Thongchai Thailand

THIS POST IS A LIST OF POSTS AT THIS SITE ON OZONE DEPLETION WHERE WE SHOW THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE OF OZONE DEPLETION AND SPECIFICALLY THAT THE PERIODIC SEASONAL LOW OZONE CONDITION ABOVE THE SOUTH POLE DESCRIBED AS AN OZONE HOLE IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT VERIFIES THE ROWLAND MOLINA THEORY OF OZONE DEPLETION.

THE DISCUSSION OF THE POSTS ON OZONE DEPLETION AT THIS SITE FOLLOWS THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

1969: The SST program of 1969: A plan to develop high altitude supersonic airliners with the Boeing 2707 as a concept vehicle. The very high cruising altitude of the SST raised environmental alarms that included both climate change and ozone depletion.

1969: Climate change: An alarm is raised that chemicals and aerosols in the exhaust of the SST jet engines will cause climate change.

1970: Ozone depletion: The climate change theory is quietly shelved after critical reviews by skeptics and a new alarm is raised. Water vapor in the SST jet exhaust will cause a 4% depletion of ozone in the ozone layer causing 40,000 additional cases of skin cancer every year in the USA alone.

1970: Ozone depletion: The water vapor theory is quietly forgotten without explanation and a new ozone depletion theory emerges. Nitric oxide (NOx) in the SST jet exhaust will cause ozone depletion because NOx acts as a catalyst to destroy ozone without being consumed in the process.

1971: Ozone depletion: A computer model is developed to assess the impact of NOx in SST exhaust on the ozone layer. The model predicts that there will be a 50% ozone depletion and a worldwide epidemic of skin cancer. Animals that venture out during daylight will become blinded by UV radiation. It was an apocalyptic scenario.

1971: Ozone depletion: NOx in the fireball of open air nuclear tests provide a ready laboratory to test the ozone depletion properties of NOx. The computer model predicted 10% ozone depletion by NOx from nuclear testing. Measurements showed no ozone depletion; but the model won anyway and the ozone depletion scare endured.

1972: Death of the SST: We were so frightened by the ozone depletion scare that the SST program was canceled although America’s skies soon became filled with supersonic fighters and bombers spewing NOx without any evidence of ozone depletion or of skin cancer or of blindness in animals.

1972: United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) established in Nairbi, Kenya.

1973: Space Shuttle: Unperturbed by the skeptics and emboldened by their SST success, fear mongering scientists turn their attention to the proposed Space Shuttle program. The shuttle design included two solid fuel rockets that emit hydrogen chloride (HCl). Scientists calculated that 50 flights per year would deposit 5000 tons of HCl per year in the stratosphere that could cause a 10% ozone depletion over Florida and 1% to 2% elsewhere. Although the scare was hyped it never got to the SST levels and the space shuttle miraculously survived the ozone scare.

1974: Ozone depletion: The ozone depletion game was now in full gear. Having tasted the power of being able to inflict debilitating fear of ozone depletion, scientists embarked on a fishing expedition to find other chemicals generated by human activity that could get up to the stratosphere and catalyze the chemical reactions of ozone depletion.

1974: CFC: A new candidate agent for ozone depletion is found. Chlorofluorocarbons are synthetic chemicals used in aerosol sprays and in refrigerant for air conditioners and refrigerators. CFC emissions to the atmosphere accumulate in the stratosphere because there are no sinks to remove them from the lower atmosphere. Up in the stratosphere they are able to catalyze the destruction of ozone. The ozone depletion game was thus begun anew.

1974: Doomsday Theory: When CFCs rise to the stratosphere they are decomposed by UV radiation to release chlorine. The chlorine ion can then catalyze thousands of ozone destruction cycles without being consumed. Up to 40% of the ozone will be destroyed. The chlorine theory was old but its ready supply from CFCs was a completely new angle and so a new doomsday scenario was quickly sketched out for dissemination.

1974: NY Times, September 26, a big day for Doomsday journalism. The NYT predicts ozone depletion of 18% by 1990 and 50% by 2030 by CFCs will cause an epidemic of skin cancer, mutation of frogs, and blindness in animals and humans. The whole world is frightened. The ozone scare had begun anew this time with CFC as the agent of ozone depletion. The scare was very successful and it appeared in various forms almost every day in newspapers and on television for the next two decades.

1985: FARMAN et al published. it says that large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature , 315.207-210. This paper is a landmark event in the history of the ozone scare. It got the modern version of the ozone depletion scare started.

March 10, 1987: Ozone fearmongering becomes a media obsession and it is claimed that skin cancer is increasing in the United States at a near epidemic rate, outstripping predictions made as recently as five years ago, a research physician testified Monday before a House panel examining threats to the Earth’s protective ozone layer. Malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, has increased 83 percent in the last seven years alone. Melanoma is increasing faster than any other cancer except lung cancer in women.

March 12, 1987: Consensus among scientists: If harmful UV radiation reached the Earth, it would cause monumental problems, including rampant skin cancer and eye cataracts, retarded crop growth, impairment of the human immune system and damaging radiation doses to all forms of life. Although many Americans and the people of other nations are still not listening or taking the ozone threat seriously, the Earth’s protective shield is getting thinner and developing mysterious holes. There is a growing consensus among scientists that ozone destruction is caused by the accumulation in the upper atmosphere of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a class of industrial chemicals used for refrigerants, aerosols, insulation, foam packaging and other uses.

August 23, 1987: OZONE HOLE: Scientists have begun the largest study ever of the depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere by sending a modified spy plane on missions 12 1/2 miles above Antarctica. The flights this past week were part of a $10-million project being carried out by a 120-member team of scientists, engineers and technicians who hope to decipher a mysterious ozone hole that has been detected over Antarctic each winter for the past eight years.

September 24, 1987 MONTREAL PROTOCOL: The media is ecstatic and reports as follows; Sometimes when the world seems bent on self-destruction, a ray of hope pierces the darkness. A historic first international agreement to protect the Earth’s ozone layer inspires that kind of encouragement. Twenty-four nations plus the European Community signed the Montreal Protocol to reduce production of synthetic chemicals that float to the stratosphere and erode the ozone layer, the invisible shield that filters out the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. The world’s leading scientists have warned that the continuing destruction of ozone by man-made chemicals would cause sharp increases in skin cancer and cataracts, damage crops, forests and marine life and cause other environmental changes.

October 1, 1987: Ozone levels above Antarctica reached an all-time low since measurements began and scientists said Wednesday that they found strong evidence indicating that man-made Freon-type gases are to blame. Ozone is the only gas in the atmosphere that filters out harmful amounts of ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Estimates endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency say that for every one percent of ozone decrease in the global atmosphere, there could be 20,000 more skin cancer cases annually in the United States.

November 27, 1987: OZONE HOLE: The hole in the ozone radiation shield over Antarctica is caused by chlorine from gases used for years as propellants in spray cans, scientists confirmed Thursday. The chemical reaction that causes the depletion is possible only in the presence of polar clouds, composed of tiny ice crystals, and the amount of sunlight that reaches the South Pole in late winter and early spring, scientists wrote. It’s only recently we began looking at ice particles as possible participants,“ said Mario Molina, an atmospheric chemist at the California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.

December 20, 1987: The frigid air over Antarctica took three weeks longer than usual to warm at the onset of the Antarctic spring this year, prompting concern that the ozone hole discovered over the icy continent less than three years ago may be affecting global climate. According to satellite data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the polar vortex – a whirlpool-like mass of extremely cold air that forms over Antarctica in the dark winter months – broke up in late November. The vortex normally breaks up in late October or early November, when spring brings sunlight back to the South Pole and warms the atmosphere.

February 7, 1988: Global warming and further deterioration of the upper atmosphere’s protective ozone layer can be expected to accelerate the formation of smog in major cities across the United States, a new study for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found. Based on a year-long examination, researchers said that smog would be formed earlier in the day under conditions of global warming and a depleted upper atmospheric ozone shield. In the most polluted cities, the global effects would also increase maximum ground level ozone concentrations.

March 4, 1988: The amount of methane gas in the atmosphere has risen 11 percent since 1978, possibly speeding the seasonal loss of protective ozone above Antarctica but blocking the same depletion over the rest of the Earth, researchers say. “We’re changing the atmosphere in a rather rapid way. It’s hard to tell what the eventual consequences will be, but there are several ways it may have a strong impact on man, said Sherwood Rowland, a chemist at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), whose study was published today in the journal Science.

September 21, 1988: Earth’s protective ozone layer will continue to be eroded by chlorine even if ozone depleting chemicals known as chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs) are phased out, an environmental group said Tuesday. But the Environmental Policy Institute concluded in a report that if two other chlorine producing compounds – methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride – were also eliminated, the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere could decline significantly over the next three decades.

December 4, 1988: Earth’s protective ozone layer is thinning more than expected in northern regions of the globe, say scientists who detailed Tuesday an intense research effort to try to find out the reasons why. While the so-called ozone hole over the South Pole has attracted the most media attention, a lesser but still significant thinning also has been found in the North.

February 3, 1989: Scientists working in the Northwest Territories fear that serious damage to the ozone layer over the Arctic Ocean is imminent, a senior official said Thursday. Wayne Evans, experimental studies chief for Environment Canada, said its High Arctic weather team has discovered the presence of dense ice clouds similar to those that have helped cause a huge hole in the ozone over Antarctica.

February 18, 1989: Earth’s protective ozone layer seems to have broken down over the Arctic, a team of international scientists said Friday. They said it is not yet clear to what extent pollution may be to blame. About 150 scientists from various countries have been investigating the ozone layer for six weeks from a base in Stavanger on Norway’s west coast. The ozone layer is important because it filters out harmful solar rays. If ozone levels are significantly reduced, scientists say, it could lead to an increase in some skin cancers, crop failures and damage to marine life.

March 21, 1989: Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with our planet. Unless we quickly and profoundly change the course of our civilization, we face an immediate and grave danger of destroying the worldwide ecological system that sustains life as we know it. In 1939, as clouds of war gathered over Europe, many refused to recognize what was about to happen. No one could imagine a Holocaust, even after shattered glass had filled the streets on Kristallnacht. World leaders waffled and waited, hoping that Hitler was not what he seemed, that world war could be avoided. Later, when aerial photographs revealed death camps, many pretended not to see. Today, clouds of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today the evidence is as clear as the sounds of glass shattering in Berlin.

September 24, 1989: A hole has opened in the atmosphere’s ozone shield above Antarctica, and scientists say it is growing at the same rate as the one in 1987 which broke records. Ozone in the earth’s stratosphere normally blocks most ultraviolet radiation from the sun, shielding people and wildlife from harmful radiation effects. But certain chemicals released into the air – chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigerators, air conditioners, and spray cans – are destroying ozone. Scientists fear an epidemic of skin cancer and other radiation-induced diseases will result.
March 15, 1990: The holes in the world’s protective ozone layer will still be there in 2060 and beyond even if we restrict the use of damaging chemicals, the United Nations’ leading environmental official said Wednesday.

October 10, 1991: NASA reported Wednesday that a satellite passing over Antarctica had measured the lowest stratospheric ozone level on record, an ominous indication of potential global health risks.

October 24, 1991: The rate of ozone depletion has accelerated and will continue at the higher rate in the 1990s, requiring a more rapid phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons and other manmade chemicals that destroy ozone in the atmosphere.

November 22, 1991: A fleet of planes spraying 50,000 tons of propane or ethane high over the South Pole possibly could neutralize the Antarctic ozone hole, scientists say.

February 4, 1992: Government scientists say they have recorded the highest levels of ozone-damaging chemicals ever measured over the northern hemisphere, making it likely an ozone hole will develop this winter over parts of the United States, Canada and Europe3. “Everybody should be alarmed about this,” Michael J. Kurylo, manager of the upper atmosphere research program at NASA, said Monday. “We’re seeing conditions primed for ozone destruction. It’s in a far worse way that we thought.” Kurylo said aircraft and satellite instruments have measured levels of chlorine monoxide, a manmade chemical byproduct, at up to 1.5 parts per billion, the highest levels ever recorded.

September 6, 1992: As of July 1, 1992 it became illegal to vent refrigerant gases into the atmosphere. These gases contain chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which do the cooling. Scientists believe that CFCs released into the air have been rising into the stratosphere where they have been destroying the earth’s protective ozone layer. Ozone helps filter out some of the sun’s ultraviolet rays. Those rays cause skin cancer and, because of holes in the ozone layer, health experts expect an extra 12-million cases of skin cancer over the next 50 years.

September 30, 1992: Satellite measurements show the ozone hole over Antarctica is now the largest on record and almost three times larger than the area of the United States, NASA announced Tuesday. The space agency said measurements by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer instrument aboard the Nimbus-7 satellite showed last week the south polar territory under a depleted ozone area of the atmosphere extended for about 8.9-million square miles, about 15 percent larger than the ozone hole measured in 1991. Ozone, composed of three oxygen atoms, is a natural chemical in the atmosphere. It acts as a filter against damaging ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Chemical reactions can destroy ozone by stripping away one atom of oxygen, removing the shielding effect of ozone.

November 1, 1992: The EPA publishes its ozone tutorial as follows: The ozone layer consists of: Free oxygen atom (O), two oxygen atoms making an oxygen molecule (O2), and three oxygen atoms making an ozone molecule (O3). The Antarctic ozone hole was feared as a precursor to ozone holes over populated areas. Oxygen molecules are transformed into ozone by the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which splits the oxygen molecule into two free oxygen atoms. The free oxygen atoms bind to other oxygen molecules forming ozone. The ozone molecules also are broken up by UV radiation, converting it back into one free oxygen atom and one oxygen molecule. This continuous cycle occurs normally in the stratosphere. Once chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), consisting of atoms of carbon, fluorine and chlorine (CI), reach the ozone layer, UV radiation breaks off an atom of chlorine. A free chlorine atom reacts easily with other molecules. When it collides with an ozone molecule, it can break up the molecule by stripping away an oxygen atom.

November 26, 1992: Future accumulations of a gas that promotes global warming may lead to ozone “holes” over the Arctic similar to those now detected over Antarctica, a study says. The ozone reduction would expose Arctic wildlife to more ultraviolet radiation and might mean transient increased exposures for people elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Ultraviolet radiation promotes skin cancer and cataracts.

November 26, 1992: Spurred by recent evidence that Earth’s protective ozone layer is being depleted more extensively than feared, a U.N. environmental conference agreed Wednesday to move up the deadline for eliminating some ozone depleting substances to the end of 1995. Representatives of 87 countries moved up the phase out deadline from the year 2000 to January 1, 1996. The chemicals affected, mainly chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs, are industrial chemicals widely used as refrigerants, solvents and cleaning agents. The delegates set an even earlier deadline of 1994, for chemicals known as halons, which are used in fire extinguishers. The delegates also set a timetable for eliminating hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs. Industry has been relying on these chemicals as interim substitutes for the more potent ozone depleting substances pending the development of permanent substitutes. HCFCs, which still deplete ozone but not as much as the chemicals they replace, are now to be eliminated in stages starting in the year 2004 and ending in 2030.

April 23, 1993: The ozone layer, Earth’s protective shield against ultraviolet radiation, has dropped to record-low levels over the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States. A research team reports in today’s issue of the journal Science that the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines may have accelerated ozone depletion. Scientists said one of the ways the volcano could have contributed to the lower ozone levels is by its release of microscopic dust particles into the upper atmosphere. The losses, expected to persist into summer, include an average drop of 12 percent over the mid-latitudes where most Americans, Canadians and Europeans live, and a dip of 15 percent over the West Coast, including California. Ozone is down by as much as 20 percent over Northern Canada, Greenland, Norway, parts of Alaska and Siberia.

September 24, 1993: Calling the drop in atmospheric ozone “an unprecedented decrease,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the ozone appears to have been gobbled up by chemical reactions involving manmade chlorine compounds and an enormous blast of dust from the Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines.

October 19, 1993: Ozone levels over the Antarctic have dropped to record lows over the past month, creating a polar “ozone hole” bigger than Europe, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said late last week. The United Nations agency said levels of the gas over the southern pole had regularly fallen below 100 Dobson units, “representing the lowest absolute daily minimum ever recorded in the history of ozone observations.” & “It’s the worst we’ve seen yet,” WMO ozone expert Rumen Bojkov told Reuters. “It is lower now than we had thought was possible.”

August 27, 1994: The protective ozone layer over North America has rebounded from its extremely low level of two winters ago, but that doesn’t mean it’s time to relax. High-altitude “ozone over the U.S. during the winter of 1993-1994 recovered from the record low values of the previous winter,” a team of scientists reports in Geophysical Research Letters. Ozone levels that were as much as 15 percent below normal in 1992-1993 have risen to slightly above normal. The layer of ozone high in the atmosphere helps block dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Too much of this radiation can lead to skin cancer, premature aging of the skin and eye damage.

December 21, 1994: Three years of data from a NASA satellite have provided conclusive evidence that man-made chlorine in the stratosphere is the primary cause of the ozone hole above Antarctica, scientists said this week. “The detection of stratospheric fluorine gases, which are not natural, eliminates the possibility that chlorine from volcanic eruptions or some other natural source is responsible for the ozone hole,” NASA’s Mark Schoeberl said Monday.

October 30, 2000: This year the ozone hole over Antarctica has reached its lowest level since scientists began these measurements. According to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, monitoring stations around have reported ozone measurements that are 50 percent to 70 percent below the norms 30 years ago.

December 7, 2005: Current computer models suggest the ozone hole should recover globally by 2040 or 2050, but Tuesday’s analysis suggests the hole won’t heal until about 2065.

April 5, 2011: The WMO reports as follows: Depletion of the ozone layer- the shield that protects life on Earth from harmful levels of ultraviolet rays – has reached an unprecedented level over the Arctic this spring because of the continuing presence of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere and a very cold winter in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is the second major layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, just above the troposphere. The record loss is despite an international agreement which has been very successful in cutting production and consumption of ozone destroying chemicals. Because of the long atmospheric lifetimes of these compounds it will take several decades before their concentrations are back down to pre-1980 levels, the target agreed in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

May 19, 2015: NASA declares that the ozone depletion problem has been solved by the Montreal Protocol’s global ban on ozone depleting substances.

THIS POST IS A LIST OF POSTS AT THIS SITE ON OZONE DEPLETION WHERE WE SHOW THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE OF OZONE DEPLETION AND SPECIFICALLY THAT THE PERIODIC SEASONAL LOW OZONE CONDITION ABOVE THE SOUTH POLE DESCRIBED AS AN OZONE HOLE IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT VERIFIES THE ROWLAND MOLINA THEORY OF OZONE DEPLETION.

INTRODUCTION TO THE OZONE DEPLETION ISSUE:

LOVELOCK: In 1971, environmentalist James Lovelock studied the unrestricted release of halogenated hydrocarbons (HHC) into the atmosphere from their use as aerosol dispensers, fumigants, pesticides, and refrigerants. He was concerned that these chemicals were man-made and they did not otherwise occur in nature and that they were chemically inert and that therefore their atmospheric release could cause irreversible accumulation. In a now famous1973 paper {Lovelock, Maggs, and Wade 1973}, he presented the discovery that air samples above the Atlantic ocean far from human habitation contained measurable quantities of HHC. It established for the first time that environmental issues could be framed on a global scale and it served as the first of three key events that eventually led to the Montreal Protocol worldwide ban on the production, sale, and atmospheric release of HHC and the rise of the UN as a global environmental regulator. Since HHCs were non-toxic and, as of 1973, environmental science knew of no harmful effects of HHC, the environmental concern about their accumulation in the atmosphere remained an academic curiosity.

ROWLAND-MOLINA: This situation changed in 1974 with the publication of a paper by Mario Molina and Frank Rowland in which is contained a theory of ozone depletion by HHC. 1974). According to the Rowland-Molina theory of ozone depletion (RMTOD), the extreme volatility and chemical inertness of the HHCs ensure that there is no natural sink for these chemicals in the troposphere and that therefore once emitted they may remain in the atmosphere for 40 to 150 years and be transported by diffusion and atmospheric motion to the stratospheric ozone layer where they are subjected to solar radiation at frequencies that will cause them to dissociate into chlorine atoms and free radicals. Chlorine atoms can then act as a catalytic agent of ozone destruction in a chemical reaction cycle described in the paper and reproduced below. The Molina, 1974 paper proposed that such ozone depletion by HHC poses a danger because the ozone layer protects life on the surface of the earth from the harmful effects of UVB radiation. This paper was the second key event that led to the Montreal Protocol. It established that the atmospheric accumulation of HHC is not
harmless and provided a theoretical framework that links HHC to ozone depletion.

FARMAN ETAL 1985: The third key event in the genesis of the Montreal Protocol was the paper by Farman, Gardiner, and Shanklin that is taken as empirical evidence for the kind of ozone depletion described by the RMTOD (Farman, 1985). The essential finding of the Farman paper is contained in the top frame of the paper’s Figure 1 which is reproduced here as Figure 2. Ignoring the very light lines in the top frame of Figure 2, we see two dark curves one darker than the other. The darker curve contains average daily values of total column ozone in Dobson units for the 5-year test period 1980-1984. The lighter curve shows daily averages for the 16-year reference period 1957-1973. The conclusions the authors draw from the graph are that (1) atmospheric ozone levels are lower in the test period than in the reference period and (2) that the difference is more dramatic in the two spring months of October and November than it is in the summer and fall2. The difference and the seasonality of the difference between the two curves are interpreted by the authors in terms of the ozone depletion chemistry and their kinetics described by Molina and Rowland (Molina, 1974). The Farman paper was thus hailed as empirical evidence of RMTOD and the science of ozone depletion due to the atmospheric release of HHC appeared to be well established by these three key papers. First, atmospheric release of HHC caused them to accumulate in the atmosphere on a planetary scale because they are insoluble and chemically inert (Lovelock). Second, their long life and volatility ensure that they will end up in the stratosphere where HHC will be dissociated by radiation to release chlorine atoms which will act as catalytic agents of ozone depletion (Molina-Rowland). And third, empirical evidence validates the depletion of ozone and the role of HHC in
the depletion mechanism (Farman et al). The Montreal Protocol was put in place on this basis.

THIS POST IS A CONSOLIDATION OF POSTS ON THE OZONE DEPLETION ISSUE

THE ASSUMED PARALLEL BETWEEN OZONE DEPLETION AND CLIMATE CHANGE

A MONTREAL PROTOCOL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/01/04/a-montreal-protocol-for-the-climate/

(POST#1): SCIENCE GONE WRONG: FARMAN ETAL 1985

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/03/12/ozone1966-2015/

SUMMARY: The overall structure of changes in total column ozone in time and across latitudes shows that the data from the two stations in Antarctica prior to 1985 are unique and specific to that time and place. They cannot be generalized into a global pattern of ozone depletion. Here we show that declining levels of total column ozone in Antarctica during the months of October and November prior to 1985 do not serve as empirical evidence that can be taken as validation of the Rowland-Molina theory of chemical ozone depletion. The chemical theory implies that ozone depletion must be assessed across the full range of latitudes and over a much longer time span than what is found in Farman etal 1985 which serves as the sole basis for the ozone depletion hypothesis that led to the Montreal Protocol and the ascendance of the UN as a global environmental authority.

The concern about ozone depletion is derived from the finding by Farman et al in 1985 that ozone levels at HLB fell by 6DU per year from the 1957-1973 average to the 1980-1984 average. The data presented HERE show that ozone depletion rates of 6DU/year and higher are seen only at the South Pole. Outside of the South Pole the mean ozone depletion rate is close to zero with an uncertainty range of +/- 1DU per year, a range perhaps indicative of random natural variability. It is therefore not likely that the HLB data reported by Farman et al can be generalized globally. Yet, it served as the sole basis of validating the Rowland Molina theory of ozone depletion. This event then gave rise to the ozone depletion alarm that in turn led to a global environmental role of the UN and the Montreal Protocol, and eventually an assumed authority of the UN over global environmentalism and the climate change alarmism of our time. THE STORY OF THE OZONE DEPLETION CRISIS AND ITS APPARENT MONTREAL PROTOCOL SUCCESS IS A CASE OF CLAIMING A NON-EXISTENT PROBEM AND THEN, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, SIMPLY DECLARING IT SOLVED.

(POST#2): REMEMBERING MARIO MOLINA

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/24/an-ode-to-mario-molina/

SUMMARY: The concern about ozone depletion is derived from the finding by Farman et al in 1985 that ozone levels at HLB fell by 6DU per year from the 1957-1973 average to the 1980-1984 average. The data presented HERE show that ozone depletion rates of 6DU/year and higher are seen only at the South Pole. Outside of the South Pole the mean ozone depletion rate is close to zero with an uncertainty range of +/- 1DU per year, a range perhaps indicative of random natural variability.

It is therefore not likely that the HLB data reported by Farman et al can be generalized globally. Yet, it served as the sole basis of validating the Rowland Molina theory of ozone depletion. This event then gave rise to the ozone depletion alarm that in turn led to a global environmental role of the UN and the Montreal Protocol, and eventually an assumed authority of the UN over global environmentalism and the climate change alarmism of our time.

ALL THIS WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE OF OZONE DEPLETION OR OF ITS CLAIMED RECOVERY. THE STORY OF OZONE DEPLETION CRISIS AND ITS MONTREAL PROTOCOL SUCCESS IS A CASE OF CLAIMING A NON-EXISTENT PROBEM AND THEN SIMPLY DECLARING IT SOLVED.

(POST#3): OZONE HOLE ENVIRONMENTALISM

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/21/ozone-hole-environmentalism/

SUMMARY: The background to the Rowland Molina theory of ozone depletion (RMTOD) is that since 1969 multiple failed theories of ozone depletion were proposed with claims that supersonic airliners, the space shuttle, and various other technologies being proposed would cause ozone depletion with blindness and skin cancer epidemics. RMTOD was simply the latest in that line of an obsession with ozone depletion fearology and it can only be understood in that context. RMTOD 1974 is not a work in isolation that can be accredited solely to Rowland and Molina. Firstly, as explained above, it was just yet another ozone depletion fear in a long line of ozone depletion fears since 1969. Even more important is that RMTOD is a product of the Lovelock 1973 paper. In 1973 James Lovelock discovered that air samples taken from the Middle of the Atlantic Ocean contained CFCs. He then published his now famous paper in which he said that these man made chemicals that did not otherwise occur in nature were inert and could therefore accumulate in the atmosphere indefinitely. It was from this work that Rowland and Molina surmised that given enough time, maybe 40 to 100 years, the inert and long lived CFCs could, by random molecular movement, end up in the stratosphere where they could be disintegrated by UV radiation to produce radical agents of ozone destruction. What Rowland and Molina proved in their lab is that UV radiation would indeed break down the CFCs and that the radicals thus produced would indeed destroy ozone but no evidence has every been produced and none exists that CFCs did indeed end up in the stratosphere. That part of RMTOD is simply imagined in a “What If” logic. The only empirical evidence presented in support of RMTOD is Farman etal 1985. The Farman study showed only that there was a brief and localized 5-year period of low ozone in the months of October and November above the South Pole that had recovered to normal levels and this was taken as evidence of RMTOD. Yet, this episodal and localized low ozone event does not serve as evidence of the RMTOD theory of ozone depletion. This theory implies a long term declining trend in global mean total column ozone. No evidence for this trend has ever been presented and we show in a related post that none exists. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/03/12/ozone1966-2015/ . Instead, the South Polar periodic low ozone event that quickly recovers back to normal levels was sold to the general public as an “ozone hole” and claimed as evidence of RMTOD human caused global ozone depletion that could cause skin cancer in humans and blindness in animals up in North America. Then at some point, it was declared with great fanfare that the UN brokered Montreal Protocol had solved the ozone depletion problem and that the ozone had recovered. No explanation is offered for the continuation of these South Polar ozone events that had been named ozone holes. In a related post LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/30/the-unep-healed-the-ozone-hole/ we show that these South Polar events should be understood as ozone distribution events and not ozone depletion. Ozone is both created and destroyed by UV radiation. Ozone is created only above the Tropics where sunlight is direct and distributed to the greater latitudes by the Brewer Dobson circulation and episodic changes in ozone levels at the higher latitudes can be understood in terms of the dynamics of this distribution but not in terms of long term ozone depletion due to the presence of ozone depleting substances in the stratosphere. The only significant impact of what is claimed to be finally a proven case of ozone depletion after all those failures is that it served to expand the role of the UN into global environmentalism.

(POST#4) LEARNING FROM A HEALING OZONE HOLE

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/30/the-unep-healed-the-ozone-hole/

SUMMARY: The ozone data from ground stations presented above do not show a long term declining trend in global mean total column ozone. Moreover, the patterns in the data suggest that the occasional low levels of ozone seen over the South Pole that have been interpreted as evidence of ozone depletion and evidence of a hole in the ozone layer, is a figment of a pattern in the data that is likely the creation of natural variability in ozone distribution by the Brewer Dobson circulation. Figure 27 shows that the range of observed ozone levels is a strong function of latitude. It reaches a minimum of about 20DU in the tropics and increases asymmetrically toward the two poles. The hemispheric asymmetry has two dimensions. The northward increase in range is gradual and the southward increase in range is steep. Also, the northward increase in range is achieved mostly with rising maximum values while southward increase in range is achieved mostly with falling minimum values. The midpoint between the HIGH and LOW values is symmetrical within ±45 from the equator but diverges sharply beyond 45 with the northern leg continuing a steady rise while the southern leg changes to a steep decline as seen in Figure 28. Hemispheric asymmetry in atmospheric circulation patterns is well known (Butchart, 2014) (Smith, 2014) and the corresponding asymmetry in ozone levels is also recognized (Crook, 2008) (Tegtmeier, 2008) (Pan, 1997). These asymmetries are also evident when comparing seasonal cycles among the ground stations (Figure 29). The observed asymmetries are attributed to differences in land-water patterns in the two hemispheres with specific reference to the existence of a large ice covered land mass in the South Pole (Oppenheimer, 1998) (Kang, 2010) (Turner, 2009). The climactic uniqueness of Antarctica is widely recognized. The left panel of Figure 30 represents the Southern Hemisphere from AMS (-90deg) to SMO (-14deg). The right panel represents the Northern Hemisphere from MLO (+19.5deg) to BRW (+71deg). The x-axis in each panel indicates the calendar months of the year from September = 1 to August = 12. The ordinate measures the average rate of change in total column ozone for each calendar month among adjacent Lustra for all Lustra estimated using OLS regression of mean total column ozone against Lustrum number for each month. For example, in the left panel we see that in the month of September, (x=1) ozone levels at HLB (shown in red) fell at an average rate of 15DU per Lustrum for the entire study period; and in the right panel we see that in the month of July (x=11) ozone levels at FBK (shown in orange) rose at an average rate of more than 2DU per Lustrum over the entire study period. The full study period is 50 years divided into 10 Lustra but it is abbreviated for some stations according to data availability. The concern about anthropogenic ozone depletion is derived from the finding by Farman et al in 1985 that ozone levels at HLB fell more than 100DU from the average value for October in 1957-1973 to the average value for October in 1980-1984. In comparison, changes of ±5DU from Lustrum to Lustrum seem inconsequential. In that light. On this basis, if we describe ±5DU per Lustrum as representative of random natural variability, what we see in Figure 30 is that, except for the two Antarctica stations (AMS and HLB), no average change in monthly mean ozone from Lustrum to Lustrum falls outside this range. It is therefore not likely that the HLB data reported by Farman et al can be generalized globally. We conclude from this analysis that the Farman etal study, the only empirical evidence thought to validate the Rowland Molina theory of ozone depletion, is flawed and therefore does not serve as evidence of anthropogenic ozone depletion. And yet, Farman etal 1985 served and still serves to this day as the sole empirical support for the ozone crisis that created the role for the UN in global environmentalism. These relationships imply that there is no empirical evidence to support the Rowland Molina Theory of Ozone Depletion and that therefore there is no evidence of human caused ozone depletion by way of CFC emissions. The occasional low ozone level over the South Pole described as an “ozone hole” and presented as evidence of ozone depletion is neither a hole in the ozone layer nor evidence of ozone depletion but natural variability understood in terms of the data presented above.

(POST#5): THE CLIMATE CRISIS CONNECTED TO THE OZONE CRISIS

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/03/climate-ozone-crisis/

SUMMARY: The claim that the the faster warming of the Arctic because of the GHG effect of ozone depleting substances is causing faster sea ice melt is inconsistent with the finding reported in a related post that the data do not support a causal relationship between AGW warming and year to year changes in Arctic sea ice [LINK] . Stratospheric ozone also causes warming such that ozone losses caused by ozone depleting substances would have a cooling effect on the Earth’s surface ([LINK] ). Therefore, the warming effect of ozone depleting substances should be computed net of the ozone depletion cooling they cause. Also the choice of the study period as 1955-2005 is curious. Of course 1971 falls somewhere in the middle here and that is when Lovelock found CFCs in the atmosphere and also 1989 is in there somewhere and that is when the Montreal Protocol went into effect and so perhaps by 2005, the CFCs were gone and we returned to the old fossil fuel theory. Yet, the essential nature of CFCs noted by Lovelock and also by Rowland Molina is that it is inert and that it can hang around in the atmosphere for 150 years. This property of CFCs makes it difficult to understand why the CFC warming effect ended in 2005. Of course, in 1989 we stopped making them but their gradual decline given their their inert property would take much longer. Yet another aspect of the ozone to climate connection with the success of anti CFC activism perhaps serving as an encouraging note for continued anti fossil fuel activism, is that empirical evidence of anthropogenic ozone depletion was presented in only one study that being Farman etal 1985 using data only from the South Pole and over a very short interval of time. The ozone depletion noted in that study is not found in long term trends of latitudinally weighted global mean total column ozone as shown in a related post  [LINK] . A key aspect of these findings is the strong support it provides for the Montreal Protocol as an effective international agreement that not only ended the ozone depletion crisis but also moderated climate change by reducing the contribution of ozone depleting substances. This glorious assessment of the Montreal Protocol is stated as “The success of the Montreal Protocol demonstrates superbly that international treaties to limit greenhouse gas emissions really do work; they can impact our climate in very favorable ways, and they can help us avoid dangerous levels of climate change“.  The insertion of this otherwise irrelevant statement into an investigation of warming anomalies in the period 1955-2005 may be the key to understanding this particular line of research and its odd findings. On the eve of COP26, and in the heels of 25 COP failures, climate activists may be giving up hope of the UN’s COP effort and its ability to put together a binding and effective international agreement for an overhaul of the world’s energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels. It is also noted that the study was based entirely on climate models. In that context, the finding of the research on the role of CFCs in global warming that leads to the conclusion of a glorious UN success of the Montreal Protocol in putting together a binding and effective international agreement that saved the ozone and even cooled the planet, is best understood as promotion for COP26 with the needed encouragement and positive outlook for the upcoming COP26. The reference to the Montreal Protocol derives from a frustration in climate science with the failure of the UN to deliver a Montreal Protocol for climate change.

(POST#6): THE OZONE MYSTERY DEEPENS

SUMMARY: The ozone hole has been used as a high profile issue in the fight against ODS and the only evidence of ozone depletion in support of the Rowland Molina theory of ozone depletion by ODS was ozone depletion in the South Pole by Farman et al, BUT the real ozone issue is not what happens at the South Pole or in any other specific location. The real issue is mean global TOTAL COLUMN OZONE. The Farman etal paper, the only empirical evidence of the Rowland Molina theory of ozone depletion, is flawed and therefore not credible [LINK] . BUT the primary flaw of the paper presented here is that it is not possible to interpret the effect of Montreal Protocol at decadal time scales because these changes are slow and they should be studied at LONGER time scales. The other issue is that the the impact of ozone depletion and ozone depleting substances should be studied on a global basis because they cannot be understood on a localized basis as discussed in the related post on Farman etal [LINK]. The ozone hole does not serve as evidence of global ozone depletion because ozone depletion has a global distribution interpretation.  In related posts it is shown that there is no empirical evidence of global ozone depletion or of its recovery by way of the Montreal Protocol [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]  . The only empirical evidence of the Rowland Molina theory of ozone depletion is Farman etal 1985 and as shown here [LINK]  that study is flawed. The evidence of a causation relationship between ozone recovery and jet stream recovery (other than that they could not find any other explanation for it) is that they both began in the year 2000. This kind of coincidence as causation is common in climate science, as in “the industrial economy began burning fossil fuels and at the same time the atmospheric CO2 levels began to rise but these relationships do not prove causation as Tyler Vigen has so expertly demonstrated in his spurious correlation site [LINK] and as described in a related post [LINK]

CONCLUSION: THE ATTEMPT BY THE CITED PAPER TO RELATE JET STREAM CHANGES TO THE SUCCESS OF THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL IN THE REDUCTION OF OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES AND THE HALTING OF OZONE DEPLETION IN THE STRATOSPHERE AT DECADAL TIME SCALES IS NOT CREDIBLE. THE PAPER’S INTENT IS THEREFORE INTERPRETED AS ACTIVISM TO PROMOTE THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL AS A MODEL FOR A CLIMATE ACTION POSSIBLY AS PREPARATION FOR THE UPCOMING COP26 CLIMATE MEETING IN GLASGOW. 

(POST#7): EMPIRICAL TEST OF OZONE DEPLETION WITH GROUND STATION DATA #1

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/30/ozone-depletion-part-2/

DATA ANALYSIS FOR GLOBAL MEAN TOTAL COLUMN OZONE FOR ALL GROUND STATIONS SHOWS THAT: The concern about ozone depletion is derived from the finding by Farman et al in 1985 that ozone levels at HLB fell more than 100DU from the average value for October in 1957-1973 to the average value for October in 1980-1984. In comparison, changes of ±5DU from Lustrum to Lustrum seem inconsequential. In that light, and somewhat arbitrarily if we describe ±5DU per Lustrum as insignificant and perhaps representative of random natural variability, what we see in Figure 30 is that, except for the two Antarctica stations (AMS and HLB), no average change in monthly mean ozone from Lustrum to Lustrum falls outside this range. It is therefore not likely that the HLB data reported by Farman et al can be generalized globally. We conclude from this analysis that the Farman etal study, the only empirical evidence thought to validate the Rowland Molina theory of ozone depletion, is flawed and therefore does not serve as evidence of anthropogenic ozone depletion. And yet, Farman etal 1985 served and still serves to this day as the sole empirical support for the ozone crisis that created the role for the UN in global environmentalism.

(POST#8): EMPIRICAL TEST OF OZONE DEPLETION WITH GROUND STATION DATA PART 2

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/01/ozone-depletion-part-3/

THIS POST IS A STUDY OF TRENDS IN GLOBAL MEAN TOTAL COLUMN OZONE WITH GROUND STATION DATA IN THE STUDY PERIOD 1966-2015

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: The overall structure of changes in total column ozone levels over a 50-year sample period from 1966 to 2015 and across a range of latitudes from -90o to +71o shows that the data from Antarctica prior to 1990 represent a peculiar outlier condition specific to that time and place and not an enduring global pattern. The finding is inconsistent with the usual assumption that the Farman etal 1985 paper on a South Pole ozone event serves as empirical evidence for the Rowland-Molina theory of global chemical ozone depletion. The concern about ozone depletion is derived from the finding by Farman et al in 1985 that ozone levels at HLB fell at a rate of 6DU per year from the 1957-1973 average to the 1980-1984 average. The data presented below show that ozone depletion rates of 6DU/year and higher are seen only at the South Pole. Outside of the South Pole the mean ozone depletion rate is close to zero with an uncertainty range of +/- 1DU per year, a range perhaps indicative of random natural variability. It is therefore not likely that the HLB data reported by Farman et al can be generalized globally. Yet this extreme localized event was used to raise a global ozone depletion alarm that led to the involvement of the UN and the Montreal Protocol; and eventually an assumed authority of the UN over global environmentalism and the climate change alarmism of our time. Here we use ozone data from ground stations to carry out an empirical test of the RMTOD. Total column ozone (TCO) measurements made with Dobson spectrophotometers at twelve ground stations are used in this study. The stations are selected to represent a large range of latitudes with the latitudes classified into five groups as (1) high southern latitudes (90S to 60S), (2) mid- southern latitudes (60S to 30S), (3) Tropical (30S to 30N), (4) mid- northern latitudes (30N to 60N), and (5) high northern latitudes (60N to 90north). The data are provided by the NOAA and the BAS (British Antarctic Survey). As in Farman etal 1985, the ozone data are studied as five year (Lustrum) averages and not as annual data to smooth out data availability differences. These period definitions are not precise for the first and last Lustra. The first Lustrum is longer than five years for some stations and shorter than five years for others. The last Lustrum is imprecise because of the variability in the last month of data availability. The calendar month sequence is arranged from September to August in the tables and charts presented to maintain seasonal integrity. The seasons are roughly defined as follows: September-November (northern autumn and southern spring), December-February (northern winter and southern summer), March-May (northern spring and southern autumn), and June-August (northern summer and southern winter). Daily and intraday ozone data are averaged into monthly means for each period. These monthly means are then used to study trends across the ten Lustra for each calendar month and also to examine the average seasonal cycle for each Lustrum. Trends in mean monthly ozone and seasonal cycles are compared to examine the differences among latitudes. These patterns are then used to compare and evaluate the chemical and transport theories for changes in atmospheric ozone. The chemical explanation of these changes rests on the destruction of ozone by chlorine atoms derived from HHC (Molina, 1974) while the transport theory describes them in terms of the Brewer-Dobson circulation (BDC) and polar vortices that transport ozone from the tropics where they are formed to the greater latitudes where they are more stable (Kozubek, 2012) (Butchart, 2014) (Tegtmeier, 2008) (Weber, 2011).

CONCLUSION: The concern about ozone depletion is derived from the finding by Farman et al in 1985 that ozone levels at HLB fell by 6DU per year from the 1957-1973 average to the 1980-1984 average. The data presented below show that ozone depletion rates of 6DU/year and higher are seen only at the South Pole. Outside of the South Pole the mean ozone depletion rate is close to zero with an uncertainty range of +/- 1DU per year, a range perhaps indicative of random natural variability. It is therefore not likely that the HLB data reported by Farman et al can be generalized globally. Yet, it served as the sole basis of validating the Rowland Molina theory of ozone depletion. This event then gave rise to the ozone depletion alarm that in turn led to a global environmental role of the UN and the Montreal Protocol, and eventually an assumed authority of the UN over global environmentalism and the climate change alarmism of our time.

(POST#9): EMPIRICAL TEST OF OZONE DEPLETION WITH SATELLITE DATA

SUMMARY: Satellite based total ozone gridded data from the TOMS instrument (1979-1992) and the OMI instrument (2005-2015) are used to estimate latitudinally weighted global mean ozone levels. The global mean ozone values are found to have a regular seasonal cycle for daily data and irregular seasonal cycles for monthly mean data. The monthly mean data are examined for trends with OLS regression. In both datasets, statistically significant but practically insignificant trends are found that are contradictory. The older TOMS data show a depletion of mean monthly global ozone at a rate of 0.65 DU3 per year. The newer and possibly more reliable OMI data show an accretion of mean monthly global ozone at a rate of 0.5 DU per year. According to the chemical theory of ozone depletion subsumed by the UNEP and the Montreal Protocol, both of the sample periods tested lie within a regime of continuous destruction of total ozone on a global scale by long lived anthropogenic chemical agents. The weak and contradictory OLS trends found in this study cannot be explained in terms of this theory. The OLS assumption of independence is investigated with Rescaled Range analysis. It is found that the deseasonalized and detrended standardized residuals of daily mean global ozone levels in the OMI dataset 2005-2015 contain a high value of the Hurst exponent indicative of dependence, persistence, and long term memory. POLICY IMPLICATION: THE APPARENT MONTREAL PROTOCOL SUCCESS THAT VAULTED THE UNITED NATIONS INTO A GLOBAL ROLE IN CLIMATE CHANGE HAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IT SHOULD ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO ROLE FOR THE OZONE HOLE IN THE ROWLAND MOLINA THEORY OF OZONE DEPLETION. THE OZONE HOLE IS A LOCALIZED EVENT. THE ROWLAND MOLINA THEORY OF OZONE DEPLETION RELATES ONLY TO LONG TERM TRENDS IN GLOBAL MEAN OZONE LEVEL. NO SUCH TREND HAS EVER BEEN PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE PROBABLY BECAUSE NO SUCH TREND IS FOUND IN THE DATA. THE OZONE DEPLETION CRISIS AND ITS MONTREAL PROTOCOL SOLUTION APPEARS TO BE AN IMAGINED CRISIS THAT WAS SIMPLY DECLARED TO HAVE BEEN SOLVED.

(POST#10): THE OZONE HOLE OF 2020

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/04/the-ozone-hole-of-2020/

SUMMARY: The Rowland Molina Theory of Ozone Depletion (RMTOD) implies a gradual reduction in global mean total column ozone over long time scales 40 to 100 years. Localized changes in ozone concentration at brief time scales, particularly so at the poles, have no interpretation in terms of RMTOD. This is because the distribution of ozone from the tropics (where they form) to the greater latitudes contains extreme short term variability. These localized short term ozone dynamics do not have an RMTOD interpretation. The extreme and irrational focus on the South Pole at brief time scales as a measure of long term trends in global mean total column ozone is inconsistent with RMTOD and not empirical evidence for it. This faux practice at NASA, where such “ozone holes” are presented in the context of RMTOD, likely derives from the Farman etal 1985 paper that had presented short term South Pole ozone level variations as evidence of RMTOD and to this day that paper remains as the only empirical evidence in support of RMTOD. In a related post we show that Farman etal 1985 contains fatal methodological and statistical flaws and that therefore it provides neither evidence of a decline in global mean total column ozone nor a validation of RMTOD. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/03/12/ozone1966-2015/

Briefly, RMTOD is about long term trends in global mean total column ozone which forms only in the Tropics and which is distributed to the higher latitudes by the Brewer Dobson circulation and by other means. These distributions are volatile and variable. The variability increases sharply with latitude. Therefore the dynamics of ozone concentration at the most extreme possible latitude do not contain useful information about global mean total column ozone. Therefore, “ozone hole” data have no interpretation in terms of RMTOD. Large variability in South Polar ozone levels has no RMTOD interpretation and the description of brief periods of low ozone levels there as some kind of a hole that we need to worry about has no scientific or empirical basis and no implication in terms of RMTOD.

(POST#11): THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE ARTICLE “LEARNING FROM A HEALING OZONE HOLE” FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2019 BY THE UNITED NATIONS ENVRONMENT PROGRAM (UNEP) TO SUGGEST THAT WE CAN HEAL THE CLIMATE CRISIS BECSUSE WE HEALED THE OZONE HOLE.

SUMMARY: CLAIM: Ever since humans first travelled into space, we have heard stories about the fragility of the pale blue dot that is our planet. This fragility is partially attributed to the Earth’s “paper-thin” atmosphere, the only protection we have from the darkness and emptiness of space and the interstellar objects and radiation that could be harmful to us, such as hurtling asteroids and ultraviolet radiation. The ozone shield, for example, our main protection against the Sun’s hostile rays, is only 20 km wide on average; let’s compare it to wrapping a 1cm-wide marble in a single layer of plastic wrap. If all the protection we have against volatile external forces is a single layer of plastic wrap, and that plastic wrap starts wearing thin and showing holes, it would be wise to take good care of it. This was the message the world received in the 1980s, when the Antarctic ozone hole was identified by researchers, just under a decade after scientists first mentioned ozone depletion. The message was clear; the ozone layer protected us from genetic damage and skin cancer, it was getting weaker, and human-made products were at the root of the issue.. RESPONSE: The ozone depletion issue is not about the thinness of the ozone layer nor about ozone holes. The ozone depletion issue was raised in the context of the Rowland Molina Theory of Ozone Depletion (RMTOD) that was constructed after James Lovelock discovered that halogenated hydrocarbons (HFC) used by humans as refrigerants and spray agents were inert and that therefore they had no natural sink in the troposphere where they tended to accumulate and where they could accumulate indefinitely. RMTOD proposed that given enough time, 40 to 100 years, by the random molecular motion in the atmosphere and their relative light molecular weight, CFC molecules could be transported high up to the stratospheric ozone layer. Once there, ultraviolet radiation could cause these molecules to break up and release chemically active chlorine free radicals that could act as chemical agents of ozone destruction. The testable implication of the RMTOD theory is not a localized and brief ozone depletion events over the South Pole referred to as ozone holes but a long term gradual decline in global mean total column ozone over the whole of the earth at all latitudes. The term ozone hole does not refer to a hole in the ozone layer that lets in harmful UV radiation. There is no such thing. The term ozone hole refers to localized ozone depletion events above the South Pole.

CLAIM: People around the world started to become increasingly cautious about a depletion of the ozone layer and ensuing risks it did not take long for governments to mobilize. Individual countries started banning products emitting CFCs, the main chemical guilty of ozone depletion, as early as the 1970s. In 1987 the world agreed to cap CFC production at 1986 levels and commit to long-term reductions. Under a decade later, CFC production was banned in developed countries, and developing countries followed soon after. RESPONSE: This statement is true except that “people around the world started to become increasingly cautious about ozone depletion” because they had been scared to death in a fearmongering campaign with horror stories about ozone depletion. This campaign actually began in the 1960s when the alleged agent of ozone depletion was the proposed development of supersonic airliners. The bizarre history of the ozone depletion scare is provided in a related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/07/history-of-the-ozone-depletion-scare/

CLAIM: The ozone case was time-sensitive, yet the battle against ozone depletion was a success like the world had never seen. In 2016, just 40 years since researchers first spoke of ozone depletion, a gradual trend toward ozone ‘healing’ was reported, and it is believed that the ozone layer will recover to 1980 levels near the middle of the 21st century. RESPONSE: The success that the world had never seen was also a UN managed solution to an environmental problem that never existed in the first place. It was a case of declare an imaginary problem, push through a proposed action plan that is proposed as a solution, and then simply declare the problem solved. As shown in related posts on this site there is no long declining trend in global mean total column ozone, and there never was a long term declining trend in global mean total column ozone. The only evidence presented was that there were brief low ozone events above the South Pole from time to time several years apart that have continued to recur to this day when the ozone depletion problem has apparently been solved. There are still low ozone events above the South Pole the most recent being the one seen this year in 2020 as described in a related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/04/the-ozone-hole-of-2020/ . No explanation has been provided for the anomaly that brief ozone depletion events over the South Pole (ozone holes) that were the only evidence every presented for ozone depletion continue to occur unabated even after the ozone depletion problem has been declared to have been solved by the heroic UNEP and its Montreal Protocol. We also note that he year 2016 is declared as “40 years since researchers first spoke of ozone depletion”. Kindly note, that in the modern era, researches first spoke of ozone depletion 57 years ago in 1963 when ozone depletion fearmongering had shout down the SST airliner program.

SUMMARY:

CLAIM: On this International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer, themed “32 years and healing,” we can rightfully celebrate over three decades of remarkable international cooperation to protect the ozone layer. Ozone layer protection efforts have not just helped drive ozone healing but have also contributed to the fight against climate change by averting an estimated 135 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. This shows that solutions can be advantageous on multiple fronts without watering down the benefits. This day also reminds us that we must keep up the momentum to establish a future of healthy people and a healthy planet. As we head into an era of ozone healing, let’s push to keep hold of these gains, particularly by remaining vigilant and tackling any illegal sources of ozone-depleting substances as they arise. We must also commit ourselves to the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which entered into force on 1 January 2019 and aims for the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); this can simultaneously support the protection of the ozone layer and avoid further global temperature rise. Finally, let’s keep learning from ozone successes as we tackle other issues regarding chemicals and waste. Perhaps by looking at what did and didn’t work in reversing the damage done to the ozone layer, we can gain inspiration to halt and reverse the damages done by other hazardous chemicals. Congratulations to our chemicals family for caring for the ozone layer. Let’s keep on working for a chemical-safe future together! RESPONSE: Even as the UN congratulates itself on the “International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer”, we present data in related posts that the ozone layer has in fact been preserved and moreover that it had always been preserved as we see no evidence in the data of long term decline in total column ozone. Periodic and localized ozone depletion events over the South Pole do not serve as evidence of RMTOD as explained in below.

(POST#12): OZONE DEPLETION ENVIRONMENTALISM

SUMMARY: THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF AN ARTICLE BY THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT NETWORK FOR AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT (ISNAD) ON “HEALING THE OZONE LAYER” LINK: https://isnad-africa.org/2020/09/17/healing-the-ozone-layer/

WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS

The ozone layer or ozone shield is a region of Earth‘s stratosphere that absorbs most of the Sun‘s ultraviolet radiation. It contains a high concentration of ozone (O3) in relation to other parts of the atmosphere, although still small in relation to other gases in the stratosphere. The ozone layer contains less than 10 parts per million of ozone, while the average ozone concentration in Earth’s atmosphere as a whole is about 0.3 parts per million. The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers above Earth, although its thickness varies seasonally and geographically. The natural disasters that have beseeched man and the world at large has made man come to the realisation that action needs to be taken to start the healing of the Ozone layer. The adverse effects of the changing climate are a sad reality right before our eyes. For example, industrialization is credited for the massive developments the world has seen over the years. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s, however, human activities have added more and more of these gases into the atmosphere. The levels of carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, have risen by 35 percent since 1750, largely from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. With more greenhouse gases in the mix, the atmosphere acts like a thickening blanket and traps more heat. This has led to rising temperatures world over. More actions have been taken to protect the earth by focusing on the protection of the ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, also known simply as the Montreal Protocol, is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion. The ozone layer can be depleted by free radical catalysts, including nitric oxide , nitrous oxide , hydroxyl , atomic chlorine and atomic bromine . While there are natural sources for all of these species, the concentrations of chlorine and bromine increased markedly in recent decades because of the release of large quantities of man-made organohalogen compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons and bromofluorocarbons. These highly stable compounds are capable of surviving the rise to the stratosphere, where chlorofluorocarbons (CI) and bromofluorocarbons (Br) radicals are liberated by the action of ultraviolet light. Each radical is then free to initiate and catalyze a chain reaction capable of breaking down over 100,000 ozone molecules Signed 16 September 1987, it was made pursuant to the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which established the framework for international cooperation in addressing ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol entered into force on 1 January 1989, and has since undergone nine revisions, in 1990 (London), 1991 (Nairobi), 1992 (Copenhagen), 1993 (Bangkok), 1995 (Vienna), 1997 (Montreal), 1998 (Australia), 1999 (Beijing) and 2016 (Kigali). The concern of the world over the years has been to set the recovery of the Ozone layer through the constant revision of the Montreal Protocol. Since the Montreal Protocol came into effect, the atmospheric concentrations of the most important chlorofluorocarbons and related chlorinated hydrocarbons have either leveled off or decreased. Halon concentrations have continued to increase, as the halons presently stored in fire extinguishers are released, but their rate of increase has slowed and their abundances are expected to begin to decline by about 2020. Going forward the concern has been to ensure that existing restrictions on ozone-depleting substances are properly implemented and global use of ozone-depleting substances continue to be reduced. This reduction is what the world needs to make the full recovery of the ozone layer. Some of the efforts that have been implemented include: ensuring that banks of ozone-depleting substances (both in storage and contained in existing equipment) are dealt with in an environmentally-friendly manner and are replaced with climate-friendly alternatives. Ensuring that permitted uses of ozone-depleting substances are not diverted to illegal uses. Reducing use of ozone-depleting substances in applications that are not considered as consumption. The theme for 2020 is ’32 Years and Healing: “celebrating over three decades of remarkable international cooperation to protect the ozone layer and the climate under the Montreal Protocol.” This needs the continued efforts of everyone. Therefore, the United Nations saw it fit to reserve a day for people from all walks of life to celebrate the Ozone layer Day to raise awareness of the critical duty we have of helping in the healing of the Ozone Layer. The world is currently in the intensive care unit of the climate crisis but constant and careful implementation of the Montreal Protocol needs to take more precedence and the full recovery is even more feasible.

CRITICAL COMMENTARY

THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC OZONE DEPLETION BY WAY OF CFC OR HFC IMPLIES A LONG TERM DECLINING TREND IN GLOBAL MEAN TOTAL COLUMN OZONE BUT NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR SUCH A TREND HAS EVER BEEN PRESENTED BECAUSE NO SUCH TREND IS FOUND IN THE DATA. INSTEAD THE ONLY DATA PRESENTED IS PERIODIC, LOCALIZED, AND EPISODAL OZONE DEPLETION EVENTS ABOVE THE SOUTH POLE. THESE EVENTS ARE DESCRIBED AS “OZONE HOLES” AND PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL OZONE DEPLETION THAT CAN CAUSE SKIN CANCER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. NONE OF THIS IS TRUE. THE OZONE HOLE PHENOMENON HAS NO OZONE DEPLETION INTERPRETATION. IN RELATED POSTS ON THIS SITE WE PRESENT DATA FOR GLOBAL MEAN TOTAL COLUMN OZONE FOR TIME SPANS OF 50 YEARS OR MORE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF OZONE DEPLETION IN THE DATA. BELOW WE PRESENT A LIST OF LINKS TO OZONE DEPLETION POSTS ON THIS SITE FOLLOWED BY THE DATA FROM ONE OF THOSE POSTS AND A BRIEF SUMMARY OF OZONE DEPLETION CHEMISTRY.

REMEMBERING MARIO MOLINA

THE ENVIRONMENTALISM INTERPRETATION OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING

The third law of motion by Sir Isaac Newton says “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” However true this law might be, it makes for sad reading when applied in the context of man’s activities in the environment. What the globe is experiencing today stems from man’s past activities on the environment that did not put into consideration the consequences that might follow.

The effects of climate change, which are slowly taking their toll in many different parts of the globe today, are because man has been a bad steward of the environment. Man’s actions such as deforestation, charcoal burning and removing vegetation from the environment has brought this impasse. The world, which was once a safe haven years ago. But no more.

Natural disasters are now more prominent than ever because the effects of not having balanced atmospheric conditions have led to rising sea levels, which result in storms, floods and cyclones, erratic rains, which result in partial or full droughts. The floods and storms that from time to time beseech the world today were preventable if the warning of the climatic experts were heeded. As things stand, a year hardly goes by without experiencing a natural disaster attributed to the effects of change in climatic conditions. Poor environmental management can be termed as a dormant volcano waiting to erupt at any moment.

One of the most critical topics on the management of the environment is that of deforestation for charcoal burning purposes. These processes produce gases that help the weakening of the earthly shield from the dangerous rays from the sun. The more trees are cut, the more the earth loses its ability to stop the rise in earth temperatures. When the trees are cut, the earth loses its shield from direct sunlight making it easy for the sun rays to penetrate and hit the ground causing a rise in earthly temperatures. This has weakened the ability of the Ozone layer to shield the earth from the high sun rays. The ozone layer is an important part of the atmosphere. This layer helps protect life on Earth from harmful radiation given off by the Sun.

The natural disasters that have beseeched man and the world at large has made man come to the realisation that action needs to be taken to start the healing of the Ozone layer. The adverse effects of the changing climate are a sad reality right before our eyes. For example, industrialization is credited for the massive developments the world has seen over the years. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s, however, human activities have added more and more of these gases into the atmosphere. The levels of carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, have risen by 35 percent since 1750, largely from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. With more greenhouse gases in the mix, the atmosphere acts like a thickening blanket and traps more heat. This has led to rising temperatures world over. More actions have been taken to protect the earth by focusing on the protection of the ozone layer.

THE TEXT ABOVE ARE EXCERPTS FROM A RELATED POST ON THIS SITE: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/24/the-eco-wacko-interpretation-of-global-warming-and-ozone-depletion/

THIS POST IS A LITERATURE REVIEW OF METHANE HYDRATE DISASSOCIATION EVENTS IN THE PALEO RECORD

RELATED POST ON PETM: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/10/28/petm/

PART-1: WHAT THE PALEO RECORD TELL US ABOUT METHANE HYDRATE DISASSOCIATION

1. PETM: A significant source of paleo proxy data on oceanic methane hydrate disassociation is found in the Paleocine Eocine Thermal Maximum event about 60 million years ago. It is described in a relate post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/10/28/petm/ . The commonly held view of this incident is that an unspecified oceanic heat source of some kind, perhaps geothermal heat, caused deep ocean temperatures to rise by 4C from 11C to 15C and that the warming caused a large scale breakfown of methane hydrates and that is how the rise in atmospheric CO2 is explained. Other paleo proxy data are derived from the Cretacious and the Toarcian and Aptian oceanic anoxic events. In all of these data sources we find that the oceanic temperature at which hydrate released methane involved warming of 4C or more and a temperatiure of 15C or more.
2. THE CURRENT WARM PERIOD: The relevance of methane disassociation to the current warm period is that atmospheric temperatures have warmed by a little over 1C since pre-industrial and as it continues to warm unchecked by climate action, the effect on ocean temperature could eventually cause the breakdown of methane hydrates down there and the release of methane into the atmosphere could accelerate the rate of warming in a feedback system where the more methane it releases the more methane it can release.
3. WORLD OCEAN REVIEW: The World Ocean Review post on this issue {LINK: https://worldoceanreview.com/ summarizes this danger as follows: ” Huge amounts of methane are stored around the world in the sea floor in the form of solid methane hydrates. These hydrates represent a large energy reserve for humanity. Climate warming, however, could cause the hydrates to destabilize. The methane, a potent greenhouse gas, would escape unused into the atmosphere and could even accelerate climate change“. They go on to explain as follows:
4. “Methane hydrates represent a new and completely untapped reservoir of fossil fuel, because they contain immense amounts of methane, which is the main component of natural gas. Methane hydrates belong to a group of substances called clathrates – substances in which one molecule type forms a crystal-like cage structure and encloses another type of molecule. Methane hydrates form naturally in the ocean under high water pressure and low temperature. If the water is warm, however, the water pressure must be very high. In this case, the hydrate only forms at great depths. If the water is very cold, the methane hydrates could conceivably form in shallower water depths, or even at atmospheric pressure. In the open ocean, where the average bottom-water temperatures are around 2 to 4 degrees Celsius, methane hydrates occur starting at depths of around 500 metres. The deeper the sea floor is, the less organic matter settles on the bottom, so methane hydrates primarily occur on the continental slopes, those areas where the continental plates meet the deep-sea regions. Here there is sufficient organic matter accumulating on the bottom and the combination of temperature and pressure is favourable. In very cold regions like the Arctic, methane hydrates even occur on the shallow continental shelf (less than 200 metres of water depth) or on the land in permafrost, the deep-frozen Arctic soil.
5. OCEAN TEMPERATURE ; Deep ocean temperatures and warming rates are presented in a related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/10/06/ohc/ . There we find that the deep ocean is warming but with certain oddities in the data. For example a pattern of higher temperatures in deeper water is inconsistent with an atmospheric source of heat. Typcal high temperatures at a depth of 700 meters are mostly in the range 4C to 5C but with a high value of 8C at the greater depth of 2000 meters, temperatures as high as 10C are seen but hydrate formation at these depths is sparse if at all. These temperatures are not sufficient to breakdown hydrates even with a strong upward temperature trend due to global warming if that were even possible given the data with higher temperatures at greater depth. For example, in the PETM, a warming from 11C to 15C is thought to have been the trigger for hydrate breakdown and methane release.
6. A HYDRATE BREAKDOWN EVENT IN ALASKA: In another related post LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/22/nox2013/ we show that though the release of greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost in the North Slope of Alaska was presented as evidence of catastrophic runaway positive feedback warming is not found in the data, no evidence of warming was found in the data.

7. OTHER FAILED PERMAFROST MELT ALARMS:

1997, THE BBC MAKES THE CASE FOR THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
Twenty years of hard data from meteorological stations and nature show a clear warming trend. Growth rings in Mongolian and Canadian trees are getting wider. Butterflies in California are moving to higher ground once too cold for butterflies. Stalactites in Britain are growing faster. The growing season for crops in Australia is getting longer. Permafrost in Siberia and Canada is melting. The evidence is there anywhere you look. A warming rate is one 1C per century is enough to wreak havoc. The cause is the greenhouse effect of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels as well as CFCs and HCFCs that trap heat. The effect is being compounded as deforestation simultaneously removes trees that absorb CO2. Some scientists are skeptical but the majority view is that the greenhouse effect is real and it requires urgent action. This conclusion rests on the results from sophisticated computer simulation models that give the best possible information on this topic even though they are not perfect. These models are giving us scary accounts of the future and we should be paying attention. The IPCC tell us that melting ice and thermal expansion of oceans will cause the sea level to rise one meter by 2037 and inundate low lying areas and island nations. Extreme weather events will become common. El Nino and La Nina cycles will become more extreme. There will be millions of climate refugees driven from their home by global warming. Some regions of the world will become hotter, others colder, some wetter, others drier. Entire weather systems will be dramatically altered. The Gulf Stream will switch off making Europe colder. Tropical diseases such as malaria will ravage the world as vectors migrate to higher latitudes and altitudes. Some wheat farmers may be able to grow more wheat but the net effect of global warming is overwhelmingly negative.

2004, RAPID ARCTIC WARMING BRINGS SEA LEVEL RISE
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report says: increasing greenhouse gases from human activities is causing the Arctic to warm twice as fast as the rest of the planet; in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia winter temperatures have risen by 2C to 4C in the last 50 years; the Arctic will warm by 4C to 7C by 2100. A portion of Greenland’s ice sheet will melt; global sea levels will rise; global warming will intensify. Greenland contains enough melting ice to raise sea levels by 7 meters; Bangkok, Manila, Dhaka, Florida, Louisiana, and New Jersey are at risk of inundation; thawing permafrost and rising seas threaten Arctic coastal regions; climate change will accelerate and bring about profound ecological and social changes; the Arctic is experiencing the most rapid and severe climate change on earth and it’s going to get a lot worse; Arctic summer sea ice will decline by 50% to 100%; polar bears will be driven towards extinction; this report is an urgent SOS for the Arctic; forest fires and insect infestations will increase in frequency and intensity; changing vegetation and rising sea levels will shrink the tundra to its lowest level in 21000 years; vanishing breeding areas for birds and grazing areas for animals will cause extinctions of many species; “if we limit emission of heat trapping carbon dioxide we can still help protect the Arctic and slow global warming”.

2009: CATASTROPHIC ICE MELT NEEDS TREATY AT COPENHAGEN
Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have caused the following alarming changes to our planet: (1) ice covering the Arctic Ocean shrank in 2007 to its smallest since satellite records began, (2) In Antarctica, a section of the Wilkins Ice Shelf has broken up in recent days, (3) glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are shrinking and threatening to disrupt water supplies to hundreds of millions of people, (4) melting permafrost in Siberia will release large quantities of methane into the atmosphere and hasten global warming, and (5) if all of the land based ice in Antarctica melted it would raise the sea level by 80 meters. More info: http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2009/04/reference-melting-ice-to-spur-new.html

CONCLUSION: The fearful presentation of runaway global warming by way of melting permafrost and methane release from hydrates by climate science is not supported by the data.

PART-2: THE RELEVANT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Thomas, Deborah J., et al. “Warming the fuel for the fire: Evidence for the thermal dissociation of methane hydrate during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.” Geology 30.12 (2002): 1067-1070. Abstract: Dramatic warming and upheaval of the carbon system at the end of the Paleocene Epoch have been linked to massive dissociation of sedimentary methane hydrate. However, testing the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum hydrate dissociation hypothesis has been hindered by the inability of available proxy records to resolve the initial sequence of events. The cause of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum carbon isotope excursion remains speculative, primarily due to uncertainties in the timing and duration of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. We present new high-resolution stable isotope records based on analyses of single planktonic and benthic foraminiferal shells from Ocean Drilling Program Site 690 (Weddell Sea, Southern Ocean), demonstrating that the initial carbon isotope excursion was geologically instantaneous and was preceded by a brief period of gradual surface-water warming. Both of these findings support the thermal dissociation of methane hydrate as the cause of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum carbon isotope excursion. Furthermore, the data reveal that the methane-derived carbon was mixed from the surface ocean downward, suggesting that a significant fraction of the initial dissociated hydrate methane reached the atmosphere prior to oxidation.

Dickens, Gerald R., et al. “Dissociation of oceanic methane hydrate as a cause of the carbon isotope excursion at the end of the Paleocene.” Paleoceanography 10.6 (1995): 965-971. Abstract: Isotopic records across the “Latest Paleocene Thermal Maximum“ (LPTM) indicate that bottom water temperature increased by more than 4°C during a brief time interval (<10⁴ years) of the latest Paleocene (∼55.6 Ma). There also was a coeval −2 to −3‰ excursion in the δ¹³C of the ocean/atmosphere inorganic carbon reservoir. Given the large mass of this reservoir, a rapid δ¹³C shift of this magnitude is difficult to explain within the context of conventional hypotheses for changing the mean carbon isotope composition of the ocean and atmosphere. However, a direct consequence of warming bottom water temperature from 11 to 15°C over 10⁴ years would be a significant change in sediment thermal gradients and dissociation of oceanic CH₄ hydrate at locations with intermediate water depths. In terms of the present‐day oceanic CH₄ hydrate reservoir, thermal dissociation of oceanic CH₄ hydrate during the LPTM could have released greater than 1.1 to 2.1 × 10¹⁸ g of carbon with a δ¹³C of approximately −60‰. The release and subsequent oxidation of this amount of carbon is sufficient to explain a −2 to −3‰ excursion in δ¹³C across the LPTM. Fate of CH₄ in oceanic hydrates must be considered in developing models of the climatic and paleoceanographic regimes that operated during the LPTM.

Beerling, David J., M. R. Lomas, and Darren R. Gröcke. “On the nature of methane gas-hydrate dissociation during the Toarcian and Aptian oceanic anoxic events.” American Journal of Science 302.1 (2002): 28-49. ABSTRACT: The magnitude and timing of a major rapid negative carbon-isotope excursion recorded in marine and terrestrial matter through the Early Toarcian (Early Jurassic) and Early Aptian (Early Cretaceous) oceanic anoxic events (OAEs) have been proposed to be the result of large methane gas-hydrate dissociation events. Here, we develop and evaluate a global carbon-isotope mass-balance approach for determining the responses of each component of the exogenic carbon cycle (terrestrial biosphere, atmosphere and ocean). The approach includes a dynamic response of the terrestrial carbon cycle to methane-related CO₂ increases and climatic warming. Our analyses support the idea that both the Early Toarcian and Early Aptian isotopic curves were indicative of large episodic methane releases (∼5000 and ∼3000 Gt respectively) promoting warm ‘greenhouse’ conditions in the Mesozoic. These events are calculated to have increased the atmospheric CO₂ concentration by ∼900 and ∼600 ppmv respectively and land surface temperatures by 2.5° to 3.0°C. However, we show that much of the methane released from oceanic sediments is rapidly sequestered by terrestrial and marine components in the global carbon cycle, and this effect strongly attenuated the potential for ancient methane gas-hydrate dissociation events to act as major amplifiers in global warming. An increase in oceanic carbon sequestration is consistent with the deposition of globally distributed black shales during these OAEs. Our analyses point to the urgent need for high-resolution marine and terrestrial carbon-isotope records to better characterize the nature of the Toarcian and Aptian events and improve our interpretation of their consequences for the global carbon cycle.

Mienert, Jürgen, et al. “Ocean warming and gas hydrate stability on the mid-Norwegian margin at the Storegga Slide.” Ormen Lange–an Integrated Study for Safe Field Development in the Storegga Submarine Area. Elsevier, 2005. 233-244. ABSTRACT: The sensitivity of oceanic gas hydrates and submarine slope stability to the combined forcing of sea level changes and bottom water perturbation is a critical issue for risk assessment in the Storegga Slide area on the mid-Norwegian margin. Evidence for the existence of gas hydrates both inside and outside the Storegga Slide complex comes from reflection seismic profiles, where a bottom-simulating reflection marks today’s base of the gas hydrate stability zone. Paleo-bottom water temperatures show a relatively fast increase at approximately 12.5–10 ka (calendar years) following the Younger Dryas while stable warm water conditions have prevailed since then. Despite sea level rise, this warm-water inflow caused a major reduction in the thickness of the gas hydrate stability zone along the upper slope of the mid-Norwegian margin. Modelling results indicate that critical hydrate stability conditions and consequently the maximal potential pore pressure build-up occur at the location of the Storegga Slide headwall. Although the major phase of hydrate melting predates the Storegga slide event, dated at 8.2 ka (calendar years), reduced hydrate stability conditions could have facilitated or contributed to sub-marine slope failure. Additionally, the bottom-simulating reflections within the slide complex seem to have nearly adjusted to new equilibrium conditions, highlighting the dynamics of hydrate stability in continental margin sediments under environmental changes (climate change, geohazards).

Zeebe, Richard E. “What caused the long duration of the Paleocene‐Eocene Thermal Maximum?.” Paleoceanography 28.3 (2013): 440-452. ABSTRACT: Paleorecords show that the Paleocene‐Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ∼56 Ma) was associated with a large carbon cycle anomaly and global warming >5 K, which persisted for at least 50 kyr. Conventional carbon cycle/climate models that include a single initial carbon input pulse over ∼10 kyr fail to reproduce the long duration of the PETM without invoking additional, slow carbon release over more than 50 kyr (hereafter referred to as bleeding). However, a potential carbon source for the bleeding, as well as its release mechanism, has hitherto remained elusive. Here I present first‐principle calculations of heat transfer in marine sediments which demonstrate that a bottom water temperature anomaly as generated during the PETM takes tens of thousands of years to penetrate the top few hundred meters of deep‐sea sediments. While the initial temperature rise has been suggested to cause dissociation of the majority of oceanic methane hydrate within ∼10 kyr, my calculations reveal a long tail of hydrate dissociation, causing smaller but continued carbon release substantially beyond 10 kyr. In addition, I suggest that temperature‐enhanced metabolic processes in marine sediments and the absence of methane hydrate deposition during the PETM contributed to prolonged carbon input during the event. Enhanced fluxes of methane over this time scale would have sustained the carbon isotope excursion and amplified long‐term greenhouse warming by elevating atmospheric concentrations of steady state CH₄, or in oxidized form, CO₂.

Panieri, Giuliana, Carolyn A. Graves, and Rachael H. James. “Paleo‐methane emissions recorded in foraminifera near the landward limit of the gas hydrate stability zone offshore western S valbard.” Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 17.2 (2016): 521-537. ABSTRACT: We present stable isotope and geochemical data from four sediment cores from west of Prins Karls Forland (ca. 340 m water depth), offshore western Svalbard, recovered from close to sites of active methane seepage, as well as from shallower water depths where methane seepage is not presently observed. Our analyses provide insight into the record of methane seepage in an area where ongoing ocean warming may be fueling the destabilization of shallow methane hydrate. The δ¹³C values of benthic and planktonic foraminifera at the methane seep sites show distinct intervals with negative values (as low as −27.8‰) that do not coincide with the present‐day depth of the sulfate methane transition zone (SMTZ). These intervals are interpreted to record long‐term fluctuations in methane release at the present‐day landward limit of the gas hydrate stability zone (GHSZ). Shifts in the radiocarbon ages obtained from planktonic foraminifera toward older values are related to methane‐derived authigenic carbonate overgrowths of the foraminiferal tests, and prevent us from establishing the chronology of seepage events. At shallower water depths, where seepage is not presently observed, no record of past methane seepage is recorded in foraminifera from sediments spanning the last 14 ka cal BP (¹⁴C‐AMS dating). δ¹³C values of foraminiferal carbonate tests appear to be much more sensitive to methane seepage than other sediment parameters. By providing nucleation sites for authigenic carbonate precipitation, foraminifera thus record the position of even a transiently stable SMTZ, which is likely to be a characteristic of temporally variable methane fluxes.

Méhay, Sabine, et al. “A volcanic CO2 pulse triggered the Cretaceous Oceanic Anoxic Event 1a and a biocalcification crisis.” Geology 37.9 (2009): 819-822. ABSTRACT; The Aptian Oceanic Anoxic Event 1a (OAE1a, ca.120 Ma ago) is one of the most prominent of a series of geologically brief intervals in the Cretaceous characterized by the deposition of organic carbon–rich sediments. OAEs reflect major perturbations in the global carbon cycle evidenced by sedimentary carbon isotope records. However, the triggering mechanisms for OAEs remain controversial. Here we present a bulk-rock and molecular (marine and terrestrial bio-markers) C isotope record at unprecedented time resolution, from the Cismon section of northern Italy, that shows that OAE1a conditions were reached over a period of several thousands of years through a stepwise perturbation of the carbon cycle. The documented sequence of events is most compatible with a trigger associated with increased CO₂ emissions, possibly leading to a doubling of pCO₂, which in turn caused larger C isotope fractionation in marine and terrestrial organisms and a major biotic crisis in the calcareous nannoplankton. Our data also show that a release of isotopically light carbon from partial methane hydrate dissociation probably played a minor role in the OAE1a carbon cycle perturbation.

PART-3: THE ARCTIC HOLOCENE PROXY CLIMATE DATABASE

1. A large database of paleo climate data for the Arctic over the entire time span of the Holocene has been constructed by climate scientists with significant roles played by Hanna Sundqvist, Darrell Kaufman, Nicholas McKay and 18 other authors. The database is available for download at this site. Here is the link: ARCTIC-DATABASE .  Warning, clicking on this link will cause a very large PDF file to be downloaded. This database contains only the data and not their interpretation. For that we refer to the published papers about these data in the literature provided below in the bibliography.
2. If you have a low opinion of climate scientists and their scientific integrity from your experience with things like the hockey stick, prepare to be surprised. The significant and chaotic cycles of warming and cooling in the Arctic for the whole of the Holocene in this database is consistent with the interpretation of these changes presented in a related post [LINK] such that periods with the Arctic warmer than AGW, colder than AGW, less ice than AGW, and more ice than AGW are all found in the database. In the context of the database, all we can say about the Arctic in the current warm period is that we are in the Holocene.

John Kerry met with Xie Zhenhua at the Ministerial Climate Action Summit as a part of the implementation of the Paris Climate Accord. China’s position is that it plans to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. Mr. Kerry made a friendly overture for “a cooperative journey” to a cleaner climate and he succeeded in signing an agreement with China on climate.

The Agreement is that the U.S. and China will form a “joint working group” on climate change.  

LINK TO SOURCE: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/ministerial-climate-action_en

CRITICAL COMMENTARY

About the implementation of the Paris Climate Accord: In the Paris Climate Accord what the accordants accorded to was to submit intentions as in INTENDED NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTIONS {INDC}. The cruelty of the English language is such that this phrase does not contain information about a global agreement to participate in a globally coordinated climate action plan to reduce global fossil fuel emissions to zero. Instead what we see in the INDC is a feeble bureaucratic effort to present failure as success. The real information content of this language is that the UN has failed to forge a global agreement to reduce global fossil fuel emissions to zero. The Paris Agreement is therefore nothing more than a comical bureaucratic effort to present this failure as success. This is the kind of thing that UN bureaucrats do very well and the only thing that they do well.

A detailed analysis of the Paris Agreement is presented in a related post:

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/04/11245/

There we find as follows: (1) There is no global carbon budget (2) And no defined role of the nation states in the gobal carbon budget, (3) And no commitment by the nation states to abide by the carbon budget and to meet their alloted carbon national budgets. Instead what we see is (4) a despicable language of failure presented as success as in “Intended nationally determined contributions”. (5) If it is intended, it is not a commitment. (6) If it is nationally determined, there is no global carbon budget from which it was derived. Therefore what is known as the Paris “agreement” is really a Paris bureaucratic language to present failure as agreement.

The further information in this ministerial meeting is that it is the 5th such meeting and that the 5th such meeting among the same people produced nothing more than “AGREEMENT” to meet again.

CONCLUSION: THE REAL INFORMATION CONTENT OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT AND THAT OF THE MINISTERIAL MEETINGS ABOUT THE PARIS AGREEMENT AND THE KIND OF “AGREEMENTS” REACHED AT THESE MINISTERIAL MEETINGS IS THAT THE UN HAS FAILED TO REPRODUCE THEIR ASSUMED SUCCESS IN THE OZONE DEPLETION ISSUE IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE. AND THAT THEREFORE THERE IS NO GLOBAL CONTRACT OF NATION STATES OF AN ENFORCEABLE GLOBAL CARBON BUDGET TO REDUCE GLOBAL FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AND THAT THE ATTEMPT TO PRESENT THIS FAILURE AS SUCCESS BY THE UN BUREAUCRATS DOES NOT TELL US THAT THEY ARE ON THE PATH TO CLIMATE ACTION BUT THAT THEY ARE CLUELESS GOOFBALLS WITH A STRATEGY NOT FOR CLIMATE ACTION FOR FOR CLIMATE HEROISM OF THE UN.

THE FAILURE OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT AND THAT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT IN THE PARIS AGREEMENT IS DETAILED IN A RELATED POST ON THIS SITE: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/04/11245/

THE REALITY IS THAT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT IN THE PARIS AGREEMENT, THAT THE UN HAS FAILED, AND THAT THEREFORE THERE IS NO GLOBAL AGREEMENT TO CUT GLOBAL FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.

THAT THE UN ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THIS FAILURE IS SEEN IN THE FALLBACK POSITION OF THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL NOW FOUND CANVASSING FOR CLIMATE HEROISM BY NATION STATES

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/01/04/a-montreal-protocol-for-the-climate/

HOWEVER, AS DETAILED IN RELATED POSTS ON THIS SITE, THERE IS NO ROLE FOR CLIMATE ACTION HEROISM OF NATION STATES PARTICULARLY SO WHEN THESE CLIMATE ACTION AMBITION TARGETS ARE STATED NOT IN TERMS OF ZERO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS BUT IN TERMS OF SOMETHING CALLED “NET ZERO”. DETAILS IN THE RELATED POSTS LINKED BELOW.

RELATED POST#1: CLIMATE ACTION HEROISM OF NATION STATES: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/23/renewable-energy-statistics/

RELATED POST#2: THE ECONOMICS LOOPHOLE IN NATIONAL LEVEL CLIMATE ACTION: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/22/climate-catch22/

RELATED POST#3: THE FLAW IN THE NET ZERO TARGET FOR CLIMATE ACTION: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/25/net-zero/

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: (1) THE UN HAS FAILED TO PUT TOGETHER A GLOBAL CLIMATE ACTION PLAN FOR A COORDINATED EFFORT BY ALL NATION STATES TO REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS. (2) CLIMATE ACTION HEROISM AT THE NATION STATE LEVEL WILL NOT REDUCE GLOBAL EMISSIONS BECAUSE THESE ACTIONS WILL CAUSE EMISSIONS TO RISE ELSEWHERE. (3) THE TARGET OF NET ZERO EMISSIONS INSTEAD OF ZERO EMISSIONS IS FLAWED AND A KIND OF WINDOW DRESSING THAT DOES NOT IMPLY ZERO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AS A CLIMATE ACTION TARGET.

YET ALL WE HAVE, NOW THAT THE UN HAS FAILED, IS A MISHMASH OF NET ZERO CLIMATE ACTION PLANS AT THE NATION STATE LEVEL. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THIS PLAN TO REDUCE GLOBAL FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS TO ZERO. CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS LOST. FOSSIL FUELS HAS WON.

IT IS HIGH TIME TO FACE THE REALITY THAT THE UN GLOBAL CLIMATE ACTION PLAN LIKE THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL HAS FAILED AND TO MAKE PLANS NOT FOR PREVENTING RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING BY NATURAL FEEDBACKS BUT FOR DEALING WITH IT.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/03/25/climate-fearology-vs-geoengineering/

THIS POST IS AN ANALYSIS OF SEA LEVEL DYNAMICS IN THE HOLOCENE PRESENTED BY STEVE KOONIN

LINK TO SOURCE: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/03/22/steve-koonin-lecture/

The data for sea level rise is presented in the graphic below. The left frame shows global mean sea level reconstruction since 1900 derived from a network of tide guages around the world. It shows sea level rise of about 200mm over a period of 100 years at an average rate of about 2mm per year. On the right frame it shows satellite data for sea level since 1992. The satellite data global mean sea level rise are consistent with the reconstruction from tidal guages shown in the left frame.

The significant sea level rise events at the end of the last glaciation into the Holocene interglacialis shown in the chart below. It shows that sea level rise predates the industrial revolution. The sea level has been rising for 15,000 years and has risen by 120 meters (120,000 mm or an average of 8mm/year) and the rate of rise has not gone up but rather the rate of rise has gradually flattened out to a negligible percentage of the sea level rise at the initiation of the Holocene. This history makes it difficult to attribute the observed sea level rise in the post industrial era to humans.

Here is how the consensus climate science looks at this issue. The essential argument here is that current observed sea level rise is faster than what we would expect from an extrapolation of the historical deglaciation sea level and that difference is human caused. They say that the sea level rise in the most recent century is greater than the previous century and that therefore it is human caused.

Here Koonin says that if you look at the data since 1950 when NASA GISS and James Hansen identifiy as the time that global warming started, what we find is shown in the graphic below. It shows that natural variability in sea level rise is too large to intepret the tail end of it as a human caused sea level rise.

Projections of future sea level rise. On the left frame in the graphic below we see the projections of sea level rise where future rates of rise are much higher and accelerating. Comparing that SLR behavior with observations in the right frame we find no evidence of such acceleration in a time of global warming.

THIS POST IS A CRITIAL EVALUATION OF THE GENERALLY HELD BELIEF IN ONLINE DISCUSSIONS SUCH AS QUORA THAT THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE AND THE CALL FOR CLIMATE ACTION BY CLIMATE SCIENCE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUE. AND THAT THE COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS IS A POLLUTION ISSUE.

EXAMPLES FROM ONLINE DISCUSSIONS OF THESE INTERPRETATIONS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

EXAMPLE#1: ENVIRONMENTAL HARM OF NATURAL GAS FIRED ENERGY SYSTEMS.

RESPONSE#1: There is no known environmental harm in the combustion of natural gas in energy technologies. The climate change case against natural gas energy systems is not that they pollute but that natural gas combustion causes CO2 emissions. CO2 is not a pollutant but an essential component of life on earth. Life on earth consists entirely of carbon life forms. The oddity of carbon life forms hating or fearing carbon or carbon dioxide is not fully appreciated by environmentalists. The 1960s and 1970s environmental movement against fossil fuels that led to the formation of the EPA was not that CO2 emissions but harmful products of imperfect combustion, PM2.5 particulates, and impurities such as sulfur that caused acid rain. Strong EPA regulations and enforcement since the 1970s has resolved these issues and the burning of natural gas now meets EPA specifications and it is no longer an environmental issue.

EXAMPLE#2: THE SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES IN CLIMATE CHANGE

RESPONSE#2: The reality regarding the social justice issue in climate change is that the revival of the 1960s hippie movement against fossil fuels on a global scale and its apparent success in the revival of the old renewable energy activism that the hippies had once pushed has rekindled old hippie movement topics of all description such as environmentalism, racism, veganism, social justice, forest preservation, the Bambi principle and the Biblical environmentaliam in Genesis that humans are not part of nature but its caretaker, leading to the Anthropocene idea that humans have a planetary reach and are in fact the new geological force that will determine the fate of life on earth and of the planet itself. The truth is that climate change is none of these. It is simply the observation that since we started burning fossil fuels in the industrial age atmospheric co2 has been rising and global mean surface temperature has been going up and that these two trends are probably causally related, and that this warming can be stopped if we stop burning fossil fuels by moving to renewable energy. That’s it. That’s the whole of climate science. There is no environmentalism and no social justice in it. CO2 is not a pollutant but an essential chemical in the carbon life form system on earth of which we are a part.

THIS POST IS A PRESENTATION OF GEOENGINEERING NOT AS A FORM OF CLIMATE ACTION BUT AS A RESPONSE TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE FEAROLOGY THAT IF THE WARMING SINCE PRE-INDUSTRIAL EXCEEDS 1.5C OR 2C, GLOBAL WARMING WILL BECOME IRREVERSIBLE BECAUSE THE WARMING WILL ACCELERATE WITH NATURAL FEEDBACKS AND WILL NO LONGER BE CONTROLLABLE BY CUTTING FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.

This essential feature of climate change fearology to push their activism against fossil fuels is explained in this online document published by the World Economic Forum: LINK: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/global-warming-threshold-reached-by-2027/

The threshold for dangerous global warming will likely be crossed between 2027 and 2042, research indicates. That’s a much narrower window than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s estimate of between now and 2052. In a study published in Climate Dynamics, researchers introduce a new and more precise way to project the Earth’s temperature. Based on historical data, it considerably reduces uncertainties compared to previous approaches. Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models for decades. These models play an important role in understanding the Earth’s climate and how it will likely change. But how accurate are they? Climate models are mathematical simulations of different factors that interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as the atmosphere, ocean, ice, land surface, and the sun. While they are based on the best understanding of the Earth’s systems available, when it comes to forecasting the future, uncertainties remain.

In this and similar assessments by the IPCC and climate science publications we find that if the amount of warming since pre-industrial exceeds a threshold, natural feebacks will take over and climate change will become irreversible. See for example;

Solomon, Susan, et al. “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions.” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 106.6 (2009): 1704-1709.

Allen, Myles R., et al. “Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne.” Nature 458.7242 (2009): 1163-1166.

Matthews, H. Damon, and Ken Caldeira. “Stabilizing climate requires near‐zero emissions.” Geophysical research letters 35.4 (2008).

Meinshausen, Malte, et al. “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 C.” Nature 458.7242 (2009): 1158-1162.

See also: When nature harms itself: Five scary climate feedback loops: LINK: https://www.dw.com/en/when-nature-harms-itself-five-scary-climate-feedback-loops/a-43649814

As noted in the related post on geo-engineering, climate scientists are firmly opposed to geoengineering saying for example that geo-engineering by any given nation may harm its neighboring countries and lead to war; and the more logical critique that geoengineering technology still does not have a post implementation control system so that for example if it is too cold we can’t tweek the temperature once the system is implemented.

As noted in the related post on geoengineering LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/08/28/geo-engineering-climate-change/ , the position taken by climate science against geoengineering is also rooted in the underlying activism against fossil fuels and in fact it is the geo-engineering issue that exposes this aspect of climate science where not just the horror of climate change impacts but also the unacceptability of fossil fuel technology and pro-renewable energy bias play important roles in an activism that is more complicated than simply rising temperatures and its possible impacts. This issue is discussed in some detail in another related post on this site; LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/23/anti-fossil-fuel-activism-disguised-as-climate-science/

IN THIS POST WE PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO FOR GEO-ENGINEERING THAT MAY BE MORE ACCEPTABLE TO CLIMATE SCIENCE GIVEN THE COMPLEXITIES NOTED ABOVE.

Here we note that that the call to climate action by climate science of moving the world’s energy infrastrucure from fossil fuels to renewables is proposed as the only solution and that the push is reinforced by the forecast that if climate action is not taken, rising global mean surface temperature (GMST) will take us to a temperature that will activiate natural feedback warmings that are beyond our control and that therefore once this feedback system is activated it will be a horrific end of the world of some kind described in various ways as the collapse of human civilization to the collapse of the life on earth and perhaps to the destruction of the planet itself.

We also note that as noted initially by climate science and the UN, the climate action needed and the climate action sought is a coordinated global response as in the Montreal Protocol. That effort failed and the failure of the UN to put together a global climate action plan has led to both the UN and climate science activism to call for climate heroism of nation states with the claim that if nation states show “ambition” we can still achieve climate action without a coordinated global climate action compact as in the Montreal Protocol. A further corruption of the original definition of global climate action is the so called “Net Zero” climate action plan of nation states where fossil fuels are not eliminated but the remaining fossil fuel emissions of the Net Zero climate action nation are offset with investment in things like planting grees that removes CO2 from the atmosphere.

However, we have shown in related posts that climate action under these conditions will not and does not work and these “ambition” and “net zero” climate action plan will not reduce global fossil fuel emissions. Details of this argument are provided in these related posts on this site:

LINK#1: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/22/climate-catch22/

LINK#2: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/23/renewable-energy-statistics/

LINK#3: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/25/net-zero/

On this basis we propose that the initial climate action plan of globally coordinated zero emissions (not net zero but real zero), has failed.

Climate science and the UN may or may not be able to revive that plan. The failure to revive that plan will mean a failure of climate action – a condition under which climate acience has forecast the the uncontrollable natural feedback warming and its destruction of the world as we know it.

This is a condition under which Bill Gates has proposed that we must be open-minded when it comes to accepting new technologies aimed at combating climate change and open to ideas that seem wild.

In that spirit we propose that climate change must take another look at geoengineering not necessarily as a substitute for climate action but with the realistic assessment of the failure of global climate action against global fossil fuel emissions.

This failure means that we must have a strong geoengineering plan on standby ready for implementation when it becomes clear that natural feedback loops have taken over and that climate change is no longer controllable by taking action against fossil fuels or by moving to renewable energy. The WILD option of rapid geoengineering implementation should therefore be on hand and ready for rapid implementation.

WE FURTHER NOTE THAT ONCE THIS WILD OPTION IS ON HAND THE NATURAL FEEDBACK OUT OF CONTROL CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NO LONGER BE OUT OF CONTROL.

THEREFORE:

CLIMATE SCIENCE WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO FEAR THE NATURAL FEEDBACK OUT OF CONTROL CLIMATE CHANGE AND IT CAN THEREFORE CANCEL ITS FAILED CLIMATE ACTION AGENDA AGAINST FOSSIL FUELS.

QED:

THIS POST IS A TRANSCRIPT OF A YOUTUBE LECTURE BY STEVE KOONIN ON WHAT HE CALLS THE CONSENSUS SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THIS LECTURE IS PROVIDED BY PROFESSOR GARY YOHE ON SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

LINK TO THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/

MY COMMENTS ON THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/25/steve-koonin-explained/

MY COMMENTS ON “CONSENSUS SCIENCE”: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/consensus-science/

STEVE KOONIN is a well known skeptic of what he calls the “consensus science of climate change“. He is a Theoretical Physicist and Director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. He is also a professor in the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering at NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering.

TRANSCRIPT OF THE LECTURE BY KOONIN

I have been involved in the discussion about climate and energy for 30 years. It is unusual for science to have consensus but there is a consensus in climate science. That consensus is found in a series of periodic reports that the UN IPCC puts out. There was also something called a “science report” and an “impacts report” published by the US government in 2017 as part of the US climate assessment report#4. The objective is to summarize the state of climate science and the impacts of a “changing climate” under a set of human and natural influences. A summary was put out by one of the primary authors Katharine Hayhoe who had tweeted “It’s real, it’s us, it’s serious, and the window of time to prevent dangerous impacts is closing fast (detection, attribution, projection, and response). However, there is a disconnect between what’s in the scientific literature and what’s in the report and what we hear in the political jargon and in the media coverage of climate change.

First of all let’s talk about the consensus on the science and cover the topics of Detection, Attribution (and climate models) and Projection, and some of the unsettled issues in the discussion of what the state of climate science is. I will also discuss what I think are some of the unresolved issues in climate science. We will then go on to observed and projected impacts almost exclusively from the reports themselves, and then we will go on to the possible responses to the changing climate – again with a set of buts. Let me insert a caveat. This is a complex and nuanced subject. I can spend a whole term talking about this. So what I can present in an hour will sacrifice some completeness and also keep things pretty short. But I will try to give you a sense of what I think is really going on and what the reports actually say.

DETECTION: So let’s start with detection. The reports say that we have seen an unusual rise in global mean surface temperature (GMST) in recent years. Shown the left in image below is a figure from the US Govternment report showing the GMST rising steeply to about 1C of warming since the early part of the 20th century. We can see in the chart that the warming is not monotonic and these variations derive from natural forcings that tend to be more random. As for example, GMST actually dropped from 1950 to 1970. So there are other things involved and not just human influence.

The figure on the right side shows that the warming is pretty uniform over the globe but with some regional differences – as for example the polar regions warming faster than the tropics as we would expect. Non-temperature indications of the warming is found in rising sea levels, melting glaciers, and shrinking polar ice sheets.

We can also see that it is not just human influence in the chart below where the pre-human influence chart on the right looks a lot like the chart on the left taken from a period of human influence. And in fact if you calculate the slope what you find in the 30-year trailing trends is that the 40-year rate of warming was just about as high in 1940 as it is in recent times. That is not to say that there is no human influence on the warming but that there are also natural influences.

A chart of temperatures over geological time is presented in the image below. Note that in the prior interglacial, the Eemian, the earth was much warmer than it is today without human influence about 130,000 years ago. What this chart shows is that there are powerful natural forces that change earth’s temperature and climate in significant ways and these must be taken into account in the attribution of climate change to humans.

The USA climate report says that humans afre responsible for at least half the warming since 1951 and then they go on to say that humans are responsible for all the warming we have seen since 1951. The basic argument for pinning it all on humans over the last 40 years is that there is no other cause that we can think of that could be responsible for the warming that we see.

So let’s look at these human influences, how big they are and how they change with time. This is the record of atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last 2000 years and we see that spike in the last century or century and a half that is clearly human. We are burning fossil fuels and that is causing atmospheric CO2 to go up from 280ppm to the current value above 400ppm rising at a rate of 2 to 2.5 ppm per year.

So what does that growing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere do to the climate system? To answer that question we need to look at how energy flows in the climate system. As we can see in the diagram below, it is a complicated system wth lots of arrows indicating flows of energy. The big ones are that the solar energy comes in, about a third of it gets reflected, the rest of it is absorbed by the surface, the surface then re-radiates that tnergy as infrared, some of it gets trapped in the sky and gets radiated down again, and so in the end whatever you need to to balance the input comes out as infrared radiation leaving the system. Lots of pieces, numbers, of about a couple hundred. The carbon dioxide influences this system by adding about 2 or 2.5 watts per square meter to the energy balance. So it’s a relatively small perturbation {less than 1%} on this compicated system that we are trying to understand.

The graphic below shows the different human influences in terms of both warming and cooling. CO2 warms, AEROSOLS cool. The biggest human influence is CO2 which accounts for about 2.5 watts/m2 and some other greenhouse gases such as methane and halocarbons that add up to about 1.5 watts/m2 of forcing and then there are some negative influences such as aerosols that cause cooling by about 1 watt/m2. The net is about 2.5 watts/m2 of warming with large uncertainties. So we need to understand how this 2.5 watts/m2 is changing the climate system in order to attribute observed changes to human influences and to project changes in the climate system out to the end of the century. .

Here is how it goes quantitatively over the last 250 years. The human influence is in the orange line and there are periodic volcanic eruptions that cool the planet with aerosols. The important information in this chart is that prior to 1950 the human influence was about 0.5 watts/m2 and currently it is 2.5 watts/m2. So therefore, the climate before 1950 can be described as entirely natural but after 1950 the climate has at least a human component if not a human dominance.

The chart below shows these radiative forcings over time from 1750 to 2011 where we see that the steep rise in temperature begins after 1950. Anything before 1950 we can assume is natural and anything after 1950 has a human component of some kind.

Let me tell you a little bit about climate models now as presented in the graphic below. To model the climate you have to model the atmosphere and the ocean. The way that is done is to cut both of them into cubes or maybe rectangles typically 100km per side (whether square or cube). And many layers going up into the atmosphere and down into the ocean – let’s say 20 each. And then use the basic laws of physics to move air, water, and energy, radiation as well, through the system and then do it time step by time step, say 6 hours at a time over a period of 200 years in about 300,000 6-hour steps. And do this twice, first under natural variability and then with the external influence being tested, in our case, humans burning fossil fuels. This modeling exercise is probably the most challenging problem in computational science. The consensus report is that the models are useful but that they are imprefect. This contradiction is an unresolved issue in computional science and a subject of dispute between climate science and its skeptics. But this is the best we have and it is improving all the time. The real question in the climate action issue is whether the models are good enough to be able to usefully understand and project and on that basis to demand a costly overhaul of the world’s energy infrastructure.

The claim that the models are right because they are physics does not take sub grid scale phenomena into consideration. Consider the satellite photo of the Gulf Stream shown below. Color coded here is the temperature of the surface of the ocean (SST) – and you can see all of that wonderful structure at scales of less than 100km. And there are other phenomena in the climate system that happen at physical scales of much less than the 100km of the grid box. So you have to make assumptions about that because you can’t treat it explicitly in the computer. For example, given the average temperature and humidity in a grid box, what are the clouds like? How many clouds are there? And at what altitude? What fraction of the sunlight do they reflect? So you need a lot of assumptions to make sense out of the climate model and so much depends on the user’s expertise and that is why it is as much art as it is science. Putting these small scale phenomena into the model is absolutly crucial and yet it is not entirely in the model’s control but something in which the user plays a role. It is something that is a big uncertainty in the model. And interestingly, the models fail to introduce important aspects of the climate at the scale of the phenomena that we are trying to understand. Another issue, in addition to clouds, is convection. Some of the issues include the shape of the grids. They aren’t really cubes but more like pancakes because these 100kmx100km squares are only about half a kilometer thick and that makes it very difficult to describe the vertical convection that’s so important in the atmosphere transfering heat and water vapor.

About the ocean initial conditions. We didn’t really know what the state of the ocean was 30 years ago. It was only in the last 10 years with all those buoys that dive down to 2km depth and measure the temperature and currents and salinity. As I showed you, greenhouse gases warm the planet but aerosol tends to cool and you can build a model that is very sensitivie the greenhouse gases and very sensitive to aerosols or not very sensitive to either one and they’ll give you the sdame answer for current conditions but bery different projections about what will happen over the next hundred years as greenhouse gases accumulate.

And finally, the climate system has long term coherences that the models do not reproduce very well. Let me show you just how badly the models would do some aspects of the climate. Shown in the charts below is the global temperature modeled over the last 100+ years. The black line is the observations. The spaghetti lines are all of these different models that are used by the IPCC. And this is really misleading because in fact the average temperature differs among the models by as much as 3C. but they’ve been adjusted for the differences to line up to zero for the period 1950-1980. So in fact when the models differ by 3C it should give you pause on whether you got it right.

The charts below show climate model temperature over the last hundred and some years The black lines are the summations. The spaghetti lines are from the models used by the IPCC. This is really misleading because in fact the average temperature for each model differs by as much as 3C. They’ve all been adjusted to line up to zero for 1950 to 1980. Multi-decadal variability is really important but it’s not in the models. These phenomena are part of the climate variability. That the models can explain and describe the climate and yet is missing these two important drivers of climate is an unexplained puzzle.

Here’s an example of something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This is a real phenomenon. You can see the two different modes of the PDO and their temperature differences. The chart below shows the actual temperature record from observations. This is a long term mode in the system as it has to do with energy sloshing around in the Pacific Ocean. There is a similar mode in the Atlantic called the AMO. The models do not have this, at all but they are somehow able to to reproduce the climate system without the use of these known climate drivers. And that raises some questions about how real our understanding of the climate really is.

In the graphic below, the chart on the left is the consensus global mean temperature time series over the period of anthropogenic global warming with both natural and anthropogenic forcings and the chart shows a good match between climate model projections and observations. The chart on the right is the same as the chart on the left but with the CO2 forcing removed and it shows that without the CO2 forcing there is no match between climate models and observations.

This comparison is presented as evidence that the current warming rate is a creation of fossil fuel emissions. Yet the real reason for the cose match between models and observations in the left chart is that the models have been “TUNED” to observations meaning that the forcings were inerpreted in the context of observations.

The graphic below overcomes the tuning by comparing 30 year trnds in a moving 30-year window in the right frame with data in blue and model predictions in brown. This comparison does not support the thesis that the model results match observations.

CMIP5 Model results versus Lower Troposphere data:

Forecasting future climate change with RCPs (representiative concentration pathways)

The ensembles of models uses a large number of models (40 to 50) and a number of runs of each model model runs.

These climate forecasts use forecasts of global population and GDP over the time period of the RCP going out to 2100.

And then when you do that for different rates of fossil fuel emissions, you get RCP forecasts that look like this. In some scenarios emissions continue to rise but at different rates while in others they peak early and decline later and these curves are consistent with historical observational data but with different projections of what will happen in the future based on climate models that have been verified against the observational data of the past. And as expected, high emission scenarios show higher temperatures in the future than low emission scenarios. The lower curves in the chart that rise at first and then flatten out are the ones where later climate action reduces emissions to zero and the temperature curve flattens out with no warming seen in the future. The plausibility of the assumptions in these stabilized curves is another matter altogether and something we should discuss given future projections for population and economic growth in the Global South as in China and India.

Now we move on to climate change impacts. The consensus is that climate impacts are bad and they will only get worse in the future in the absence of effective climate action but can be eliminated with the effective climate action. These forecsts contain extreme details about the type and extent of impacts as a function of temperature as shown in the graphic below. Essentially the global mean surface temperature (GMST) is used as a proxy for impacts where gmst deermines not only the type of impact but its intensity. These are the projections that are used to determine what the safe amount of warming since pre-industrial is. The safe abount of warming since pre-industrial used to be 5C but has been gradually lowered over the years to 4C then to 3C then to 2C and finally in 2018 to 1.5C since pre-industrial of which we have used up a little more than 1C. This threshold, though a critical determinant in climate science for impacts, is ill defined and not well understood. For example, when the 2C threshold was announced about a decade ago, no reason was given for that determination. It was just a number validated only by the fact that it has been announced by the IPCC and yet the same IPCC later lowered it to 1.5C that served as an admission that the 2C was in error. The arbitrariness of these changing thresholds does not imply reliability. When asked about the 2C the response was “Well, it’s a number that’s easy to remember and it’s about right or maybe on the safe side of right”. These “do not cross” warming targets are fuzzy.

The bottom line on impacts is this: In the reports, what the climate science consensus says is muddled.

This muddled logic goes something like this: For some climate observable x, the data show that x has changed in recent decades. The climate has also changed in recent decades. Humans have influenced the climate. Therefore humans have influenced x. Therefore, our understanding of x has improved (an unsupported claim). If the human impact of x is uncertain or not yet directly detected, it is because of insufficient data, natural variability, and confounding influences, or models not in agreement, but it just has to be there or at least we can’t risk the assumption that it isn’t there. So therefore, as gmst rises, human impact on x will grow although there are uncertainties in the details – but what we know for sure is that it’s going to get worse because it can only get worse. The degree of confidence can vary depending on what x is. It is interesting to read these reports.

The IPCC, writing in AR5 WG1 Chapter 2, does not appear to show a great deal of confidence in these extreme weather impact forecasts as seen in the extracted text below. The media’s obsession with attributing all bad weather events to AGW climate change is not credible and must be understood purely as activism.

In the graphic below are some data on weather extremes from the US national climate report. It shows that cold extremes have declined but no trend is seen in the warm extremes. There may be a role for agricultural intensification in these data, and some of it is just natural variability.

The data for sea level rise is presented in the graphic below. The left frame shows global mean sea level reconstruction since 1900 derived from a network of tide guages around the world. It shows sea level rise of about 200mm over a period of 100 years at an average rate of about 2mm per year. On the right frame it shows satellite data for sea level since 1992. The satellite data global mean sea level rise are consistent with the reconstruction from tidal guages shown in the left frame.

The significant sea level rise events at the end of the last glaciation into the Holocene interglacialis shown in the chart below. It shows that sea level rise predates the industrial revolution. The sea level has been rising for 15,000 years and has risen by 120 meters (120,000 mm or an average of 8mm/year) and the rate of rise has not gone up but rather the rate of rise has gradually flattened out to a negligible percentage of the sea level rise at the initiation of the Holocene. This history makes it difficult to attribute the observed sea level rise in the post industrial era to humans.

Here is how the consensus climate science looks at this issue. The essential argument here is that current observed sea level rise is faster than what we would expect from an extrapolation of the historical deglaciation sea level and that difference is human caused. They say that the sea level rise in the most recent century is greater than the previous century and that therefore it is human caused.

Here Koonin says that if you look at the data since 1950 when NASA GISS and James Hansen identifiy as the time that global warming started, what we find is shown in the graphic below. It shows that natural variability in sea level rise is too large to intepret the tail end of it as a human caused sea level rise.

Projections of future sea level rise. On the left frame in the graphic below we see the projections of sea level rise where future rates of rise are much higher and accelerating. Comparing that SLR behavior with observations in the right frame we find no evidence of such acceleration in a time of global warming.

The graphic below shows Tropical cyclone data mislabeled as “hurricane”. The top frame of the graphic shows global tropical cyclone frequency in the two categories of “all” and “major” while the lower frame shows ACE (accumulated cyclone energy). These data do not show a rising trend that is assumed in the climate change consensus and media alarm about the impact of AGW on tropical cyclones. This conclusion is supported by the IPCC’s “low confidence” and the NOAA’s “premature” assessments on the matter of the impact of global warming on rising intensity and destruction of tropical cyclones. The media’assessment of this issue is dramatically inconsistent with these findings.

On the matter of agriculture and the projection of its devastation by AGW, we find that the opposite is true, that CO2 fertilization is making the world greener and making agriculture more productive, as seen in the graphic below.

On the matter of the impact of global warming on the US economy, the claim that global warming will damage the US economy is not found in the IPCC assesment.

THIS POST IS A PRESENTATION OF EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 12 OF THE IPCC AR5 REPORT WITH CRITICAL COMMENTARY

EXCERPT: PAGE 1033: Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity

Estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) based on observed climate change, climate models and feedback analysis, as well as paleoclimate evidence indicate that ECS is

likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C with high confidence,

extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence) and

very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).

TRANSLATION:

Estimate of the ECS: mean = 3, standard deviation = 0.915. The estimate of ECS=3 is statistically significant at alpha=0.01 if it is an average of more than 8 independent estimates and at alpha=0.05 if it is an average of more than 3 independent estimates. The crucial information about the number of independent estimates used in the computation of the mean and standard deviation is not provided and instead, what we have is a long and useless essay about confidence intervals.

Charney 1979: The estimate of ECS=3 with a 90% confidence interval of 1.5 to 4.5 is of course the Charney 1979 estimate derived from Manabe’s climate model and therefore not observational data.

In a related post we present a large number of empirical observational ECS values published in the climate science literature in the period 1970 to 2018. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/05/02/a-history-of-climate-sensitivity/ These observational values are mostly described as either climate model estimates constrained by observations or observations constrained by climate models. Of about a hundred values reported, only 20% fall into the Charney/IPCC range of {1.5 to 4.5}. It should be mentioned that the Charney estimate is a purely climate model estimate and not constrained by observations. The climate model used by Charney was the Manabe model. The many climate sensitivity estimates published by Manabe himself with co-author Wetherald in the many Manabe-Wetherald papers has consistently been mean=2 and not 3.

If the IPCC does not limit itself to Charney and if they read the extensive literature on empirical and climate model estimates of ECS they would have a more realistic understanding of the ECS issue. What the literature may imply, if fully and objectively studied, is that the estimate of ECS involves large uncertainties that cannot and must not be ignored nor overlooked nor hidden in bureaucratic language of likely and exremely likely values.

EXCERPT: PAGE 1033: Transient Climate Response

The transient climate response (TCR) likely in the range 1°C to 2.5ºC and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C, based on observed climate change and climate models.

TRANSLATION: The IPCC estimate of TCRE is mean=1.75 with a standard deviation of 0.46 such that the estimate of 1.75 is statistically significant at alpha=0.05 if it is the average of more than two independent estimates and at alpha=0.01 if it is the average of more than 4 independent estimates.

Howver the bigger issue in the TCRE is its mathematical weakness described in a number of related posts on this site the primary post being: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcre/ . What we find in these related posts is that the TCRE relationship between emissions and temperature is a spurious correlation that has no interretation in the real world.

The only information content of this strong correlation between cumulative values of time series data is that they happen to follow certain sign patterns where annual emissions are always positive and in a time of warming, annual warming rates are mostly positive. The further interpretation of these correlations and regression coefficients in terms of human cause of warming and in terms of carbon budgets is not possible. 

Climate science has fallen afoul of fundamental statistical considerations in the use of the specious TCRE metric not only to validate cause and effect in natural phenomena but also as a policy tool for setting carbon budgets. 

A more fundamental issue with regard to the TCRE is that it is inconsistent with climate science theory that relates warming to emissions. The theory of anthropogenic global warming is a causation sequence from fossil fuel emissions to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration and from there by way of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 to higher temperatures. There is no role for a TCRE parameter in this theory as highlighted in its mathematical inconsistency in a related post: [LINK] .

The statistical issue with respect to only positive values for emissions is demonstrated in a related post where it is shown that not just emissions but any variable with only positive values works just as well, even UFOs.  [LINK]

THE MATHEMATICAL INCONSISTENCY argument is simply that the ECS measure of the impact of fossil fuel emissions on warming holds that atmospheric CO2 concentration at any given time is a linear function of cumulative emissions and that surface temperature is a logarithmic function of atmospheric CO2 concentration. These two relationships imply that surface temperature is a logarithmic function of cumulative emissions. The TCR measure of the impact of fossil fuel emissions on warming holds that the amount of warming is a linear function of cumulative emissions. This linearity is mathematically inconsistent with the ECS measure which implies that the amount of warming is proportional to the difference between the logarithms of the cumulative emissions before and after the period of warming under study.

The mathematical inconsistency described above shows that the significant research effort in climate science to resolve the ECS and TCR measures of anthropogenic warming in terms of fossil fuel emissions with Earth System Models {ESM} is not possible because the two methods of computing the impact of emissions on temperature are not mathematically consistent and that makes it impossible for them to describe the same phenomenon in nature.

THE WEAKNESS OF THE IPCC IN THESE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES SHOULD SERVE AS A REMINDER THAT THE IPCC IS AN AGENCY OF THE UN AND NOT AN ARBITER OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/08/11/ipccisun/

THE “POOR COUNTRIES HARDEST HIT” PITY ARGUMENT FOR CLIMATE ACTION

THIS POST IS A LIST OF LINKS TO POSTS ON THIS SITE IN WHICH THE CLIMATE ACTION ACTIVISM AGAINST FOSSIL FUELS USES A “PITY THE POOR” ARGUMENT TO SELL CLIMATE ACTION. IT IS A CASE OF HOW CLIMATE SCIENCE USES THE PLIGHT OF THE POOR AS AN ACTIVISM TOOL.

THE ARGUMENT IS THAT POOR COUNTRIES ARE HARDEST HIT BY CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY THE EMISSIONS OF THE RICH AND SO THAT IS WHY YOU MUST HEED THE CLIMATE FEAR WARNING AND TAKE CLIMATE ACTION FOR THE SAKE OF THESE PITIFUL PEOPLE OF THE THIRD WORLD.

BELOW WE PRESENT A LIST OF SUCH CALLS TO CLIMATE ACTION IN WHICH PITY FOR THE POOR IS USED TO SELL THE CLIMATE ACTION AGENDA.

FOUNDATIONAL EXAMPLE: CLIMATE RACISM: POOR COUNTRIES MUST NOT SEEK TO DEVELOP THEIR ECONOMY TO WESTERN STANDARDS FOR THE SAKE OF THE CLIMATE: http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2009/12/reference-low-carbon-is-economy-of.html

EXAMPLE#1: CLIMATE CHANGE SEA LEVEL RISE CAUSING BANGLADESH TO LOSE LAND AND SHRINK: http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2010/03/reference-rising-sea-levels-sinks-new.html

EXAMPLE#2: CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES SOIL SALINITY IN SOUTHERN BANGLADESH AND DEVASTATES AGRCULTURE OMG! OMG!: http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2009/12/reference-destruction-on-global-level.html

EXAMPLE#3: CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES SEA LEVEL RISE TO FLOOD SAMUT PRAKAN, THAILAND, OMG OMG! http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2009/12/reference-what-and-where-is-our-climate.html

EXAMPLE#4: CLIMATE CHANGE MELTING ICE IN THE HIMALAYAN MOUNTAINS SO FAST THAT IT WILL ALL BE GONE BY THE YEAR 2035. OMG OMG! http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2009/12/reference-giant-climate-fraud-in.html

EXAMPLE#5: THE IPCC SAYS THAT THE MELT OF THE GANGOTRI GLACIER IN THE HIMALAYAS HAS ACCELERATED AND ALL THE RIVERS THAT DEPEND ON HIMLAYAN ICE MELT WATER WILL RUN DRY IN A DECADE. OMG OMG! http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2009/12/reference-himalayan-glacier-melts-to.html

EXAMPLE#6: BHUTAN IS THE POSTER CHILD OF CLIMATE SCIENCE, AND WHAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WANT THE WORLD TO LOOK LIKE: http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2010/04/reference-kingdom-sees-big-struggle-to.html

EXAMPLE#7: CLIMATE CHANGE WILL WEAKEN AND DELAY THE SOUTH ASIAN MONSOON AND DEVASTATE AGRICULTURE: http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2010/04/reference-forecasters-predict-good.html

EXAMPLE#8: CLIMATE CHANGE DRYING UP THE MEKONG RIVER: http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2010/04/reference-non-water-flushing-bangkok.html

EXAMPLE#9: ILLEGAL ENTRY OF CENTRAL AMERICANS: http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2019/06/climate-change-causes-illegal-entry-of.html THE ARGUMENT THAT NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAWS MUST BE SUSPENDED BECAUSE THE POOR IN CENTRAL AMERICA HAVE BEEN HARD IT BY CLIMATE CHANGE.

EXAMPLE#10: IS POPULATION GROWTH A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING? : http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2010/04/reference-america-will-be-just-fine.html

EXAMPLE#11: THE COMING RISE OF CHINA: A BILLION CHINESE LIVING THE GOOD EUROPEAN LIFESTYLE WILL DEVASTATE THE CLIMATE. OMG OMG! WE CAN’T LET THAT HAPPEN OMG! http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2009/12/reference-dont-put-south-on-road-to.html

EXAMPLE#12: ECONOMIC GROWTH IN SOUTHEAST ASIA WILL DEVASTATE THE CLIMATE OMG OMG! ASIANS SHOULD NOT ASPIRE TO LIVE LIKE WHITE PEOPLE IN THE AGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE: http://chaamjamal.blogspot.com/2009/12/reference-climate-changes-dealmaker.html

EXAMPLE#13: A CLIMATE CHANGE POSTER CHILD: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/13/bangladesh-a-climate-emergency-poster-child/

BOTTOM LINE

We conclude from this analyss that here in the 21st century and in the age of enlightenment, the former colonies in the Global South must ultimately serve the needs of their colonial masters of the Global North by being the pitiful victims of clmate change that their former colonial masters of the Global North need so that they can sell their climate action agenda. The negative impact of their pitiful victim role in terms of lost foreign investment flows is a small price to pay to serve the needs of their former colonial masters of the Global North.

RELATED POST: POPULATION RACISM: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2010/10/20/overpopulation-to-cause-mass-extinctions/