Thongchai Thailand

Author Archive

under-construction

 

Quora Post  by Skip Morrow, Republican, June 5 2018 [LINK] 

  1. How do you convince someone that climate change is happening? I can tell you how I was convinced. I used to be a denier. I thought “the climate’s changed before. It’ll change again. This is probably just another cycle.” Yeah, the republican party line. But part of me had my doubts. One day I decided to do a little research. I started thinking, “you know, I have my theory (mentioned above). It’s a pretty popular theory as there are a lot of other people that were saying the same thing. By now, there must be a rebuttal to that theory, and I’d like to see it.”
  2. I didn’t have to search far. Of course climate scientists are aware of the fact that the climate has changed before. I mean, seriously?? Sure enough, there’s a very good explanation. Yes, the climate has changed before. But the problem with this time is that the RATE AT WHICH THE TEMPERATURE IS INCREASING. The temperature is increasing much, much faster than scientists have ever seen before.
  3. Which brought me to my second concern. How could scientists be so sure about the temperatures hundreds and thousands of years ago? Do we really trust Ezekiel the farmer/scientist and his temperature recordings?
  4. Again, this is easily researched. One of the main ways we have been able to determine the temperatures of past years is from ice cores in the arctic. They also can look at different sediment layers in the geology and indirectly assess the temperatures. OK, but how can they be sure? Just like, how can we be sure about the composition of a star millions of light years away? I mean, how can I trust one scientist here, but not the other. It turns out the climate scientists are using the same scientific methods that have cured polio, figured out lead was poisonous, and figured out the composition of far away stars.
  5. So then I started reading more and more. I read a lot of the IPCC reports. And then a friend of mine said “you know that there are authors of the report that now deny climate change” and would send me links to some crazy blog with some so-called expert making some analysis using papers published by the same authors that seem to suggest climate change isn’t real (I don’t remember the specifics, sorry!). Anyway, I emailed the paper authors and asked them if the claims in the blog were true. Yeah, I emailed the actual scientists. And they replied. I couldn’t believe it either. And of course the blogs were twisting the facts and completely misleading. Since then I have emailed several authors when I didn’t understand something and they almost always respond.
  6. I have now come to the realization that yeah, there is such overwhelming evidence that climate change is real, that to deny it today is tantamount to saying vaccinations don’t work and the moon landings didn’t happen. You have to bury your head really, really deep in the sand to say it isn’t happening. The very idea that the climate ISN’T warming, is way, way out there. And yes, humans are responsible for this. We are causing it. And we can fix it.
  7. Finally, the last concern I had was that this seemed to be a political issue. It seemed that all of the republicans thought it was a hoax (not true literally, but that’s how it seemed). And all democrats thought it was a big problem. So what about all of the scientists? Were they all democrats? But then I started realizing, these scientists? They were from all over the world. How could all scientists from all over the world give a damn about American politics? The suggestion that the scientists were motivated by politics just didn’t make sense.
  8. Since then I have taken a liking to reading published scientific papers on climate change. We often say that 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change. I think it’s even higher. I haven’t seen one paper in google scholar that suggests the world is cooling.
  9. So, here’s a tl;dr summary: If a blog post suggests climate change isn’t real, and doesn’t at least post links to the scientific papers that back up the claim, then the blog post is worthless. The same scientific method that we trust every year to vaccinate our bodies against the flu, is being used to study the climate. Either you trust it or you don’t. I do.
  10. Climate change is not political. The science doesn’t care what party you align with. Facts are facts. Finally, any so-called evidence or counterpoint suggesting that climate change isn’t real has already been addressed. Look it up. Don’t just repeat what you heard.

 

RESPONSE TO {Quora Post  of Skip Morrow, Republican}

  1. The issue is not whether “climate change is happening“. The issue is whether the climate change that we know is happening is human caused in the way described by climate scientists and whether it can be moderated with climate action in the way that climate scientists have proposed.
  2. Climate science holds that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times are due to fossil fuel emissions of the industrial economy. This attribution is supported by a strong correlation between emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration in the time series of the source data and it serves as its first critical step in the proposed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) causation process. As such, it sits at the very foundation of AGW theory because AGW is not possible without this relationship. The correlation between emissions and atmospheric composition serves as the evidence in climate science that atmospheric CO2 concentration is responsive to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale.
  3. However, correlation between  x and y in time series data derives not only from responsiveness of y to x at the time scale of interest but also from shared long term trends. These two effects must be separated by detrending both time series. When the trend effect is removed only the responsiveness of y to x remains. However, when the emissions and atmospheric composition time series are detrended, the correlation is not found in the detrended series. This result of detrended correlation analysis implies that the correlation seen in the source data derives from shared trends and not from responsiveness at an annual time scale. Details of this test are presented in a related post  [LINK] .

 

 

 

under-construction

GRAPHIC#1: EUGENICS 

 

GRAPHIC#2: FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS 

 

GRAPHIC#3: THE POPULATION BOMB 1968 & LIMITS TO GROWTH 1972

 

GRAPHIC#4: THE POPULATION PROBLEM AS SEEN BY EHRLICH

 

GRAPHICS#5: HOLDREN & EHRLICH 1970

ECOSCIENCE: POPULATION/RESOURCES/ENVIRONMENT

 

 

GRAPHIC#6: THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN THE THIRD WORLD

 

GRAPHIC#7: THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF AMAZONIA

 

GRAPHIC#8: CLIMATE CHANGE END OF THE WORLD

 

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

THIS POST IS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CLIMATE-CHANGE MOVEMENT AGAINST THE INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY AND FOSSIL FUELS AS THE THE CONTINUATION OF A RACIST AGENDA IN EUGENICS, THE POPULATION BOMB, ECOSCIENCE, AND LIMITS TO GROWTH. 

  1. THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: The psychological impacts of the Industrial Revolution changed how humans view themselves. As in climate fearology, overpopulation fearology also has its roots in the Industrial Revolution that can be seen in the works of Thomas Malthus, 1798, Charles Dickens, 1850s [LINK] , and Francis Galton 1883. In a strange sort of way, our current obsession with the impact of the Industrial Revolution on climate is a continuation of our fear of the industrial economy that goes back to its early beginnings in the 18th century.
  2. THOMAS MALTHUS: The backdrop to the modern form of the anti-human movement of humans is a combination of Malthusian mathematics of 1798 {An Essay on the Principle of Population} and the industrial revolution. Malthus described increase in food production as linear and population growth as exponential leading to a point of catastrophe as population growth increases the demand for food beyond production. Although his work has since been discredited {Waterman, (1998), “Malthus, mathematics, and the mythology of coherence.” History of Political Economy 30.4 1998}, the idea that there are too many of us lingered and even strengthened when the industrial revolution brought large numbers of workers into the cities to work in factories to make overpopulation a visual impression as seen in the works of Charles Dickens.
  3. FRANCIS GALTON: Although the idea of selective reproduction of humans to weed out undesirable traits predates the Industrial Revolution, its proactive policy implications were first put forward in the 1880s. Statistician and all round genius, Francis Galton (the man who did the evolution math for his cousin Charles Darwin). played an important role in the mathematics of Eugenics theory. In terms of policy implications it holds that governments must take action to ensure that individuals or classes of individuals with undesirable traits must be prevented from breeding through the use of sterilization. Climate Change and Eugenics are both {a mixture of science and social movement [LINK] } with conflicts between the two resolved in favor of the social movement.  Although Eugenics theory is no longer officially accepted and it no longer has a policy implication in governments of nations, some of its infrastructure and its implications survive to this day in the form of Planned Parenthood and the Family Planning programs in poor third world countries funded by rich Western countries that involve paying poor women to accept a sterilization procedure.
  4. THE POPULATION BOMB: The overpopulation issue along with many other historical concerns about the Industrial Economy were resurrected anew by the environmental movement of the Hippie culture of the 1960s that included among other things a fear of chemicals in particular and technology in general, a hatred of fossil fuels, and the defining work of Rachel Carson in the book “Silent Spring“. The now famous book on overpopulation by Paul Ehrlich is a product of this era. The book was inspired by a trip to India where Ehrlich encountered, for the first time in his life, the large crowds and congestion that are common in the third world. The sight of so many people in a small space left a scarring impression on Ehrlich who lived in the intellectual circles of the West where overpopulation as a global issue was already taking hold early in the 1960s. He went on to publish his own book on the overpopulation problem in 1968 with the now famous title “The Population Bomb”. It became the defining work of the overpopulation movement and it remains to this day its most glorious moment. Among other absurdities, the book projected that {The battle to feed humanity has been lost} and that {hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death} leading to the conclusion that {Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, were taking too much from the earth} that claimed to lead to the logical conclusion that {Unless humanity cuts down its number soon, all of us would face mass starvation on a dying planet} with the death of the planet projected for the year 2000 [LINK] . Climate change has resurrected the death of the planet fear and “the end of times” with the date moved forward.
  5. LIMITS TO GROWTH: In 1972, soon after the significant fear impact of The Population Bomb, the Club of Rome publication {Limits to Growth} was released. It stated that the strong post war economic growth in the developed world will not sustain because the resources needed for economic growth are finite and that their depletion is imminent and that the planet was running out of resources in terms of both raw materials and energy. The assessment was surely inspired by rapid industrialization and GDP growth in the Global South particularly so in India, China, East Asia, and Southeast Asia and the usual racist view of the Global North that the planet does not have the resources for everyone on earth to live like white people. The so called {Peak Oil} and {End Oil} projections that followed held that the finite energy resources of oil, gas, and coal were nearly exhausted with various forecasts of when oil production would begin its decline {Peak Oil} and when it would be depleted {End Oil} [LINK] . It was assessed that raw materials for the industrial economy including minerals, and uranium were also being rapidly depleted with the rate of depletion accelerated by industrialization in the Global South.. There was a call for conservation, for controlling waste, and for efficient use of resources as well as to prepare for a possible overhaul of the economic structure with an appropriate response to the new alarming situation. What had once been a comfortable donor-recipient relationship between the industrialized West {the North} and the developing world {the South} in which the North provided development assistance to the South in terms of finance, material, and technology transfer, became complicated in the context of limited and diminishing resources of the planet that support economic development in the Industrial Era. Thus, rapid development of an Industrial Economy in China, India, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere, that had once promised a larger marketplace for the West, now took on a sinister interpretation in terms of competition for limited and diminishing resources.
  6. THE IMPACT OF THE INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY ON CLIMATE: In this context, the human caused climate change issue {AGW} is the latest chapter in the long psychological puzzle of our relationship with the industrial economy. As it follows closely in the heels of the fear of overpopulation and the fear of depleting resources as well as the 1960s environmental movement’s fear of fossil fuels, we propose that AGW must be interpreted and understood in terms of our love-hate-fear relationship with industrialization. In this latest chapter of our relationship with industrialization, we have turned to the conclusion that it was not a good idea after all or that it has been done all wrong. To correct the wrong, the Global North must retreat and re-invent the advancement from the pre-industrial agricultural economy. More importantly, the Global South must not be allowed to proceed in their scary advancement into the old style industrial economy because that at once complicates the population problem and the problem of limited resources. To the extent possible industrial development in the Global South must be stopped where it is possible perhaps with assurance that they will be taken are of by the Global North. That the Global North’s needs are often served at great cost to the Global South is seen in the effects of Rachel Carson’s {Silent Spring} that may or may not have saved some birds in the North but at great cost and suffering from the ban on DDT in the Global South. Similarly, the planet saving interpretation of AGW constructs the attitude of the Global North towards the primitive stone age forest dwellers of Amazonia in the Global South. It is claimed that the AGW anti-industrialization priority of the Global North must guide the future of these people such that they should remain primitive so that their lands can remain a forest and serve the needs of the Global North by continuing to be The Lungs of the Planet. That Europe was once a forest and the Lungs of the Planet that was cleared by the Europeans on the way to their wealth, power, and Industrial Economy must be considered to be purely historical and irrelevant in terms of the urgency of climate action to Save the Planet.  At the root of the AGW climate action movement is the racism that the Global South must not be allowed to commit the sin of the kind of industrialization that had made the Global North so rich and so powerful that they can now orchestrate this global agenda. As in colonial times, the Global South is seen by the Global North as something that must ultimately serve the needs of the Global North. Thus, both the population bomb alarm, the limits to growth alarm, and the climate change alarm are different expressions of the same underlying reality in which the Global North is concerned about the ability of the planet to support an Industrial Revolution on a global scale that includes the Global South. The assumed stewardship of the planet by the Global North is the fountain of racism from which derives the role of the North in dictating action against climate change that are contrary to the real needs of the Global South.

 

 

RELATED POSTS ON POPULATION CONTROL IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH  

[LINK#1] [LINK#2]

FULL TEXT BELOW

  1. On the one hand, Western pundits warn us about the dangers of an impending “population bomb” brought about by overpopulation. We are told that the planet is being overwhelmed by the sheer number of people on it and will soon be unable to supply us with sufficient food, water, shelter, and energy and so we must do everything we can to control the population growth rate. On the other hand, we find that the Western nations themselves are scrambling for population growth. They provide tax deductions and other financial benefits per child and the United States is now counting on a vigorous fertility rate to boost its population to 400 million by the year 2050 as a way of gaining economic advantage with a more stable population (America will be just fine, Bangkok Post, April 7, 2010).
    We thus find that the same nations that fund anti-fertility programs to limit population growth in Asia and Africa, are, at the same time, providing tax benefits for having children and brag about their ability to increase fertility and growth rate of their own populations. These contradictions raise serious questions. Is population growth good or bad? Is the population bomb a global problem or a localized one? To protect the planet from the population bomb should the population growth in some areas be restricted while that in others encouraged?
    CONCLUSION: THE POPULATION BOMB DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY OF US. IT MEANS THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THEM!
  2. It is reported that there are 6.8 billion humans living on our planet but that it is endowed with natural resources and ecosystems that can support only 4.5 billion humans. The pressure on the ecosystem thus induced will cause a mass extinction of species by way of global warming and climate change. The scale of the mass extinction will be comparable with the extinction of dinosaurs (UN urges action to save species, Bangkok Post, October 19, 2010). It is the old and completely discredited Paul Ehrlich Population Bomb hype of the 1960s and 1970s (2001 an Overpopulation Odyssey, Los Angeles Times, October 22, 1974). It has been resurrected to be recycled in the fancy new language of global warming and climate change apparently to present known falsehoods as climate science. The new global warming hype is thus exposed as nothing more than the old overpopulation pig with lipstick. It is a continuation of the movement by human beings against the habitation of the planet by other human beings but not themselves. This time around, not limited resource consumption, but carbon dioxide emission is presented as the proxy for destructive human activity. Ironically, in the same issue of the Bangkok Post, we read that Europeans are alarmed that phthalates in toys can damage the sexual development of children (The problem with hazardous phthalates, Bangkok Post, October 19, 2010). Those who really believe in the alleged dangers of overpopulation should be comforted by the population control effect of phthalates. That they are alarmed shows that the global warming mass extinction alarm is a lie disguised as science, and that overpopulation is not a concern that there are too many of us but that there are too many other people.

[HOME PAGE]

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

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

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

 

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

 

GREENLAND ICE SHEET ALGAL COMMUNITY BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

 

EXTINCTIONREBELION

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

[RELATED POST]

 

SOME PROPOSED TRANSLATIONS OF EXTINCTION REBELLION LANGUAGE

 

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

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

 

 

[HOME PAGE]

[RELATED POST]

 

BRIEF TRANSCRIPT OF THE ANDREW NEIL INTERVIEW

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

 

 

CONCLUSION

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

 

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

SOME PROPOSED TRANSLATIONS OF EXTINCTION REBELLION LANGUAGE

 

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

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

 

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

 

20191009_090124

FIGURE 1: EXTREME WEATHERquora-1

 

FIGURE 2: TEMPERATURE DOES NOT TRACK SOLAR ACTIVITYquora-2

 

FIGURE 3: TEMPERATURE TRACKS CO2quora-3

 

FIGURE 4: CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS CHARTquora-4

 

FIGURE 5: NASA INFRARED SPECTROGRAPHquora-5

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

PART 2: COMMENTS ON THE AGW PRESENTATION BY JOHN BRACCILI

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

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