was made possible by the humans with a transition in their source of energy from animal power, wind, and running water to machines burning hydrocarbon fuels dug up from under the ground.

  1. This new found energy source and the machines that burnt this new energy source gave the humans immense power that will create a population explosion of humans and a power the humans can use to kill the planet. Nature is now at their mercy.
  2. By the year 1950, the population of humans had more than doubled to 2.5 billion and more and more machines were invented so that almost everything the humans did was driven by fossil fueled machines. These included cars and trucks for surface transportation, fossil fueled ships for crossing the oceans, and fossil fueled aircraft for their conquest of the atmosphere.
  3. Nuclear bombs were invented, tested, and used. Space travel was opening up new tools and ways for humans to conquer nature. The Anthropocene was now in full force. Whereas humans had once been at the mercy of nature, the tables had been turned, and nature and the planet itself were now at the mercy of the humans and human activity.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 4: THE PLANET IS THREATENED BY THE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: The consequences of these changes and of the implications of the complete capture of nature by humans for the ability of nature to sustain humans in the future are the primary concerns of the new science of Ecofearology. The science involves the study of nature and human activity as a way of protecting nature and managing nature to preserve its ability to sustain humans. The study of Ecofearology is guided by nine foundational precepts that provide the guidelines needed to understand the human impact on nature.

  1. PRECEPT#1: There are no natural or cyclical changes on earth. All measured changes in nature are trends, all trends are bad, and all trends are human caused.
  2. PRECEPT#2: The concentration of all chemicals in the atmosphere and ocean is important. If the concentration is going up it’s a bad thing and its accretion is caused by human activity. Higher concentrations of this thing will be the end of the world.
  3. PRECEPT#3: If the concentration is going down it’s a bad thing and its depletion is caused by human activity. If we run out of this thing it will be the end of the world.
  4. PRECEPT#4: All human caused trends lead to catastrophic results for the environment and by extension, the planet itself. It is not possible for a human caused trend to benefit the planet because humans are not part of nature but space aliens and unnatural.
  5. PRECEPT#5: Human scientists can save the planet from the other humans because the impact of bad human intervention in nature can be undone only by the impact of good human intervention as prescribed by the human scientists because human scientists know the science and care about nature. Therefore, human intervention is necessary to save the planet from human intervention.
  6. PRECEPT#6: Even if human science deniers find fault with the science of human caused catastrophe, we must ignore the human science deniers because we can’t take the chance that the scientists could turn out to be right.
  7. PRECEPT#7: If you don’t find any human caused planetary emergency that threatens the destruction of Nature and the world, it is because you have not looked closely enough. You must work harder and keep looking until you find it.
  8. PRECEPT#8: The human invaders of this once pristine planet are now the managers of nature and the operators of the planet. Therefore we humans must take care of nature and run the planet because nature can no longer take care of itself like it once did now that the human invaders are here.

 

IT IS HOPED THAT ONCE ALL HUMANS LEARN AND UNDERSTAND THESE PRINCIPLES AND PRECEPTS OF ECO FEAROLOGY, THEY WILL FULLY SUPPORT HUMAN CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AND HELP THEM TO SAVE THE PLANET FROM US NON-SCIENTIST HUMANS.  THANK YOU FOR HELPING AND HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. 

bandicam 2020-01-09 17-31-11-443

 

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF A NIC LEWIS VIDEO [LINK]  

 

[LINK TO HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE]

 

WHAT NIC LEWIS SAYS BEGINNING AT 35:15 INTO THE VIDEO

bandicam 2020-01-09 17-50-28-333

  1. Earth System Models (ESM) are used by the IPC and climate scientists project what will happen if we emit carbon dioxide. These are simply global climate models with carbon cycles and other geochemical cycles added to them and remarkably, they project that if emissions ceased, the temperature would stay elevated at that level for hundreds of years. That’s because the slowly falling airborne carbon dioxide levels would be counteracted by the move from the transient climate response to the equilibrium climate response and some carbon cycle feedbacks as well.
  2. The implication of this is that in Earth System Models, warming is proportional to the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide emissions. You emit so much carbon dioxide, the temperature goes up so much. You emit another amount, you get … , the temperature goes up in proportion to the amount emitted.
  3. This why people talk about carbon budgets. The carbon budget is simply cumulative emissions to meet some particular {political?} target, so take not more than two degrees warming. And I’m sure these Earth System Model derived carbon budgets are what’s driving policy so {in nevins?} you’ve got this 95% reduction in emissions proposed. I am sure that is driven by a desire to meet a … some kind of carbon budget. I don’t think you will actually achieve that but I think that’s what driving {post?}. bandicam 2020-01-09 18-19-29-611
  4. So these are the socio-economic scenarios that’s produced projected in emissions is with the representative concentration pathways with actually emission based … this one we used in the last IPC report to drive these Earth System Models the top one the IPC 8.5 is often referred to as business as usual in the press, it’s actually a very pessimistic worst case scenario. I don’t think it’s realistic even if there is no further mitigation. I will focus on RCP6, the next one down, which I think is more in line if one didn’t {foo?} further mitigation. And there’s a couple of other scenarios.  bandicam 2020-01-09 18-21-54-097
  5. So in the IPC 5, a report, 5 years ago, 6 years ago, they produced projections by the Earth System Models of a warming, that line, in relation to cumulative emissions, from {dog side?} this is both since about 1870 so they got the {sicklish?} historical projections – these are all simulations not observations. Up to there and then these different scenarios separate off so you – what you can see is that the warming is very similar in all scenarios. It’s slightly higher in relation to cumulative emissions on the RCP8.5 scenario – that’s because that scenario has extremely high methane emissions – {had a long scenario?}. But otherwise they’re going up pretty well the same. And I am {dawning?} here on green this 1.5 degrees target they’re pushing these days and that corresponds to cumulative emissions of about 625 gigatons of carbon. A gigaton is a thousand million tons – and – this is just measuring the carbon content. You can also measure it in terms of the total carbon dioxide weight which will give you a higher figure so you they use both measures. What’s remarkable here is, as of today, we got {tumitive?} to come to 25 gigatons of carbon, slightly more. So warming is not 1.5 degrees, it is actually about 1 degree. So these models have already been falsified.  bandicam 2020-01-09 18-53-28-427
  6. So clearly the carbon budgets that came from these models are ridiculously low. They’ve already been proven wrong. There is a simpler way to project future warming in relation to emissions and this is to use something called the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions (TCRE). This is the warming for every thousand gigatons of carbon emissions that you put out how much warming will result. This is {sipply?} measured over a period of about 70 years but it’s not critical and indeed in these Earth System Models it doesn’t matter what the period is. And you can measure this easily enough in models you can also measure it from observations, which is my interest. bandicam 2020-01-09 19-45-04-330
  7. So, in these Earth System Models, the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions averages out to about 1.65 degrees for every thousand gigatons. It’s got a wide range, and in the last IPC report they fixed the range to 0.8 to 2.5 degrees. And again, the models, this only came from models in the very bottom end with inference {bio-projection}. I’ve made an estimate of the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions from observations, I haven’t got this material in a paper yet but it’s calculated on completely consistent properly probabilistic basis, this I am quite happy with it and that comes out to 1.05 degrees so you can see it’s a long way below the models. And also the range is quite narrow and the top end is only 1.6 degrees rather than 2.5 degrees. That has a big influence on what’s gonna happen in terms of climate damages. bandicam 2020-01-09 20-12-24-320
  8. So the way you project future warming is very simple. You take your future emissions, multiply them by the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions and you add in an estimate of warming from human non-CO2 emissions because that’s a {paid sloong fee?} you can just use a model for that without any real accuracy. Remarkably, this is exactly what the IPC did. The first time they didn’t use their 3D complex models for their projections. In the special report on 1.5 degrees last year, it used exactly this method. However, they use of course the IPCC range from AR5 of TCRE=[0.8 to 2.5] and its midpoint is exactly the average for their Earth System models. So the result is that their result reflect the models. The link is now indirect. So I thought well what’s the … This is what the corresponding graph – the key graph in SR1.5 report so this is once again relates warming to cumulative emissions since about 1870 or 1875 but there are differences from the corresponding graphs in AR5. So we got the AR-5, the ones up there, the simulations 2005 and then on up the {aucity?} 8.5 line, this has got the actual observed warming, you can see that it’s up to 1 degree up to the star, that’s 2017 there, it’s only 1 degree not 1.5 degrees where it would be in the IPCC AR5 projections and then they project on from there. So, the green line is using their original model for non-carbon-dioxide-warming. And that original model simply mimics the earth system models, they’re using the Earth System Model range of Transient Climate Response to Emissions and therefore unsurprisingly the green line goes up parallel to the red line but it’s lower because effectively they corrected their over-estimates, their historic over-estimates, but they kept the same sensitivity going forward which may seem a bit stupid since it didn’t work in the past. They’ve also got another model on this yellow line, you can see that, for the non-CO2 warming which is less than even their main projection average. bandicam 2020-01-09 20-27-55-335
  9. So that’s the key graph on the SR15 report and that now is projecting about on RCP6 level about 2.6 degrees warming rather than by decades or centuries rather than 3.2 on the AR5 estimates. I found the same thing in the SR1.5 report, but I a using now my observationally based estimates of the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions and the simple model for the non-CO2 emissions using my observational estimates of the Transient Climate Response and the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. I’ve got he old IPCC AR5 ones there; and these are mine, are the solid lines, So, black is observed and you can see the point where the IPCC was projecting we get to in 52,000 {nunkeys?} on RCP6 it’s just going to get frequent  warming. If you go down to the same level of cumulative emissions on my estimates, it’s only 2 degrees warming. So this is quite significant. This is warming from the 1870s so this is the same base as essentially the 2 degrees Celsius composite. And this makes quite a lot of difference. bandicam 2020-01-09 22-21-13-725
  10. If I didn’t use Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions and used my own carbon climate model I’d actually get it slightly lower still but about 1.8 degrees but this one I can do a very solid probabilistic uh it would  be publishable. It’s much more difficult if you are using carbon climate models you get many answer.  Finally, I move on to forced invitations as I see it of these {cynics?}. On the IPCC, I think the IPCC AR5 Earth System Models projections linking warming to cumulative emissions are still driving climate policies even though they’ve been shown to be wrong so far and these are driving carbon budgets so I, the policies the cheapest carbon budgets. And these imply rapid reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in order to meet these carbon budget targets, certainly, 2 degrees and 1.5 degrees, probably rapid reduction. Whereas if you use the observation based projection then the implications are that you’ve got a much longer so you can have a slower reductions in emissions and still meet these targets. I would say that if we are post 2100, then if we really want to stick to this 2 degrees target then emissions even on even on minus would have to be pretty low by then but you certainty don’t have to be low by 2050.
  11. And finally some depressing thoughts. Many climate policies are stupid and wasteful and they’re not going to achieve much. It’s not Europe that’s going to drive emissions in the future. It’s the Chinas the Indias the Indonesia, whatever. And some of them are harmful … things like biofuels is crazy, Also, it is unclear that a warming of 2C or 3C is a serious problem – if we go above the 2 degrees or maybe it’s foolish and certainly in climate models everything is incredibly linear. It doesn’t fall apart if you get to 3 degrees of 4 degrees or even 5 degrees, it just gets warmer. AGW is a long term problem. We should adjust policy adaptively we should look at the adaptation measures.  bandicam 2020-01-09 22-57-02-935

 

 

RESPONSE TO NIC LEWIS

RESPONSE#1: Climate Sensitivity:

    1. Nic Lewis proposes that the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity and therefore of future warming are too high because his estimates from observational data are lower. As seen above under “Conclusions”, Nic computes climate sensitivity values of λ=1.7 for long time scales and λ=1.35 for multi-decadal time scales from observational data and finds that these values are 25% to 45% lower than those derived from climate models (2.27 & 2.45). He uses these findings to challenge IPCC assessments about future warming.
    2. Listed below are a large number of estimates of climate sensitivity both short term sensitivity (multi-decadal) and long term ECS. They do not show that climate science is homing in on the correct value of sensitivity nor that there is a correct value of sensitivity. Instead, what we see in these estimates of climate sensitivity is a failure of climate science to estimate the sensitivity value. The large uncertainty implied by these findings do not show that therefore the values of λ=1.7 and λ=1.35 presented above are low and therefore correct and that therefore the IPCC is incorrect. They show instead that the new values of λ=1.7 and λ=1.35 are yet more numbers to be added to a mountain of disparate numbers that have not led to a a useful conclusion about climate sensitivity. The mountain of disparate values already contains similar estimates. This new estimate does not tell us that now we know what the climate sensitivity is. When considered along with all the other values presented here, it tells us that we don’t know what the climate sensitivity is and whether it is a relevant or useful concept in understanding AGW.
    3. The uncertainty problem in climate sensitivity has driven many climate scientists to abandon the sensitivity idea and move to the TCRE as seen for example in Knutti 2017  “Beyond Climate Sensitivity” where Reto Knutti and co-authors Rugenstein and Hegerl acknowledge that the search for sensitivity has failed. They propose that the sensitivity idea should be abandoned and that we should move on to the TCRE metric offers the only reliable relationship between emissions and warming.
    4. As a historical note, in Callendar (1938) [LINK] used observational data for the period 1900-1938 to estimate a multi-decadal climate sensitivity of λ=2. More recently, James Hansen and NASA GISS, have claimed that AGW as a measurable phenomenon began in 1950 with Hansen making the further claim that data for the 30-year period 1950 to 1980 provides clear evidence of human caused global warming and climate change by way of the heat trapping effect of carbon dioxide [LINK] . As of this writing, the Hansen hypothesis can be extended to 2019 but it still remains in the multi-decadal category at time span of 70 years. A similar claim is made by climate scientist Peter Cox for the period “1970s” to 2018 (a 44-year period if “1970s” is interpreted as 1975). He uses an observationally constrained climate model to show a strong proportionality between surface temperature and Ln(CO2).
    5. Using Mauna Loa CO2 data and HadCRU and UAH global mean temperatures 1959-2019, some  estimates of multi-decadal climate sensitivity can be made at these time spans. The multi-decadal sensitivities found are tabulated in the chart below. Their time spans range from 30 to 70 years . sensitivity
    6. The chart shows multidecadal sensitivities from a low of λ=1.3 to a high of λ=3.2 for the full span and sub-spans of the HadCRU dataset 1959-2019 and a consistent value of λ=1.8 for the full span and sub-spans of the UAH satelllite data for mid tropospheric temperature 1979-2019. These sensitivities are supported by strong correlations and statistically significant detrended correlations between temperature and Ln(CO2) as seen in the chart below. correlations

 

  1.  In a recent post Dr. Frank Bosse, Senior Scientist of Molecular Neurobiology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Duesseldorf uses Earth Energy Imbalance data to estimate that the multidecadal climate sensitivity is  λ=1.72 for the period 1999-2018. [LINK] It is noted that the Bosse estimate closely matches the UAH 1979-2019 estimates of multidecadal sensitivity at 31-year and 41-year time spans. 
  2. In a related post, climate sensitivity estimates in the literature up to the year 2012, both from observational data and  climate models, are summarized in charts  provided by the Late Stephen Schneider [LINK] . The relevant charts are reproduced below. They show a number of sensitivity estimates of λ<2.
  3. A history of sensitivity estimates compiled more recently is also presented [LINK] . It shows estimates from observations, from climate models, from observations constrained by climate models, and from climate models constrained by observations as follows:
  4. Observations: Callendar 1938 λ=2, Johansson, 2015 with corrections for the ‘pause’ in 2000-2014. λ=3.25 90%CI = [2.0 – 4.5]. Aldrin, 2012 90%CI=[1.2 – 7.7]
  5. Climate Models: Charney:  λ=[2.0-3.5], λ=[2.6-4.1], and λ=[1.5-4.5], [λ=3]. Hansen 1981: λ=[2.0-3.5], Knutti 2002: λ=5.7 with 90%CI λ=[2.7-8.7], Murphy 2004: 90%CI=[2.4–5.4],  Stainforth, 2005) very large ensemble model study λ=6.7  90%CI = [1.9 – 11.5].
  6.  Observations Constrained by Climate Models: Andronova 2000: λ=[0.94-2.35],  Gregory 2002: 1860-2000: λ=6 with long tailed distribution skewed right. 90% CI λ= [1.1 – infinity] but with certain assumptions, Gregory is able to reduce the 90% CI to λ=[1.7 – 2.3]. , Frame 2005: λ= 2.4 with 90%CI = [1.4-4.1],  Kummer, 2017 λ=2.3, 90%CI=[1.6-4.1].  Aldrin 2012:  90%CI= [1.0 – 2.7], [1.0 – 3.5], [1.0 – 4.2], [1.3 – 4.9], [1.5 – 7.8], [1.5 – 7.3], and [1.0 – 7.0],  Lewis and Curry 2018 90%CI=[1.05-4.05]. Paleo Data Constrained by Models: Hegerl 2006: 700-year paleo data indicate 90% CI=[1.5-6.2] although values as high as λ=7 to 9 were observed .
  7.  Climate Models Constrained by Observations: Gregory 2002 & Forest 2002: λ=4.2 Symmetrical distribution with 90%CI of λ=[1.4 – 7.7].

 

 

RESPONSE TO NIC LEWIS

RESPONSE#2: Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions

 

bandicam 2020-01-09 20-12-24-320

 

  1. The TCRE is a regression coefficient derived not from a theoretical relationship but an observational one. It is derived from the observation of a near perfect proportionality between temperature and cumulative emissions in any given time interval t-1 to t-2. It should be noted that the temperature at any given time from t-1 is cumulative annual warming from t-1. Therefore the near perfect proportionality between cumulative annual warming and cumulative emissions is a correlation between cumulative values – between cumulative warming and cumulative emissions.
  2. In a related posts we show that a time series of the cumulative values of another time series contains neither time scale nor degrees of freedom. Therefore a time series of the cumulative values of another time series does not contain information. Therefore, neither the correlation between cumulative warming and cumulative emissions nor the regression coefficient of cumulative warming as a linear function of cumulative emissions has any interpretation in the real world in terms of phenomena that they apparently represent. [LINK] [LINK] .
  3. As it turns out the proportionality between cumulative warming and cumulative emissions derives from a fortuitous sign pattern in these variables. The sign pattern is that emissions are always positive and , during a time of warming, annual warming values are mostly positive. The information contained in the TCRE is this sign pattern and nothing more.
  4. Specifically, the TCRE contains no information about the responsiveness of temperature to emissions. Yet, this erroneous interpretation of the TCRE guides its use and function in climate science as well as in this Nic Lewis video. The TCRE is a spurious correlation and the relationship between warming and emissions it implies is illusory.
  5. This is why the use of TCRE based carbon budgets suffer from the Remaining Carbon Budget (RCB) problem as explained in a related post [LINK] . The remaining carbon budget anomaly is the creation of a spurious correlation and an illusory carbon budget but is interpreted in climate science as an Earth System Model issue and additional variables are sought and found that will resolve the RCB issue. That a spurious correlation and an illusory TCRE statistic play such important roles in the science of climate science discredits the science and the work of the scientists.

Thus apparently scientific analyses of climate using the TCRE, such as “I’ve made an estimate of the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions from observations, it’s calculated on completely consistent properly probabilistic basis, this I am quite happy with it and that comes out to 1.05 degrees so you can see it’s a long way below the models. And also the range is quite narrow and the top end is only 1.6 degrees rather than 2.5 degrees. That has a big influence on what’s gonna happen in terms of climate damages” contain no actual information about AGW and its claimed relationship between emissions and warming.

 

 

RESPONSE TO NIC LEWIS

RESPONSE#3: Responsiveness of Atmospheric Composition to Emissions

  1. The essence of AGW is that humans burning fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide much of which (40% to 50%, the so called Airborne Fraction) is thought to remain in the atmosphere and cause accumulation thereby increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
  2. This relationship is the critically necessary foundation of AGW because without it none of the other steps of AGW is possible. Yet, no evidence exists for this relationship [LINK] .  The carbon cycle mass balance equations used in this attribution suffers from circular reasoning because it assumes the airborne fraction and overlooks uncertainties in carbon cycle flows to carry out the mass balance [LINK]In the same post it is shown that when the uncertainties in carbon cycle flows declared by the IPCC are included in the mass balance, fossil fuel emissions cannot be detected because the system balances with and without fossil fuel emissions [LINK] .