Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.


by aDoorIntoSummer Fri Dec 14th, 2018 at 06:36:31 PM EST

Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of French citizens have flooded the streets. They demand being heard, i.e. actual democracy.  They have been impoverished, and cannot bear the hike on fossil fuel price, the major fraction of which are taxes. It is possible that they might even want a reduction on taxation in general.
    French government justifies this particular taxation as a means to lower carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. In fact, a reduction in the consumption of petroleum, if not carbon in general.

    Perhaps a direct answer, as below, is best to reveal the depth of the deception. There are ideologies, both old and new, which may lead our societies to its decomposition.
    Memory is the primary resource of intelligent entities in order to predict the future. We must not forget the past:

    Tax on fuel consumption is an example of flat taxation. And even if you may chose to drive or not a car or motorcycle, many people do not have a viable option.
    In contrast, in the good old times, both in Europe and the United States, the richest of people and corporations had to return the vast majority of their revenues as taxes. They were however safer, more admired and appreciated then today. Those taxes paid for high quality, low-cost - if not free -, public services in Europe, and kept the American budget afloat, i.e. its economical independence.

    Under usual circumstances, concentration of CO2 is the limiting factor to photosynthesis, i.e. biomass production; in other terms, biological wealth. You should also know that CO2 concentration has been many times above current levels practically ever since plants and animals arrived to dry land, and they have had a great time.
    Drinking a ridiculous amount of water can kill you, but it doesn't make it a poison,  especially when you are thirsty.

    Most recently, rise in CO2 levels has allowed a rise in leaf cover throughout the world, which is apparently warming up polar and boreal areas, and slightly chilling warm areas. Plants and birds, farmers, animal lovers and long-term investors should be happier now.
    On the other hand, whatever is based on scarcity, such as frozen deserts, ecologists who secretly do not care for life, and carbon tax financial products, will perform poorly.

Note: this text was conceived originally as a bilingual manifest. Not sure where or when to place the french translation counterpart. Maybe in a week as near end comment.

Related data

Whatever you make think about the ongoing debate on climate change, we all can certainly agree that there is much less uncertainty over recorded tax rates than about past and future carbon dioxide, temperature, and humidity levels. Therefore most data will be related to this second issue.

Consider the following graph, related to taxation in the United States. Given current American mainstream political stance on taxes, it is interesting to see how top marginal tax evolved in recent decades.

Most noticeable events are the impact of major wars, and the Great Depression. Furthermore, this graph may shed some light on the 1992 USA presidential elections event. You can more accurately follow transitions on the far more complete historical record on individual tax rates from Tax Foundation.

It is famously said in science that extraordinary claims requires require extraordinary evidence. But what claim is the most extreme in this debate? There will be a poll at the end. An even number of options is presented in order to avoid the middle-of-the-road poll trap.

Let us begin by comparing the next three graphs. They all aim to provide an historical perspective on CO2.
First graph comes from a NASA page on global climate change.

If you had an issue with the presentation of that horizontal line in the middle of the plot, brace yourself before taking a look to next figure's axis. It is from Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years, by G.Foster et al., 2017.

One graph with more uniform axes can be found in CO2 -forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic, by D.Royer, 2005. It is redrawn at wikipedia as below.

That is enough for past CO2 levels. Next data is about evaluating current biological and geophysical response to recent rise.
We start with a figure from Elevated CO2 as a driver of global dryland greening, from Lu et al., 2016.

The underlaying issue is deeply related to plant physiology. As CO2 increases, multiple effects take place inside continental surface plants and in the immediately adjacent environment. First effect (E1) is increased plant photosynthetic activity. E2 is the reduction in their leaf pores (stomata), which are entrance points atmospheric CO2 (and O2) and exit points of gaseous water (evapotranspiration a.k.a. ET); smaller pores, small water loss, less water pumped from soil. However, as plants prosper and enlarge leaf area - third effect, or E3 - so grows their own respiration (non-compensated consumption of O2 and organic mater when photosynthesis is not possible or not enough, which we animals do all the time); thus gain in plant mass from increased CO2 can be somehow countered. Then again, great leaf area leads to a fourth effect, more evapotranspiration  (E4).

Then again, greater evapotranspiration may produce an increase in local air humidity, which as a cooling effect. Another geophysical non-local transformation from greening from leaf increase is the decrease on reflection of sunlight (plants are darker than ice).

Final two figures come from processing of satellite observations of the effects of induced CO2 greening on climate (Satellites reveal contrasting responses of regional climates to the widespread greening of Earth, Forzieri et al., 2017).

First set of images shows, on top, the measured geographical variation in local LAI - Leaf Area Index -, which is, for any given area,  total leaf area divided by the size of the area. On middle, is the calculated dependence of temperature as a function the variation in LAI - this so called sensitivity has the value of a partial first derivative. On the bottom, we have a variation of temperature resuting by multiplying the two components above - the first derivative of variation in temperature caused by leaf coverage, multiplied by that actual change. On the left data are distributed two dimensionally, by latitude and latitude; on centre by latitude only; on right they are aggregated by climate (as averages for measured spots with same usual mean temperate and annual rainfall)

Next figure shows, on top, global variations through time since 1982; variations on surface and air temperatures have their scales on the right side; on the left side we have the equally globally averaged variations leaf cover, and, most importantly, we have in blue the estimated contribution of reffered relative leaf cover change (LAI) to global variation in surface temperature.
On bottom, sensitivity of surface temperature to variations in LAI - show in two dimensions on the middle left map of previous figure - is aggregated by type of biological environment.

We have been assuming so far a stable sun, but in Prediction of solar activity from solar background magnetic field variations in cycles 21-23, Shepherd et al. (2014), suggest that we may be heading to a new solar activity minimum, and therefore another mini ice age.
Who knows, we could be driving a pack of Huskies [edit:soon]. Which actually work on biomass.

Which vision is more extreme and therefore requires stronger evidence?
. Human-induced climate change is insignificant. 66%
. Human-induced climate change will have catastrophic effects. 33%

Votes: 3
Results | Other Polls
When Svante Arrhenius wrote about the logical outcome of the coal burning being climate change, it was reasonable of him to assume that it would happen over millennia, and that the outcome would be better harvests, even more so in Sweden. But that was over a century ago, and it's no longer a reasonable conclusion.

Firstly, we know that climate is unlikely to be nice and linear, rather there will be some tipping point that sends the climate to a new fairly stable equilibrium.

Secondly, we know that this new equilibrium is very likely to be less accomodating to human civilization, because our cities, our water supply, our transports and so on is adopted to the climate we have now.

Thirdly, we know that there is more than access to carbon dioxide to agriculture. There is water supply, weather patterns, acidity, cooperation and competition with the ecosystem it belongs to, etc. Our staple crops are monocultures that are increasingly from very small selections of DNA, which means that changes are more likely to hurt than benefit the plants we actually eat.

Given all that, in the long run a warmer planet might be greener, but it is highly unlikely to benefit humans.

Considering your poll question, I think it is a more extraordinary claim if you think that there is no limit to how much we can change the carbon dioxide levels and not change the climate. And from there the question is no longer if, but how much. So then we can turn to climate science and read IPCC's reports.

by fjallstrom on Sat Dec 15th, 2018 at 11:07:40 PM EST
I was so engaged in adding data for the second part of the article that had no time to fill the bare bones of data with a bit of what very little is of well established theory, plus some sensible reasoning. Will add something now, after the following disclaimer: climate change is far from being my field of expertise, and it is not my main fight.

Statement #1
The most certain thing that can be said about climate change is that a rise in temperature as a result of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is disproportionally noticeable the most dry areas, because water vapour - gaseous H20 - is also a greenhouse effect gas and since can usually be found in the air in much larger amounts than CO2.
That is why high latitude areas have been more affected. Since there is much less H20, the increased greenhouse effect from more CO2 is much more noticeable.

Statement #2
Historical variation of CO2, temperature, and geographical distribution of major types of ecossystems (bioma) throughout time are the most fundamental instrument to evaluate future scenarios.
In particular, consider what happens when you do not take into consideration the impact of plants on climate, such on this outstanding piece of geophysical science by Kevin Strong.

Such a rise on average temperatures was not observed.
I am assuming it is due to plant impact on climate, namely cloud formation. It could however be purely due to physical effects; models can be imperfect.

Current climate is not necessary the best. Between 7500 and 5000 BP (before present) climate was hotter and more humid than late 20th century average, and it is referenced as the Holocene optimal period.
Actually I am even no longer sure how much stable has been throughout the last 1000 years.

This article is in fact a provocative piece, in response to code-worded statements by those who know the most. Like claiming that we might arrive to an irreversible point as early as 2100 AD, but the impact may be sensed only in 12000 AD.

by aDoorIntoSummer on Sun Dec 16th, 2018 at 09:40:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Looking many thousands of years back for an "ideal" climate is unhelpful because then the human population was infinitesimal compared to what it is now. What has changed is that exponential human expansion has caused a major extinction event of other species, a reduction in bio-diversity, and grown the population beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet as a whole.

What climate change models appear to predict is not only a further increase in average global temperatures, but an almost exponential increase in extreme weather events - floods, droughts, storms, and rising sea levels - all of which are extremely damaging and destructive to existing human habitation patterns and reduce the carrying capacity of the planet as a whole.

There is a possibility that a period of declining solar activity - which might otherwise induce another mini-ice age - will counteract the impact of climate change and render it less damaging for a period, but I am not qualified to prognosticate on this.

Humans occupy a very narrow range of optimal temperatures, precipitation, wind speeds and sea levels and anything which causes a rapid increase in the frequency of weather/climatic events outside those limits will be very damaging to agrarian productivity and the carrying capacity of the planet.

So even thought their might be some beneficial effects of rising CO2 levels/temperatures in specific areas, they are unlikely to compensate for the destructive effects of extreme events everywhere else.

So overall I would tend to be guided by climate scientists and their increasingly sophisticated models on this rather than politically inspired speculation that it might not be so bad for many people - and we always tend to assume we will be part of the chosen few who might benefit.

Just because the most immediate damage may be in low lying islands or heavily populated river deltas like in Bangladesh is no excuse for complacency everywhere else, even if there is some marginal increase in plant cover in a few previously arid and unproductive areas.

And don't forget higher temperatures also facilitate the carrying of much higher concentrations of H20 in the atmosphere without necessarily leading to greater or more even precipitation on the ground..

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Dec 17th, 2018 at 02:17:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Who is speculating for political reasons here? Me? Al Gore (reference to first graph time framing)? The guys who named a recent fraction of geological times the Holocene Climate Optimum? Giovanni Forzieri, who made a study about the greening effect, as well as studies about weather extremes?
by aDoorIntoSummer on Mon Dec 17th, 2018 at 06:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Farming was invented about 10,000 years ago. Everything before that is interesting but not really relevant.
by asdf on Mon Dec 17th, 2018 at 06:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You place your thesis about the greening effects of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in the context of the gillet jaune anti-carbon tax protests in France - almost as if to suggest increased carbon oxidization is good and should not be taxed. It's a small jump from there to arguing that climate warming is a ruse to provide an excuse for increased taxation of the poor and your article risks being abused in that way.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Dec 17th, 2018 at 07:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
1 - The greening effects are not a just made up thesis of an unknown person hiding behind a nickname on a blog. They are presentation of satellite data by well identified people (more about that on point 2, since point 1 is about who is saying who).

I do completely and intentionally suggest that is a lie and that the poor suffer from that, and the rich too. It is not an abuse of my words, it is my vision. Or rather, a piece of it. There are limits for what I am willing to say without collecting the benefits of having said it.

Also, things like the fact that, for example, I had to go the german version of wikipedia to pick the third climate-related graph (while back in August it was still available in the english version) doesn't make me more relaxed. You have the original article's reference anyway.

2 - The more you dig on climate change, the more you discover how complex things are, so please dont try to single me out - or then again, try it, I certainly wont be rude with you and you will find quite resourceful; but I will go to sleep soon, so not sure when I will be able to answer. Let me give you three examples, just based on has been said on existing posts.

Giovanni Forzieri studied the greening effect, but also developed models which give a frequency studied extreme effects. Both of which - the actually observed greenings results and the predicted events  modelled are quite significant in Europe. You have called the first effect marginal and limited to or arid areas - in spite of the big continuous dark green area over Europe.
Will you dismiss his other studies too, or save the insignificance for what you do not like?
And how do we should conciliate both studies? Well, I think his most recent efforts are trying to include parameters recorded in satellites into models.

Next we have Kevin Strong, which I also referred above, as someone suggesting terrible consequences for CO2 rise. Well, shortly after say that (near the end of that video), he addresses the issue by which you ended your first post on this thread. If you had bothered to watch it, you would see that he says - that when too much water accumulates, it simply rains. So, how do you intellectually integrate the description of Kevin Strong?
How do I do it myself? Kevin Strong states that carbon dioxide is more a problem because atmospheric CO2 turn over rate is much slow than H20. I could say that with more photosynthetic activity the former turn over would speed up. It may not be that simple, it probably isn't, but my message here is: we must speak the same language when trying to find the truth.

Later, ASDF reffers agriculture starting at 10000 BP (before present). Funny, isn't it? The appearance of agriculture on the Fertile Crescent, at a period of exceptional regional abundance - remember the mana from heaven in the Bible -, and big swings in climate. Would be that a parte of the so called Holocene Climate Optimum - warming the colder areas, and cooling the warmer areas,  or the immediately previous stage?

For the time being, I leave you with the words of a very old man.

by aDoorIntoSummer on Mon Dec 17th, 2018 at 09:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Forzieri et al. paper that you base your confusionism seems pretty sound in itself, but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

The impacts of the recent greening on global temperature are limited because of the compensation of opposite local effects across different climate regions (Fig. 3I). On average, we estimate a global biophysical cooling of -0.007 ± (3 × 10−4) K decade−1 related to long-term changes in LAI, which outweighs the recent estimates of climate warming driven by deforestation (15).

This is mildly controversial (others refute the influence of increased CO2 in boreal regions on the increase in vegetation, attributing the greening to increased temperatures) but we're only talking about one anthropogenic climate driver (deforestation, far from the most important).
If there is something in the paper which denies the driving effect of increasing CO2 on increaing temperatures, I must have missed it.

Other than that: it seems that you are positing a vast conspiracy, which appears to have hoodwinked the entire planet's scientific community, with the exception of a few heroic résistants including you and Claude Allègre.

Which vision is more extreme and therefore requires stronger evidence?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 04:22:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The video you linked to is Dr. Keith Strong, a solar physicist interested in Sun-Earth connections, climate change, and public outreach. His YouTube video account here.

Kevin Strong on plant science in agriculture is a complete different person.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) in Queensland, Australia

On Freeman Tyson and global warming ...

    These ideas attract derision similar to Dyson's essays on climate change, but he is an undeterred octogenarian futurist. "I don't think of myself predicting things," he says. "I'm expressing possibilities. Things that could happen. To a large extent it's a question of how badly people want them to. The purpose of thinking about the future is not to predict it but to raise people's hopes." Formed in a heretical and broad-thinking tradition of British public intellectuals, Dyson left behind a brooding England still stricken by two bloody world wars to become an optimistic American immigrant with tremendous faith in the creative imagination's ability to invent technologies that would overcome any predicament.

CO2 sink by greening effect is a young science of recent years - hmm!

Study: Carbon-Hungry Plants Impede Growth Rate of Atmospheric CO2

Curriculum Vitae - Dr. Trevor F. Keenan

Further reading ...

Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 08:00:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Best for what?
by Andhakari on Mon Dec 17th, 2018 at 05:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh I've got it! You're Claude Allègre!

It was the "H20 is a greenhouse gas" meme that gave you away. We are honoured to have a former Minister among us.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 02:27:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He's still on that? Your comment made me look, I just found out about his 2010 book, that doesn't bode well.

Perhaps it's a generation thing, there are more scientists his age who haven't been able to catch up with the science and who, like him, are holding on to some odd notions. Still, sad to see his science legacy become overshadowed this way - because his pioneering work on radiogenic isotopes was fundamental for furthering deep earth geochemistry. When I was dabbling in petrology during my BSc years I would spell his papers.

by Bjinse on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 09:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, nice to have you, I hope you have been well.

I should also include that I agree about the economics. A nice illustration is in the nineties when Russian elite/mob bought property in Nordic cities with a part of their loot. The economical and social hellscape of nineties Russia was great for looting, but when it comes to where your kids grow up social stability is important.

by fjallstrom on Sat Dec 15th, 2018 at 11:16:54 PM EST
Note: this text was conceived originally as a bilingual manifest. Not sure where or when to place the french translation counterpart.

I have a suggestion. It involves printing it and rolling it up tightly.

Seriously, it's been at least five years since I've seen such gibberish.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 11:39:51 AM EST
To be fair, there is a controversy within the scientific community as to how important CO2 levels are in forcing climate change - and it is one I am not qualified to adjudicate on. Therefore I have restricted my comments to the political context of the debate.

Those who deny the importance of CO2 emissions and dispute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tend to be overwhelmingly on the right of the political spectrum, mostly from North America, and some may have funding links to Oil and Coal industries.  Some of the links given here are quite dated and I would like to see a more up to date assessment of the latest evidence.

One of the linked scientists seems to propagating a conspiracy theory, using leaked University of East Anglia emails, to claim the IPCC is a giant conspiracy to cover up bad science and dubious predictions and that efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are expensive, not cost effective, will have little beneficial effect, overstate the problem and under-estimate the advantages of the "greening" effects of increased CO2 emissions.

Of course it helps that most of N. America is not particularly low lying or threatened by rising sea levels... Also, they point to the evidence that CO2 levels have been much higher in the geological record, but then the planet wasn't populated by 8 Billion humans then either, many of whom live in low lying coastal areas and are vulnerable to extreme weather events.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 12:10:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're right about the political demographics, Frank. That's undoubtedly why there has been relatively little discussion of climate change on Eurotrib (barring some heated exchanges a few years back concerning attribution of specific meteorological events).

I wrote a diary oh... eleven years ago about the Anthropocene, i.e. the geological epoch in which human influence is apparent.

The concentration of CO2 (and also of methane, another powerful greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere  has been rising for 5000 years. This is surprising in light of previous interglacial periods; it would be expected that, after the initial rise of C02 to about 260 ppm which accompanied the end of the last glacial period, the level of CO2 would decline slowly until the beginning of the next.

This might help in situating the debate about CO2 levels, climate variation and human activity.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 01:19:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Meghalayan Age... (Honestly, follow the link to the article, it's very informative and entertaining.)

The Anthropocene epoch is an idea worthy to pursue - but it hasn't been admitted as an official epoch to the geological timeline by the scientific gatekeepers. In fact, I personally think the Anthropocene Working Group botched its attempt by insisting on putting the Anthropocene boundary on the radioactive signal of 1950s. That's just pushing it, geologically wise, and they got bitten for it.

by Bjinse on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 09:49:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you, Frank, for having invested time in taking an argument with me, and forcing me to look further. Without you I would never found this absolute gem of a documentary made by Martin Durkin in 2007.

If you find this valuable, will you do me a favour to tell to third parties the quality of evidence presented, and the stature of people involved, and the no-nonsense type of speech used, please?

PS: Regarding concerns on extreme weather, the question and its respective answer are found at point 50m 48s. Difference of temperature is after all a type of variation in potential.

PS2: On my previous video, an interview with Freeman Dyson, he did mentioned a colleague; it was Nir Shaviv, who appears here.

I must go now, since was I given a task by Eurogreen and must not fail him.

by aDoorIntoSummer on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 01:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One nice thing about climate change is that you can get the technical material for free. It's an important social topic--probably THE important social topic and scientists of all varieties have responded by providing open-source data, online coursework (some for college credit), and piles of information that shows how it all works.
by asdf on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 01:19:32 AM EST
by asdf on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 01:53:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So when at the above mentioned 50m48s of the documentary above one MIT Meterology (and IPCC member) professor Richard Lindzen calls the idea of extreme weather caused by global warming "pure propaganda", does it means that he should be re-educated? As well as the other certified people there?

How about checking the graphs presented on that documentary and elsewhere, which reveals on the data that Al Gore showed a delay in the increase of carbon after the rise in temperature? A delay that is explained by another MIT professor, Carl Wunsch, on this same documentary.

But if politics is your preffered perspective, then what will you say of Lord Lawson of Blaby and Nigel Calder describing the bias of Margaret Thatcher in favour of global warming? Or the presence on this documentary of Piers Corbyn, that rightwinger rat?

If you had bothered to see only the first three and a half minutes of the 2007 documentary mentioned above, you would have seen several testimonies on biased view on GW.

I am not ready to discuss the religion of climate change, I am not ready to answer people like eurogreen who insulted me at every post. I do not want nothing to do with the troll land that Euro Tribune has become, if this thread is representative of it.

by aDoorIntoSummer on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 09:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My first couple of posts were unreasonably harsh, especially considering that we don't know each other. Please consider accepting my apologies, which are sincere.

My other posts don't, as far as I can see, contain any further insults, and I will certainly be more respectful in the future, while not hesitating to criticise the ideas you profess.

Personally I have no religion in any respect, and certainly not with respect to science. I have often changed opinion when confronted with evidence. As an example, I followed the "Peak Oil" cult for a couple of years (they optimistically predicted a peak of world oïl production before 2010) until it was clear that it was contradicted by the facts.

Lindzen and Wunsch belong to a small cadre of respected elderly scientists (arguably Allègre is also in this category) who, for whatever reasons, have a bee in their bonnet about global warming. Given stereotypes about cranky scientists, it's actually quite surprising there are so few of them.

Jeremy Corbyn's brother doesn't fall into that category, he only has an M.Sc, he ran a weather prediction business based on solar activity. As he never made much money from it, probably his predictions weren't very good.

I think your assessment of Margaret Thatcher's embracing of the global warming thesis (which was still arguable, and politically very marginal at that time) is likely accurate : pure political opportunism in her combat with the miners. Having said that, Nigel Lawson is a pure crank on global warming.

In any case, I prefer the actual science to its vulgarisation in the popular media, and I never pay any attention at all to celebrity endorsements.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 12:04:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just focus your sights on a simple and important issue, which in this case is the lagging of the CO2 curve variations behind the temperature variations, for recent glaciations, and you wont fail to understand the truth.

And dont dismiss P.Corbyn; on that particular issue he in a video somewhere manages to be even more clear on that particular point.

You dont need a PhD to understand that point, and other points, I guess, but that one is a TELLER.

You only need a decent background to think on your own once someone more trained finds the weak points, that i s what you must to keep from this.

by aDoorIntoSummer on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 02:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the lagging of the CO2 curve variations behind the temperature variations

Well, precisely. It is increasingly well-understood how the glaciation cycle works : it's all solar, with a combination of variations in the earth's axis, distance from the sun etc, known as the orbital forcing... I trust we don't have to dispute the science on this?

Which means that orbital forcing is the driver  and CO2 is a trailing indicator : this is expected. Warming induces a release of CO2 from the oceans over a period of about 1000 years; the greenhouse effect of the CO2 reinforces the warming from the orbital forcing, resulting in icecaps beginning to melt, on a timescale of about 10 000 years; changes in albedo further reinforce the warming, and voilà, end of ice age.

If anyone had in fact posited that it was increasing CO2 alone which triggered the end of ice ages, then they would be stuck with explaining where the CO2 suddenly comes from... in the middle of an ice age. However, as far as I know, nobody has claimed that.

It is precisely because there is currently NO positive orbital forcing (in fact a negative one, as you acknowledge in your article), that we are obliged to explain the planet-wide rises in average temperatures by some other phenomenon.

[Wait : do you accept that world temperatures are in fact rising?]

Given the known physico-chemical properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and given its well-documented role as an amplifying (lagging) factor in previous periods of temperature rise, the sudden (on a geological scale, instantaneous) release of anthropogenic CO2 seems a plausible driver for the current cycle.

In fact, it took me years to understand why this "lagging CO2" meme was a thing at all, because scientifically, it's a non-sequitur. Unless I'm missing something, the argument goes like this :

Climate sceptic : "You people claim that CO2 is driving climate change, but it didn't drive the ice ages!"
Climate scientist : ".... wtf?"

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 03:52:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is driving is the sun, it is the great definer of Earth climate. Orbital characteristics are important only in the sense that may alter the amount of solar radiation that hits Earth as a whole, and its distribution through latitudes.

For example, consider only the fact that, since amount of radiation hitting the Earth at one is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance to the sun, a change in the eccentricity of the orbit will probably change the integral over the entire year of the inverse to the square of the distance, and therefore the amount of energy. Actually, we do not need to calculate the integrals to realize that, it is easy to understand that the increase in the energy received by Earth when it is most near the sun - perihelion - due to a greater eccentricity of the orbit will be greater than the decrease when it is most afar - aphelion.

Then we have the variation in inclination of the rotating axis of the Earth, which determines how imbalanced is the amount of radiation hitting higher latitudes as a function of the seasons.
And in our planet, given that possesses an atmosphere, this variation would have also important indirect consequences of climate, through a redefinition of the number of convection cells in the atmosphere.

There is a famous third effect, precession, which I cannot fully spatially visualize, but I will give you a reference. Here you have all 3 effects whose combined effects as responsible for the essential of the temperature variations pattern seen on my first graph on climate change. Lets call it the Al Gore's time frame.

Now lets move to 20th century specifically...

Sun spots activity correlates much better to change on global temperatures than CO2 levels. In particular, in the 1940-75 period, Earth cooled a bit, while industrialization and building increased and therefore did CO2 anthropogenic emissions, but the sun spots decreased. That was the correlation. Check the 2007 video.

(Mind you, emission of energy from the sun's surface is not uniform. Sun spot are the brightest points on the high-energy sensitive telescopes we point to the Sun.)

Other issues: I don't understand where the amplifying comes from, and what I referred just above about the 20th century is probably enough to show that there is no amplifying at al.

CO2 is not a reservoir of thermal energy, it is only an isolator, for a fraction of the radiation spectrum.

On temperature trends, you should check the data for average temperatures since 2000. Not sure it has increased in this period.

Sorry, I don't have more time to give to this issue. If you want to value the time I spent on this, watch the video, it is incredibly complete.

by aDoorIntoSummer on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 07:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow. I get a feeling you've been in a time warp or something, since at least 2010. There was something of a pause, or flattening of the temperature curve, for 3 or 4 years at that time (which turned out to concern thermohaline circulation : the heat was getting sucked into the depths of the ocean).

Here's the GISTEMP (NASA) data

Yes. It's still going upward. As is empirically obvious for a large portion of humanity.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 10:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was chatting with a former colleague and well, it finally came to me, people outside of the world of science can't accept the amount of dishonesty and corruption in it.
by aDoorIntoSummer on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 02:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure you are familiar with Thomas Kuhn's the structure of scientific revolutions in which he documents the non-linear nature of the development of science and of how old theories often persist long after there has been sufficient empirical evidence to debunk them.

Perhaps the Climate warming thesis will end up being one such debunked theory in due course and we will end up wondering how it could have been the dominant paradigm for so long, but at the moment I am not convinced that this will end up being the case.

Scientific endeavor can of course be corrupt and self serving, but have you any evidence to suggest that climate warming deniers are any more virtuous and objective?

Academic politics has always been vicious but the overwhelming majority of scientists still seem to accept the broad parameters of the Climate warming thesis while arguing over the specifics and mechanisms.

My sociological perspective on this is that the human ecosphere is now a very highly optimized system continually exceeding the limits of sustainability in more and more parts of the world and that therefore any failure, even minor, could have catastrophic effects for very large parts of mankind.

Any measures which can be taken to ensure that we maximise the sustainability of our global front-print and minimise our impact on other species is therefore to be welcomed. Oil and coal are finite resources even if peak production has not yet been reached, and so alternatives need to be developed.

So hopefully you will not allow the rough and tumble of debate here put you off dipping your toes in the waters of "the dishonesty and corruption of science..." wherever you may find it!

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 02:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the human ecosphere is now a very highly optimized system continually exceeding the limits of sustainability in more and more parts of the world
Isn't being optimized but not sustainable a contradiction in terms?

Objectively, humanity is in the learning rather than optimizing mode. A huge lesson is coming.

by das monde on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 03:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In mathematical terms, when highly optimised system fail (or exceed the limits of sustainability) the consequences are often immediate and catastrophic. I've used the qualifier "highly" to signal that we are coming closer to the point of failure with potentially disastrous consequences in more and more instances...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 04:47:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Imagine a world with carrots and rabbits. The more carrots, the more rabbits can be made. Carrots here are funding for climate warming research and rabbits are scientific projects saying climate warming exists.
by aDoorIntoSummer on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 07:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And of course the Koch brothers and the coal and Oil industries are funding climate change denying projects for entirely disinterested reasons?

As a matter of fact the big losers so far - low lying islands and coastal areas of third world countries have almost no funds to fund science of any kind.

There is a lot more money invested in coal and oil than there is in solar panels and wind turbines. So far the financial incentives have mostly been for the climate change denying industry.

You seam to be propagating a Trumpian fake science message.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 08:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So the choice is between being called a Trump supporter or a Al Gore supporter?
The science doesn't count for anything here, does it?
by aDoorIntoSummer on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 08:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's you who have stopped making scientific arguments with your silly carrots and rabbits analogy, thereby insulting the vast majority of scientists on the planet.

Scientists overwhelmingly support the anthropogenic global warming thesis and its devastating consequences for many on the planet...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 08:35:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You just didn't bother to see the first 3 minutes of the video, where you would see several cientists complaining of being placed on the list of authors supporting the IPPC declaration, in spite on being there and not agreeing.

Actually, I can provide you with another statement this time directly addrressing on what exactly scientists agree, onewhere the so-called consensus in shown to be a very dilute thing.
If you think that I cherry picked that particular moment, you can move less than a minute forward, where the same person makes note that the increase in Antarctic sea ice (between 10m30s and 11m), or going back, 8m13s into the video, where the same Roy Spencer states that apparently the climate is insensitive to the rise in CO2, unlike an uncertain majority of scientists agree. The uncertain here being justified precisely 1 minute later...
Again, enjoy not watching.

by aDoorIntoSummer on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 09:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You can't just arrive at this forum and demand that everyone accepts your arguments or spends time following the links you publish. First of all you have to establish your bona fides and that you have some expertise in the field you are writing about: That it is worth the reader's while reading your stuff and following your links.

All of us have busy lives and have to be very selective about what we focus on. Some of us have a very long track record of writing authoritatively on the topics we choose. Within these constraints we try to be as welcoming and as accommodating to newcomers as possible. You don't have to be an expert to write here but it helps if you want to attract readership and discussion.

Otherwise a little humility can go a long way. We're in the business of helping each other learn more about  the world we live in. Participation is always voluntary and you can't demand that others answer your questions or discuss issues on your terms. Please don't abuse our hospitality.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 09:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've a history at this blog of pouring cold water by pointing to science and scientific publications with all the unsexy drawbacks and uncertainties they contain when discussing a topic that is often too vast and too complex for sensational soundbites or easy answers, and I'll be one of the first to admit that there's still a lot which simply can not be determined with certainty (to our possible detriment, I'd add). Translating climate science to the public view is now part of what I do for a living...

I have seen you link to only a few science publications and a controversial documentary. Nothing in there leads to an argument that could contest or dismiss the main findings on the anthropogenic role in the warming of the planet.

If you want science, then bring it.

by Bjinse on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 09:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I will bring nothing more to someone who simply throws adjectives to things instead of analysing them. And I am out, so you dont need to bring nothing to me as well.
by aDoorIntoSummer on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 09:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I dont know exactly where the discussion of ideal climate started on this thread, but my point is that other large terrestrial animals have been doing fine through time, the temperature changes very little, apart from high latitudes during glaciations, and we have thermal regulation in our bodies, as mammals, plus we have clothing.
by aDoorIntoSummer on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 07:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's fine for mammals which make up .06% of the total number of species on earth and for humans - the only species with clothing. So you are not concerned with the mass extinction event currently taking place?.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 09:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If we can cut back on damage caused by humans, there is plenty of life in the oceans ...

Stanford researchers unearth why deep oceans gave life to the first big, complex organisms

Suddenly, about 570 million years ago, complex organisms including animals with soft, sponge-like bodies up to a meter long sprang to life. And for 15 million years, life at this size and complexity existed only in deep water.

Scientists have long questioned why these organisms appeared when and where they did: in the deep ocean, where light and food are scarce, in a time when oxygen in Earth's atmosphere was in particularly short supply. A new study from Stanford University, published Dec. 12 in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggests that the more stable temperatures of the ocean's depths allowed the burgeoning life forms to make the best use of limited oxygen supplies.

'Rare Light Zone' Near Bermuda Houses 100 New Marine Species

An ocean zone nobody knew existed, which is home to more than 100 new species, has been discovered by Oxford University. The Rariphotic Zone, or rare light zone, extends from 226 feet (130m) to 984ft (300m) and joins five other areas which have distinct biological communities living and growing within them.

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 08:59:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure the planet with survive the Anthropocene Epoch, I am less sure about humans!

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 10:25:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Vying for a new debate?  :)

What Is the Anthropocene and Are We in It? | Smithsonian Mag |

"Efforts to label the human epoch have ignited a scientific debate between geologists and environmentalists."

The Anthropocene epoch: scientists declare dawn of human-influenced age | The Guardian |

"Experts say human impact on Earth so profound that Holocene must give way to epoch defined by nuclear tests, plastic pollution and domesticated chicken."

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 10:44:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think I'll leave this one for the specialists! It will be interesting to see where they draw the line - agriculture, the Pyramids or Hiroshima?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 11:41:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My personal favourite is the domestication of wet rice about 6000 years ago. This apparently produced an increase in methane production which has left a trace in the fossil record.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 05:09:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Given that nuclear weapons make mark the end of the Anthroposcene, it is appropriate that 1945 should mark the beginning...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 03:28:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your bet is on a nuclear winter to save mankind and prevent the Big Melt? Do you play chess Frank? ;)

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
by Oui on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 04:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wrote an essay in 1978 for my Ecology paper at university, on the subject of nuclear winter. My conclusions, based on sources available at the time, was that the whole thing was rather overblown, that the dimming would be short-lived, and confined mostly to the northern hemisphere (I was writing from the relative safety of New Zealand)

I'm disinclined to redo the research. Does anyone have a more modern, authoritative view on the subject?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 04:54:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Predictions are extremely difficult, depends on a regional or all-out nuclear armaggeddon. A doomsday scenario of idiots at the keys of human extinction.

Nuclear Winter [2010] by Alan Robock

Nuclear winter is the term for a theory describing the climatic effects of nuclear war. Smoke from the fires started by nuclear weapons, especially the black, sooty smoke from cities and industrial facilities, would be heated by the Sun, lofted into the upper stratosphere, and spread globally, lasting for years. The resulting cool, dark, dry conditions at Earth's surface would prevent crop growth for at least one growing season, resulting in mass starvation over most of the world. In addition, there would be massive ozone depletion, allowing enhanced ultraviolet radiation. More people could die in the non-combatant countries than in those where the bombs were dropped, because of these indirect effects.

Publications by Alan Robock
Power Point Presentation - update Feb. 2018

Why it could (but shouldn't) be the end of the arms control era by Lawrence Korb
Return to the Cold War and Mutual Annihilation - Al Jazeera
Mutual Assured Destruction [MAD]

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 08:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The end of the anthroposcene, by definition, is the end of human dominance of the biosphere - whatever remains of it. So it's end will mark he end of mankind, not save it.

Yes I do play chess - not v. often

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 05:03:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think we've yet to see solid evidence of massive institutionalised corruption on the climate science side.

But on the denialist "science"-for-rent fringes - absolutely.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 03:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thomas Kuhn's theories on the longevity of paradigms contradicted by increasing bodies of evidence isn't predicated on the presence of "massive institutionalized corruption", although that could be a factor.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 04:51:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What a wonderfully scientific observation for which you doubtless have mountains of evidence - including evidence that climate change deniers are untouched by such corruption or are differentially less corruptable. BTW not all European Tribune Denizens are "outside the world of science" as you put it and may thus have more relevant observations to make.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 09:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not qualified to comment on the science, but would note that the IPCC findings are pretty much unchallenged dogma in Europe and much of the world save for some high profile sceptics who are often dismissed as less than independent and/or attention seekers.

So anyone who challenges the dominant paradigm can expect a bit of a rough ride, especially if they engage in conspiracy theories linked to leaked emails taken out of context.

Having said that we try to keep a civil tone here and I hope you will accept Eurogreen's apology - while not denying him the right to challenge the accuracy of your findings or conclusions.

We haven't had much environmental science debate here of late and your contribution is welcome even if we don't necessarily agree with all of it.

Appeals to authority doesn't always clinch the argument here and so any descriptions and arguments based on primary scientific evidence are always to be welcomed, especially if your text makes the science more accessible to non specialists like myself..

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 02:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From your link and graphics ...

Climate change: How do we know? [NASA]  

What follows in your paper is ...

"If you had an issue with the presentation of that horizontal line in the middle of the plot, brace yourself before taking a look to next figure's axis."

Human life as we know it stretches back 10,000 years since the last ice age. The NASA graphic illustrates the last 400,000 years. Going further back one reaches a planet not inhabitable by human kind. The peak in CO2 on planet Earth since 1950 is therefore quite compelling to lay the blame on depletion of fossil fuel and human kind inhabiting our planet by billions of souls.

It could be true as human kind becomes extinct in the next millennium that planet Earth returns to a new phase of massive greening, plantation growth, humid jungles along the equator and new forms of superior species. In some ways, I do not think the climate discussion goes beyond the century we live in and bear some responsibility to our children and grandchildren - coming generations. I do appreciate all forms of organic life and creatures, but human kind is the topic of today as bearer of (mis)fortune.

"Climate change" and "global warming" are disappearing from government websites | Trump and Koch Bros administration |

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 03:10:55 PM EST
by Bjinse on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 08:30:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy? -- NY Times
One might ask here whether, given this view, it would also be a good thing for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering. Although I do not have a final answer to this question, we should recognize that the case of future humans is very different from the case of currently existing humans. To demand of currently existing humans that they should end their lives would introduce significant suffering among those who have much to lose by dying. In contrast, preventing future humans from existing does not introduce such suffering, since those human beings will not exist and therefore not have lives to sacrifice.

Climate Change and the Savage Human Future -- NY Times

What we still, in a flourish of misplaced nostalgia, call "the natural world" is gone, if ever it existed. As the environmental historian William Cronon noted, "People have been manipulating the natural world on various scales for as long as we have a record of their passing." Almost no rock, leaf or cubic foot of air on Earth has escaped our clumsy signature. In the future we will reconfigure, with ever-greater force and precision, our fauna, flora and genome in ways that today would seem uncanny. But the results will be no more uncanny than our carpeting of the American Southwest with lush lawns transplanted from the shores of the Mediterranean, our breast-augmented chickens or the mass consumption of the engineered strain of a wild Mexican grass, teosinte, that we call corn.
A geological hallmark of human activity: chicken bones
Chickens are by far the most abundant animal on the planet -- we eat 60 billion birds a year. The broiler (meat) chicken now outnumbers all wild birds put together by 3 to 1, and there are approximately 23 billion of them on Earth. This unfortunate creature also hardly resembles its wild ancestors.

[...] If a curious researcher were to compare medieval chicken bones with modern ones, the differences would be striking. In addition to clear differences in body size and morphology, all commercial chickens suffer from bone deformities and osteoporosis -- an unprecedented difference, and a clear sign of a new geological era [...]

To make matters even better, there's a very good chance that many chicken bones will survive and fossilize quite nicely. While we eat the meat (and organs) of thickens, bones are almost always discarded, ending up scattered in landfills or across farms worldwide, where they have a good chance to fossilize.

by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 11:06:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So instead of calling the current epoch the Anthropocene, geologists will be more inclined to call it the Chicoscene? Sounds more like a dating venue... (runs/hides...)

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 11:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Gallusscene sounds different.

But the 80s will leave no geological record, presumably.

by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 12:04:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fossil deposits of discarded CDs.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:35:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... no, that would be the 90s.
The 80s will be noted for strata of video and audio cassettes.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is negligible now already.
by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 03:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just a few surviving fossils, like Trump

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 03:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But the 80s will leave no geological record, presumably.

Good riddance to that.

by Bjinse on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 09:33:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think we should wait until the epoch is over to name it.  It shouldn't be all that long the way things are going.
by Andhakari on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 01:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But who will still be around to do the naming?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 01:41:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Theresa May doesn't seem to be going anywhere or doing anything.  She can have the job.
by Andhakari on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One surviving authoritarian, patriarchal, sharply non-egalitarian statelet?
by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Given that you said it can't be named until it is over, I presume you are including the US in the human race/species?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:16:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is this to me or Andhakari?
by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Trumposcene" may satisfy all survivors.
by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, Andhakari

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:59:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Elon Musk might last a few more years up on Mars.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:37:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He's on another planet already...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've read a novel where a thinly-fictionalised Musk is a minor character who saves humanity (I'll spare you the details) by capturing an asteroid and piloting it to geostationary orbit. He uses an unshielded nuclear reactor for the propulsion system, and having accidentally ingested some plutonium, bleeds to death through his anus.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 03:48:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sustainability of human life: carbon dioxide variations | Quora |

"Last year marked the first time in several million years that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 passed 400 parts per million. By looking at what Earth's climate was like in previous eras of high CO2 levels, scientists are getting a sobering picture of where we are headed."

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters | Yale Study |


But as humans kept digging up carbon out of the ground and burning it for fuel, CO2 levels sped faster and faster toward that target. In May 2013, at the time of the usual annual maximum of CO2, the air briefly tipped over the 400 ppm mark for the first time in several million years. In 2014, it stayed above 400 ppm for the whole month of April. By 2015, the annual average was above 400 ppm. And in September 2016, the usual annual low skimmed above 400 ppm for the first time, keeping air concentrations above that symbolic red line all year.

Global temperatures have risen in parallel, with 2016 standing as the hottest year since records started in 1880: 2016 was about 1.1 degrees C (2°F) warmer than pre-industrial levels. The 2015 Paris Agreement, the latest international climate treaty, is aiming to keep the global temperature increase well below 2 degrees C, and hopefully limit it to 1.5 degrees.

At the current rate of growth in CO2, levels will hit 500 ppm within 50 years, putting us on track to reach temperature boosts of perhaps more than 3 degrees C (5.4°F) -- a level that climate scientists say would cause bouts of extreme weather and sea level rise that would endanger global food supplies, cause disruptive mass migrations, and even destroy the Amazon rainforest through drought and fire.


Thanks to earth-shaking, slow-moving forces like plate tectonics, mountain building, and rock weathering -- which absorb CO2 -- atmospheric concentration of CO2 generally declined by about 13 ppm per million year, with a few major wobbles. As large plants evolved and became common about 350 million years ago, for example, their roots dug into the ground and sped up weathering processes that trap atmospheric carbon in rocks like limestone. This might have triggered a massive dip in CO2 levels and a glaciation 300 million years ago. That was eventually followed by a period of massive volcanic activity as the supercontinent ripped apart, spewing out enough CO2 to more than double its concentration in the air.

Mid-Pliocene 3 million years ago

Forest grew in the Canadian north and grasslands abounded worldwide; the Sahara was probably covered in vegetation. Homo habilis (aka "handy man"), the first species in the Homo line and probably the first stone-tool users, got a taste of this climate as they arrived on the scene 2.8 million years ago. (Homo sapiens didn't show up until 400,000 years ago at the earliest.)

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
by Oui on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 10:29:56 AM EST
Extreme ice changes Antarctica - South Georgia island from 1914 to the present.

The White Darkness - A solitary journey across Antarctica | The New Yorker - 2018 |

What the World Would Look Like If All the Ice Melted | National Geographic |

The maps here show the world as it is now, with only one difference: All the ice on land has melted and drained into the sea, raising it 216 feet and creating new shorelines for our continents and inland seas.

There are more than five million cubic miles of ice on Earth, and some scientists say it would take more than 5,000 years to melt it all. If we continue adding carbon to the atmosphere, we'll very likely create an ice-free planet, with an average temperature of perhaps 80 degrees Fahrenheit instead of the current 58.

When Antarctica was a tropical paradise | The Observer |

Antarctica is the coldest, most desolate place on Earth, a land of barren mountains buried beneath a two-mile thick ice cap. Freezing winds batter its shores while week-long blizzards frequently sweep its glaciers.

Yet this icy vision turns out to be exceptional. For most of the past 100 million years, the south pole was a tropical paradise, it transpires.

"It was a green beautiful place," said Prof Jane Francis, of Leeds University's School of Earth and Environment. "Lots of furry mammals including possums and beavers lived there. The weather was tropical. It is only in the recent geological past that it got so cold."

Drilling projects and satellite surveys show the whole world, not just Antarctica, was affected by temperature rises and that these were linked, closely, to fluctuations in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

At present, there are 390ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, a rise - caused by emissions from power plants, factories and lorries - from preindustrial levels of around 280ppm. This has already raised global temperatures by almost 1° C. At its present rate of increase - around 2ppm a year - it will still take a long time to reach 1,000ppm.

But we should take little comfort from that, added Stephen Pekar. "By the time we get to 500ppm we will start to see major melting of the ice caps."

Measurements taken by Henk Brinkhuis and Peter Bijl of Utrecht University as part of the International Ocean Drilling Programme were revealed at the symposium. A kilometre under the seabed at Wilkes Land in East Antarctica, they found sediments containing the pollen of plants that only thrive in the tropics today. "We have found the same kind of material, from the same period, in the Arctic as well. These show the poles were just as warm as lands at the equator," said BrinkhuIs. "Carbon dioxide turned the planet into a uniformly warm hothouse."

We Know West Antarctica Is Melting. Is the East In Danger, Too?

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
by Oui on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:34:03 PM EST
Dumb Ways to Die: Welcome to Our Mass Suicide
since those days of his Congressional testimony Hansen, who worked for many years at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), has courageously spread the word about climate change to fulfill part of NASA's mission statement: To Understand and Protect the Home Planet.

Indeed, this was part of the mission statement of NASA until 2006 when those fateful words were quietly and very symbolically removed. Organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists were very disturbed about this development, noting at the time that research and funding opportunities related to earth science and climate change would be much harder to justify with NASA's new focus solely on space exploration. Some may say it's a bloody good job that we are learning more about life on other planets and how we can get there, given that a privileged bunch of us may have to flee this one at some point in the not-to-distant future.

by das monde on Fri Dec 21st, 2018 at 10:34:33 AM EST
Five (More) Things You Can do Now to Address Climate Change
1) Join the Extinction Rebellion.

Started this year in the UK, the Extinction Rebellion -- which has spread to at least 35 countries -- is a movement dedicated to taking radical, nonviolent direct action in rebellion against government inaction on climate change.

by das monde on Fri Dec 21st, 2018 at 10:38:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Near Future ...

"And, given the inequalities inherent in our current economic order, it will be only the rich that are saved. As for the poor and marginalized, they would be left behind to endure some sort of Mad Max-style barbarism and death."

Inequality and wealth ... the advantaged few to buy a one-way ticket to Mars. One of the near-distant uninhabitable planets of the Sun. Great stuff!

Will the exclusive few still run their monetary affairs on Planet Earth as they succumb slowly on the red planet?

The vision of futurism.

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Fri Dec 21st, 2018 at 10:53:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by das monde on Fri Dec 21st, 2018 at 11:05:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Planet Earth's sliver of sustainability - the fragile atmosphere measuring infinitesimally small in size.

The Apollo 8 voyage 50 years on: reflecting on our common humanity and fragility

Despite everything in 1968, the Earth was good, and the astronauts closed by wishing everyone: "good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas and God bless all of you -- all of you on the good Earth". Good, and fragile, and it required keeping, far better than had been done with war or racial discrimination or environmental pollution. A small planet, insignificant in size compared to the galaxy, but still our home and one perfectly suited for life, with water and air and soil and a sun nearby to give warmth.

(Earth rise as viewed by Apollo 8 astronauts / credit NASA)

What did it all mean? During the flight itself, the scientific view prevailed. Borman first described the moon on television as "a vast, lonely, forbidding expanse of nothing". But safe return and the passage of time led to more philosophical reflections. James Lovell said that "in this cathedral, my world exists within these walls. But seeing the Earth at 240,000 miles, my world suddenly expanded to infinity". Cosmically insignificant, we became significant because of our responsibility to care for this planet entrusted to us; and seeing the world as Apollo 8 did, floating in the universe, awakened a new global consciousness.

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
by Oui on Fri Dec 21st, 2018 at 06:20:23 PM EST
It's Xmas All Over Again 2004-2018

Indonesia: death toll from Anak Krakatoa `volcano tsunami' hits 168, hundreds injured

From my writings as creve coeur @dKos

Tsunami of Xmas 2004

Related reading ...

Krakatau of 1883

When Krakatoa exploded on 27 August 1883, it cloaked the surrounding area in darkness, inundated nearby shores, and killed tens of thousands. Over 7,000 miles away in England, sensitive instruments recorded air and sea waves, and observers admired and feared the lurid atmospheric effects. But Krakatoa's eruption also instigated scientists from varied specialties to cooperate with each other and to seek the public's help in producing the massive Royal Society Report. The eruption and its aftereffects inspired Tennyson to depict a turning point in Western history and Shiel to imagine a harrowing future of human history's end. Shiel's protagonist laments, "nothing could be more appallingly insecure than living on a planet". Krakatoa's catastrophic eruption and its worldwide effects demonstrated the precariousness, and the interconnectedness, of life on earth.

Krakatoa, the boom heard around the world - the telegraph
Vivid Sunsets In the Aftermath of Volcanic Eruptions Inspired Great Works of Art

Eyewitness accounts - 1883

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Sun Dec 23rd, 2018 at 08:03:39 AM EST

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]