Thongchai Thailand

Author Archive

LINK TO SOURCE

PART-1: WHAT THE SOURCE YOUTUBE VIDEO SAYS

SEA LEVEL RISE CAUSED BY MELTING ICE SHEETS AND WARMING OCEANS IS GETTING WORSE ACCORDING TO A NEW REPORT FROM NASA, NOAA, AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES. THE REPORT SHOWS THAT SEA LEVEL RISE IS ACCELERATING FASTER THAT PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT A FEW YEARS AGO. IT IS A DRAMATIC SHIFT IN SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS SINCE 2017. WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GET A THIRD OF A METER BY 2100 BUT NOW WE’RE SUPPOSED TO GET A THIRD OF A METER BY 2050. ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, MODERATE FLOODING IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR MORE THAN TEN TIMES AS OFTEN AS IT DOES TODAY IT IS SOBERING TO SEE THAT A 100 YEAR ACCELERATION IS NOW A 50 YEAR ACCELERATION. PAULA BON TEMPI, DEAN OF THE ORI GRADUATE SCHOOL OF OCEANOGRAPHY, SAID THAT CONFIDENCE OF THOSE FINDINGS IS HIGHER TOO. ABOUT A FOOT OF SEA LEVEL RISE MIGHT NOT SEEM LIKE MUCH BUT THAT COULD HAVE A DRAMATIC EFFECT IN OUR AREA WHERE 7,000 PROPERTIES ARE IMMEDIATELY AT RISK FROM SEA LEVEL RISE ALONG THE RHODE ISLAND COAST. A NOREASTER OR HURRICANE ON TOP OF THAT HIGHER WATER COULD ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE ND THAT IS GOING TO MAKE A BIG CHANGE IN COASTAL FLOODING, COASTAL EROSION, AND IMPACT TO COASTAL ECONOMIES. PEOPLE’S HOMES, PEOPLE’S BUSINESSES, MILITARY INFRASTRUCTURE, SCHOOLS, AND THAT SEA LEVEL RISE IS GOING TO HAVE A TREMENDOUS IMPACT. NOW MORE THAN EVER WE NEED TO MANAGE ADAPT TO THE RISING SEAS.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

THAT THE CLIMATE SCIENCE FORECASTS CONTAIN SUCH LARGE UNCERTAINTIES THAT A 2017 FORECAST IS FOUND TO BE DEAD WRONG IN 2022 DOES NOT CREATE GREATER CREDIBILITY OF CLIMATE SCIENCE FORECASTS AND GREATER FEAR OF THOSE FORECASTS. IT EXPOSES THE IGNORANCE OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS IN THE SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUE. THE RELEVANT INFORMATION HERE IS THAT CLIMATE SCIENCE INFORMATION ABOUT SEA LEVEL RISE CONTAINS LARGE UNCERTAINTIES AND IS THEREFORE NOT CREDIBLE.

PART-3: RELATED POSTS ON SEA LEVEL RISE

#1: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2022/02/17/a-new-sea-level-rise-alarm/

HERE WE FIND THAT CLIMATE SCIENCE, WHICH PREACHES THAT THE IMPACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE UNDERSTOOD IN GLOBAL TERMS, ABANDONS THAT PRINCIPLE TO RAISE THE FEAR THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE USA AND NOT GLOBALLY.

#2: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/08/06/the-sea-level-rise-issue/

#3: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/31/episodic-coastal-flooding/

#4: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/07/07/sea-level-rise-horror-of-july-2021/

#5: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/03/28/holocene-sea-level-rise/

#6: MUNK’S ENIGMA: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/03/10/spin/

#7: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/04/a-tcre-of-sea-level-rise/

#8: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/11/antarctica-ice-melt-sea-level-rise-2020/

#9: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/02/scary-sea-level-rise-by-2100/

#10: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/19/greenlands-future-sea-level-rise/

CONCLUSION

LARGE UNCERTAINTIES IN THE CLIMATE SCIENCE ESTIMATION OF SEA LEVEL RISE ATTRIURTBLE TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AND THE FAILURE TO TAKE GEOLOGICAL DRIVERS INTO CONSIDERATION EXPLAINS THE FAILED CLIMATE SCIENCE SEA LEVEL RISE ACTIVISM AND THE CONTINUED EFFORTS EVEN WITH A FOOT OF SEA LEVEL RISE AND EVEN WITH LOCALIZED SEA LEVEL RISE THAT CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS GLOBAL TO CREATE THE NEEDED FEAR AS MOTIVATION FOR THE CLIMATE ACTION THAT CLIMATE SCIENCE WANTS.

YOU SAY YOU LOVE YOUR CHILDREN ABOVE ALL ELSE AND YET YOU ARE STEALING THEIR FUTURE IN FRONT OF THEIR VERY EYES.

WE ARE IN DANGER OF DESTROYING OURSELVES BY OUR GREED AND STUPIDITY.

WHAT YOU DO MAKES A DIFFERENCE AND YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT KIND OF DIFFERENCE YOU WANT TO MAKE.

WE ARE CHANGING THE ARCTIC SO MUCH THAT MOTHER NATURE HAS GONE BERSERK WITH ARCTIC AMPLIFICATION, POLAR VORTEX, JET ATREAMS, AND HURRICANES.

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ARE COMING SOONER THAN PREDICTED AND THOSE IMPACTS WILL BE MORE SEVERE THAN PREDICTED

HORRIFIC ARCTIC MELTDOWN IS RAISING SEA LEVELS FASTER THAN PREDICTED

AS WE ADD MORE CO2 THE OCEAN BECOMES MORE ACID AND THOSE ANIMALS THAT HAVE A CARBONATE SKELETON ARE DISSOLVING.

WE ARE LOSING 2% OF THE CORAL REEFS EVERY YEAR OR 1/5TH PER DECADE AND YET ALL WE HAVE TO DO TO STOP IT IS TO REDUCE OUR FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.

THE CLIMATE SYSTEM HAS BEEN DESTABILIZED BY HUMANS BURNING FOSSIL FUELS AND WE ARE ENTERING AN UNKNOWN TERRITORY OF THE CLIMATE. WE’RE IN TROUBLE.

WE ARE BREAKING TEMPERATURE RECORDS AROUND THE WORLD WITH MASSIVE HEAT WAVES AND ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE.

ARCTIC SEA ICE IS DISAPPEARING

OUR CLIMATE MODELS ARE WRONG. THEY ARE UNDER-PREDICTING.

ALL THE COPS HAVE DONE IS TO SPEND TAXPAYER MONEY. THEY HAVE ACHIEVED NOTHING. WE ARE TOTAL IDIOTS IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE.

DECLINING SNOW AND ICE IN THE ARCTIC CREATES A DARKER SURFACE THAT ABSORBS MORE HEAT AND CREATES RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING.

WHAT WE SEE IN THE SIBERIAN METHANE EMISSIONS IS POSITIVE FEEDBACK AND IRREVERSIBLE RUNAWAY CLIMATE CHANGE

MANY PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW BIG A THREAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS TO HUMANITY.

GLOBAL WARMING WILL LEAD TO GLOBAL WARFARE

GLOBAL WARMING IS DESTROYING GLOBAL GRAIN PRODUCTION AND CREATING GLOBAL HUNGER AND FAMINE

CLIMATE CHANGE IS CREATING LOW INTENSITY WARFARE AMONG NATIONS THAT WILL SCALE UP INTO FULL SCALE WORD WAR.

ANTARCTICA AND GREENLAND ARE MELTING AND THAT WILL CAUSE SEA LEVELS TO RISE BY 200 FEET.

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION IS DISSOLVING THE SHELLS OF SHELLFISH AND KILLING THEM AND IF THIS PROCEESS CONTINUES THERE WILL BE NO SHELLFISH IN THE OCEAN.

WE ARE FACING A NIGHTMARE OF TORRENTIAL FLOODS, MUMMIFYING DROUGHTS, AND KILLER WILDFIRES.

CLIMATE CHANGE PRIOR TO THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION CAN BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF NATURAL CAUSES BUT RECENT CLIMATE CHANGE CANNOT BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF NATURAL CAUSES BECAUSE CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS A CREATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. THEREFORE ITS DRIVER MUST BE THE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.

IT’S ALREADY WORSE THAN WHAT WE HAD PREDICTED AND SO THEREFORE WE WERE NOT WRONG BUT EVEN MORE RIGHT THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.

THIS POST IS A PRESENTATION OF AN ONLINE ARTICLE ABOUT THE EARTH’S CHANGING WATER CYCLE PUBLISHED IN FEBRUARY 2022

LINK TO SOURCE: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-water-cycle-is-changing-faster-than-we-thought-all-thanks-to-our-warming-planet

PART-1: WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS

Earth’s Water Cycle Is Changing Dramatically, And Much Faster Than We Predicted. Fresh water cycles from ocean to air to clouds to rivers and back to the oceans. This constant shuttling can give us the illusion of certainty. Fresh water will always come from the tap. Won’t it? Unfortunately, that’s not guaranteed. Climate change is shifting where the water cycle deposits water on land, with drier areas becoming drier still, and wet areas becoming even wetter. Our research has found the water cycle is changing faster than we had thought based on changes in our oceans. This concerning finding underlines the ever more pressing need to end the emissions of gases warming the atmosphere before the water cycle changes beyond recognition. If this sounds serious, it is. Our ability to harness fresh water makes possible modern society. The water cycle has already changed. As the Earth warms up, the water cycle has begun to intensify in a “wet-gets-wetter-dry-gets-drier” pattern. This means more and more freshwater is leaving dry regions of the planet and ending up in wet regions. What might this look like? Weather, intensified. In relatively dry areas, more intense droughts, more often. In relative wet areas, more extreme storms and flooding. Think of the megadrought afflicting America’s west, of the unprecedented floods in Germany, or of the increase in severe rainfall seen in cities like Mumbai. This shift is already happening. In its landmark 2021 report, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) drew on this growing body of research to conclude climate change was already causing long-term changes to the water cycle. The changes we’re seeing are just the start. Over the next few decades, this water cycle intensification could make it much harder for people to get reliable supplies of fresh water across large areas of the planet. Troublingly, while we know the water cycle is intensifying, we don’t fully know how much and how fast. That’s where the ocean comes into play. How to use the ocean as a rain gauge. The main reason it’s hard to directly measure changes to the water cycle is that we don’t have enough data for rainfall and evaporation over our planet. On a practical level, it’s very hard to set up permanent rain gauges or evaporation pans on the 70 percent of our planet’s surface covered in water. Plus, when we assess change over the long term, we need measurements from decades ago. The solution scientists have landed on is to use the ocean. Many may not realize the ocean can be less or more salty depending on the region. For instance, the Atlantic is saltier than the Pacific on average. Why? Rain. When fresh water falls as rain on the ocean, it dilutes the sea water and makes it less salty. When water evaporates from the surface, the salt is left behind, increasing the salinity. This means we can use the better-recorded changes in the ocean’s salinity as a kind of rain gauge to detect water cycle changes. Earlier research used this method to track changes to the salinity at the ocean’s surface. This research suggested the water cycle is intensifying dramatically. Unfortunately, the ocean does not stay still like a conventional rain gauge. Currents, waves, and circular eddy currents keep the ocean’s waters in constant motion. This uncertainty has left a question mark over how exact the link between salinity and water cycle change actually is. In response, we have developed new methods enabling us to precisely link changes in the ocean’s salinity to changes in the part of the water cycle moving fresh water from warmer to colder regions. Our estimates indicate how the broader water cycle is changing in the atmosphere, over land and through our oceans. What did we find in our new study? The fresh water equivalent of 123 times the waters of Sydney Harbour have shifted from the tropics to the cooler areas since 1970. That’s an estimated 46,000 to 77,000 cubic kilometers of water. This is consistent with an intensification of the water cycle of up to 7 percent. That means up to 7 percent more rain in wetter areas and 7 percent less rain (or more evaporation) in dryer areas. This is at the upper end of estimates established by several previous studies, which suggested an intensification closer to 2-4 percent. Unfortunately, these findings suggest potentially disastrous changes to the water cycle may be approaching faster than previously thought. What would the future be like with an altered water cycle? If our water cycle is getting more intense at a faster rate, that means stronger and more frequent extreme droughts and rainfall events. Even if the world’s governments meet their target and keep global warming to a ceiling of 2℃, the IPCC predicts we would still endure extreme events an average of 14 percent stronger relative to a baseline period of 1850-1900. Some people and ecosystems will be hit harder than others, as the IPCC report last year made clear. For example, Mediterranean nations, south-west and south-east Australia, and central America will all become drier, while monsoon regions and the poles will become wetter (or snowier). In dry areas hit by these water cycle changes, we can expect to see real threats to the viability of cities unless alternatives such as desalination are put in place.

What should we do? You already know the answer. Decades of scientific research have shown the extremely clear relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures, which in turn drives water cycle intensification. This is yet another reason why we must move as quickly as humanly possible towards net-zero emissions to reduce the damage from climate change.

The changes to the water cycle we observed were largely due to older emissions, from the mid 20th century and earlier. We have increased our emissions dramatically since then. What comes next is entirely up to us.The Conversation. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

PART-2 CRITICAL COMMENTARY

THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE IS CONTAINED IN THIS SMALL SECTION OF IT.

{What should we do? You already know the answer. Decades of scientific research have shown the extremely clear relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures, which in turn drives water cycle intensification. This is yet another reason why we must move as quickly as humanly possible towards net-zero emissions to reduce the damage from climate change.}

TRANSLATION:

THE COP26, THAT WE HAD THOUGHT WOULD HAND US THE CLIMATE ACTION AGAINST FOSSIL FUELS THAT WE WANT, TURNED OUT TO BE YET ANOTHER FAILURE IN A LONG LINE OF FAILURES. SO WE DECIDED TO INVOKE A NOVEL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT FEAR, THAT WARMING CAUSES CHANGES IN THE WATER CYCLE MAKING WET PLACES WETTER AND DRY PLACES DRIER, AND THEN TO RATCHET UP THE FEAR OF THESE CHANGES UNTIL OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN SELLS.

THE FLAW IN THIS ARGUMENT

TO USE THE DANGERS OF A CHANGING WATER CYCLE AS A WAY OF GETTING PEOPLE TO STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS THE FOSSIL FUEL CAUSATION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY DATA THAT THE WATER CYCLE CHANGES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY NATURAL CHANGES IN TERMS OF DEGLACIATION AND THE NATURAL WARMING CYCLES OF THE HOLOCENE AND THAT IT CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS. AND IF THE THEORY EXPLAINS THE WARMING IN TERMS OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS, WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR CLIMATE SCIENCE TO ABANDON THE THEORY AND ITS EQUILIBRIUM CLIMATE SENSITIVITY (ECS) PARAMETER IN FAVOR OF THE TCRE {TRANSIENT CLIMATE RESPPONSE TO EMISSIONS}? THE PRACTICAL, THEORETICAL, AND STATISTICAL FLAWS IN THIS TCRE METHODOLOGY OF CLIMATE SCIENCE ARE PRESENTED IN A RELATED POST.

LINK TO RELATED POST: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/11/18/tcre-transient-climate-response-to-cumulative-emissions/

EXCERPT:

CONCLUSION

THAT WARMING CAN CAUSE CHANGES TO THE WATER CYCLE IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THE REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER THIS RELATIONSHIP IN THIS WARMING CYCLE OF THIS INTERGLACIAL IS DRIVEN BY FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AND WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING UNDER HUMAN CONTROL IN TERMS OF THE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS OF THE HUMANS.

QUESTION


With oil and gas prices rising, why is Biden’s Dept. of Interior stalling oil, and gas production over climate concerns?

MY ANSWER


The climate movement is alive and well and powerful.

It is the hidden unelected government behind the visible government.

This is the new democracy. IT IS CALLED ELITE CONSENSUS POLITICS

RELATED POST ON ELITE CONSENSUS POLITICS: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/03/07/how-the-elite-subvert-democracy/

EXTRACT

WE THE PEOPLE ARE JUST THE PEOPLE WHO MUST OBEY THE LAWS

IN A GAME LODGE IN SOUTH AFRICA, WHEN THE GUESTS STARTED ARRIVING, A LEOPARD SUDDENLY APPEARED AND STARTED STROLLING THROUGH THE LODGE.

THE ENVIRONMENTALISM VIEW OF THIS EVENT IS EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS.

“WHAT WE LEARNED FROM THIS EVENT IS THAT HUMAN BEINGS, EVEN WITH THE BEST WILL IN THE WORLD, CANNOT BUT RESTRICT THE NATURAL WORLD. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING TO NATURE. WE ARE PUSHING THE NATURAL WORLD ASIDE, EVEN THE MOST CONSIDERATE OF US ARE SUBCONSCIOUSLY PUSHING THE NATURAL WORLD ASIDE. WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THIS INSIGHT INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND NATURE IS THAT WE ARE INTRUDERS. IN THE NATURAL WORLD, WE ARE LATECOMERS. THE NATURAL WORLD WOULD DO MUCH BETTER IF WE WERE NOT HERE AT ALL. ONCE WHEN I WAS LEAVING HOME FOR A MEETING, MY DAUGHTER WHO IS IN HER MID 20S SAID. “YOU’VE GOT TO TELL DAVID ATTENBOROUGH THAT I LOVE HIM. MY WHOLE GENERATION LOVES HIM.

QUESTION: WHAT DOES IT MEAN AND WHAT DOES IT IMPLY TO HAVE SUCH ENTHUSIASTIC AND DEVOTED ADORING SUPPORT FROM A YOUNGER GENERATION? AS FOR ME, IT REMINDS ME THAT THE NATURAL WORLD, IF IT IS ALLOWED TO APPEAR, AND IF IT WERE TO SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OF THE NATURAL WORLD TO THE HUMANS, IT WOULD BE SO VERY FULL OF DRAMA. THE BEST THING I COULD DO IN THAT SITUATION IS TO KEEP OUT OF THE WAY. TO KEEP QUIET. PEOPLE THINK THE CREDIT IN SOME WAY BELONGS TO ME. IT DOESN’T. IT BELONGS TO THE NATURAL WORLD. THE WONDER OF IT ALL. THE NATURAL WORLD IS FULL OF SPECTACLE AND WONDER. {PATRICK THOMAS BROWN, DUKE UNIVERSITY}.

LINK TO SOURCE: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58138714

PART-1: WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS

Climate change: Five things we have learned from the IPCC report.


The UN report on the science of climate change is set to make a huge impact. Here are some of the key lessons from it. Climate change is widespread, rapid and intensifying – and it’s down to us. For those who live in the West, the dangers of warming our planet are no longer something distant, impacting people in faraway places. Climate change is not a problem of the future, it’s here and now and affecting every region in the world according to Dr Friederike Otto from the University of Oxford, and one of the authors on the IPCC report. It is the confidence of the assertions that the scientists are now making that is the real strength of this new publication. The phrase “very likely” appears 42 times in 40 pages of the Summary for Policymakers. In scientific terms, that’s 90-100% certain that something is real. Professor

Arthur Petersen of the University College of London and a former Dutch government representative in the IPCC says it’s the over-arching solidness that makes this the strongest IPCC report ever made. He was an observer at the approval session that produced this report. It’s understated, it’s cool, it’s not accusing, it’s just bang, bang, bang, one clear point after the other. The clearest of these points is about the responsibility of humanity for climate change. There’s no longer any equivocating – it’s us. More than 100 people were killed in floods that ravaged parts of Europe in July 2021.

The 1.5C temperature limit is on life support. When the last IPCC report on the science of climate change was published in 2013, the idea of 1.5C being the safe global limit for warming was barely considered. But in the political negotiations leading up to the Paris climate agreement in 2015, many developing countries and island states pushed for this lower temperature limit, arguing that it was a matter of survival for them. A special report on 1.5C in 2018 showed the advantages of staying under the limit were massive compared to a 2C world. Getting there would require carbon emissions to be cut in half, essentially, by 2030 and net zero emissions reached by 2050. Otherwise, the limit would be reached between 2030 and 2052. This new report re-affirms this finding. Under all scenarios, the threshold is reached by 2040. If emissions aren’t reined in, 1.5C could be gone in around a decade. Reaching net zero involves reducing greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible using clean technology, then absorbing any remaining ones by, for example, planting trees. While the situation is very serious, it is not a sudden drop into calamity. The 1.5C threshold is an important threshold politically, of course, but from a climatic point of view, it is not a cliff edge – that once we go over 1.5C, suddenly everything will become very catastrophic, according to one of the authors of the new report. The very lowest emissions scenario that we assess in this report shows that the warming level does stabilise around or below 1.5C later on in the century. If that were the pathway that we would follow, then the the impacts would be significantly avoided. The bad news is that no matter what we do, the seas will continue to rise. In the past, the IPCC has been criticised for being way too conservative when it came to assessing the risk of sea-level rise. A lack of clear research saw previous reports exclude the potential impacts of the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.Not this time. The report shows that under current scenarios, the seas could rise above the likely range, going up to 2m by the end of this century and up to 5m by 2150. While these are unlikely figures, they can’t be ruled out under a very high greenhouse gas emissions scenario. That’s bad enough – but even if we get a handle on emissions and keep temperatures around 1.5C by 2100, the waters will continue to rise long into the future. The gorilla that looms large in the background is these very scary sea-level rise numbers in the long term according to Prof Malte Meinshausen, an IPCC author. In the paper it shows that even with 1.5C warming we’re looking at the long-term of two to three metres. And under the highest scenarios, we could be looking at multi-metre sea-level rise by 2150. That is just scary, because it’s maybe not at the end of our lifetime, but it is around the corner and it will be committing this planet to a big legacy.Even if the sea-level rise is relatively mild, it will have knock-on effects that we cannot avoid. With gradual sea-level rise, those extreme sea-level events that have occurred in the past, just once per century, will occur more and more frequently in the future according to Valérie Masson-Delmotte, co-chair of the IPCC working group that prepared the new report. Those that occurred only once per century in the past are expected to occur once or twice per decade by mid-century. The information we provide in this report is extremely important to take into account and prepare for these events. The good news is tht scientists are more certain about what will work. The warnings are clearer and more dire – but there is an important thread of hope running through this report. Scientists have long been worried that the climate could be more sensitive to carbon dioxide than they thought. They use a phrase – equilibrium climate sensitivity – to capture the range of warming that could occur if CO2 levels were doubled. In the last report, in 2013, this ranged from 1.5C to 4.5C, with no best estimate. This time round, the range has narrowed and the authors opt for 3C as their most likely figure. Why is this important? We are now able to constrain that with a good degree of certainty and then we employ that to really make far more accurate predictions, so, that way, we know that net zero will really deliver, said Prof Piers Forster from the University of Leeds, and an author on the report. Another big surprise in the report is the role of methane, another warming gas. According to the IPCC, around 0.3C of the 1.1C that the world has already warmed by comes from methane. Tackling those emissions, from the oil and gas industry, agriculture and rice cultivation, could be a big win in the short-term. The report quashes any remaining debate about the urgent need to slash methane pollution, especially from sectors such as oil and gas, where the available reductions are fastest and cheapest, said Fred Krupp, from the US Environmental Defense Fund.”When it comes to our overheating planet, every fraction of a degree matters and there is no faster, more achievable way to slow the rate of warming than by cutting human-caused methane emissions. Politicians will be nervous, the courts will be busy. The timing of this report, coming just a couple of months before the critical COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, means that it will likely be the bedrock of the negotiations. The IPCC has some form here: their previous assessment in 2013 and 2014 paved the way for the Paris climate agreement. This new study is far stronger, clearer and more confident about what will happen if politicians don’t act. If they don’t act quickly enough and COP26 ends in an unsatisfactory fudge, then the courts might become more involved. In recent years, in Ireland and the Netherlands, environmental campaigners have successfully gone to court to force governments and companies to act on the science of climate change. We’re not going to let this report be shelved by further inaction. Instead, we’ll be taking it with us to the courts,” said Kaisa Kosonen, senior political adviser at Greenpeace Nordic. By strengthening the scientific evidence between human emissions and extreme weather, the IPCC has provided new, powerful means for everyone everywhere to hold the fossil fuel industry and governments directly responsible for the climate emergency. One only needs to look at the recent court victory secured by NGOs against Shell to realise how powerful IPCC science can be.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

(#1): Arthur Petersen of the University College of London and a former Dutch government representative in the IPCC says it’s the over-arching solidness that makes this the strongest IPCC report ever made. He was an observer at the approval session that produced this report. It’s understated, it’s cool, it’s not accusing, it’s just bang, bang, bang, one clear point after the other. The clearest of these points is about the responsibility of humanity for climate change. There’s no longer any equivocating – it’s us. More than 100 people were killed in floods that ravaged parts of Europe in July 2021.

The certainty of human cause claimed in this section is undone in a later section where we find that climate science concedes that there are large uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensivitity (ECS). The ECS is the essential part of the theory that relates to the greenhouse effect and human cause. A large uncertainty range in ECS is stated as “1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. In fact, what we find in the literature is that the uncertainty is actually much worse with a large range of empirical ECS values. This uncertainty issue motivated climate science to abandon the ECS climate sensitivity altogether and to propose a new theory that relates warming to emissions. This new theory is called TCRE or Transient Climate Response to Emissions. It derives from the discovery by climate scientists of a strong correlation between cumulative emissions and temperature. Yet, in terms of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the driver of warming by fossil fuel emissions CO2 can only be understood in terms of climate sensitivity where the rate of warming is a logarithmic function of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Its replacement with TCRE not only abandons the theoretical basis for greenhouse warming by fossil fuel CO2, it creates a conrtradiction that destroys the theoretical basis for AGW because in the TCRE, warming is linearly proportional to cumulative emissions whereas in greenhouse effect theory, warming is proportional to the logarithm of cumulative emissions. Although the source article from the BBC presents a significant effort to defend and praise the science of global warming as a science that must obligate us to concede to what the science says, what we see in the ECS/TCRE contradiction is that climate science has itself abandoned the science of the greenhouse effect and commited serious math and statistical errors.

Details in a related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/08/26/a-mathematical-inconsistency/

RELATED POST#2: MATHEMATICAL ISSUES IN CLIMATE SCIENCE #2:

LINK#2: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/18/climate-science-vs-statistics/

LINK#3: WHAT THE TCRE TELLS US ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/11/18/tcre-transient-climate-response-to-cumulative-emissions/

A Guide to the Climate Apocalypse: Our Journey from the Age of Prosperity to the Era of Environmental Grief Kindle Edition

Our Journey from the Age of Prosperity to the Era of Environmental Grief

WHAT AMAZON DOT COM SAYS ABOUT THE BOOK

Public media is awash with the deteriorating state of our planet. Every new climate report shows a worse scenario than the one before, and the prophesized outcome is always the same – worldwide disaster! In A Guide to the Climate Apocalypse, Vítězslav Kremlík delivers a refreshing and objective analysis of the history and science behind climate change. Books about climate change frequently endorse a narrow, often malicious angle of total indoctrination or abject denial of the official story. Kremlík employs a direct and detailed critique of not only the studies that have led to our current understanding of large-scale changes in the weather but also the political biases and motives behind global action taken in response to it. Proceed step-by-step through the history of how we came to understand everything we currently do about climate change, including natural climate cycles, modern carbon footprints and pollution, periods of extreme weather, ocean acidification, biofuels, climate doomsayers, hockey stick graphs, and our dear old friend Al Gore. Kremlík’s informative guide offers an expert-backed new perspective on the history and politics of our understanding of climate change and the agendas behind those who speak most vocally on it or enforce policies that affect us all. With well-researched and cited real-world findings and examples, it calls all of us to wake up to an accurate and educated view of what is and has been happening to our planet—and what we ought or ought not to do about it.

BOOK REVIEWS POSTED ON AMAZON BY CUSTOMERS WHO BOUGHT THE BOOK.

(Review#1): VACLAV CLAUS

The author describes the attempts at suppressing any criticism of this dark doctrine, and he decries the efforts to muzzle dissenting voices who refuse to bow before this new atheistic religion… (he) demonstrates an extraordinary range of knowledge and viewpoints, presenting an interdisciplinary analysis in the best sense of the word in order to tackle an extremely broad and poorly defined topic. I believe that this lively and convincing book will find its readers and that it will make an important contribution to our not-so-successful battle with climate alarmism.” {Václav Klaus, Former president of the Czech Republic}

(Review#2): (GRAHAM SEIBERT)

This book covers just about every significant topic related to climate change, debunking the prevalent myths. Each of the chapters could be a book, and the authors have read the appropriate books and provide links to them in the footnotes. The chapters themselves provide easily digested summaries. Power and control are the themes that unite all of the discussions. The people who shape your opinion have strong vested interests in getting you to see things their way. There is a vast amount of money to be made in scaring us. Global warming is a huge industry. The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, sells electric cars, solar panels and such, none of which would not be profitable without vast government subsidies. The subsidies make no sense absent the fear of global warming. Scientists have been divided on the reality of global warming since the beginning. However, the believers in global warming have convinced the voters, and they in turn have convinced government and academia to throw billions of dollars at global warming. Scientists who don’t believe in it lose their funding and their ability to publish. There is a strong financial incentive to embrace the hysteria. The same can be seen in the other hysterias of our age. There is a huge amount of philanthropic money backing social justice, culminating in Black Lives matter. Conversely, authors who believe that there are meaningful and measurable differences among human populations find it very hard to get published. The gender warriors made a lot of money in the ’90s decrying the “fact” that girls were ignored in school. Untrue – even then they were the majority, with better grades. Abigail Schrier’s recent “Irreversible Damage” describes the lucrative industry that has grown up around convincing kids they were born the wrong sex, and treating the made-up problem. There is a huge amount of money in pharmaceuticals. That’s the province of another billionaire, Bill Gates. A spate of best-selling books at the time of this writing describe the way that this money has resulted in regulatory capture and made independent journalism almost a thing of the past when it comes to Covid 19 and the inoculations. Especially The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert F Kennedy Junior has revived the discussion of how the same happened with AIDS in the 1980s. Climate Apocalypse is a tour de force examination of the power of money to corrupt science in the realm of climate. There is simply no money to be made in saying that there is no problem. There are billions to be made if there is a problem. Where, then, does a budding young scientist stake his career? Obviously, on the proposition that there is a problem, the solving of which urgently needs scientists with skills such as his. I have reviewed a couple of dozen books on the topic of global warming, starting with Bjorn Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist two decades ago. I was pleased to see that there was not a single one that author Vítězslav Kremlík does not mention. The truth has been available for a long time. Despite that fact, however, money has prevailed. Establishment sources have captured the high ground of university professorships, public school textbooks, television broadcasting and so on. Being a climate skeptic makes eminently logical sense. Socially, it can make one an outcast. It goes against the narrative. While making money is a major part of the agenda driving the global warming hysteria, there is a long-standing and darker undertone that the author touches on every now and again. The deepest pocketed philanthropists such as John D. Rockefeller and Bill Gates (Senior, and now Junior) subscribed to the club of Rome thesis that there are simply too many people in the world. They would like to see that number reduced. One of the most valuable aspects of the book is its coverage of the origins of the Bilderberg Group, the Club of Rome and the World Economic Forum, all of which adopt the Malthusian notion that the human herd needs to be thinned. These groups have actively supported birth control, euthanasia, forced sterilization and the gay rights agenda – anything to curtail our fertility. Many contemporary observers – though Kremlik does not mention it as it is not relevant to his climate argument – see a population control agenda behind the Covid 19 pandemic. Kremlík concludes the book on a note of optimism. “Mankind needs a positive vision, not environmental grief. And we do have reasons for optimism. World population growth has already begun decelerating. It is expected to stabilize by 2100 at some ten billion people. World poverty and malnutrition keeps falling. This is great news for the “Anthropocene,” the age of humans.” If the depopulation agenda of Covid 19 is real, and mechanisms such as those described by Peter and Ginger Breggins in Covid 19 and the Global Predators – we are the Prey are real, our numbers may shrink far further and more abruptly than Kremlik anticipates. If that happens, the global warming scam is knocked into a cocked hat. We could see a return to a world of honest values, one with more need than ever for honest science. This is a five-star effort by any measure. The table of contents below gives a very clear view of what’s in the book. I have excerpted valuable quotes from a few of the chapters.

(Review#3): (ALEX)

This was a well-researched book; however some of the sources are not really credible. The illustrations helped in letting the reader better understand the figures of climate change and how these changes over time affect the status of the world in the given time. Although this book presents the various views on climate change, it drives home the fact it is indeed something to be taken seriously in order to shape the policies that in turn shape the world we live in. {???? INTERPRETED TO SUPPORT THE CLIMATE MOVEMENT}.

(REVIEW#4}: (IM):

Well written and very interesting. This book chronicles how natural climate change has occurred throughout history, how humanity benefits from warmer periods, how the history of this is being suppressed or edited, and how the climate change agenda is being used as a pretext for global control and societal re-engineering. Most of us agree that we need to clean up our act and do things more conscientiously, but that is an entirely different matter from being deceived and manipulated for the sake of control. Well referenced with a lot of scientific and historical data. Surprisingly interesting.


Blogger’s note:

In broad and general terms the book conceptualizes the climate movement extremely well in my opinion the details for which in terms of data are not provided but cited in the works of prominent deniers. Some of these details may be found in my work. Examples below.

Supporting data for the work of Vitezslav Kremlik.

#1: Since interglacials are never at constant temperature but a dynamic of chaotic warming and cooling cycles at centennial and millennial time scales, a selected warming cycle in this dynamic cannot be assumed to be a creation of human cause. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2022/01/05/holocene-global-warming-and-climate-change-cycles/

#2: The repeated but failed forecasts by climate science of imminent collapse of polar ice with catastrophic sea level rise was derived from what had happened in the Eemian interglacial that failed to repeat in the Holocene interglacial. As is turns out, these foredcast were based on observed polar ice melt driven by geological forces and not fossil fuel emissions. These comical failures expose the unscientific nature of what is sold to the public and to world leaders as science. The use of the word science to gain credibility is the evidence that there is no credibility in the argument presented based on the data. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/07/climate-change-threatens-polar-ice/

#3: A specific issue in this regard is the climate science position that the current warming trend is human caused because it is a creation of the industrial revolution that started at some time between 1760 and 1840. And yet what we see in climate science is that the theory now holds that the current global warming and climate change trend started in 1950. The new start year of 1950 makes it impossible to understand the current warming trend as a creation of the industrial revolution.

#4: Climate science holds that the warming in this warming cycle of the Holocene must be caused by fossil fuel emissions because we humans started burning fossil fuels at about the same time that the warming started. And yet, climate science has changed their position on when the warming started but not on when we started burning fossil fuels. What makes this issue even more intriguing is that we are told that the climate sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 concentration is a universal constant but a large range in empirical values of this variable has forced climate science to abandon their fundamental theory of climate sensitivity as a driver of warming and move to a new theory called TCRE or transient climate resoonse to cumulative emissions in which global mean surface temperature is not responsive to climate sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 but to cumulative emissions. The flaw in this theory is manyfold including the impossiblity of a linear response of temperature to emissions in terms of the the fundamental theory of global warming that the warming is driven by climate sensitivity of atmospheric CO2. One aspect of this contradiction is presented in a related post. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/08/26/a-mathematical-inconsistency/ .

#5: These and other issues reveal that climate science shows a weakness in their understanding of statistics and that weakness reveals childish statistical errors throughout the science of climate science.

LINK to related post: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/18/climate-science-vs-statistics/

A SAD STATE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION EXPRESSED IN A QUORA QUESTION 2/20/22

HERE IS THE QUESTION:

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF BOTH NATURAL AND ANTHROPOGENIC HAZARDS OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME?

MY RESPONSE

NOT SURE ABOUT THAT BUT THE SAD STATE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION I SEE IN YOUR QUESTION IS SURELY A PRODUCT OF OUR TIMES WHERE CATASTROPHE IS BIG BUSINESS AND THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE SCIENTISTS ARE BUSY RAKING IT IN BY SCARING THE SHIT OUT OF US WITH THINGS LIKE OZONE DEPLETION AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTALISM THAT CONTAIN THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PLANET IS DYING AND THAT WE HUMANS ARE TO BLAME. WE HUMANS HAVE CREATED A SELF IMAGE THAT MAKES US A CURSE UPON THE EARTH. AND SO NOW WE HAVE TO LIVE THAT CURSE AND DEAL WITH IT. WHAT HAVE WE DONE? WHERE IS THIS EVIL COMING FROM?

THIS POST IS A SUMMARY AND CRITICAL REVIEW OF A UNEP ENVIRONMENTALISM REPORT IN 2022. LINK TO THE FULL TEXT OF THE REPORT: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/38059/Frontiers_2022.pdf

PART-1: BLOGGER’S SUMMARY OF THE UNEP 2022 REPORT WITH THE TITLE “EMERGING ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTALISM.

THERE ARE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT AREN’T ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES YET BUT THE UNEP NEEDS MORE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES SO WE CAN IMAGINE THESE IMAGINARY ENIVORNMENTAL ISSUES AS “EMERGING” ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND ACT NOW TO PREVENT THEM INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THEM TO HAPPEN AND ONCE WE TAKE ACTION THEY WILL NOT HAPPEN. THIS MEANS THAT THE UNEP PROGRAM OF THE UNITED NATIONS NEEDS THOSE BILLYUNS AND BILLYUNS OF DOLLARS TO KEEP ROLLING IN SO THEY CAN IMAGINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS THAT HAVEN’T REALLY HAPPENED BUT COULD HAPPPEN AND THEN TAKE ACTION SO THAT THEY NEVER HAPPEN.

AND HERE ARE SOME OF THOSE EMERGING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT AREN’T ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES BUT THAT COULD BE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN THE FUTURE THAT THE UNEP NEEDS MONEY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON’T HAPPEN.

HERE ARE SOME OF THOSE EMERGING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

(#1: NOISY CITIES) THIS REPORT IS TITLED “NOISE, BLAZES, AND MISMATCHES”. IT SAYS THAT THE UNEP HAS IDENTIFIED NOISE POLLUTION IN CITIES AS AN EMERGING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT NEEDS THE UNEP TO PREVENT AND GIVEN ENOUGH FUNDING THE UNEP CAN AND WILL PREVENT THIS HORRIFIC NOISE PROBLEM AND ITS LONG ERM MENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS ON CITY RESIDENTS. PLEASE SEND IN THE MONEY. THANK YOU.

(#2: WILDFIRES): REMEMBER ALL THOSE HORRIFIC KILLER WILDFIRES IN CALIFORNIA AND AUSTRALIA CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE? GUESS WHAT! THERE ARE MORE OF THOSE CLIMATE CHANGE WILDFIRES LINED UP FOR THE MISERY OF US HUMANS AS A KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AND NOT A CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE THAT THE UNEP CAN PREVENT GIVEN ENOUGH FUNDING.

(#3: RHYTHM OF NATURE): AND THEN THERE IS THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON SOMETHING CALLED “THE RHYTHM OF NATURE” THAT IS BEST UNDERSTOOD AS AN EMERGING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT THE UNEP KNOWS HOW TO PREVENT.

JUST SEND IN THE FUNDING AND THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF IT AND WE WILL NOT HAVE THIS CLIMATE CHANGE HORROR WAITING FOR US DOWN THE LINE THAT IS BEST UNDERSTOOD AS AN EMERGING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE.

THERE IS MORE JUICY STUFF LIKE THAT IN THE BIG FAT FULL REPORT THAT WILL TAKE YOU ALL DAY TO READ AND THAT YOU CAN DOWNLOAD FROM THE UNEP SITE. IT’S FREE BUT TO GET THE UNEP TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO PREVENT THESE HORRORS WILL TAKE BILLYUNS AND BILLYUNS OF DOLLARS SO PLEASE TALK TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN AN GET THE BALL ROLLING.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

AS EXPLAINED IN RELATED POSTS LINKED BELOW, THE UN IS A CORRUPT ORGANIZATION AND ITS UNEP FUNCTION, CREATED AS A WAY FOR THE UN TO ASSUME GLOBAL AUTHORITY IN GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS HAS ALREADY GIVEN US FAKE ISSUES LIKE OZONE DEPLETION AND CLIMATE CHANGE TO FILL THEIR COFFERS WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS WITH ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY. THE CORRUPTION AND THEIR CONTINUED USE OF THEIR SELF DEFINED BUT FAKE UNEP ROLE CREATES ENDLESS OPPORTUNITIES TO RAKE IN FUNDING FOR IMAGINED ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AS SEEN SO CLEARLY IN THEIR REPORT SUMMARIZED ABOVE.

LINK TO RELATED POSTS:

RELATED POST ON THE FAKE OZONE DEPLETION ISSUE OF THE UNEP: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/27/the-hole-in-the-sky/

(#1) A MIASMA OF CORRUPTION: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2022/02/09/a-miasma-of-corruption/

(#2) : THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CRISES OF THE UN: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/18/the-eco-crisis-ambition-of-the-un/

(#3): AN UNCONSTRAINED BUREAUCRACY: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/25/un/

QUESTION:

Are wood roofs bad for the environment because they destroy trees or good because they promote planting them?


ANSWER


The only good and bad I see in these kinds of deliberations is that though environmentalism was a good idea which held that we can improve the quality of our life by keeping our surroundings (environ in French) clean and supportive of the quality of life of us humans, at some point it became extended to a tree hugger version where the surroundings (environ) became our god, and we became its caretakers and worshippers. It is thus that environmentalism has become a religion.

Humans are an intelligent species but they have a goofy side.

NOT EVERYONE AT QUORA LIKED MY ANSWER



  • budbromley: https://budbromley.blog/2022/09/24/that-would-be-the-road-to-hell/
  • budbromley: Could be a good article for the Babylon Bee. Just left out the 97% joke and hockey stick. Instead, I see a ground swell of resistance, more deniers,
  • chaamjamal: IF THE SCIENCE IS GOOD SELL THE SCIENCE WITH THE STRENGTH OF THE SCIENCE IF THE SCIENCE IS BAD, SELL THE SCIENCE BY DENIGRATING ITS CRITICS.