Main Blog Content

November 28, 2019

From Climate Histories, A Short History of Climate Change - - Well written, great reading and information - -

Worldwide insect decline noted in high-power science gathering.

Essay on The Origins of Climate Science

Some four thousand years ago, Sumerian priests studied the stars and wrote their findings on clay tablets. We know little of their methods of observation, but we do know that a clay tablet shows their knowledge of right-angled triangles. We might assume the right-angle figured in the Sumerian priests' planetary observations.

From Aristotle to Copernicus, Western Civilization's thinkers believed that the Sun circles the Earth. Both ordinary people and leading thinkers figured that it stood to reason that the Sun, like the entire universe, revolved around the Earth, the seat of heavenly creation. Mighty thinkers said so.

Elliptical Orbits

Copernicus showed how the Earth revolves around the Sun in circles, rather than the Sun circles the Earth. This revolutionary idea brought dismay, wonder, and denial to many thinkers of the time.

Kepler then improved Copernicus model of planetary motion. Earth, like other planets, revolve around the Sun elliptically, not in crystalline circles as Copernicus found. Again, dismay, wonder, and denial arose from thinkers and ordinary people. Kepler also showed how a planet's speed changes as it moves through its ellipses. Like today's climate science denial, the denial of these findings continued for generations.

Noteworthy, denial continued for generations following these scientific discoveries. Also notable, these discoveries shared a powerful idea with climate science, falsifiability. Falsifiability means that scientific discoveries can be proven wrong. For example, no one has shown that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun in an ellipsis, and no one has proven that carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause global warming, the cause of today's climate change.

Science and Climate Change

Since the 19th Century, climate science begot wonder, dismay, and denial among thinkers, just as previous scientific findings shook thinking people. And again, whatever their thoughts and feelings, thinking people may falsify climate science, like other sciences. No one has succeded, to date.

Joseph Fourier on Global Warming caused climate change:

Joseph Fourier on Global Warming caused climate change:

Joseph Fourier studied the transfer of heat within our planet and above our planet; he noted that Earth's warmth arises from three sources, Earth's interior, heat from the distant stars, and our Sun.

Just like ordinary observers, Fourier noted that an increasing and decreasing solar heat upon Earth's surfaces, land, and oceans affects planetary temperatures. The Earth's axis stability of rotation accounts for warmer and cooler land temperatures. This notion anticipates Croll and Malankovich.

And he goes on to explain how the distribution of two types of solar radiation affect temperatures.

Fourier also points to the Earth's polar regions, the North Pole (Antarctic) and South Pole (Arctic). He showed how slightly higher temperatures arise on these poles than found in outer space.


Most of the Earth's heat comes from our Sun's solar radiation. This heat strikes Earth's global ocean and land unequally.
As a result, Earth's climates changes as temperatures vary over the planet over the eons.
Earth also receives a tiny amount of heat from the countless stars in our solar system. Near from outer space. Our solar system gets low levels of heat from its solar system's many stars.

Fourier tells us that Earth's terrestrial (ground) surface and subsurface change rapidly compared to the global ocean's temperature changes. A balance arises between and among these two balancers. But, it's the "presence of the atmosphere and surface waters [that ]has the effect of rendering the distribution of heat more uniform."

Ignoring Climate Catastrophes

November 18, 2019

"To put such a temperature rise in perspective, humans will likely go extinct with a 3°C rise, while most if not all life on Earth will go extinct at 5°C rise, as discussed in an earlier post." To put such a temperature rise in perspective, humans will likely go extinct with a 3°C rise, while most if not all life on Earth will go extinct at 5°C rise, as discussed in an earlier post.

This is hypothetical, and it's hardly that. But, the Arctic thermostat continues a downward spiral, so how can we know, and how should we behave? It's so early: 2020 El Nino could start 18°C temperature rise

November 14, 2019

In the paper, Networks of Opposition: A Structural Analysis of U.S. Climate Change Countermovement Coalitions 1989-2015,

Italy Becomes First Country to Require Climate Change Education

Defending the greatest climate deceiver:

Fmr. CIA Director Brennan On The Risks Revealed In The Impeachment Hearing | The Last Word | MSNBC - The anti-science Republican Party will protect national security misconduct as well.

November 13, 2019

US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries – shrinking this war machine is a must

November 11, 2019

Novembeer 8, 2018

“The Pollinators”: New Film Shows How Decline of Bee Colonies Could Mean Collapse of Food Chain

David Appell's Blog

Added a climate science chronology to home page: Climate Science Chronology - Some Early and Important Work on Climate Science, Carbon Dioxide, and Human Influence

The Green New Deal

The Green New Deal would be a jolly adventure on another planet. The facts tell me that it's like a grand candy shop with something for everyone, including those of us that think the 7th generation may not exist. Their future probably got pissed away by the democrats and republicans; both parties had since 1965 to do something about CO2 emissions.

I grant that this "deal" promises much for Americans. And that's fine, only the major issue today, for all days to follow without known number, remains human-caused global warming, the source of the new climate change. And Democrats want to hedge this "deal" against a wicked problem with no known environmental boundaries?

Think of "jobs for all," a slush fund by another name. From here, both republican and democratic politicians will find their "needed job funds" as promised by the "deal." Alas, a "small delay" in climate funds "won't hurt" because "we've made so much progress rolling back CO2 emissions." A "jobs for all" is a bottomless pit, then, inherited one generation to the next. Again and again I call this type of behavior "intergenerational moral corruption" (A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change, Stephen M. Gardner).

So why not just give money away and save the expense of a personnel system built around employment nightmares? Alas, there's no jobs on a dead planet, anyway.

Question?

Which has more influence over Earth's ice sheet growth, planet orbital cycles (Milankovich-Croll cycles) or carbon dioxide density in the atmosphere?

Both of these climate drivers share equal power when it comes to ice scheet coverage. So which is the tail and which is the dog, or which comes first?

Answer: Generally, carbon dioxide density rises before ice sheets melt. Climate transitions usually take centuries, not decades as today. Ice core samples, coral reef samples, deep sea core samples, and tree rings tell us that carbon dioxide density rises first, generally.

Carbon Dioxide Cycle and Its Role in Global Warming

Suppose that you needed to explain the chemistry of carbon dioxide (a compound, CO2, one molecule of carbon, two of oxygen) to the satisfaction of those new to this chemistry. You would probably want to begin with the magical-like properties of carbon, an element. Carbon controls the chemistry of life itself; we exist, as Startrek characters noted, as "carbon based units." We, like plants, trees, fish, and so on have a carbon base. In fact, our planet's surface, it's atmosphere, it's oceans, and its soils play a part in Earth's carbon chemistry.

Now, Earth's atmosphere remains transparent to sunlight photons (tiny energy packages of light), but not to the invisible infrared photons reflected back into the atmosphere from Earth's surface, its ice, oceans, and land masses; this fact has enormous implications for our climate because some infrared strikes greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

Greenhouse gases react mightily with reflected infrared photons, and they generate great amounts of energy, heat. One of the first laws of physics, the first law of thermodynamics, tells us so. It points to the conservation of energy. Conservation of energy tells us that energy does not disappear, ever, anywhere.

Here's how it works in global warming. When solar energy reflects from an object like ice, the ice loses some of its energy, photons; as these photons collide with atmospheric carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide gains in energy. One object loses energy, another gains in energy. An equalibrium then exists between these two objects. Nature seeks a balance, then.

CO2 - 2 oxygen molecues and 1 carbon molecue

Because carbon dioxide has two oxygen molecules and one carbon molecule, it creates more heat than molecules like carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO), like that in car exhaust, has two atoms, one carbon and one oxygen. (See the top image for a comparision of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide).

Water molecules also serve as greenhouse gases because of their chemical structure, one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms.

So it happens that CO2 recycles through plants, animals, and the global ocean.

Now, when CO2 loses a photon (solar unit of energy) as it gains a photon, it remains in equalibrium, balanced in energy and heat. Learning how CO2 cycles around Earth's systems, its plants, ice, oceans, land (rocks), and atmosphere.

The movement of Earth's carbon stock has a few: the solid earth, the oceans, fossil fuels, the soils, the biosphere, and the atmosphere. It turns out that the atmosphere serves as the smallest of carbon's resovoirs while creating the source for anthropogenic climate change. Carbon's complex movements need more study. We must have a clear picture of of the effect of carbon on the climate, and soon. In fact, we sould have had this understanding a generation ago.

 

Dessler, Andrew E.. Introduction to Modern Climate Change (p. 41). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Greta Visits LA City Hall

Viking Socrates Greta Thurnber Carried Her Climate Warrior Message to Los Angeles City Hall.

On a sunny, November 1st, 2019, Greta Thurnberg, the now-famous Swedish climate warrior, made an appearance in front of Los Angeles City Hall, a 1928 structure. She spoke to a stereotypical crowd of white, middle-class youth, mostly. Yes, older and even elderly environmentalists were present, including this narrator. Her message echoed the crowd's sentiments, "Somethings wrong, really wrong, and it's affecting our planet's temperature, humans caused global warming, the new climate change."

For many of the kids, this idea followed their progress through years of public school education. They did not learn about the new climate change from their curriculum, but schoolyard peers. Some learned from climate science-friendly parents. And no, they did not learn so much from the corporate media until recently; yet, Greta's worldwide notoriety brought the corporate media to a ring-side seat in front of the speaker's stage; in fact, the media's presence blocked the view to Greta for many.

For many, the idea of human-caused climate change as a threat to their future came recently, too recently. These kids could not have engaged the climate literature or studied the chemistry and physics of climate change in school science classes, like Joseph Fourier's 1824 test tube experiment into greenhouse gases.

They were motivated to attend because, as they said to parents, "the other kids are going." They had no real understanding of the science that supports the new climate change idea. Most, as this reporter learned, had never heard of NASA's climate kids web site, for example.

But yes, perhaps, some were raised on the ancient Hebrew text promising an apocalypse, and they find this newer version of an apocalypse more modern, more comfortable to digest and share with peers.

For some participants, a bit of science knowledge influenced their route to this gathering of fellow believers. I say, "fellow believers," because they are not, yet, true believers.

They have not suffered enough, not at all. Greta's followers have no idea what climate change means to their progeny; not many can know. But, their counterparts in Bangladash have real-world experience and know the new climate change too well, for instance. Hunger, heat, flood, and disease visit their world too often; yet, these plagues may easily belong to this city hall crowd's progeny, and most likely will belong to the 7th generation, if any.

What stood out to this reporter we see in the participants' clothing, their t-shirts. They brought their symbols of hope to the steps of this 1828 building under a banner carried across the Atlantic Ocean in a sailboat, back the science, an idea the young Swedish climate warrior brought to these shores, true to her Viking, sea-fairing ancestors.

Greta brought forth a call to arms, not with swords and shields, but with ideas reflecting a science with roots going back to the riddle of the glaciers, a late 17th-century concern among Swedish mountaineers and natural philosophers. Greta called for an end to business-as-usual. She asked her followers to work for the rights of the living and the unborn. No, business-as-usual will not satisfy Greta Thurnberg, we learned.

I wonder, though, did the new climate change bring these environmentalists together? Or, as in my case, did this opportunity to showcase their causes bring them to this gathering of concerned citizens?

Why this diversity and not a dedicated movement to end the threat to civilization, humankind itself? The reason, in this writer's mind, we have yet to create an all-encompassing climate change philosophy and movement powerful enough to claim its ground, and armies of climate warriors. Yes, a climate crisis group appeared here and there. Still, like the Sea Shepherd Society, they were marginal when compared to the vegan population. Only one group outnumbered the vegans, the undeclared agnostics in the crowd — those without symbols.

We did not see Greenpeace advocates, by the way, nor did we see remnants of Earth First!, a group condemned to oblivion by the FBI.

And speaking of which, note the absence of a human population group presence. Do not expect an awareness of the population threat, the billions of human carbon footprints upon the Earth. It's not on the agenda, anywhere, it seems. Humanity cannot control its libido while living in denial of this most obvious threat to the 7th generation.

So, I saw no call to action, not an invitation to humanely bring the human population to numbers sustainable by a genetically diverse planet. Not a word, not a sign, not a t-shirt notes the elephant in the crowd, any crowd, the threat of billions of humans trying to exist on a bruised planet. No group will claim their Malthusian title, another critical error laid upon the doorstep of future generations.

Greta followed a few speakers that spoke several hours for their various causes; they echoed the sentiments of human-centered environmentalism, a humanism apart from an eco-centrism. Generally, these environmentalists took their environmentalism more seriously than nambees (Not in my back yard), but less seriously than will their offspring. So they did not represent a more profound ecological concern, then, as we might find in eco-centric, deep ecology activism, for example.

They are not ready for such "outlandish" ideas. Still, their offspring may embrace radical environmentalism, and if they reject their parent's conservatism, they will do so out of necessity more so than rebellion.

Young speakers shared a sense of urgency. Business-as-usual will not benefit their offspring. They know what factory farming means, our scientific rationalism's outcomes for sentient beings, and climate. They saw images of a burning Amazon rain forest. They hear that their president sells off their national heritage. After all this, they do not, I hope, trust the older generation, the climate-denying generation.

And here I take liberties with Greta's message because I could not hear her words. The crowd's numbers and my distance from the stage were too great.

Presumably, Greta said that young people must take charge of their future. She spoke of their dire situation, not unlike Rex Tiller. She ensured them that the catastrophe at hand promises horrors beyond imagination. They must believe, and that there is no time to lose.

Denounce advocates of business as usual; she must have said in her youthful, delicate manner. Like a Viking Socrates, she advocated questioning the status quo, business-as-usual, and then disable it. She condemned environmental degradation and moral corruption without pause and most certainly.

And in summary, I wish Greta and her followers long, healthy lives and a sustainable future for the seventh generation.

 

Page Menu - - Blog Narrative - Political - Science Links - - Technology - Video

 

- Blog Narrative - Science Links - Politics - Technology - Video

Blog Narrative -

Climate Deception

Science Links

The Earth Is Wobbling: The Precession of the Equinox

The Milankovitch Cycle says that Earth should be getting colder, but it's getting warmer. Why? - How Ice Ages Happen: The Milankovitch Cycles

Political

Environmental

Former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson says climate change a real issue 'with us "forevermore," harking back to Edgar Allen Poe's horrors.

Population

Weighing My Desire to Have Kids Against My Desire to Save Our Planet

Technology

How This Coal Miner's Daughter Could Change Everything in Virginia | NowThis

Videos - Political - Environmental

Black Bear News October 4, 2019

Question

I never intended to link to political issues, but unfortunately, the corporate and oligarch influences over politics holds sway over climate deception and climate denial. Hence, the following:

Chris Wallace SCHOOLS Kellyanne over “secret impeachment hearings”