Great Barrier Reef Has Largest Coral Die Off In Recorded History

Divers investigate coral die off on Great Barrier Reef.

Yet another 'warning shot' has been fired over the bow of humanity on Spaceship Earth. Recall in an earlier post, I had referenced the phenomenon of coral bleaching and inevitable die off, especially in the Caribbean - as we observed during a tour submarine cruise in 2014. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/10/yes-ocean-life-is-headed-to-extinction.html

I noted the effect arises  from higher ocean temperatures, due to enhanced global warming from the greenhouse effect.  Higher sea temperatures world wide have led to the worst bleaching events on record.

Dead, dying coral in part of Great Barrier reef.

A new study has now found that higher water temperatures have ravaged the Great Barrier Reef, causing the worst coral bleaching recorded by environmental and climate scientists.

In the worst-affected area, 67% of a 700km swath in the north of the reef lost its shallow-water corals over the past eight to nine months, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies based at James Cook University study found.

“Most of the losses in 2016 have occurred in the northern, most-pristine part of the Great Barrier Reef,” Prof Terry Hughes said. “This region escaped with minor damage in two earlier bleaching events in 1998 and 2002, but this time around it has been badly affected.  The southern two-thirds of the reef escaped with minor damage, Hughes said.. This part was protected from the rising sea temperatures because of cooler water from the Coral Sea.

Some scientists have said the expect that the northern region will take at least 10 to 15 years to regain the lost corals  but that is under "ideal conditions". Alas, there is absolutely no hint that such will materialize in that span, only get worse. The heating of the oceans will continue and also  their progressive acidification. Indeed, Aussie scientists and ocean environmentalists are already concerned over a fourth bleaching event that will interrupt whatever recovery fancied.

The dire assessment of the reef’s health comes as the Australian government is due to report to Unesco’s world heritage committee on its handling of the reef.

After the AU federal government submits the report Unesco will decide whether to again consider listing the Great Barrier Reef on its “list of world heritage in danger”.

The government will need to report on how it has funded and implemented its Reef 2050 long-term sustainability plan, as well as how the bleaching event has affected the reef.

Since it last considered including the Great Barrier Reef on its list, the reef has undergone the worst bleaching event in recorded history. According to government agencies, 22% of the reef was killed in one hit, as unusually warm waters bleached and killed the coral.

There is absolutely no sign any of this will change in the near future, or in the rest of the world including the Caribbean.  Worse, the environmentally hostile new administration has already made clear it intends to roll back a host of existing regulations to pave the way for reaching the 'death threshold' for humans registered to the amount of carbon deposition.

Bill McKibben has warned that once we push  past the critical 550 gT threshold we definitely surpass the 2C limit that Paris Climate Summit tried to prevent. Alas, the evidence is that has already been surpassed. That leaves a higher limit of 1,750 gT and beyond that we are looking at essentially a dead planet  - ravaged by the runaway greenhouse effect.

The irony of those who pushed the buttons for Trump to "make America great again"  is that they have very likely rendered the whole planet unlivable for all future generations.

One hopes they will now be happy that Trump has managed to save the Carrier jobs in Indiana, given the price to be paid by the planet and the rest of us! Especially as over 1,200  remaining Carrier jobs are still scheduled to be dispatched. Nice PR job, Donald Dump!

Another Damned Irritating Aspect Of Facebook

The slim options for dealing with Facebook notifications, none of which entail direct deletions. What the hell is the big deal?

I use FB infrequently: first, because the odds are high I'm liable to run into comments or images I don't like - so I won't be compelled to "like" them or be outraged by them enough to respond, and second, there's too little dimension for more complex expression of thought, which a blog post allows. Truth be told, for communication purposes - especially on important issues-  I actually find email much superior.

I originally signed on to Facebook some 6 years ago to keep in touch with far flung family including in Barbados, Trinidad and also Canada. I also signed on to keep up with the daily goings on to do with my mother - who I last visited in 2009 (and who already showed signs of dementia).   For a while the connections proved worthwhile and then I suddenly realized one's "friend" universe is often populated by radically different people and types. So, for example, how do you navigate your FB world if one half is made up of religious or very conservative family members, and the other half made up of very liberal and non-religious (other) family members, and friends?  Well, you have to tread carefully because it can be a literal minefield, especially when a hyper-liberal friend happens to see what s/he regards as an offensive comment from a conservative family member.  So you're constantly having to steer clear of 'oil mixing with water' situations or whatever.

The other aspect noticed were the major differences in political perspective, and how these could lead to conflicts. For this reason, and after getting into one brouhaha with my now deceased middle brother (which I now regret) I have avoided further political commentary or altercations.

But none of this relates to my present gripe about Facebook, which in a manner of speaking - is kind of like being stalked by a scad of digital "zombies" and not being able to kill them  I am referring, of course, to the constantly increasing supply of Facebook "notifications" - which now total 52. (If I had more "friends" the total would likely be 520, or 5200,  but because I've kept the maximum number to 15 I at least have them relatively limited).

Incredibly, when one opens up the notifications settings menu the most you get is the ability to turn "on" or "off" specific types, but you can't simply delete all of  them.  As I explored a number of sites before writing this post, I repeatedly beheld the same refrain  and complaint, usually posed as a question: "Why the fuck can't we just delete these notifications without a lot of fuss?"

Which is a good question indeed! Sure, you can "mark all read" but what is it about the damned notifications that causes them to approach the level of the sacrosanct? Why can't you just kill them as easily as deleting emails?

If one googles further one finds assorted "methods" claimed to do the job but most are arcane and one - at least- entails going into "inspect element". This delivers a page of code from which you are then supposed to select a line and do a backspace. This is to be done separately for each freaking notification.  Sorry, it's too damned much trouble!  I'd rather just let them pile up until the genii running Facebook get off their butts and incorporate a  simple delete mechanism.

What have they got against it? I'd be interested in seeing others' opinions of why Zuckerberg has this fetish about preventing  users from directly deleting notifications. (Don't bother to give me "tips". If it can't be done in less than a minute, I am not interested.)

A Chilling Thought: Once He Gets In Trump May Never Be Removed Via Elections

Again, on display in the last half hour of 'Morning Joe' , was the incredible human capacity to embrace fancy, groundless hope, and baseless suppositions. This was when host Joe Scarborough was presented with multiple rational ways in which Trump, and his administration, could flout existing laws and the constitution with impunity.  Joe, bless his Repuke heart, simply believes based on history that the constitution and "separation of powers" will protect us against any extreme Trump maneuvers.

But as his guest pointed out, that didn't stop Bush from using the Patriot act in various ways it was never intended (and is still on the books - to arrest protesters as "domestic terrorists") as well as undertaking NSA mass surveillance on scales that flout the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights, specifically against warrantless searches.

Then we beheld honorary national "historian -in- chief"- actor  Tom Hanks -  at a recent confab at the Museum  of Art in NYC  imploring us all to "Calm down".  Hanks,  the same guy who three years ago wanted to save Americans from being "snookered" (by accepting Lee Oswald was set up as a decoy in the JFK hit),  said we have "nothing to worry about" and "our Constitution will protect us".

For any who really believe that I suggest reading how Germans fared after Hitler got the Enabling Act passed in Germany, e.g.

http://www.dw.com/en/the-law-that-enabled-hitlers-dictatorship/a-16689839

Most true experts, not Hanks, are of the belief that under the right conditions - and especially with ALL branches of government (including Supreme Court) controlled by one party, it can happen here.  Let's also register that millions implored Obama to remove the part of the (2006) Military Commissions Act repealing Habeas Corpus, to no avail.  Obama repeatedly used the bromide that "there is nothing to fear" and no one would ever be locked up for no good reason. More sober minds, however, kept telling him 'yes, that's fine if you're there, but one day you won't be and a strong man type could take your place'.

Now that situation looms over us as a confirmed authoritarian narcissist - in many ways like Adolf Hitler- prepares to assume office on January 20th. This is even as many (even on the media  left) pooh pooh Hitlerian comparisons as:"hysteria". But just yesterday, the bombastic buffoon issued  a warning against those who used the First amendment for flag burning, tweeting:

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag, If they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail"

A year in jail for exercising first amendment rights? As I pointed out in a post from two years ago (July 24):

"in the case Texas v. Johnson (1989) flag burning was upheld as symbolic free speech which could not be curtailed under the 1st amendment. " This was upheld in a 1990 Supreme Court decision (7-3) ( United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310  ) which declared an earlier  opposing law  impermissibly discriminated upon viewpoint .

Now Trump wants to tear that protection down, and I also suspect- inflated ego and thin skin that he has - he will also try to implement the earlier Patriot Act provisions against demonstrations and mass protests. Hell, he could even invoke the "continuity of government" provision introduced under Reagan.

Reagan’s Executive Order 12656, issued in 1988,  stated that Continuity of Government procedures were called for in the event of "any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."   In the 1980s COG planning was being handled by Louis Giuffrida. According to an article by Alfonso Chardy (‘Reagan Aides and the `Secret’ Government’, Miami Herald, July 5, 1987.) the stated plans included "suspension of the Constitution," along with detailed arrangements for the declaration of martial law.

Get that? Suspension of the Constitution. And if you don't believe Trump would resort to any ruse to implement it, to advance his own ends - including perhaps to remain in power (despite the 22nd amendment), you really are a political and historical Pollyanna.

Look, already this overgrown,  authoritarian 'boss' baby is fulminating about the election recounts, and recklessly citing Infowars conspiracy BS that he really won the popular vote. The man is certifiably unstable just as Hitler was (though in the Fuhrer's case it likely was from syphilis).  If he was the least bit rational, as well as temperamentally suited to be a true chief executive, he'd settle down and grasp that if he REALLY won - and didn't have the votes rigged for himself - he has nothing to fear. His outbursts merely show he's terrified of losing those 3 states and having his totalitarian agenda overturned.

His very active paranoia, as well as his carping about "rigging" during the campaign,. indicates to me that once in office he will essentially piss on amendment XXII and remain there using any ruse to justify it. "Terrorist threat?" Insurrection? Need for extended martial law?

Further, the Repukes themselves may well abet him in this, grasping there may be no other Republican who can win the presidency after four horrific years of Trump or worse, eight. In that case, they may wager better to repeal the 22nd amendment  - or Trump does it via a specious executive order. And if you believe the Dems will be our saviors here you're also dreaming, because Trump may find some ruse to lock them up too.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 326; cf. p. 38), "Contingency plans for the continuity of government" were implemented on September 11, 2001. Those suspicious of what COG means today have pointed to a number of post 9/11 steps to facilitate the implementation of martial law, including the creation of a new military command (NORTHCOM) for the continental United States. They note also Homeland Security’s strategic plan “Endgame”, whose stated goal is the creation of detention camps designed to "remove all removable aliens," including "potential terrorists."
Even worse, later mutations of COG under the Bushites  equated political dissent with treason. In regard to the last, the definition of "terrorist" was expanded to "domestic terrorist" by congress in 2001, to include:

"…activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"

According to the ACLU, “this definition is broad enough to encompass the activities of…prominent activists, campaigns and organizations.”    It could also include opposition politicians, representatives if their words are interpreted as "sedition" - say under a new GOP-Trump passed law. Again, if this transpires the Constitution will become "just a piece of paper" as John McCloy once described it when he approved internment camps for Japanese Americans.

Clearly most COG plans are shrouded in extreme secrecy, effectively unregulated by Congress or the courts. But what ought to get the hackles of any sentient American up is their potential to be yoked to an overreaching surveillance state.  All this is within Trump's purview, authoritarian that he clearly is.

Those who understand history and especially those who take George Santayana's quote seriously:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. "

know it is stupid to dismiss Trump as just another clown. No, once he has the power of the office - and allies in his cabinet and congress- he becomes much more. He becomes a massive threat to every principle this nation holds dear.  Those convinced the constitution will protect them may want to do more research into the continuity of government process as well as elimination of habeas corpus via the Military Commissions Act.

Once this narcissist authoritarian assumes office, there is no way his enormous ego will allow him to accept people want him gone, even in an election.  And if (by his own words) he wouldn't accept the results of an election in this cycle, what makes you believe he'd accept them in a future one?  A paranoid who is indispensable in his own mind is a dangerous leader indeed. Ask the Germans!

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/stephen-pizzo/70079/time-to-chose-american-or-vichy-american


Excerpt:

"Now, having spent a big chunk of my adult life as a journalist, I am familiar with the sin of hyperbole, so I don’t write this with a careless hand. But everything I have seen and heard to date about Trump and those he is surrounding himself with, I am quite certain we Americans face a choice not entirely dissimilar to what the French faced in 1940. And that the time has arrived for every American to make a choice: America, or Vichy-America?

Whether you make that choice explicitly or by inaction, that choice will be the most important decision you will make as a citizen and person. It will mark, forever, exactly who you are."

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bruce-ticker/70063/that-scary-hidden-agenda

A Closer Analytical Look At Two Stream Instability

Profile for two-stream instability.
 




















Recall that in posts earlier this year we examined the two stream instability of plasma physics, which also has significance for solar and space physics. 

We saw it can be induced by an energetic particle stream injected in a plasma, or setting a current along the plasma so different species (ions and electrons) can have different drift velocities. The energy from the particles can lead to plasma wave excitation.

        The two stream instability can be thought of as the inverse of Landau damping, where a greater number of particles that move slower than the wave phase velocity v_ph (as compared with those that move faster), leads to an energy transfer from the wave to the particles.  In the case of the two stream instability, when an electron stream is injected to the plasma, the particle's velocity distribution function has a "bump" on its tail as shown in Fig. 1.

Development:

The electron plasma frequency can be written:

w _e     =  [n_e e²/ m_e  ε_o] ^½

Where n_e is the electron number density, e  is the electron charge,  m_e  is the electron mass and ε_o  is the permittivity of free space.

For our purposes in looking at the 2-stream instability we will change the above form to read:

w _e²     =   4p n _o e²/ m_e  

Similarly, we can write:

w _i²     =   4p n _o e²/ m _i

For the electron ion frequency.

For our purposes also, the Poisson equation, for charges in a vacuum:

Ñ ·E  =  4p r           

Can be rewritten:

ik E =  4p r  

Now, write   in terms of E such that:

ik (E -  4p r / ik ) = ikε E = 0

For cold plasma waves (T _e =T_i  = 0)  we can write:

ik (1 -     w _e ² / w ²  ) E =  0

So that: ε    = (1 -     w _e ² / w ²  )

The dispersion relation here is equivalent to equating ε ( w)  to 0.

N.B.   A dispersion relation implies that a relationship exists between the plasma frequency w and the wave number k.


Now,  and this is critical, because we have ε ( w)  = 0 this implies:

1 =      w _e ² / w ²  

Or:   w  =   w _e  

Now,  assembling all the preceding results allows us to write:


ik = 4p e [ (ik n _o e)/ m _iw ²    -   ik n _o e/m_e (w  - k V_o ) ²]

Using the earlier equation for the electron and ion plasma frequencies and basic algebra, the energetic reader can satisfy himself that:

ε ( w)  =  1 -  w _i  ² / w ²   -  w _e ² /(w  - k v_o ) ²  =  0


Note that in the limit, m _i    -> oo  and  w _i -> 0  we have: w  =   k V_o  +  w _e

We can then look at wave numbers k such that  k V_o  =   w _e
  
and acknowledge that that 2nd term above is much less than unity (to cancel the 1st term the 3rd must be close to unity) whence:

0 =  1 -  w _i  ² / w ²     -    w _e ² /(w  -   w _e ) ²

0 =  1 -  w _i  ² / w ²    -    1/(1  -   w  /  w _e ) ²

0   »   1 -  w _i  ² / w ²    -  (1 +     2w / w _e ) 

And:  0 = -  w _i  ² / w ²   -   2w / w _e  

w ³      =  - ½ ( w _i ) ²  (w _e)   

Finally, we can write:

w /w _e  =   ( -1/2) ^1/3   (m _e / m _i) ^1/3       

which represents instability since one of the three values of  (-1) ^1/3   is (1/2) + iÖ 3/ 2.

Thus, in the frame moving with the electrons, the Doppler shifted frequency 
(since   k V_o   =  w _e) :

w’ =   w  - k V_o

Factor into the mix that |  w  |  < <  w _e    and we conclude this is roughly w’ =   w _e  so the electrons are nearly at their natural frequency of oscillation. But there is another way to determine that the dielectric function, i.e.

ε ( w)  =  1 -  w _i  ² / w ²   -  w _e ² /(w  - k v_o ) ²  =  0

yields instability. This can be done via a simple algebraic manipulation, so we transpose the negative terms to the right hand side and let: 


F(k,  w ) =  ε ( w)  -  1  =  w _i  ² / w ²   +   w _e ² /(w  - k v_o ) ² 

We can then plot the resulting function vs. the real frequency (at fixed wave number, k)  as depicted in my 2nd graph above.

Note where the line at unity intersects the graph of  F(k,  w)  at four different points. In other words, there are four real roots and no instability for the selected value of k. But...what happens when the central minimum of  F(k,  w)  occurs at a value greater than unity? Then, there are only two real roots .

To determine when this happens we determine when:   F(k,  w ) >  1, or where the function minimum is determined by ¶ F/ ¶ w  =    0.  We then will find:

w  (min)  = (m _e /m _i) ^1/2  k V_o

Yielding an equation which predicts instability whenever:

| k V_o  |    <   w _e


I leave it to energetic readers to work out what that equation predicting instability will be.  (A  little bit of basic algebra will have you home free!)