Thongchai Thailand

Archive for December 2020

The Carbon Budget — Living Beyond Our Means –


Greenhouse gases' effect on climate - U.S. Energy Information  Administration (EIA)


(1) FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS: Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory says that our carbon cycle flows are balanced in nature but that our use of fossil fuels injects external carbon that was removed from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. This external carbon does not belong in the current account of the carbon cycle. It is argued that the injection of this external carbon into the delicately balanced carbon cycle of nature causes atmospheric CO2 to rise. This assumed relationship between fossil fuel emissions and the observed changes in atmospheric composition is the very foundation of AGW climate science. The data do show that atmospheric CO2 has been rising since 1958 and this dataset serves as the foundational evidence that fossil fuel emissions cause atmospheric CO2 concentration to go up at an annual time scale. {It is noted that CO2 absorbs only at 15,000 nanometers such that IR re-radiation at other wavelengths from 700 to a million nanometers are unaffected; but the AGW arguement is not that CO2 re-radiates all IR frequencies but only that GMST is higher at higher levels of CO2}.

(2) GLOBAL WARMING: It is further argued that because of the IR absortion and re-radiation by CO2, global mean surface temperature is proportional to the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Therefore as fossil fuel emssions drive up atmospheric CO2 concentration year to year, global mean surface temperature rises accordingly from year to year. The sequence of rising GMST from year to year is understood as global warming and because the cause of the sequence of rising GMST has been established as the fossil fuel emissions of humans, the observed global warming is understood as human caused Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).


(4) CARBON BUDGET: Based on the arguments presented above, climate science has determined that it is imperative that we humans must take climate action. Climate action means that humans must reduce and eventually eliminate fossil fuel emissions by switching to renewable energy like wind and solar. It is important that climate action taken reduces emissions to zero before we reach the critical amount of warming since pre-industrial of 1.5C because beyond that climate action will not be effective because the feedback acceleration mechanism will take over from fossil fuel emissions as the main driver of climate change. The tool we must use to ensure this timing is to construct and strictly follow carbon budgets.

(5) CARBON BUDGET CONSTRUCTION: In climate science, the carbon budget is constructed with the TCRE. The carbon budget is the amount of cumulative global fossil fuel emissions that can be emitted for a given amount of warming. It is derived from the finding by climate science that cumulative annual warming is proportional to cumulative emissions with a near perfect statistically significant linear relationship. This proportionality is called the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions or TCRE, sometimes abbreviated to TCR. Its mean value is estimated to be 1.72C per teratonne of cumulative emissions with a 95% confidence interval of 0.88C to 2.52C. The dependence of the carbon budget on the TCRE raises some statistical issues about the carbon budget and invalidates its assumed climate action implication.

Image result for tcre carbon budget

(6) MATHMATICS OF THE CARBON BUDGET: ISSUE#1: A time series of the cumulative values of another time series has neither time scale nor degrees of freedom. Therefore it does not contain useful information about the variables that it apparently represents. The correlation between cumulative annual warming and cumulative annual emissions is therefore spurious. It has no interpretation in terms of the phenomena that the raw data represent.

(7): DETAILS OF THESE STATISTICAL ISSUES: Details of these statistical issues are provided in related posts on this site where it is shown that the apparent correlation does not derive from responsiveness of temperature to emissions but that it is the creation of a sign pattern. The sign pattern is that emissions are always positive; and, during a time of warming, the annual warming rates are mostly positive. LINK: . The role of the sign pattern in the creation of this spurious correlation is illustrated in another related post where we show that not just emissions but any variable with positive values, even UFO sighting, creates just as strong if not a stronger correlation with temperature where temperature is best understood in this context as cumulative annual warming. LINK: .


(8): DEMONSTRATION OF THE TCRE CORRELATION ANOMALY: A demonstration of this statistical fallacy in the TCRE is provided in the Youtube video below. It shows that random numbers with the same sign pattern seen in the climate data produce just as good a correlation as temperature and emissions.

(9) MATHMATICS OF THE CARBON BUDGET: ISSUE#2: Yet another issue in the TCRE and in carbon budgets constructed with the TCRE is that climate science uses two very different mathematical constructs to relate warming to emissions and these two mathematical constructs contain a mathematical inconsistency. In the ECS climate sensitivity construct developed from the theory of infrared absorption by CO2, we find that temperature is proportional to the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, in the TCRE used to construct carbon budgets we find that since atmospheric CO2 concentration is proportional to cumulative emissions, these relationships imply that in the ECS theory of AGW, temperature is a logarithmic function of cumulative emissions. But in the TCRE we find a linear relationship between temperature and cumulative emissions. This contradiction creates a mathematical inconsistency explained in a related post: LINK: . The essential part of this post is reproduced below.

Tip of the Week: What's with all the inconsistency? | Change ...

Scientists confirm confirmation bias rampant in anti-vaccine movement

(10) THE REMAINING CARBON BUDGET PUZZLE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE: As described in related posts on this site: LINK: The use of the TCRE to construct carbon budgets has created a vexing and mysterious anomaly that has frustrated climate scientists. The anomaly, described as the mystery of the remaining carbon budget, is that the carbon budget does not accumulate uniformly through the budget period so that at any time in the middle, the remaining carbon budget computed by subtraction does not equal the carbon budget re-computed with the TCRE. The explanation for that anomaly is described in detail in the related post and it is this. Recall that the TCRE is a creation of sign patterns where emissions are always positive and during a time of warming, annual warming values are mostly positive. The value of the TCRE is a related to the fraction of the annual warming values that are positive. This fraction is unlikely to be the same in the two parts of the climate budget period being compared. That is, the time span of the remaining carbon budget contains a different ratio of positive annual warming values than there was in the full span.

(11): STATISTICAL ERRORS CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY TWEAKING EARTH SYSTEM CLIMATE MODELS: However, in climate science what we find is that this anomaly is interpreted as some kind of complexity in the climate system that can be resolved with Earth System Models of greater complexity. Yet, this is what we see in climate science. In an extreme and comical demonstration of circular reasoning and confirmation bias, climate scientists have found ways to tweak their Earth System Models to explain a purely statistical anomaly as seen for example in the Friedlingstein paper: LINK:

(12): AN ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE STATISTICAL ISSUES WITH FORCINGS IN CLIMATE MODELS: Climate science has misinterpreted anomalies created by statistical errors as a climate science issue that needs to be resolved with Earth System climate models of greater complexity. In this context we find that their struggle with the remaining carbon budget puzzle demonstrates a failure of climate science to address statistical issues of the TCRE in terms of statistics. This failure has led them down a complex and confusing path of trying to find a climate science explanation of the remaining carbon budget anomaly that was created by statistical errors. The research paper presented below serves as an example of this kind of climate research. The real solution to the remaining carbon budget puzzle is to understand the statistical flaws in the TCRE correlation and to stop using it.

Reto Knutti - Home | Facebook

Abstract: An emergent property of most Earth system models is a near-linear relationship between cumulative emission of CO2 and change in global near-surface temperature. This relationship, which has been named the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE), implies a finite budget of fossil fuel carbon that can be burnt over all time consistent with a chosen temperature change target. Carbon budgets are inversely proportional to the value of TCRE and are therefore sensitive to the uncertainty in TCRE. Here the authors have used a perturbed physics approach with an Earth system model of intermediate complexity to assess the uncertainty in the TCRE that arises from uncertainty in the rate of transient temperature change and the effect of this uncertainty on carbon cycle feedbacks. The experiments are conducted using an idealized 1% yr−1 increase in CO2 concentration. Additionally, the authors have emulated the temperature output of 23 models from phase 5 of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The experiment yields a mean value for TCRE of 1.72 K EgC−1 with a 5th to 95th percentile range of 0.88 to 2.52 K EgC−1. This range of uncertainty is consistent with the likely range from the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (0.8 to 2.5 K EgC−1) but by construction underestimates the total uncertainty range of TCRE, as the authors’ experiments cannot account for the uncertainty from their models’ imperfect representation of the global carbon cycle. Transient temperature change uncertainty induces a 5th to 95th percentile range in the airborne fraction at the time of doubled atmospheric CO2 of 0.50 to 0.58. Overall the uncertainty in the value of TCRE remains considerable. {[MacDougall, Andrew H., Neil C. Swart, and Reto Knutti. “The uncertainty in the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions arising from the uncertainty in physical climate parameters.” Journal of Climate 30.2 (2017): 813-827}.


Canada's UFOs: The search for the unknown - Library and Archives Canada

Carbon Budget – LINGO


LINK TO SOURCE DOCUMENT:,discussing%20types%20of%20geothermal%20systems

Dr John OSullivan - The University of Auckland
University of Auckland Summer Scholarships in New Zealand, 2020

Everywhere in the world there is an upward flux of heat at the surface of the earth arising from radioactive decay in the interior. The average value of the heat flux is 65 milliwatts per square meter ~65mW/m2. The corresponding average temperature gradient is 30C/km or 0.03C/meter but the gradient will vary according to the thermal conductivity of the rock). In geothermal areas, found at plate boundaries and other geologically active regions, the heat flow is much greater. The type of geothermal system depends on the heat flow and the geological setting. They range from warm water systems where there is no fluid movement and no boiling, up to two-phase systems with convection and lots of boiling underground. Power is the rate at which energy is being produced (or used). Energy is measured in Joules (J) Power is measured in Watts (W). 1 Watt = 1 Joule/second. 1 kW = 1000 W & 1 MW = 1000kW. Enthalpy is the measure of energy contained in water or steam (kJ/kg). Before discussing types of geothermal systems we need to quickly review the thermodynamic properties of water. As liquid water is heated it changes phase by boiling to become steam (a gas phase) The boiling point of water depends on pressure.

Before discussing types of geothermal systems, we need to review the mechanisms for heat transfer that operate in a geothermal system. They are Conduction, Convection, and Counter-flow. In conduction, heat flows from a hot temperature to a cold temperature without fluid movement. The rate of heat flow = conductivity x temperature gradient.

Convection – in hot geothermal systems there is a large scale movement of water (called convection), with hot water rising. Heat moves with the hot water. Heat flow = mass flow x enthalpy Requires pathways for water to move: PERMEABILITY.

Counter-flow: In some geothermal systems there is a boiling zone containing water and steam. Here water trickles down and steam rises. This process is called counter-flow Heat flow = steam rising – water trickling down. Also requires pathways (permeability) Transfers heat (even though it may not transfer much mass) because the enthalpy of steam is higher than the enthalpy of water.

Warm water systems: In warm water systems the heat transfer mechanism is conduction alone. There is no convective circulation of groundwater. Boiling does not occur in the reservoir even during exploitation. They are mainly used for direct use, nonelectrical purposes. Binary plants are now being produced that can use water at 90C.

Geothermal Heating and Cooling - Middleton Heat & Air

I Went to a Climate Change Denial Conference. It Made Even Less Sense Than  You'd Think. - In These Times

Cartoons on Climate Change and Global Warming | US News



The world’s first paper on anthropogenic global warming [AGW] was published in 1938 by Guy Callendar. The paper is described in detail in a related post on this site LINK: . The paper says that the world has warmed steadily from 1900 to 1938 and at the same time, since 1900, atmospheric CO2 concentration has been steadily rising while the industrial revolution has been burning huge quantities of coal. The paper proposes a causal link between these three phenomena to say that the use of coal by the industrial economy caused atmospheric CO2 to rise and that rising atmospheric CO2 has caused the earth to warm by way of Tyndal’s greenhouse effect of CO2 with a climate sensitivity of ECS=2. The paper was published by the Royal Society. However, the modern version of the same climate science says that ECS=3 with an uncertainty band of plus or minus 1.5 and finds the 1900-1938 warming explained by Callendar as AGW to be an anomaly described as the “early twentieth century warming anomaly” or ETCW and not human caused global warming. The ETCW anomaly of climate science is described in detail in a related post on this site: LINK: . In this case, modern climate science is a denier of the climate science presented in the Callendar 1938 paper. Yet, this is exactly how science advances. Unlike religion, science is an information dynamic where all proposed theories are evaluated critically by subsequent researchers such that over long periods of time the theory evolves and mutates into new forms that can be described as denial of the earlier versions of the theory.


Reformed Churchmen: August 31, 1555: Burn That Damned, Protestant,  Evangelical, Anglican Heretic!

A related matter in the context of science denial within climate science is the unsettled issue of when AGW began. This issue rests on the foundational concept in AGW that it is a creation of the industrial economy by way of fossil fuel combustion and the release of CO2 made with very old carbon dug up from under the ground where it had been sequestered from nature’s carbon cycle for millions of years. This carbon does not belong in the current account of the carbon cycle and is therefore a perturbation of nature’s carbon cycle and climate system.

This is why AGW is understood as the warming “since pre-industrial” where the pre-industrial temperature is the reference temperature from which the amount of AGW warming is computed. The amount of warming since pre-industrial (WSPI) is a critical parameter in climate science because of the determination that WSPI must not be allowed to exceed a critical threshold beyond which AGW becomes irreversible and destructive by way of dangerous positive feedbacks unleashed to the point where the planet itself is threatened with destruction. Therefore the identification of this critical pre-industrial year and the reference pre-industrial temperature is a critical issue in climate science. This year draws the line between when the cooling in the Little Ice Age ended and the warming in AGW began.

IPCC report points out the benefits of a tax shift | United by Tax

The IPCC, thought to be the authoritative source of AGW science, identified this critical climate turnaround of the industrial revolution as 1750. In a later report, the year was moved ahead by 100 years to 1850 without comment or an explanation for the change. This significant change is a science denial of the climate science that holds 1750 as the reference pre-industrial year. Even more dramatic is that NASA and climate scientist James Hansen have moved the pre-industrial start year of AGW by yet another 100 years from 1850 to 1950. In effect, NASA is in denial of IPCC climate science.

James Hansen's legacy: Scientists reflect on climate change in 1988, 2018,  and 2048

An additional issue is the WSPI, warming since pre-industrial, where the critical amount of warming that must not be exceeded to avoid planetary destruction. This value was initially proposed as 5C meaning that global mean temperature in the current warming must not be allowed to exceed the reference pre-industrial temperature by more than 5C. After the change of the IPCC pre-industrial reference year from 1750 to 1850, the critical value of the WSPI was lowered to 4C. In subsequent years, this critical parameter in climate science was lowered without explanation to 3C and then to 2C and finally in 2018 to 1.5C by the IPCC at the same reference pre-industrial year of 1850 and the same reference pre-industrial temperature. Each of these revised values of the critical WSPI is a science denial of the prior value made more egregious by the absence of a rational explanation for the change . Within this overall context of IPCC climate science NASA and James Hansen stand out as an extreme case of science denial with a reference pre-industrial year of 1950. Even worse, is that the critical value of WSPI remains at the IPCC value even though the two pre-industrial years are 100 years apart. Science denial is endemic in climate science.

What We Know about Climate Change, Updated Edition | The MIT Press

A significant area of AGW science has been the post hoc attribution of catastrophic forest fires, heat waves, excessive dryness, excessive wetness, storms, and specifically tropical cyclones to the higher temperatures caused by AGW. An important climate scientist in this area of research is Kerry Emanuel whose analysis of the destructiveness of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 laid the foundation for this line of research. In his research paper he wrote that he has found in the data that climate change causes tropical cyclones to become more destructive. This paper is discussed in detail in a related post: LINK: . The finding was derived from the study of a single tropical cyclone (Hurricane Katrina) that had formed in the North Atlantic cyclone basin in 2005. The climate science of the impact of AGW on tropical cyclones does in fact imply an impact of warming on tropical cyclones by way of higher sea surface temperature (SST). AGW causes SST to go up and warmer SST in turn provides more energy to tropical cyclones.

However, climate science also holds that empirical evidence of this impact of AGW on tropical cyclones by way of SST must be determined in a long term study over many decades of the total accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) of all tropical cyclones in all six cyclone basins. See for example, Knutson, Thomas R., et al. “Tropical cyclones and climate change.” Nature geoscience 3.3 (2010): 157-163. In the paper, climate science spells out exactly what climate science claims in terms of the impact of AGW climate change on tropical cyclones with climate model predictions of the effect of rising SST on tropical cyclones. The main points are as follows: (1) Globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones will rise as AGW increases SST. Models predict globally averaged intensity increase of 2% to 11% by 2100. (2). Models predict falling globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones with frequency decreasing 6%-34% by 2100. (3). The globally averaged frequency of “most intense tropical cyclones” should increase as a result of AGW. The intensity of tropical cyclones is measured as the ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy). (4). Models predict increase in precipitation within a 100 km radius of the storm center. A precipitation rise of 20% is projected for the year 2100. (5) Extremely high variance in tropical cyclone data at an annual time scale suggests longer, perhaps a decadal time scale which in turn greatly reduces statistical power. (6) Model projections for individual cyclone basins show large differences and conflicting results. Thus, no testable implication can be derived for studies of individual basins.

This is because of extreme random variability in the data and also because the selection of a specific cyclone or a specific cyclone basin, or a specific cyclone season may include the effect of non climate variables that may have played a role in the evolution and the destructiveness of the cyclone. As it turns out, this was the case for Hurricane Katrina, the sole cyclone studied by Professor Emanuel. Although it was not a particularly strong cyclone nor the strongest cyclone of the 2005 season, it had caused an epic disaster in Louisiana because of inadequate maintenance of a levee system that had failed. Significantly, the major impact of the storm that had made it into a horrific event was the flood due to the failed levee system. These horrific events that were unrelated to SST made Hurricane Katrina into an AGW horror story in the media and climate scientists followed the media story to provide the science behind that horror as we see in the Emanuel paper. Surprisingly, the Emanuel 2005 paper still stands today as evidence of the tropical cyclone horror of AGW. Yet, as shown here, in the climate science of tropical cyclones, the Emanuel paper does not provide the evidence needed to make that determination. The Emanuel 2005 paper is an expression of climate science denial. It is an example of science denial in which science is less important than whether the fear of AGW it creates serves the needs of climate science in their climate action movement against the use of fossil fuels. What we learn from these cases in climate science is that whether science denial is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how it affects the ability of climate science to rid the world of fossil fuels and move the world’s energy infrastructure to renewables.

New Orleans flooded as pumps failed, worrying residents about what will  happen when the next hurricane hits - The Washington Post



The science of the extinction of dinosaurs was first proposed in 1980. It said that the extinction was caused by volcanic eruptions and climate change. In 1991, when they found an impact crater of an asteroid, science deniers denied the volcano theory saying that it must have been the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs.

Conventional science holds that the what makes the different races of humans different from each other is their genetics. In 2002, science deniers looked into this matter and found that genetic difference does not explain the difference among races.

In the 17th century scientists invented telescopes and saw the other planets around our sun. The science of planets was that there are nine planets around the sun including ours and that these were the only planets in the universe. In 1995 science deniers looked outside of our solar system and denied the 9-planet science to claim that there were billions of planets in the universe.

In the 19th century scientists determined that dinosaurs were animals much like dogs but bigger that could walk on two legs. More recently, science deniers denied this view of dinosaurs and claimed that they had feathers – more like birds than dogs.

In the 19th century scientists found that there were an older and dumber kind of humans they called Neanderthals that roamed Europe before we took over and they became extinct and so therefore Neanderthals and humans could not have coexisted at any time. Now, science deniers are saying that Neanderthals weren’t dumb but smart and not only that they didn’t really disappear because we coexisted with them and we interbred with them such that Europeans today carry the Neanderthal gene and modern humans with Neanderthal genes are more advanced than those without Neanderthal genes.

A long time ago, planetary scientists determined that what made the earth unique among the planets around our sun is that we had water and they didn’t. Now science deniers at NASA deny this planetary science saying that Mars too has water.

Many decades ago scientists discovered that humans and more complex organisms had more genes than simpler organisms like plants and bugs. Now science deniers are saying that this is not so because the number of genes is not related to specie complexity.

In the 1950s scientists determined that because of gravity the expansion of the universe is slowing down but now science deniers are denying this science to claim that universe is actually expanding faster and faster.

In the 1950s, scientists determined that humans were the smartest of all the apes and that the apes we are thought to descend from were smarter than the rest and in particular creatures like birds were just plain dumb as in bird brain. Now science deniers are saying that birds are smart and some of them are smarter than the apes we descended from.

A few decades ago, scientists determined that ulcers are caused by stress. Now science deniers deny that science saying that ulcers are caused by bacteria.

Climate Change is Real: One Student's Experience in Making Sense of Climate Science  Denial | edX Blog


Heresy, Inquisition, Jihad, Fatwa and the Hare Krsnas | Sri Narasingha  Chaitanya Ashram

4IR APPG on Twitter: "World Economic Forum founder Prof Klaus Schwab will  talk #FourthIndustrialRevolution with @MattHancock and @AlanMakMP on 16 Oct  @wef #4IR…"


There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19. Having already led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, the pandemic represents one of the worst public-health crises in recent history. And, with casualties still mounting in many parts of the world, it is far from over. This will have serious long-term consequences for economic growth, public debt, employment, and human wellbeing. According to the Financial Times, global government debt has already reached its highest level in peacetime. Moreover, unemployment is skyrocketing in many countries: in the US, for example, one in four workers have filed for unemployment since mid-March, with new weekly claims far above historic highs. The International Monetary Fund expects the world economy to shrink by 3% this year – a downgrade of 6.3 percentage points in just four months. All of this will exacerbate the climate and social crises that were already underway. Some countries have already used the COVID-19 crisis as an excuse to weaken environmental protections and enforcement. And frustrations over social ills like rising inequality – US billionaires’ combined wealth has increased during the crisis – are intensifying. COVID-19 is a litmus test for stakeholder capitalism. Left unaddressed, these crises, together with COVID-19, will deepen and leave the world even less sustainable, less equal, and more fragile. Incremental measures and ad hoc fixes will not suffice to prevent this scenario. We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems. The level of cooperation and ambition this implies is unprecedented. But it is not some impossible dream. In fact, one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office. Likewise, populations have overwhelmingly shown a willingness to make sacrifices for the sake of health-care and other essential workers and vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. And many companies have stepped up to support their workers, customers, and local communities, in a shift toward the kind of stakeholder capitalism to which they had previously paid lip service. Clearly, the will to build a better society does exist. We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need. That will require stronger and more effective governments, though this does not imply an ideological push for bigger ones. And it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way. The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination (for example, in tax, regulatory, and fiscal policy), upgrade trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.” At a time of diminishing tax bases and soaring public debt, governments have a powerful incentive to pursue such action. Moreover, governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition. The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability. Here, the large-scale spending programs that many governments are implementing represent a major opportunity for progress. The European Commission, for one, has unveiled plans for a €750 billion ($826 billion) recovery fund. The US, China, and Japan also have ambitious economic-stimulus plans. Rather than using these funds, as well as investments from private entities and pension funds, to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics. The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.

Dear Leader, North Korea's Senior Propagandist Exposes Shocking Truths  Behind the Regime by Jang Jin-Sung | 9781846044205 | Booktopia


Catch-22 (miniseries) | Catch-22 Wiki | Fandom






อนาคตของ "ศตวรรษแห่งเอเชีย" จะขับเคลื่อนและนำโดยกลุ่มประเทศเอเชีย-7 |  ThaiPublica
Jason Kenney hands out earplugs during debate on bill affecting union  rights | CTV News


The 10 Best Places To Live In The Alberta | Canada - YouTube
7 Amazing Alberta Ski Resorts You'll Want to Visit - Hike Bike Travel


QUESTION: Where do you stand on The Great Reset the liberals are planning on introducing.

ANSWER: First of all, what is this Great Reset? When Pierre Poilievre, Federal Conservative Finance critic recently raised some concern about the Great Reset, he was attacked by the Liberals and by the Media saying that the Great Reset was a conspiracy theory. It’s not a conspiracy theory. The Great Reset is actually the name of a book by Klaus Schwab, a prominent advocate of the Great Reset. The book says that governments, societies, and the world should seize the opportunity provided by the public health and its consequent economic crisis to re-imagine the world and radically change policies. The question is, change policies in what ways? I would describe it as a grab bag of leftwing ideas for less freedom and more government – for more government intervention, for policies that in my opinion would create massive poverty – particularly in energy policy, and the other policies he is advocating. Klaus Schwab by the way is the President and the founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF) also known as the Davos summit. I call it the gathering of biggest global hypocrites in history. It’s a little ski village in Switzerland where every February a couple of thousand super rich people – millionaires, billionaires, global CEOs and politicians fly into Davos in hundreds of private aircraft they go into Switzerland and spend a week basically lecturing the rest of the world including specially working men and women about how they should reduce their carbon footprint. The hypocrisy in that crowd is so thick you can’t even cut it with a knife. No, I’m not going to be taking any policy directions from Klaus Schwab or his ilk. What I find offensive, look, the so called Great Reset is not a conspiracy theory. It is an actual set of concrete proposals being advocated by some very influential people – including Prime Minister Trudeau who clearly alluded to it, referred to it, quotes from it, and described the Schwab Theory in a positive light in a speech he gave to the UN a couple of months ago. S it is not a conspiracy theory to talk about that. Those are the folks advocating it. And I think it is perfectly legitimate for democratically elected leaders like me to say “Heck No! We are not going to exploit or take advantage of a crisis to advance a political agenda. If we’re actually all in this together, then how can we focus on the crisis in protecting lives and livelihoods – helping people get through this. And how about after that? Instead of exploiting the crisis (to advance a political agenda that could not have been advanced with reason and therefore needs a crisis, to impose on democratic societies a whole bunch of failed socialist policy ideas. How about instead, we get refocused on generating economic growth – on recreating some of the trillions of dollars of wealth that will have been destroyed? Restarting some of the hundreds and thousands of businesses that will have gone under. Of obsessively focusing on getting them – the tens of millions around the world back to work. Those who have suffered most around the world in the Covid era have been the poorest. So the notion that we would then drive them through into energy poverty through Klaus Schwab’s policy agenda is … I just frankly find it offensive. So, no it is not a conspiracy, nor is it a conspiracy theory, I think it’s just very distasteful and regrettable that influential people would explicitly seek to take advantage of a crisis like this to advance their own political vision and values.

Monthly Barometer


(1) The call for ‘global governance’ is chilling. The book not only calls ‘global governance’, but also for a heightened cooperation between the ‘private sector’ and the ‘public sector’. Private sector: banks and corporations (private interests), Public sector: the government (public welfare). The fact that you’re trying to involve private interests in the conversation about public welfare is hilarious. Americans want a government that represents the People, not a handful of oligarchs who rig the system to benefit themselves. America will be the greatest threat to the ‘Great Reset’ for this reason. In fact, saying that ‘capitalism is broken’ is pretty disingenuous when you consider that banks and corporations are the ones who broke it in the first place.
Aren’t we only 12 years removed from the 2008 financial crisis? And you think the people of America trust you to install ‘global governance’? After our institutions have proved to be unworthy of our trust. Private sector influence in the public sector is what caused our economic woes to begin with. I seriously doubt giving banks and corporations MORE of a role in government is going to benefit us in any way. I have a radical idea: let’s get money out of politics, not invite more of it into politics. I realize that most people don’t have any economic sensibility whatsoever, but I think the WEF is underestimating the number of people who are raising eyebrows at this whole ‘Great Reset’ thing. Perhaps that’s why radical revolutions so frequently entail locking up the educated. If you’re somewhat intelligent, you see right through the lie. And so into the gulag you go! (Hopefully they have pizza in 21st century concentration camps. I need pizza.) All in all, I was not impressed with the book. I’ve been paying attention to the UN’s Agenda 21/2030 for awhile, but I always thought they’d pull it off a lot more smoothly than they are. As it stands right now, a lot of people are viewing this as a plot to subvert American democracy. The question is: Why isn’t this big news?

(2) Know your enemy – this is their manual. I think they have greatly underestimated the fact that populations will return to their own normal, or close to it, naturally. Opportunistic malfeasance by the Davos ‘elites’ will be their own downfall.

(3) Klaus speculates, pontificates, then imo defecates on humanity with his utopian vision to first save the planet. You’ll be given everything, own nothing, and have no religion to boot. And you’ll be happy … and we shall have … PEACE. Lmao.

(4) This is a must read – not because I agree with what Klaus says (I definitely DON’T), BUT because after reading, it all should just click. George Floyd, Trump, China, Vaccines, Contact Tracing, Reduced Privacy, Climate Change, WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. Pick up your copy. Show others. Highlight as you go. We must re-elect President Trump in November.

(5) Yes, you read that right. Technocratic Totalitarianism on a Global scale. This was horrifying, and they’re using this pandemic to do it.

(6) This is a pro communist propaganda piece of trash. It’s anti free market capitalism. It’s not worth one penny. It’ll be kindling soon. It’s COVID19 fictionalization is nauseating. It should have a red cover. It tries to sway the reader into NWO thinking.


(8) I recently read the following book; “ Covid-19, The Great Reset”. One of the Authors is Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum. The WEF was involved in “war gaming” a pandemic in 2019 called Event 201. “ Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic.” This book was published in June of 2020. Essentially, this book discusses the outcome of the Covid-19 pandemic and how the world will form into a new order a.k.a The Fourth Industrial Revolution or The Great Reset. The book is largely written in a hypothetical manner with suggestions as to possible outcomes, desirable or not desirable. However, it is easy to see it as a road map for the new global world order, because it is. Covid 19 has turned out to be a catalyst, underscoring deficiencies in our current system of governance, business, trade and social order. And the WEF (and their many powerful associates) has a solution for all of this. Interestingly, portions of this solution are already in place. Virtually everything you have experienced or read about for the last six months is part of their plan. This not theory, the ship has sailed and you are on it. I do not suggest that their plan is all doom and gloom. Their recommendations and theories are in fact quite sensible and I found myself agreeing with their descriptions of our glaring societal deficiencies and how Covid 19 highlighted them. Things such as universal health care, global warming, wealth distribution, supply chains, trade inequities etc. etc. are all discussed. Theoretically we could arrive in a post Covid 19 world in a better place, but that may take years. This book is fascinating and prescient (strangely so) and is a must read if you want to hypothecate regarding your own future. Do I trust them?…hell no. The devil is always in the details which are short in supply right now. But we are all going on this ride and that is a fact. Remember, Bill Gates said the next pandemic is coming and it will likely be worse than this one (yes he did and with a smile). So get ready and hang on.

(9) All in all the book is an attempt to guide the readers mind into believing a reset is required. One in which the reader will lose personal freedom, but gain dystopian leadership while agreeing to do so. The book is written from the “Quantum Perspective” which boils down to the premise that life is 100% subjective and that YOU are not real but are in fact a part of THEIR projected reality, and to FIX that, (as Klaus Schwab, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Rothschilds as a family and many others in their circle etc think,,,,,,,, the world requires one single governing “Private Stakeholder” body/organisation and hey ho,,,,,, they will in time pop up to provide that – this is why they drone on and on about the need for a great reset). This is nothing short of a real life “Dr No” Bond movie where Psychopaths plan to dominate and take over the world. Yet am I saying that these people are psychopaths? Well, the book contains conflicting words, sentences facts and figures the way psychopaths present, so please read and work that out for yourself. Jump to the back (p251) and one will quickly discover the book was largely written by WEF’s own sub-contracted crew, one of which is the English Historian Mary Anne Malleret who nauseatingly brow beats you into the idea of historical comparisons, namely the second world war as justification for calling forth a so called great reset. The book cites Psychologists on many occasions, yet qualified in psychology myself and conferring with many of my own circle of Dr’s,,,,, not one could agree that the narrative and statistics from this book were at all accurate – Most agreed they the references to psychology and studies were rather misleading, spoken from a their perceptional “fantasy future” perspective, and were guiding the individual to agree with their fictional fantasy. The book continually pushes you down the narrative of 3 scenarios – Yet most psychologists will impart that this is a strategy to plant subliminal “ideas” into one’s mind. So please be mindful,,,,, as scenarios presented are merely ideas, and ideas are not truths – Ideas germinate truths only if the reader adopts them. Be mindful and read from an impartial objective view, not from perceive and believe (especially their statistics). I could go on, yet let’s round it up to quote the book – “Enlightened Leadership = HRH Prince Charles”. I rest my case. This book Is a total waste of money.

(10) Trying to convince the reader that the great reset is redquired because of covid. All while stating in the conclusion that the virus is one of the worlds least deadly pandemics in 2000. Give me a break, at least it seems that the plan isnt going as expected. I can clearly see almost everything that has happened in 2020 seems to be continuing with a plan to devide the people while scrambling around trying to usher in the new world order.

(11) This book explores the current global scenario and discusses what the future might hold for us. We are told we are at a crossroads, one path will take us to a better world, the other will be similar to what we left behind but worse. With a nod to religion (heaven or hell), it is obvious we are supposed to choose the path laid out for us. The authors erroneously suggest that the pandemic has dramatically torn up the existing script of how to govern countries, live with others and take part in the global economy. They tell us that the spread of infectious diseases has a unique ability to fuel fear, anxiety and mass hysteria. To push home this point, the word ‘fear’ is mentioned 31 times in the book. I don’t doubt that there are sections of society who are worried but I fail to sense the emotional carnage that the authors’ describe. Things, they say, will never return to normal but a few pages later suggest that a vaccine, and enough people being vaccinated, will enable us to return to normal. Are warning bells ringing with you? They are with me. The use of selective quotes to spread fear and social unrest, promoting the view that we are heading into chaos and uncertainty, is highly irresponsible. The authors claim a failure of global governance and leadership over Covid-19 and that people now feel the time ripe for reinvention. Presumably this is where The Great Reset comes in. All well and good but I’d like to know who these people are? Prince Charles? Tony Blair? To truly understand the message of the book, you have to know about the authors. Klaus Schwab is an economist, engineer and founder and Executive Chairman of the WEF. The WEF is an elite global non-governmental organisation based in Switzerland committed to shaping a better global future. Thierry Malleret is Managing Partner of the Monthly Barometer (for top-level business and investors) and previously founder and head of the Global Risk Network at the WEF, investment banker and economist. WEF attracts the wealthy and the powerful including those from business, politics, charity and academia, as well as celebrities and activists. Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minster, banned ministers from attending the last WEF meeting at Davos in January 2020 to focus on the people and not on champagne with billionaires. He once told the BBC that Davos was “a great big constellation of egos involved in massive mutual orgies of adulation”. Little things annoyed me about the book such as no Chapter listings at the beginning of the Kindle version giving the impression of a long rambling essay. References to films and novels, e.g. ‘The Plague’ by Albert Camus, were singularly unhelpful. More serious references often failed to tell the whole story. For example, one stated that most (65%) of the world agreed that: ‘In the economic recovery after Covid-19, it’s important that government actions prioritize climate change’. I find it difficult to understand how a survey of 28,029 people out of a global population of 7.8 billion can be a fair representation of global opinion. Also, what wasn’t mentioned was that nearly half (44%) wanted action taken to help the economy recover even if it was bad for the environment. The misinformation continued with the blanket claim that working at home is climate friendly when this is only the case in the summer. Research shows a typical British commuter working at home all year round would have a carbon footprint that is 80% higher than the average office worker (WSP, 2020). For all the talk about global economics and finance, there is much missing. No mention of the implications of the dollar coming off the gold standard in 1971. No mention of Bitcoin, a well-established global digital currency, available to all. The truth about global finance cannot be found here. It can really only be found with people like Mike Maloney and James Rickards. As for climate change and the environment, there is no mention of the green washing which has inveigled its way into every facet of our lives. Recycling has spectacularly failed the world over. The devastation of the natural environment, and the death and displacement of wildlife, caused by global wind farm development is one of the most appalling crimes of the century and continues unabated. Fourteen million trees have been felled for wind farms in Scotland alone. This is the tip of the iceberg. The world is being systematically destroyed by ‘green’ energy development. Climate change is big business and the authors of the book are using it as leverage to push for global control. I would have liked to have seen less self-citation from Schwab, the WEF and to a lesser extent Malleret. Referencing a book with your previous work is not a crime but doesn’t sit well with a lot of people. The rhetoric regarding Covid-19, providing the opportunity for a fairer greener future where wealth will be distributed from the rich to the poor, is laughable. Members of WEF and attendees of Davos are some of the most powerful in society, mega corporations who control and shape us, they are the elite, Royalty, the bankers of the world, the cream of the crop. Presumably, these are the people we are supposed to be handing over global governance to. You would have to be seriously deluded to think that any of them will give up their wealth. In addition, they have had plenty of time to make a fairer, more eco-friendly, world but their track record speaks for itself. I fail to see any reason why we should put any faith in them and this book hasn’t changed my mind. The WEF is an exclusive club and, by its very nature, excludes the majority of the citizens of the world. It’s real aim is global control of the billions of ordinary people and the destruction of nation states. In other words, the imposition of a totalitarian government. The Great Reset is a sham of epic proportions. Read this book with extreme caution. It is a Trojan horse.

(12) The manifesto of a dying organisation. The book speaks volumously of revolutions in all sectors including political, economical, social and technological. What it is blind to however is the imminent spiritual revolution that humanity has been denied for so many years. If there is one thing we can be absolutely certain of, it is the impossibility of death (as state) due to the inability of Un-consciousness to manifest in the 1st-person. In the absence of 1st-person Un-consciousness, all that remains is 1st-person Consciousness. There can never be a moment when you are not having an experience – all that can change is the nature of the experience. People are waking up to the logical understanding that we are an eternal collective consciousness. Once fully completed, compassion and empathy will be our natural foundation Unconditional Love will be the revolution. Not this book. Sorry.

(13) I bought this book to gain some knowledge about the mindset of globalists, who are the selfproclaimed “elite” of this world, while nobody has ever voted for them to govern our lives. This book is good evidence that these people are living in a bubble, having lost all connection to reality. I will now summarize the main problems I have figured out about the author’s perception of reality depicted in this book: 1) The free market is responsible for all evil, what we need is stronger governments, preferably such a ‘democratic’ one as in China. Consequently, the book is full with praise for the Chinese way of life. An assumption which cannot be made by reasonable people who want to live in a free and sustainable world in which the individuum’s rights are protected, and not exposed to constant surveillance, which we have in Chinese communism today. Here are some quotes from the book: “[The situation might provoke changes such as] an augmented search for the common good as a policy objective, the notion of fairness acquiring political potency, radical welfare and taxation measures, […]” (p.18) “the Confucianism prevalent in so many Asian countries places a sense of duty and generational solidarity before individual rights; it also puts high value on measures and rules that benefit the community as a whole.” (p.88) “The Covid-19 pandemic has made government important again. Not just powerful again, but also vital again[…]” (p.89, the author quoting John Micklethwait)
“Acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there is no reason why it should be different with the Covid-19 pandemic.” (p.89) “[…] the role of the state has shrunk considerably. This is a situation that is set to change because it is hard to imagine how an exogenous shock of such magnitute […]could be addressed with purely market-based solutions.” (p.91) “On the dial that measures the continuum between the government and the markets, the needle has decisively moved towards the left.” (p.92) “For the first time […] governments have the upper hand. […] Rather than simply fixing market failures when they arise, they should, as suggested by the economist Mariana Mazzucato: ‘move towards actively shaping and creating markets that deliver sustainable and inclusive growth.’ ” (p.92) “A significant element of new “bigger” government is already in place with the vastly increased and quasi-immediate government control of the economy.” (p.92) “Looking to the future, governments will most likely […] decide that it’s in the best interest of society to rewrite some of the rules of the game and permanently increase their role.” (p.93)
“the role of the state will increase and, in doing so, will materially affect the way business is conducted. […] business executives in all industries and all countries will have to adapt to greater government intervention. […] Taxation will increase, particularly for the most privileged” (p.94) “While in the past the US was always the first to arrive with aid where assistance was needed, this role now belongs to China” (p. 123) The author is also totally in love with the concept of mass surveillance. He writes: “The containment of the coronavirus pandemic will necessitate a global surveillance network” (p.33) “We will see how contact tracing has an unequalled capacity and a quasi.-essential place in the armoury needed to combat Covid-19, while at the same time being positioned to become an enabler of mass surveillance.” (p.153) “An important lesson can be learned from the countries that were more effective in dealing with the pandemic (in particular Asian nations): technology in general and digital in particular help. Successful contact tracing proved to be a key component of a successful strategy against Covid-19.” (p.159) “Contact tracing and tracking are therefore essential components of our public-health response to Covid-19” (p.160) “China, Hong Kong SAR and South Korea implemented coercive and intrusive measures of digital tracing. They took the decision to track individuals without their consent, through their mobile and credit card data, and even employed video surveillance” (p.160) “The digital tracing solution most lauded and talked about was the TraceTogether app run by Singapore’s Ministry of Health. It seems to offer the “ideal” balance between efficiency and privacy concerns[…]” (p.160) “No voluntary contact-tracing app will work if people are unwilling to provide their own personal data to the governmental agency that monitors the system” (p.164) “[…]the corporate move will be towards greater surveillance; for better or for worse, companies will be watching and sometimes recording what their workforce does.” (p.165) “[…] any digital experience that we have can be turned into a “product” destined to monitor and anticipate our behaviour.” (p.166f) “Then, when the crisis is over, some may realize that their country has suddenly be transformed into a place where they no longer wish to live.” (p.167) Even after mentioning all the dangers of constant surveillance, the author concludes that “the genie of tech surveillance will not be put back into the bottle.” (p.171) He also really thinks that “Dystopian scenarios are not a fatality.”(p.171) How we can avoid this dystopia, he does not explain in the book. But that does not seem to be the aim of the book anyway – it is rather a praise of mass surveillance and privacy does not concern the author very much. At the same time the author admits that “the consequences of Covid-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild compared to previous pandemics. At the end of June 2020, Covid-19 has killed less than 0,006% of the world population.” (p.247) And admitting that “the average age of those dying of Covid-19 is almost 80 years [in Italy]” (p.221) But that does not change his mind, he still propagates mass surveillance and the necessity of lockdowns. 4) While I understand that it is good to also see the advantages to this worldwide disaster, the author is using surprisingly positive language during his analysis of the situation:
“The possibilities for change and the resulting new order are now unlimited and only bound to our imagination” and “We should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world” (p.19) Later he even uses phrases like “not letting the crisis go to waste” (p.145 or p.142f) and “making good use of the pandemic” (p.145). My personal impression is that the author is very happy about the coronavirus and its induced opportunities. He even says that this crisis is “accelerating progress towards the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals” (p.248f). He is certainly not concerned much about the whole situation. (5) Paradoxical are also the author’s statements concerning unemployment, work and poverty. On one page he is praising the new jobs created by the crisis in the digital/online/robotic industry, but on other pages he also sees the danger of millions of people being put out of work. But his book does not sound like a warning, it sounds like an advertisement for the first group of industry which is profitting from the crisis. It sounds like this: “It is good that the ship is sinking, because we will create some jobs, when the shipwreck has to be lifted out of the water.” During the whole book the author keeps talking about “social safety nets” necessary to prevent uproars and riots, because of all the unemployment, which will be the result of the lockdowns. The idea sounds good, but who is going to pay the safety net when huge amounts of people rely on the state? The powerful state, propagated in this book needs massively high taxes anyway, which is putting even higher pressure on the working population. It does not look realistic to me. The book does not really give different answers to all the massive problems, except for “the state saving us”. Which I personally find ridiculous, because the state never cares about individuals as we can clearly see in China. (6) The underlying message of the book is: We need a global governance to be better prepared for such situations. The virus, the C02 problem, climate change etc. could only be tackled with a global leadership. The idea sounds ridiculous to me – how would a world government have changed the spreading of a virus? By more surveillance and more lockdowns? How would it reduce C02 emission? By forbidding certain industries and putting 80% of the world’s population into unemployment? How would this reduce climate change? By more laws and regulations? I think these are all just excuses to install a world leadership and many people can see that by now. (7) While writing about how the virus and the lockdown messed up the “whole world”, he completely forgot to mention countries which did not have a lockdown at all. Many of his thesises can be debunked by simply looking at Sweden. This country has successfully avoided destroying its own economy while having no lockdown, no masks, no social distancing etc. at all. No need for surveillance, technology etc. It is no surprise that the author does not mention this country a single time in the whole book. On page 45 he is talking about two studies that “modelled what could have happened without lockdown”, instead of simply looking at the real example of Sweden, I guess it did not fit the narrative. (8) The author often talks about “clean energy” (e.g. p.145) and he is obviously condemning fossile fuels, while wishing for a future full with (electric) sensors and “remoted devices”, surveillance cameras etc. which all need energy. He nowhere explains where this energy should come from. Solar and wind power are long debunked. They are inefficient and not stable sources of energy. Nuclear and coal most propably are not appreciated by the author either, so what is left? (Maybe the author knows something, we do not know). I also like to remind the fans of electric devices how batteries are made, with huge environmental damage. Here is one more quote about the author’s idea of energy supply: “A group of green activists could demonstrate in front of a coal-fired power plant” (p.149) (9) The author is so entangled in his vision of the future, economics, numbers and science, that he makes a lot of unreasonable assumptions in this book. Especially when it comes to human, social behaviour. Here are some of them, which are particularly entertaining: “As consumers may prefer automated services to face-to-face interactions […]” (p.55) “changing course will require a shift in the mindset of world leaders to place greater focus and priority on the well-being of all citizens and the planet” (p.58)
“The idea [of helicopter money] is appealing and realizable” (p.68)
“[Central bankers] will have to define an upper limit at which inflation becomes disruptive and a real concern.” (p.69) “The post-pandemic era will usher in a period of massive wealth redistribution, from the rich to the poor [!!] and from capital to labour.” (p.78) “In America as in many other countries, African Americans are poorer, more likely to be unemployed or underemployed and victims of substandard housing and living conditions. As a result they suffer more from pre-existing health conditions like obesity, heart disease or diabetes” (p.80f) (Obesity, heart disease and diabetes are mostly caused by overeating, bad diets, or unhealthy livestyle and not by social inequality.) “the three things that matter most to a great majority of us: housing, healthcare and education” (p.96) How about family, friends, peace or a good job? “calls for more spending (and therefore higher taxes) will get louder” (p.99) “An increasing number of scientists have shown that it is in fact the destruction of biodiversity caused by humans that is the source of new viruses like Covid-19” (p.138) (of course it has nothing to do with the Wuhan lab…) “bicycling and walking instead of driving to keep the air of our cities as clean as it was during the lockdowns, vacationing nearer to home[…]could lead to a sustained reduction in carbon emissions.” (p.142) (I can already imagine the author on a bicycle… Well, I guess it is only the solution for the poor masses which cannot afford a car any longer due to taxes and green unemployment?! It is also ironic that the author mentions somewhere else in the book that most carbon emission comes from the industry and other sources anyway, not from cars or home applications – as long as you do not have a smart house full of sensors, I guess…) “[Mobile devices] helping us on many different fronts, anticipating our needs, listening to us and locating us, even when not asked to do so…” (p.152) (Sounds like a great “help” to me…) ” [Instead of] driving to a distant family gathering for the weekend” using “the WhatsApp family group” which “is not as fun but, again, safer, cheaper and greener” (p.155) “[Robots] saving nurses as much as three hours’ work per day.” (p.159) (Which leads to more unemployed nurses) “just as the terrorist attacks of 9/11 triggered greater and permanent security in the name of public safety.” (p.168) (So that’s what it was good for, thanks for letting us know.) “This won’t happen, because it can’t happen.” (p.173) (Author talking about industry leaders which might want to go back to the old way of making business.) “It is likely that the markets or the consumers, or both, will punish those companies that performed poorly on social issues (p.188) (Good example is the big website on which I publish this review) “Simple pleasures like smelling a melon or squeezing a fruit will be frowned upon and may even become a thing of the past.” (p.198) (For the sake of hygiene…) 10) The author’s ideological understanding of human beings is also very interesting:
“if, as human beings, we do not collaborate to confront our existential challenges, we are doomed. Thus, we have no choice but to summon up the better angels of our nature.” (p.217) On other occasions the author is talking about man as “a social animal” showing a Darwinian mindset, but here it sounds quite religious. A typical contradiction of utopian thought. He further speculates: “if in the future we abandon the posture of self-interest that pollutes so many of our social interactions, […]” (p.224) This has not happened for the last thousands of years and no ideology will change this. I therefore highly question the author’s knowledge about the character of human beings and ask him to be more realistic, please. 11) After elaborating on the devastating psychological effects of isolation and fear, because of the lockdown, incl. high suicide rates, depressions, mental disorders etc. , he still dares to see something positive in that: “What the pandemic has achieved with respect to mental health […] heightened public awareness of the severity of the problem. […] In the post-pandemic area, these issues may now be given the priority they deserve.” (p.231) What a great comfort for all the mentally sick people. Especially, when the unemployment rate is going to be so high, that most people will not be able to afford getting professional help. (But I guess the state is going to finance that with helicopter money, because money solves all problems…) Maybe there will be a “kind” robot “listening” to their problems? But the author gives us even more reasons to “cheer up”: He writes that in times of high pressure and need a lot of good world literature has been written, because such times are so “inspiring”. (No joke, see p.234f) Afterwards he reminds us of the good effect of having more time now, since many of us are unemployed or in home office (p.236f) and how some of us might learn to appreciate being in nature again. (For those who forgot about the forests out there – they still exist.) Then he is advertising a minimalistic livestyle (Marie Kondo style), which most probably soon will not be the free choice of some people, but an obligatory adjustment to poverty. But it is also possible that I am all wrong in my criticism and instead of living in a “dark future of techno-totalitarian state surveillance” (p.170) we are all going to enter “a new era of prosperity” (p.249) (12) Problems with the printing itself. The font has bad quality (you can easily see the resolution of the letters, which makes it harder to read the book). On page 24 there is a graphic which is supposed to be in colour, because the text says that certain elements are represented by red, green, purple and so on, yet the graphic is black and white, rendering its description quite useless. Another graphic on page 199 is hard to read, too, because of bad printing resolution. This does not look very professional. PS: I would still encourage you to buy this book. It will be a valuable witness of contemporary, utopian

4IR APPG on Twitter: "World Economic Forum founder Prof Klaus Schwab will  talk #FourthIndustrialRevolution with @MattHancock and @AlanMakMP on 16 Oct  @wef #4IR…"


There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19. Having already led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, the pandemic represents one of the worst public-health crises in recent history. And, with casualties still mounting in many parts of the world, it is far from over. This will have serious long-term consequences for economic growth, public debt, employment, and human wellbeing. According to the Financial Times, global government debt has already reached its highest level in peacetime. Moreover, unemployment is skyrocketing in many countries: in the US, for example, one in four workers have filed for unemployment since mid-March, with new weekly claims far above historic highs. The International Monetary Fund expects the world economy to shrink by 3% this year – a downgrade of 6.3 percentage points in just four months.

All of this will exacerbate the climate and social crises that were already underway. Some countries have already used the COVID-19 crisis as an excuse to weaken environmental protections and enforcement. And frustrations over social ills like rising inequality – US billionaires’ combined wealth has increased during the crisis – are intensifying. COVID-19 is a litmus test for stakeholder capitalism. Left unaddressed, these crises, together with COVID-19, will deepen and leave the world even less sustainable, less equal, and more fragile. Incremental measures and ad hoc fixes will not suffice to prevent this scenario. We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems. The level of cooperation and ambition this implies is unprecedented. But it is not some impossible dream. In fact, one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office. Likewise, populations have overwhelmingly shown a willingness to make sacrifices for the sake of health-care and other essential workers and vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. And many companies have stepped up to support their workers, customers, and local communities, in a shift toward the kind of stakeholder capitalism to which they had previously paid lip service.

Clearly, the will to build a better society does exist. We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need. That will require stronger and more effective governments, though this does not imply an ideological push for bigger ones. And it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way. The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination (for example, in tax, regulatory, and fiscal policy), upgrade trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.” At a time of diminishing tax bases and soaring public debt, governments have a powerful incentive to pursue such action. Moreover, governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition. The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability. Here, the large-scale spending programs that many governments are implementing represent a major opportunity for progress. The European Commission, for one, has unveiled plans for a €750 billion ($826 billion) recovery fund. The US, China, and Japan also have ambitious economic-stimulus plans. Rather than using these funds, as well as investments from private entities and pension funds, to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics. The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.

Dear Leader, North Korea's Senior Propagandist Exposes Shocking Truths  Behind the Regime by Jang Jin-Sung | 9781846044205 | Booktopia



อนาคตของ "ศตวรรษแห่งเอเชีย" จะขับเคลื่อนและนำโดยกลุ่มประเทศเอเชีย-7 |  ThaiPublica


Viterito, A. “The correlation of seismic activity and recent global warming.” J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change 7 (2016): 34: ABSTRACT: The latest report from the IPCC states with high confidence that the warming of global temperatures since 1901 has been driven by increased radiative forcing. The gases responsible for this enhanced forcing are greenhouse gases of anthropogenic origin, and include carbon dioxide, methane, and halocarbons. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change has challenged these findings and concludes that the forcing from greenhouse gases is minimal and diminishing. They add that modelling attempts of past and future climate states are inaccurate and do not incorporate important solar inputs, such as magnetic strength and total irradiance.

A geophysical variable that has been overlooked by both groups is geothermal flux.

This study will show that increasing seismic activity for the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA), an indicator of increasing geothermal forcing, is highly correlated with average global temperatures from 1979 to 2015 (r = 0.785). By comparison, the correlation between CO2 forcing and global temperatures for the same period is lower (r = 0.739). Regression analysis indicates that HGFA seismicity is a significant predictor of global temperatures (P < 0.05), and that including carbon dioxide concentrations does not significantly improve the explained variance (P > 0.1).

A compelling case for geothermal forcing lies in the fact that 1) geothermal heat can trigger thermobaric convection and strengthen oceanic overturning, important mechanisms for transferring ocean heat to the overlying atmosphere, and 2) seismic activity is the leading indicator, while global temperature is the laggard.



Human civilization got started in an interglacial period, the Holocene. It is in this context that we must understand our view of glaciation cycles. This view is an interglacial-centric view. This is why we see interglacials as the natural state of the earth and glaciation as a departure from this norm that requires a glaciation theory to explain even though interglacials are rather brief when compared with the time span of glaciation.

In the Quaternary Ice Age, the earth is glaciated more than 90% of the time with brief interglacials at irregular and random intervals. Because of the interglacial bias of humans, our research question in the study of glaciation cycles is not “why are there interglacials?” but rather our research question is “why are there glaciations?“. The currently held view of the interglacial bias is that glaciation is explained by the Milankovitch theory in terms of the tilt, precession, and eccentricity of the earth.

An alternative theory is proposed by James Kamis LINK: to undo the interglacial bias of the Milankovitch approach. The Kamis theory proposes an explanation, not for why there are glaciations but for why there are interglacials, and why there is so much uncertainty in their formation and duration with the new unbiased approach in which the normal state of the earth is glaciation. Therefore, it is the interglacial, those brief and somewhat random blip of warming and ice melt in the context of a cold and icy earth as the norm. In the Kamis view, to understand glaciation cycles we must understand not why glaciations happen but why interglacials happen. A brief literature review is provided below in support of the heat generation of plate tectonics assumed in the Kamis model.

Foulger, G. R., and J. H_ Natland. “Is” hotspot” volcanism a consequence of plate tectonics?.” Science 300.5621 (2003): 921-922. Many volcanoes are associated with subduction zones or mid-ocean ridges, but other areas of unusually high volcanism (or hotspots“) have a more subtle connection to plate tectonic processes. In their Perspective, Foulger and Natland argue that “hotspot” volcanism is not very hot and is a shallow-source by-product of plate tectonics. In a related Perspective, DePaolo and Manga argue that evidence for at least some “hotspots” being caused by deep plumes originating at the base of Earth’s mantle is strong, although direct evidence is still lacking because of the limited resolution of seismic studies.

Lewis, T. J., A. M. Jessop, and A. S. Judge. “Heat flux measurements in southwestern British Columbia: the thermal consequences of plate tectonics.” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 22.9 (1985): 1262-1273. Measured heat fluxes from previously published data and 34 additional boreholes outline the terrestrial heat flow field in southern British Columbia. Combined with heat generation representative of the crust at 10 sites in the Intermontane and Omineca belts, the data define a heat flow province with a reduced heat flow of 63mWm2 and a depth scale of 10km. Such a linear relationship is not found or expected in the Insular Belt and the western half of the Coast Plutonic Complex where low heat fluxes are interpreted to be the result of recent subduction. The apparent boundary between low and high heat flux is a transition over a distance of 20km, located in Jervis Inlet 2040km seaward of the Pleistocene Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. The warm, thin crust of the Intermontane and Omenica Crystalline belts is similar to that of areas of the Basin and Range Province where the youngest volcanics are more than 17Ma in age. Processes 50Ma ago that completely heated the crust and upper mantle could theoretically produce such high heat fluxes by conductive cooling of the lithosphere. But it is more likely that the asthenosphere flows towards the subduction zone, bringing heat to the base of the lithosphere. Since the reduced heat flow is high but constant, large differences in upper crustal temperatures within this heat flow province at present are caused by large variations in both crustal heat generation and near-surface thermal conductivity. The sharp transition in heat flux near the coast is the result of the combined effects of convective heating of the eastern Coast Plutonic Complex, pronounced differential uplift and erosion across a boundary within the Coast Plutonic Complex, and the subducting oceanic plate.

Bickle, M. J. “Heat loss from the Earth: a constraint on Archaean tectonics from the relation between geothermal gradients and the rate of plate production.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 40.3 (1978): 301-315. The models suggested for the oceanic lithosphere which best predict oceanic heat flow and depth profiles are the constant thickness model and a model in which the lithosphere thickens away from the ridge with a heat source at its base. The latter is considered to be more physically realistic. Such a model, constrained by the observed oceanic heat flow and depth profiles and a temperature at the ridge crest of between 1100°C and 1300°C, requires a heat source at the base of the lithosphere of between 0.5 and 0.9 h.f.u., thermal conductivities for the mantle between 0.005 and 0.0095 cal cm−1 °C−1 s−1 and a coefficient of thermal expansion at 840°C between 4.1 × 10−5 and 5.1 × 10−5 °C−1. Plate creation and subduction are calculated to dissipate about 45% of the total earth heat loss for this model. The efficiency of this mechanism of heat loss is shown to be strongly dependent on the magnitude of the basal heat source. A relation is derived for total earth heat loss as a function of the rate of plate creation and the amount of heat transported to the base of plates. The estimated heat transport to the base of the oceanic lithosphere is similar to estimates of mantle heat flow into the base of the continental lithosphere. If this relation existed in the past and if metamorphic conditions in late Archaean high-grade terrains can be used to provide a maximum constraint on equilibrium Archaean continental thermal gradients, heat flow into the base of the lithosphere in the late Archaean must have been less than about 1.2–1.5 h.f.u. The relation between earth heat loss, the rate of plate creation and the rate of heat transport to the base of the lithosphere suggests that a significant proportion of the heat loss in the Archaean must have taken place by the processes of plate creation and subduction. The Archaean plate processes may have involved much more rapid production of plates only slightly thinner than at present.



Eddy C. Carmack William J. Williams Sarah L. Zimmermann Fiona A. McLaughlin, Geophysical Research Letters, 2012.


ABSTRACT:  The old (∼450‐year isolation age) and near‐homogenous deep waters of the Canada Basin (CBDW), that are found below ∼2700 m, warmed at a rate of ∼0.0004°C yr−1 between 1993 and 2010. This rate is slightly less than expected from the reported geothermal heat flux (Fg ∼ 50 mW m−2). A deep temperature minimum Tmin layer overlies CBDW within the basin and is also warming at approximately the same rate, suggesting that some geothermal heat escapes vertically through a multi‐stepped, ∼300‐m‐thick deep transitional layer. Double diffusive convection and thermobaric instabilities are identified as possible mechanisms governing this vertical heat transfer. The CBDW found above the lower continental slope of the deep basin maintains higher temperatures than those in the basin interior, consistent with geothermal heat being distributed through a shallower water column, and suggests that heat from the basin interior does not diffuse laterally and escape at the edges.


The deep waters of the Arctic Ocean form in the Nordic seas and enter the Arctic Ocean through Fram Strait. The Arctic Ocean itself contains two main basins; the Eurasian and Canadian, separated by the Lomonosov Ridge with a sill depth of ∼2000 m (Figure 1a). The Canadian Basin has the largest volume and contains the oldest deep water, with 14C isolation age estimates of ∼450 yr, approximately 200 yr older than those in the Eurasian Basin. In turn, the Canadian Basin is separated by the Alpha‐Mendeleyev ridge complex into the Makarov and Canada Basins. The deep waters of the Canada Basin (CBDW) are near‐homogeneous, varying in potential temperature (θ) by less than 0.001°C between ∼2700 m and the bottom, a feature ascribed to geothermal heating and vertical convection. Reported geothermal heat flux in the Canadian Basin is 40–60 mW/m2, and we use 50 mW/m2 here as a reference flux. Salinity in the Canadian Basin increases with depth to ∼2700 m, but, like θ, is nearly constant below this depth. Björk & Winsor (2006) also observed near‐homogenous bottom waters in the Eurasian Basin, noting a temperature change in the bottom layer which they attributed to geothermal heating. Timmermans etal (2003) said about the Canada Basin bottom waters that temperatures within the CBDW were near‐constant with time, that little heat escaped vertically through the overlying deep transitional layer and that excess heat was lost mainly around the perimeter of the basin. Here, using data from annual surveys of the southern Canada Basin between 2002 and 2010, we re‐examine role of geothermal heating in CBDW, describe temporal and spatial patterns in water mass properties, and propose heat exchange mechanisms that involve diffusive and thermobaric instabilities.

  1. FINDINGS: CBDW appears as a thick, near‐homogenous bottom layer extending from ∼2700 m to the bottom. Above lies an ∼300‐m‐thick deep transitional layer that is characterized by a temperature–salinity step structure, and the top of this layer is marked by a temperature minimum (Tmin) at ∼2400 m, the sill depth at Cooperation Gap on the Alpha‐Mendeleyev Ridge complex. The staircase structure, through which both the mean temperature and mean salinity increase with depth, is observed at all stations across the entire basin and has been a persistent feature for at least two decades. The step structure is typically characterized by three to four mixed layers that are 10–60 m thick and are separated by 2–20 m‐thick interfaces over which changes are δθ ∼ 0.003°C and δS ∼ 0.0007. The θ/S properties of the deep basin show that stratification below the Tmin is marginally stable with respect to density calculated at 3000 m and that those of the Tmin itself closely match those of the Makarov Basin at sill depth, pointing to this as the likely source maintaining the Tmin layer. For any given year the θ of CBDW within the deep basin is laterally near‐uniform, varying by less than 0.0007°C across the full study area, reflecting the isolation of the basin and also the ubiquity of geothermal heating. The θ of the Tmin, however, shows greater spatial variability.
Evolution of the Deep Water in the Canadian Basin in the Arctic Ocean in:  Journal of Physical Oceanography Volume 36 Issue 5 (2006)

(a) Schematic of Canada Basin Bottom Water (CBDW) structure and processes; MB is the Makarov Basin, A/M is the Alpha Mendeleyev Ridge, CB is the Canada Basin, Slope is the continental slope in the south and east. E and D are entrainment and detrainment associated with a hypothetical descending plume of cold salty water from the shelf. (b–d) Changes in potential temperature (red), salinity (blue) and density in the central Canada Basin at JOIS station CB‐15 at 77N, 140W (see Figure 1b, green dot) in 2003 (thin lines) and 2010 (thick lines). The profile from 2000 m to the bottom is shown in Figure 2b, the deep transitional layer (DTL) from 2450 to 2750 m is shown in Figure 2c and potential temperature vs. salinity is shown in Figure 2d with contours of potential density referenced to 3000 db.

Temporal Trends and Spatial Variation
[6] The time sequence of potential temperature (θ) profiles in the deep Canada Basin from 2002 to 2010 reveals the steady increase in temperature of the CBDW (Figure 3). As shown below, this rate of warming is consistent with, but slightly less than, the geothermal heat flux. A least‐squares fit to all available CBDW temperature data from 1993–2010 for stations deeper than 3000 m gives a rate of warming of ∼0.0004°C/yr; a similar rate of warming is observed in the Tmin, although there is a much larger spatial variation (Figure 4a). A least‐squares fit to the associated salinity data from 1993 to 2010 shows no discernable trend for either the CDBW or the Tmin.


Geothermal heat flux from (a) Pollack et al. (1993) and (b) Davies (2013).  | Download Scientific Diagram




A relevant bibliography is provided below where empirical evidence of these location specific geothermal activity is presented. Principal investigators in this area are Yasmina Martos, a NASA scientist, and Ralf Greve, Glaciologist, Hokkaido University.

Bio - Yasmina M Martos Martin
New estimates for the rise in sea levels due to ice sheet mass loss under  future climate change | Hokkaido University


  1. Fahnestock, Mark, et al. “High geothermal heat flow, basal melt, and the origin of rapid ice flow in central Greenland.” Science 294.5550 (2001): 2338-2342. Age-depth relations from internal layering reveal a large region of rapid basal melting in Greenland. Melt is localized at the onset of rapid ice flow in the large ice stream that drains north off the summit dome and other areas in the northeast quadrant of the ice sheet. Locally, high melt rates indicate geothermal fluxes 15 to 30 times continental background. The southern limit of melt coincides with magnetic anomalies and topography that suggest a volcanic origin.
  2. Rezvanbehbahani, Soroush, et al. “Predicting the geothermal heat flux in Greenland: A machine learning approach.” Geophysical Research Letters 44.24 (2017): 12-271. Geothermal heat flux (GHF) is a crucial boundary condition for making accurate predictions of ice sheet mass loss, yet it is poorly known in Greenland due to inaccessibility of the bedrock. Here we use a machine learning algorithm on a large collection of relevant geologic features and global GHF measurements and produce a GHF map of Greenland that we argue is within ∼15% accuracy. The main features of our predicted GHF map include a large region with high GHF in central‐north Greenland surrounding the NorthGRIP ice core site, and hot spots in the Jakobshavn Isbræ catchment, upstream of Petermann Gletscher, and near the terminus of Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden glacier. Our model also captures the trajectory of Greenland movement over the Icelandic plume by predicting a stripe of elevated GHF in central‐east Greenland. Finally, we show that our model can produce substantially more accurate predictions if additional measurements of GHF in Greenland are provided. FULL TEXT:
  3. van der Veen, Cornelis J., et al. “Subglacial topography and geothermal heat flux: Potential interactions with drainage of the Greenland ice sheet.” Geophysical research letters 34.12 (2007). Many of the outlet glaciers in Greenland overlie deep and narrow trenches cut into the bedrock. It is well known that pronounced topography intensifies the geothermal heat flux in deep valleys and attenuates this flux on mountains. Here we investigate the magnitude of this effect for two subglacial trenches in Greenland. Heat flux variations are estimated for idealized geometries using solutions for plane slopes derived by Lachenbruch (1968). It is found that for channels such as the one under Jakobshavn Isbræ, topographic effects may increase the local geothermal heat flux by as much as 100%.
  4. Greve, Ralf. “Relation of measured basal temperatures and the spatial distribution of the geothermal heat flux for the Greenland ice sheet.” Annals of Glaciology 42 (2005): 424-432The thermomechanical, three-dimensional ice-sheet model SICOPOLIS is applied to the Greenland ice sheet. Simulations over two glacial–interglacial cycles are carried out, driven by a climatic forcing interpolated between present conditions and Last Glacial Maximum anomalies. Based on the global heat-flow representation by Pollack and others (1993), we attempt to constrain the spatial pattern of the geothermal heat flux by comparing simulation results to direct measurements of basal temperatures at the GRIP, NorthGRIP, Camp Century and Dye 3 ice-core locations. The heat-flux map shows an increasing trend from west to east, a high-heat-flux anomaly around NorthGRIP with values up to 135 mWm–2 and a low-heat-flux anomaly around Dye 3 with values down to 20 mW m–2. Validation is provided by the generally good fit between observed and measured ice thicknesses. Residual discrepancies are most likely due to deficiencies of the input precipitation rate and further variability of the geothermal heat flux not captured here.
  5. Smith‐Johnsen, Silje, et al. “Sensitivity of the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream to geothermal heat.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 125.1 (2020): e2019JF005252. Recent observations of ice flow surface velocities have helped improve our understanding of basal processes on Greenland and Antarctica, though these processes still constitute some of the largest uncertainties driving ice flow change today. The Northeast Greenland Ice Stream is driven largely by basal sliding, believed to be related to subglacial hydrology and the availability of heat. Characterization of the uncertainties associated with Northeast Greenland Ice Stream is crucial for constraining Greenland’s potential contribution to sea level rise in the upcoming centuries. Here, we expand upon past work using the Ice Sheet System Model to quantify the uncertainties in models of the ice flow in the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream by perturbing the geothermal heat flux. Utilizing a subglacial hydrology model simulating sliding beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet, we investigate the sensitivity of the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream ice flow to various estimates of geothermal heat flux, and implications of basal heat flux uncertainties on modeling the hydrological processes beneath Greenland’s major ice stream. We find that the uncertainty due to sliding at the bed is 10 times greater than the uncertainty associated with internal ice viscosity. Geothermal heat flux dictates the size of the area of the subglacial drainage system and its efficiency. The uncertainty of ice discharge from the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream to the ocean due to uncertainties in the geothermal heat flux is estimated at 2.10 Gt/yr. This highlights the urgency in obtaining better constraints on the highly uncertain subglacial hydrology parameters.
  6. Martos, Yasmina M., et al. “Geothermal heat flux reveals the Iceland hotspot track underneath Greenland.” Geophysical research letters 45.16 (2018): 8214-8222. Curie depths beneath Greenland are revealed by spectral analysis of data from the World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map 2. A thermal model of the lithosphere then provides a corresponding geothermal heat flux map. This new map exhibits significantly higher frequency but lower amplitude variation than earlier heat flux maps and provides an important boundary condition for numerical ice‐sheet models and interpretation of borehole temperature profiles. In addition, it reveals new geologically significant features. Notably, we identify a prominent quasi‐linear elevated geothermal heat flux anomaly running northwest–southeast across Greenland. We interpret this feature to be the relic of the passage of the Iceland hotspot from 80 to 50 Ma. The expected partial melting of the lithosphere and magmatic underplating or intrusion into the lower crust is compatible with models of observed satellite gravity data and recent seismic observations. Our geological interpretation has implications for the geodynamic evolution of Greenland
  7. Artemieva, Irina M. “Lithosphere thermal thickness and geothermal heat flux in Greenland from a new thermal isostasy method.” Earth-Science Reviews 188 (2019): 469-481. Lithosphere thermal structure in Greenland is poorly known and models based on seismic and magnetic data are inconsistent, while growing awareness in the fate of the ice sheet in Greenland requires reliable constraints on geothermal heat flux (GHF) from the Earth’s interior in the region where conventional heat flux measurements are nearly absent. The lithosphere structure of Greenland remains controversial, while its geological evolution is constrained by direct observations in the narrow ice-free zone along the coasts. The effect of the Iceland hotspot on the lithosphere structure is also debated. Here I describe a new thermal isostasy method which I use to calculate upper mantle temperature anomalies, lithosphere thickness, and GHF in Greenland from seismic data on the Moho depth, topography and ice thickness. To verify the model results, the predicted GHF values are compared to available measurements and show a good agreement. Thick (200–270 km) cratonic lithosphere of SW Greenland with GHF of ca. 40 mW/m2 thins to 180–190 km towards central Greenland without a clear boundary between the Archean and Proterozoic blocks, and the deepest lithosphere keel is observed beneath the largest kimberlite province in West Greenland. The NW-SE belt with an anomalously thin (100–120 km) lithosphere and GHF of 60–70 mW/m2 crosses north-central Greenland from coast to coast and it may mark the Iceland hotspot track. In East Greenland this anomalous belt merges with a strong GHF anomaly of >100 mW/m2 in the Fjordland region. The anomaly is associated with a strong lithosphere thinning, possibly to the Moho, that requires advective heat transfer such as above active magma chambers, which would accelerate ice basal melting. The anomaly may extend 500 km inland with possibly a significant contribution of ice melt to the ice-drainage system of Greenland.
  8. Greve, Ralf, and Kolumban Hutter. “Polythermal three-dimensional modelling of the Greenland ice sheet with varied geothermal heat flux.” Annals of Glaciology 21 (1995): 8-12. Computations over 50 000 years into steady state with Greve’s polythermal ice-sheet model and its numerical code are performed for the Greenland ice sheet with today’s climatological input (surface temperature and accumulation function) and three values of the geothermal heat flux: (42, 54.6, 29.4) mW m−2. It is shown that through the thermomechanical coupling the geometry as well as the thermal regime, in particular that close to the bed, respond surprisingly strongly to the basal thermal heat input. The most sensitive variable is the basal temperature field, but the maximum height of the summit also varies by more than ±100m. Furthermore, some intercomparison of the model outputs with the real ice sheet is carried out, showing that the model provides reasonable results for the ice-sheet geometry as well as for the englacial temperatures.
Active Volcano Found Under Antarctic Ice: Eruption Could Raise Sea Levels

Why there's still hope for our endangered coral reefs


1. Global Distribution of Coral Reefs (Source:... | Download Scientific  Diagram
Sea Surface Temperature Trends As A Function Of Latitude Bands By Roger A.  Pielke Sr. and Bob Tisdale | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.
Bambi Forest Friends Cartoons Games - YouTube

The climate change impact assumption may be hurting and not helping coral reefs because that single minded approach to understanding coral reef stressors may overlook the real issues in the understanding of the evidence of stress. This means that the climate change assumption as the overriding and sole issue in understanding coral health helps the climate movement to sell climate action but it does not help the coral reef. Known local anthropogenic coral reef stressors are seen in the bibliography below and all of these stressors have the potential to cause coral to expel their symbiotic algae, a condition identified as “bleaching” and generally but incorrectly interpreted as a form of death. Observed coral reef bleaching should be understood in this context and in terms of local stressors and not purely in terms of global warming. Also, even if it can be established that global warming is a coral reef stressor, it must be considered that the coral reefs we see today have survived the multiple and chaotic cycles of warming and cooling over the last 8,000 years of the Holocene described in a related post: LINK: . Not only that, they are still here having survived the last glaciation and prior to that they survived the Eemian interglacial that is known to have been much more intense of a warming event with temperatures 5C above current temperatures: LINK: quote: “In general, the Eemian is described as hotter than today with January temperatures 3ºC to 5ºC higher and July temperatures 2ºC to 4ºC higher but with large fluctuations in temperature between conditions hotter than today and colder than today. The Eemian is characterized by rapid fluctuations between warm and cold periods in multi-decadal time scales.” It has not been shown that the observed stresses in coral reefs that have caused algal expulsion are life and death issues for the coral reefs particularly so in the observation of recurrent mass bleachings that imply that a bleaching event is not the end of the coral. Some coral reefs may decline and others may grow, but the need for the human hand to be a coral nurse such as to prevent natural bleaching cycles is an intrusive form of environmentalism likely derived from the Bambi Principle: LINK: . In the bibliography we find good evidence of the resilience of coral reefs in the paleo record going back through the whole of the Holocene and beyond. The mothering of coral reefs by humans in this context is either a Bambi environmentalism issue or a climate activism issue that needs a pathetic victim to sell its climate action agenda.

Frank Churchill, Larry Morey - Bambi (An Original Walt Disney Records  Soundtrack) - Music


  1. Hughes, Terry P., et al. “Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience.” Trends in ecology & evolution 25.11 (2010): 633-642. Phase-shifts from one persistent assemblage of species to another have become increasingly commonplace on coral reefs and in many other ecosystems due to escalating human impacts. Coral reef science, monitoring and global assessments have focused mainly on producing detailed descriptions of reef decline, and continue to pay insufficient attention to the underlying processes causing degradation. A more productive way forward is to harness new theoretical insights and empirical information on why some reefs degrade and others do not. Learning how to avoid undesirable phase-shifts, and how to reverse them when they occur, requires an urgent reform of scientific approaches, policies, governance structures and coral reef management.
  2. Krueger, Thomas, et al. “Common reef-building coral in the Northern Red Sea resistant to elevated temperature and acidification.” Royal Society open science 4.5 (2017): 170038. Coral reefs are currently experiencing substantial ecological impoverishment as a result of anthropogenic stressors, and the majority of reefs are facing immediate risk. Increasing ocean surface temperatures induce frequent coral mass bleaching events—the breakdown of the nutritional photo-symbiosis with intracellular algae (genus: Symbiodinium). Here, we report that Stylophora pistillata from a highly diverse reef in the Gulf of Aqaba showed no signs of bleaching despite spending 1.5 months at 1–2°C above their long-term summer maximum (amounting to 11 degree heating weeks) and a seawater pH of 7.8. Instead, their symbiotic dinoflagellates exhibited improved photochemistry, higher pigmentation and a doubling in net oxygen production, leading to a 51% increase in primary productivity. Nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry imaging revealed subtle cellular-level shifts in carbon and nitrogen metabolism under elevated temperatures, but overall host and symbiont biomass proxies were not significantly affected. Now living well below their thermal threshold in the Gulf of Aqaba, these corals have been evolutionarily selected for heat tolerance during their migration through the warm Southern Red Sea after the last ice age. This may allow them to withstand future warming for a longer period of time, provided that successful environmental conservation measures are enacted across national boundaries in the region.
  3. Pandolfi, John M., and Wolfgang Kiessling. “Gaining insights from past reefs to inform understanding of coral reef response to global climate change.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 7 (2014): 52-58. Global climate change is feared to lead to the collapse of living coral reefs, whose component organisms can respond in but three ways: migration, adaptation, and extinction. Because ancient reefs have been exposed to multiple episodes of environmental change, the fossil record provides an important resource for understanding the range of responses of coral reefs to climate change. Reef development has been slowed or stopped repeatedly in the history of life during periods of climate change. Whilst current conditions might be beyond some of the environmental ranges experienced throughout much of earth’s history, coral reefs have shown a remarkable resilience to past climate change. Their fate today lies in the interaction between climate change and local anthropogenic stressors that have devastated a large proportion of living reef ecosystems.
  4. Barott, Katie L., et al. “Natural history of coral− algae competition across a gradient of human activity in the Line Islands.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 460 (2012): 1-12. Competition between corals and benthic algae is prevalent on coral reefs worldwide and has the potential to influence the structure of the reef benthos. Human activities may influence the outcome of these interactions by favoring algae to become the superior competitor, and this type of change in competitive dynamics is a potential mechanism driving coral−algal phase shifts. Here we surveyed the types and outcomes of coral interactions with benthic algae in the Line Islands of the Central Pacific. Islands ranged from nearly pristine to heavily fished. We observed major differences in the dominant groups of algae interacting with corals between sites, and the outcomes of coral−algal interactions varied across reefs on the different islands. Corals were generally better competitors against crustose coralline algae regardless of location, and were superior competitors against turf algae on reefs surrounding uninhabited islands. On reefs surrounding inhabited islands, however, turf algae were generally the superior competitors. When corals were broken down by size class, we found that the smallest and the largest coral colonies were the best competitors against algae; the former successfully fought off algae while being completely surrounded, and the latter generally avoided algal overgrowth by growing up above the benthos. Our data suggest that human disruption of the reef ecosystem may lead to a building pattern of competitive disadvantage for corals against encroaching algae, particularly turf algae, potentially initiating a transition towards algal dominance.
  5. Buddemeier, Robert W., Joan A. Kleypas, and Richard B. Aronson. “Potential contributions of climate change to stresses on coral reef ecosystems.” Coral reefs and global climate change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Virginia, USA (2004). Human activities including development in coastal areas, over-fishing, and pollution have contributed to a global loss of over 10 percent of these valuable ecosystems. An additional 15 percent have been lost due to warming of the surface ocean, and climate change and is expected to further contribute to coral reef degradation in the decades ahead. Coral Reefs and Global Climate Change is the tenth in a series of Pew Center reports examining the potential impacts of climate change on the U.S. environment. It details the likely impacts of climate change over the next century to coral reef ecosystems both in U.S. waters and around the world. Report authors Drs. Robert W. Buddemeier, Joan A. Kleypas, and Richard B. Aronson find: • Increases in ocean temperatures associated with global climate change will increase the number of coral bleaching episodes. High water temperatures stress corals leading to bleaching . This term refers to the expulsion of colorful, symbiotic algae that corals need for survival, growth, and reproduction. While coral species have some capacity to recover from bleaching events, this ability is diminished with greater frequency or severity of bleaching. As a result, climate change is likely to reduce local and regional coral biodiversity, as sensitive species are eliminated.
  6. Hughes, Terry P., et al. “Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs.” science 301.5635 (2003): 929-933. The diversity, frequency, and scale of human impacts on coral reefs are increasing to the extent that reefs are threatened globally. Projected increases in carbon dioxide and temperature over the next 50 years exceed the conditions under which coral reefs have flourished over the past half-million years. However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others. International integration of management strategies that support reef resilience need to be vigorously implemented, and complemented by strong policy decisions to reduce the rate of global warming.
  7. Bozec, Yves‐Marie, Lorenzo Alvarez‐Filip, and Peter J. Mumby. “The dynamics of architectural complexity on coral reefs under climate change.” Global change biology 21.1 (2015): 223-235. One striking feature of coral reef ecosystems is the complex benthic architecture which supports diverse and abundant fauna, particularly of reef fish. Reef‐building corals are in decline worldwide, with a corresponding loss of live coral cover resulting in a loss of architectural complexity. Understanding the dynamics of the reef architecture is therefore important to envision the ability of corals to maintain functional habitats in an era of climate change. Here, we develop a mechanistic model of reef topographical complexity for contemporary Caribbean reefs. The model describes the dynamics of corals and other benthic taxa under climate‐driven disturbances (hurricanes and coral bleaching). Corals have a simplified shape with explicit diameter and height, allowing species‐specific calculation of their colony surface and volume. Growth and the mechanical (hurricanes) and biological erosion (parrotfish) of carbonate skeletons are important in driving the pace of extension/reduction in the upper reef surface, the net outcome being quantified by a simple surface roughness index (reef rugosity). The model accurately simulated the decadal changes of coral cover observed in Cozumel (Mexico) between 1984 and 2008, and provided a realistic hindcast of coral colony‐scale (1–10 m) changing rugosity over the same period. We then projected future changes of Caribbean reef rugosity in response to global warming. Under severe and frequent thermal stress, the model predicted a dramatic loss of rugosity over the next two or three decades. Critically, reefs with managed parrotfish populations were able to delay the general loss of architectural complexity, as the benefits of grazing in maintaining living coral outweighed the bioerosion of dead coral skeletons. Overall, this model provides the first explicit projections of reef rugosity in a warming climate, and highlights the need of combining local (protecting and restoring high grazing) to global (mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions) interventions for the persistence of functional reef habitats.
  8. Pandolfi, John M. “Incorporating uncertainty in predicting the future response of coral reefs to climate change.” Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics 46 (2015): 281-303. Coral reefs are considered one of the ecosystems most vulnerable to ongoing global climate change. However, geographic and taxonomic responses to climate change are highly variable, and fundamental aspects of key research approaches remain unresolved, leaving substantial uncertainty in our ability to predict the future of coral reefs. I review the ecological and evolutionary response of coral reefs to climate change in a broad temporal context, primarily focusing on tropical reef corals. I show critical gaps in our understanding that impede accurate prediction of future responses. These gaps include the response of past reefs to global change, the interpretation of coral response to thermal stress and ocean acidification, how corals and other reef organisms might respond evolutionarily, and our approach to evaluating response to climate in the context of multiple stressors. Reducing uncertainty by filling these gaps and by incorporating variation in geographic and taxonomic response will substantially improve our ability to model coral reef futures and manage coral reefs.
  9. Hughes, Terry P., et al. “Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs.” science 301.5635 (2003): 929-933. The diversity, frequency, and scale of human impacts on coral reefs are increasing to the extent that reefs are threatened globally. Projected increases in carbon dioxide and temperature over the next 50 years exceed the conditions under which coral reefs have flourished over the past half-million years. However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others. International integration of management strategies that support reef resilience need to be vigorously implemented, and complemented by strong policy decisions to reduce the rate of global warming.


Some say climate change marks the Anthropocene, a new geological age.  They're wrong.

The Anthropocene epoch: have we entered a new phase of planetary history? The Guardian. LINK:

What if Adam and Eve didn't sin? - Quora


It was February 2000 and the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen was sitting in a meeting room in Cuernavaca, Mexico, stewing quietly. Five years earlier, Crutzen and two colleagues had been awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry for proving that the ozone layer, which shields the planet from ultraviolet light, was thinning at the poles because of rising concentrations of industrial gas. Now he was attending a meeting of scientists who studied the planet’s oceans, land surfaces and atmosphere. The meeting was organized by Will Steffen, a chemist. In a presentation on the Holocene, Crutzen interrupted with the statement: ‘Stop saying the Holocene! We’re not in the Holocene any more” and suggested that the current geological period was the Anthropocene, a new phase in planetary history. A few months after the meeting, Crutzen and an American biologist, Eugene Stoermer, expanded on the idea in an article on the “Anthropocene”. We were entering an entirely new phase of planetary history, they argued, in which human beings had become the driving force. And without a major catastrophe, such as an asteroid impact or nuclear war, humankind would remain a major geological force for many millennia.

Professor Paul Crutzen: Nobel winner and advocate of a climate "escape  route" | News | European Parliament

At this point it did not seem likely the term would ever travel beyond the abstruse literature produced by institutions preoccupied with things like the nitrogen cycle. But the concept took flight. Environmental scientists latched on to what they saw as a useful catch-all term for the changes to the natural world – retreating sea ice, accelerating species extinction, bleached coral reefs – that they were already attributing to human activity. Academic articles began to appear with “Anthropocene” in the title, followed by entire journals dedicated to the topic. Soon the idea jumped to the humanities, then newspapers and magazines, and then to the arts, becoming a subject of photography, poetry, opera and a song by Nick Cave. “The proliferation of this concept can mainly be traced back to the fact that, under the guise of scientific neutrality, it conveys a message of almost unparalleled moral-political urgency,” wrote the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk.

There was just one place where the Anthropocene seemed not to be catching on: among the geologists who actually define these terms. Geologists are the guardians of the Earth’s timeline. By studying the Earth’s crust, they have carved up the planet’s 4.6bn years of history into phases and placed them in chronological order on a timescale called the International Chronostratigraphic Chart. That timescale is the backbone of geology. Modifying it is a slow and tortuous process, overseen by an official body, the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). You can’t just make up a new epoch and give it a convincing name; the care taken over the timescale’s construction is precisely what gives it authority. To many geologists, accustomed to working with rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old, the notion that a species that has been around for the blink of an eye was now a genuine geological force seemed absurd.

Few would deny we are in a period of climatic turmoil, but many feel that, compared with some of the truly apocalyptic events of the deep past – such as the period, 252m years ago, when temperatures rose 10C and 96% of marine species died – the change so far has not been especially severe. “Many geologists would say: it’s just a blip,” (Philip Gibbard). But as the idea of the Anthropocene spread, it became harder for geologists to ignore. At a meeting of the Geological Society of London, in 2006, Jan Zalasiewicz argued that it was time to look at the concept seriously. Stratigraphy is the branch of geology that studies rock layers, or strata, and it is stratigraphers who work on the timescale directly. To Zalasiewicz’s surprise, his colleagues agreed. In 2008, Gibbard asked if Zalasiewicz would be prepared to assemble and lead a team of experts to investigate the matter more deeply. If the group found evidence that the Anthropocene was “stratigraphically real”, they would need to submit a proposal to the ICS. If the proposal was approved, the result would be literally epoch-changing. A new chapter of Earth’s history would need to be written.

Will Steffen: The Age of the Anthropocene - YouTube

Zalasiewicz agreed to take on the task although there are things the Anthropocene implies that are beyond geology, particularly the social-political stuff. To have this word used by climate change and environmental organisations unfamiliar with the concept may feel dangerous. Modifying the geological timescale seems impossible. The issue was brought to a vote by the ICS and the IUGS. The planet’s timekeepers have built their timescale from the physical records laid down in rocks long ago. Without due time to form, the “rocks” of the Anthropocene were little more than “two centimetres of unconsolidated organic matter. Zalasiewicz was appointed chair of the Anthropocene working group. If the Anthropocene was, in fact, already upon us, the group would need to prove that the Holocene – an unusually stable epoch in which temperature, sea level and carbon dioxide levels have stayed relatively constant for nearly 12 millenia – had come to an end. They began by looking at the atmosphere. During the Holocene, the amount of CO2 in the air, measured in parts per million (ppm), was between 260 and 280. Data from 2005, the most recent year recorded when the working group started out, showed levels had climbed to 379 ppm. Since then, it has risen to 405 ppm. The group calculated that the last time there was this much CO2 in the air was during the Pliocene epoch 3m years ago. The burning of fossil fuels in pursuit of the accumulation of capital in the West has been the predominant source of these emissions such that the Anthropocene is also the Capitalismocene. Next they looked at what had happened to animals and plants. As humans have multiplied, we have also made the natural world more homogenous. The world’s most common vertebrate, the broiler chicken, of which there are 23bn alive at any one time, was created by humans to be eaten by humans. The humans modified the Earth’s surface by building mines, roads, towns and cities and created increasingly sophisticated materials and tools, from smartphones to ballpoint pens. The weight of everything humans have ever built and manufactured is 30 trillion tonnes. When he first proposed the Anthropocene, Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist, had suggested the industrial Revolution as the start-date because that was when concentrations of CO2 and methane began accumulating significantly in the air. Lately the Earth system scientists had come to prefer the start of the so-called “great acceleration”, the years following the second world war when the collective actions of humans suddenly began to put much more strain on the natural world than ever before. Most stratigraphers were now siding with them – they believe that the activity of the 1950s will leave a sharper indentation on the geological record. Zalasiewicz emphasised the Anthropocene’s geological legitimacy but he was worried that Stanley Finney of the IUGS was a loud critic. Academics note the Anthropocene’s political implications. To Purdy, the Anthropocene is an attempt to do what the concept of “the environment” did in the 1960s and 70s. Yet, humans have been gradually shaping the planet for at least 50,000 years.What the working group is trying to say is everything pre-1950 is pre-Anthropocene, and that’s just absurd.

IUGS_President: IUGS President Prof.... - International Union of Geological  Sciences - IUGS | Facebook

Then, in late April, the group decided to hold a vote that would settle, once and for all, the matter of the start-date. The results were unequivocal. Twenty-nine members of the group, representing 88%, voted for the start of the Anthropocene to be in the mid-20th century. Now that the working group has decided roughly when the Anthropocene began, their main task is picking the golden spike of our time. No marker of an Anthropocene is as distinct as the radioactive fallout from the use of nuclear weapons that began with the US army’s Trinity test in 1945. Since the early 1950s, this memento of humankind’s darkest self-destructive impulses has settled on the Earth’s surface like icing sugar on a sponge cake. Plotted on a graph, the radioactive fallout leaps up like an explosion.

Professor Paul Crutzen: Nobel winner and advocate of a climate "escape  route" | News | European Parliament




What if Adam and Eve didn't sin? - Quora
Bambi Turns 75! Take a Deeper Look at the Film's Impact on Animation, Risk  Taking and the Loss of a Parent


(1) A principal feature of the human controlled planet of the Anthropocene is that the current warming period of the Holocene is described as a creation of the Anthropocene as seen in the Michael Mann video below. The other warming and cooling cycles of he Holocene are described in a related post: LINK: where we find that the current warming is part of a chaotic sequence of warming and cooling events at millennial and centennial time scales over the last 8,000 years of the Holocene.

(2) A timing anomaly puzzle: If the current warming period “since pre-industrial” is a human caused event of the Anthropocene as claimed, we are presented with a timing anomaly puzzle that is made all the more puzzling by two different start dates for the Anthropocene as (1) the beginning of the Holocene more than 8,000 years ago; and (2) the year 1950 when the post war economic boom began. In climate science, the human caused climate change era or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is claimed to be a creation of the Industrial Revolution with the temperature of that start year described as “pre-industrial” and the amount of AGW warming since then described as “since “pre-industrial”. This critical date in AGW theory has been variously stated as 1750, 1850, 1900, 1950, and 1970, as described in a related post: LINK: . The 1950 start date is proposed by James Hansen, the 1970 date by Peter Cox, the 1900 date by Guy Callendar in his 1938 paper. The assumed authority on this topic, the IPCC, had initially proposed the 1750 date but in more recent versions of their climate change reports have changed the pre-industrial date to 1850. Therefore, the 1950 date for the start of the Anthropocene is inconsistent with a role for the Anthropocene in the versions of AGW theory that uses earlier start dates. The traditional start date for the Anthropocene is the Neolithic Revolution at the start of the Holocene more than 8,000 years ago. That start date is consistent with AGW theories with the earlier start dates mentioned above but it is inconsistent with an Anthropocene that is 8,000 years old but that explains only the most recent of the many violent of warming and cooling cycles of the Holocene: LINK: . This anomaly points to a serious flaw in the theory of AGW as proposed by climate science because it implies a data selection bias as described in a related post: LINK: . If climate science can explain the Holocene climate cycles in terms of the Anthropocene it must explain all of them and not select just one of them to explain.

A Chaotic Holocene Climate? | Thongchai Thailand

(3) A study of the attempt by humans to separate themselves from the rest of nature: LINK: . Our evolutionary history does not separate us from nature but in modern environmentalism and in the theory of AGW we have decided that we are not part of nature but an external force that must take care of nature. We study the need for man to remove himself from nature in two related posts. In the first post we present the case that this separation derives from Early Iron Age scriptures that still play a significant role in our self image: LINK: . There we describe the horror of the Late Bronze Age Collapse (LBAC) that was followed by droughts at centennial time scales and 200 years of a dark age with no sign of human civilization in the archaeological record until a new human civilization emerged in the Early Iron Age. The literature of this era handed down to us as scripture show a vivid and fearful memory of the LBAC as seen in Revelation and Matthew24. A unique characteristic of this scripture not found in older religions is the end of times when the good people are taken up to heaven and the bad people to hell and then the earth with all of its nature, the beasts, the forests, the seas is destroyed in the Apocalypse. Some strong parallels among this Biblical end of times, the LBAC, and our construction of environmental collapse to be brought about by humans of the Anthropocene are described in the related post linked above. The other important point of the Biblical reference is that the Bible does not recognize man as part of nature but as God’s special creation that is given Dominion over the Beasts. We argue in the related post linked above that our construction of Anthropocene Environmentalism that separates man from nature, and gives man dominion over the beasts as the caretaker of nature, are derived from scripture. We describe this self image of humans as “The Bambi Principle”.

(4) The role of the Bambi Principle in man’s self image, his need to separate himself from nature, and his assumption that he is the caretaker of nature, is explored in a related post on Bambi: LINK: . We note there that Bambi’s forest is presented as a kind of idealized human-free world where nature can frolic. Unless humans arrive, animals of all species live without fear in nature’s paradise untouched by human hands where even owls have morphed into vegetarians. Here all interaction of nature with humans end in death or suffering with that being the only possibility of death and suffering in nature. There is a complete separation of nature into two worlds – humans and humanless nature, as in all those climate change videos by Sir David Attenborough: LINK:

(5): With regard to the assumed planetary role for humans in the Anthropocene we present some data in a related post to argue for his relative insignificance in that context. LINK: .

There we argue that the concept of the Anthropocene and of human caused planetary catastrophe by way of things like the industrial economy running on fossil fuels are inconsistent with the relative insignificance of humans on a planetary scale. In terms of total weight, humans constitute 0.05212% of the total mass of life on earth and all the life on earth taken together is 0.000002875065% of the crust of the planet by weight. The crust of the planet where we live and where we have things like land, ocean, atmosphere, climate, and carbon life forms, is 0.3203% of the planet by weight. The other 99.6797% of the planet, the mantle and core, is a place where we have never been and will never be and on which we have no impact whatsoever. In terms of the much feared element carbon that is said to the tool of humans for planetary devastation by way of climate change and ocean acidification, a mass balance shows that the crust of the planet where we live contains 0.201% of the planet’s carbon some of which appear as carbon lifeforms such as humans. The other 99.8% of the carbon inventory of the planet is in the mantle and core. Humans are insignificant on a planetary scale. Although it is true that humans must take care of their environment, we propose that the environment should have a rational definition. The planet is NOT our environment.

Like ants and bees, humans are social creatures that live in communities of humans so that when they look around they see humans everywhere. This is the likely source of our human oriented view of the world. Paul Ehrlich’s overpopulation theory is derived from his first visit to India which he described as “people people people people people!” It is this biased view of the planet that makes it possible for us to extrapolate Calcutta to the planet and come up with the fearful image described by Jeff Gibbs as “Have you every wondered what would happen if a single species took over an entire planet?”

B.C. woman photographs massive ant swarm on Abbotsford driveway – Surrey  Now-Leader
Extremely rare 'open' beehive in Virginia stuns wildlife expert | Fox News
12 Most Crowded Places in India that Will Astonish You


Extensive Early Melting Detected Along the Antarctic Peninsula

In mid-November, about a month before the start of summer in the southern hemisphere, the Antarctic melting season is usually just starting. By that time this year, vast areas along the Antarctic Peninsula were already painted blue with meltwater. The satellite image shows that the sea ice anchored to the peninsula’s coast appears light blue where the surface ice has melted. The white ice farther off the coast is a mixture of broken sea ice and small icebergs. Dark areas indicate open water. By the end of November 2020, much of the meltwater on the ice had refrozen. But scientists want to know if this event was similar to a strong early season melt that launched the 2019-2020 melt season. Last year, unusually warm air and water led to record-breaking melting across the Larsen C Ice Shelf. It is the largest remaining ice shelf along the Antarctic Peninsula, even though it lost a Delaware-sized iceberg in 2017. Widespread melting on Larsen C, located just south of this image, was not apparent in natural-color satellite images. But scientists are watching how this season progresses. The ice shelf surface on the Larsen A was full of ponded meltwater just before its complete collapse in 1995; the same thing occurred before the near-complete collapse of Larsen B in 2002.Only a small remnant of the Larsen B Ice Shelf remains today, stabilized by fast ice in front of the shelf. Loss of the fast ice can destabilize the floating shelf ice, which in turn would allow glacial ice on land to flow unimpeded into the ocean. The effect has already been observed in the Larsen A and upper Larsen B embayments. The second image, acquired on November 11, 2020, offers a detailed view of melting near the northernmost end of the Peninsula. The high temperature recorded that day at Esperanza Base measured 8°C (47°F). That was warmer than average for November, but not nearly as hot as the record-breaking 18.3°C (64.9°F) reached on February 6, 2020. Time will tell if temperatures this melt season will continue to climb and how the ice will respond.

RESPONSE TO ALARM#1: The three images below show lower troposphere average November temperatures in the left frame and decadal trends in those temperatures in the right frame for the South Polar region. The three image present land and ocean, land only, and ocean only temperatures respectively. What we see in these images is that the steep rise in November temperature used to explain the observed ice melt is seen only in ocean temperatures and not in land temperatures. Therefore, although the temperature data are consistent with the attribution of the observed sea ice melt to the observed warming, they do not explain the unusual land ice melt event on the Larsen ice shelf that sits more than 30 meters above the sea surface. Moreover, it should be noted that the location of these ice melt events in terms of their extreme localization to the Antarctic Peninsula, an area known to be geologically active with significant geothermal heat sources, raises serious questions about their attribution to climate phenomena without the any evidence for it. The relevant geological features of the Antarctic Peninsula in terms of the West Antarctic Rift system are described in a related post on this site: LINK: . A brief bibliography on these features of the Antarctic Peninsula is presented below.





  1. Scambos, Ted A., et al. “The link between climate warming and break-up of ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula.” Journal of Glaciology 46.154 (2000): 516-530.  A review of in situ and remote-sensing data covering the ice shelves of the Antarctic Peninsula provides a series of characteristics closely associated with rapid shelf retreat: deeply embayed ice fronts; calving of myriad small elongate bergs in punctuated events; increasing flow speed; and the presence of melt ponds on the ice-shelf surface in the vicinity of the break-ups. As climate has warmed in the Antarctic Peninsula region, melt-season duration and the extent of ponding have increased. Most break-up events have occurred during longer melt seasons, suggesting that meltwater itself, not just warming, is responsible. Regions that show melting without pond formation are relatively unchanged. Melt ponds thus appear to be a robust harbinger of ice-shelf retreat. We use these observations to guide a model of ice-shelf flow and the effects of meltwater. Crevasses present in a region of surface ponding will likely fill to the brim with water. We hypothesize (building on Weertman (1973), Hughes (1983) and Van der Veen (1998)) that crevasse propagation by meltwater is the main mechanism by which ice shelves weaken and retreat. A thermodynamic finite-element model is used to evaluate ice flow and the strain field, and simple extensions of this model are used to investigate crack propagation by meltwater. The model results support the hypothesis.
  2. Convey, P., et al. “The flora of the South Sandwich Islands, with particular reference to the influence of geothermal heating.” Journal of Biogeography 27.6 (2000): 1279-1295.  Data obtained in 1997 are combined with updated records from the only previous survey (in 1964) to provide a baseline description of the flora of the archipelago, which currently includes 1 phanerogam, 38 mosses, 11 liverworts, 5 basidiomycete fungi, 41 lichenised fungi and 16 diatoms with, additionally, several taxa identified only to genus. Major elements of the moss and liverwort floras are composed of South American taxa (32% and 73%, respectively), with a further 45% of mosses having bipolar or cosmopolitan distributions. These two groups show low levels of Antarctic endemicity (11% and 18%, respectively). In contrast, 52% of lichens and 80% of basidiomycete fungi are endemic to the Antarctic. A further 36% of lichens are bipolar/cosmopolitan, with only 5% of South American origin. The flora of the South Sandwich Islands is clearly derived from those of other Antarctic zones. The flora of unheated ground is closely related to that of the maritime Antarctic, although with a very limited number of species represented. That of heated ground contains both maritime and sub‐Antarctic elements, confirming the importance of geothermal heating for successful colonisation of the latter group. The occurrence of several maritime Antarctic species only on heated ground confirms the extreme severity of the archipelago’s climate in comparison with well‐studied sites much further south in this biogeographical zone.
  3. Smith, RI Lewis. “The bryophyte flora of geothermal habitats on Deception Island, Antarctica.” The Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 97 (2005): 233-248.  Deception Island is one of the most volcanically active sites south of 60°S. Between 1967 and 1970 three major eruptions devastated large expanses of the landscape and its predominantly cryptogamic vegetation. Since 1970 extensive recolonisation has occurred on the more stable surfaces. Unheated ground supports several bryophyte and lichen communities typical of much of the maritime Antarctic, but geothermal habitats possess remarkable associations of bryophytes, many of the species being unknown or very rare elsewhere in the Antarctic. Nine geothermal sites were located and their vegetation investigated in detail. Communities associated with more transient sites have disappeared when the geothermal activity ceased. Mosses and liverworts occur to within a few centimetres of fumarole vents where temperatures reach 90-95℃, while temperatures within adjacent moss turf can reach 35-50℃ or more and remain consistently between 25 and 45℃. Most of the bryoflora has a Patagonian-Fuegian provenance and it is presumed that, unlike most species, the thermophiles are not pre-adapted to the Antarctic environment, being able to colonise only where the warm and humid conditions prevail.
  4. Vieira, Gonçalo, et al. “Geomorphological observations of permafrost and ground-ice degradation on Deception and Livingston Islands, Maritime Antarctica.” (2008): 1939-1844. The Antarctic Peninsula is experiencing one of the fastest increases in mean annual air temperatures (ca. 2.5oC in the last 50 years) on Earth. If the observed warming trend continues as indicated by climate models, the region could suffer widespread permafrost degradation. This paper presents field observations of geomorphological features linked to permafrost and ground-ice degradation at two study areas: northwest Hurd Peninsula (Livingston Island) and Deception Island along the Antarctic Peninsula. These observations include thermokarst features, debris flows, active-layer detachment slides, and rockfalls. The processes observed may be linked not only to an increase in temperature, but also to increased rainfall, which can trigger debris flows and other processes. On Deception Island some thermokarst (holes in the ground produced by the selective melting of permafrost)  features may be related to anomalous geothermal heat flux from volcanic activity.
  5. Mulvaney, Robert, et al. “Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice-shelf history.” Nature 489.7414 (2012): 141-144.  Rapid warming over the past 50 years on the Antarctic Peninsula is associated with the collapse of a number of ice shelves and accelerating glacier mass loss1,2,3,4,5,6,7. In contrast, warming has been comparatively modest over West Antarctica and significant changes have not been observed over most of East Antarctica8,9, suggesting that the ice-core palaeoclimate records available from these areas may not be representative of the climate history of the Antarctic Peninsula. Here we show that the Antarctic Peninsula experienced an early-Holocene warm period followed by stable temperatures, from about 9,200 to 2,500 years ago, that were similar to modern-day levels. Our temperature estimates are based on an ice-core record of deuterium variations from James Ross Island, off the northeastern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. We find that the late-Holocene development of ice shelves near James Ross Island was coincident with pronounced cooling from 2,500 to 600 years ago. This cooling was part of a millennial-scale climate excursion with opposing anomalies on the eastern and western sides of the Antarctic Peninsula. Although warming of the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula began around 600 years ago, the high rate of warming over the past century is unusual (but not unprecedented) in the context of natural climate variability over the past two millennia. The connection shown here between past temperature and ice-shelf stability suggests that warming for several centuries rendered ice shelves on the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula vulnerable to collapse. Continued warming to temperatures that now exceed the stable conditions of most of the Holocene epoch is likely to cause ice-shelf instability to encroach farther southward along the Antarctic Peninsula.
  6. Fraser, Ceridwen I., et al. “Geothermal activity helps life survive glacial cycles.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111.15 (2014): 5634-5639.  The evolution and maintenance of diversity through cycles of past climate change have hinged largely on the availability of refugia (places where life can survive through a period of unfavorable conditions such as glaciation). Geothermal refugia may have been particularly important for survival through past glaciations. Our spatial modeling of Antarctic biodiversity indicates that some terrestrial groups likely survived throughout intense glacial cycles on ice-free land or in sub-ice caves associated with areas of geothermal activity, from which recolonization of the rest of the continent took place. These results provide unexpected insights into the responses of various species to past climate change and the importance of geothermal regions in promoting biodiversity. Furthermore, they indicate the likely locations of biodiversity “hotspots” in Antarctica, suggesting a critical focus for future conservation efforts.
  7. An, Meijian, et al. “Temperature, lithosphere‐asthenosphere boundary, and heat flux beneath the Antarctic Plate inferred from seismic velocities.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 120.12 (2015): 8720-8742.  We estimate the upper mantle temperature of the Antarctic Plate based on the thermoelastic properties of mantle minerals and S velocities using a new 3‐D shear velocity model, AN1‐S. Crustal temperatures and surface heat fluxes are then calculated from the upper mantle temperature assuming steady state thermal conduction. The temperature at the top of the asthenosphere beneath the oceanic region and West Antarctica is higher than the dry mantle solidus, indicating the presence of melt. From the temperature values, we generate depth maps of the lithosphere‐asthenosphere boundary and the Curie temperature isotherm. The maps show that East Antarctica has a thick lithosphere similar to that of other stable cratons, with the thickest lithosphere (~250 km) between Domes A and C. The thin crust and lithosphere beneath West Antarctica are similar to those of modern subduction‐related rift systems in East Asia. A cold region beneath the Antarctic Peninsula is similar in spatial extent to that of a flat‐subducted slab beneath the southern Andes, indicating a possible remnant of the Phoenix Plate, which was subducted prior to 10 Ma. The oceanic lithosphere generally thickens with increasing age, and the age‐thickness correlation depends on the spreading rate of the ridge that formed the lithosphere. Significant flattening of the age‐thickness curves is not observed for the mature oceanic lithosphere of the Antarctic Plate.
  8. Dziadek, Ricarda, et al. “Geothermal heat flux in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica: New insights from temperature measurements, depth to the bottom of the magnetic source estimation, and thermal modeling.” Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 18.7 (2017): 2657-2672[FULL TEXT]  Focused research on the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers, which drain the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS) into the Amundsen Sea Embayment (ASE), revealed strong signs of instability in recent decades that result from variety of reasons, such as inflow of warmer ocean currents and reverse bedrock topography, and has been established as the Marine Ice Sheet Instability hypothesis. Geothermal heat flux (GHF) is a poorly constrained parameter in Antarctica and suspected to affect basal conditions of ice sheets, i.e., basal melting and subglacial hydrology. Thermomechanical models demonstrate the influential boundary condition of geothermal heat flux for (paleo) ice sheet stability. Due to a complex tectonic and magmatic history of West Antarctica, the region is suspected to exhibit strong heterogeneous geothermal heat flux variations. We present an approach to investigate ranges of realistic heat fluxes in the ASE by different methods, discuss direct observations, and 3‐D numerical models that incorporate boundary conditions derived from various geophysical studies, including our new Depth to the Bottom of the Magnetic Source (DBMS) estimates. Our in situ temperature measurements at 26 sites in the ASE more than triples the number of direct GHF observations in West Antarctica. We demonstrate by our numerical 3‐D models that GHF spatially varies from 68 up to 110 mW m−2.
  9. Martos, Yasmina M., et al. “Heat flux distribution of Antarctica unveiled.” Geophysical Research Letters 44.22 (2017): 11-417.  [FULL TEXT]  Antarctica is the largest reservoir of ice on Earth. Understanding its ice sheet dynamics is crucial to unraveling past global climate change and making robust climatic and sea level predictions. Of the basic parameters that shape and control ice flow, the most poorly known is geothermal heat flux. Direct observations of heat flux are difficult to obtain in Antarctica, and until now continent‐wide heat flux maps have only been derived from low‐resolution satellite magnetic and seismological data. We present a high‐resolution heat flux map and associated uncertainty derived from spectral analysis of the most advanced continental compilation of airborne magnetic data. Small‐scale spatial variability and features consistent with known geology are better reproduced than in previous models, between 36% and 50%. Our high‐resolution heat flux map and its uncertainty distribution provide an important new boundary condition to be used in studies on future subglacial hydrology, ice sheet dynamics, and sea level change.
  10. Burton‐Johnson, Alex, et al. “A new heat flux model for the Antarctic Peninsula incorporating spatially variable upper crustal radiogenic heat production.” Geophysical Research Letters 44.11 (2017): 5436-5446.  A new method for modeling heat flux shows that the upper crust contributes up to 70% of the Antarctic Peninsula’s subglacial heat flux and that heat flux values are more variable at smaller spatial resolutions than geophysical methods can resolve. Results indicate a higher heat flux on the east and south of the Peninsula (mean 81 mW m−2) where silicic rocks predominate, than on the west and north (mean 67 mW m−2) where volcanic arc and quartzose sediments are dominant. While the data supports the contribution of heat‐producing element‐enriched granitic rocks to high heat flux values, sedimentary rocks can be of comparative importance dependent on their provenance and petrography. Models of subglacial heat flux must utilize a heterogeneous upper crust with variable radioactive heat production if they are to accurately predict basal conditions of the ice sheet. Our new methodology and data set facilitate improved numerical model simulations of ice sheet dynamics.  
New Paper: Geothermal Heat A Leading Driver Of Surface Temperatures

Press Conference by Secretary-General António Guterres at United Nations  Headquarters | UNMIL



More than 180 countries have joined COVAX, a global collaboration working with manufacturers to distribute Covid vaccines with their availability thought to be imminent. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned on Thursday the world could be fighting the aftershocks of the COVID-19 pandemic for decades to come even if vaccines are quickly approved. Guterres hailed the quick scientific progress in vaccine development but cautioned that the vaccine was not a panacea for the ills affecting the planet because Global Warming is a bigger threat than the coronavirus according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, a UN agency. AGTCG said that the Covid-19 has killed 1.9 million people globally and exacerbated the long term challenge of climate change. Representatives from more than 100 countries will take part in the UN Covid Vaccine Summit but diplomats do not expect the two-day virtual meeting to lead to important decisions. AGTCG said that he needs $4.3 billion to distribute the vaccine equitably. More than 180 countries have joined the COVAX global collaboration to work with manufacturers and to distribute the vaccine equitably.

Guterres reiterated his call that vaccines be considered a “global public good” that are shared around the world. He appealed for contributions to fill a $4.3bn shortfall in financing over the next two months. More than 180 countries have joined Covax, a global collaboration working with manufacturers to distribute vaccines equitably. Guterres defended the WHO performance and said its recommendations should have been the basis for a coordinated global response but in some situations, there was a rejection of facts and an ignorance of the guidance. And when countries go in their own direction, the virus goes in every direction. UNGA President Volkan Bozkir said the world is looking to the UN for leadership and action to address the greatest challenge our world is facing today and that this is not a time to point fingers but to forge a path forward and to end the suffering of the people. The world must ensure fair and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines and work together to protect the most vulnerable countries and ensure adequate resources for an economic recovery from the pandemic. AGTCG welcomed steps to help developing countries but said they were insufficient for the scale of this crisis because many low and middle-income countries are being forced to choose between providing basic services to their people or servicing debts. They need support. French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, and European Union chief Charles Michel are expected to address the session. Vaccines will be available from BioNTech, Oxford University-AstraZeneca, and the WHO’s ACT-Accelerator working to ensure that the vaccines get to the world’s poorest people. WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is expected to participate.

Press Conference by Secretary-General António Guterres at United Nations  Headquarters | UNMIL


Here we see Antonio Guterres the Climate Guy (AGTCG) at an important global gathering to plan the global distribution of the all important Covid vaccine using this venue to sell climate change. And then, without using names, he launches into an attack on President Donald Trump in defense of the WHO agency that Trump had criticized for spreading misinformation about Covid. Even the UNGA President Volcan Bozkir found that sufficiently distasteful to stand up and speak out against it. This kind of behavior of the UN Secretary General shows how climate activism has corrupted the UN and its primary purpose so much so that the corruption goes all the way up to the Secretary General such that his climate agenda still calls the shots at a meeting for the release of Covid vaccines. This is why AGTCG (Antonio Guterres the Climate Guy) describes him better than “Secretary General of the United Nations”.

Volkan Bozkir Becomes the 1st Turkish to be Elected as the President of  75th UN General Assembly







Donald Trump Paris Agreement Withdraw Would Challenge World | Time


IPCC was heavily biased from the very beginning | Science or fiction?

  • chaamjamal: Very interesting assessment. Thank you very much. I'll read it again after golf.
  • chaamjamal: Good point. Thank you.
  • cédric cabrol: The effect of low level clouds could not be more obvious. But, it has not always been, since their number will initially have increased at first. Bu