Once Again: The Current "Super Freeze" Doesn't Mean Global Warming Is A Hoax

Once again, almost like clock work, the  "dummy brigade"  has emerged (mainly on FOX, Limbaugh) to dismiss the bitter sub-zero temperatures sending the mid-western U.S. into a deep freeze  as  part of a "natural cycle".  Thereby arguing there's really no global warming, no climate change and hey,just bundle up more for the polar vortex.  It's all a "hoax"according to these nitwits.  

A recent example of the latter was a  letter in the local press (COS Indy, Jan. 2-8, p. 4 ) by a  Mark Rozman who claimed:

“Climate change is a natural, ongoing process as evidenced by tree ring data”   etc.

But there is more than tree ring data to be factored in here.   While tree ring data is a useful proxy indicator, it still doesn’t come close to ice core analysis in ascertaining the increasing concentration of CO2 and its effect on climate. In ice core analysis the air trapped in  cylindrical ice cores (extracted from deep within the Earth)  is chemically assayed .  The gases are analyzed to quantify the  CO2  concentration, then related to the climate at the time.

One of the most prolific ice core researchers - who originally discovered (ca. 1986) that the Arctic was warming much more than the continental U.S.  -  was Prof. Gunther Weller of the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska- Fairbanks :

Prof.  Gunther Weller (1987)

 His work and that of others has disclosed that over the past 800,000 years the CO2 concentration of  300 ppm was never crossed until after the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the burning of fossil fuels.  Further, it has been found that no Ice ages have occurred whenever the CO2 concentration exceeded 200 ppm.  This means that climate change cannot be a “natural ongoing process.´ How can it when the greatest spike in CO2 concentration (now approaching 410 ppm) occurred after the human-instigated Industrial Revolution? 

In terms of tree rings, the relevant indicator is the ratio of the C14 isotope to the C12 isotope, as disclosed by solar physicist John Eddy.    

Eddy showed (‘The New Solar Physics’; p. 17, 1978) that an anthropogenic effect could be deduced from a graph of C14:C 12 deviations over a long enough period, i.e. 2,000 years.  

Specifically, “the sharp upward spike at the modern end of the curve is  attributed to anthropogenic causes and is the mark of increased population and the industrial age.” (Op. cit.)

Eddy’s work  in concert with many others, shows clearly humans are the primary agents driving climate change. Remove the human influence from the past 250 years or so and we are not approaching 410 ppm of CO2 concentration. Not even close!

Now what about the polar vortex? What is its role in climate change- global warming?

This Arctic heat emphasis, for example,  was exposed in the January , 2016 zonal temperature map :

Data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that January was, for the entire  globe, was an extraordinary month. In particular the data showed the Arctic took the brunt of heating (see graphic) with a temperature increase more than 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the 1951 to 1980 average in this region. (This data constitutes a "zonal mean" temperature map, which shows how the temperature departures from average change based on one's latitude location on Earth.)

The finding dovetailed  with Prof. Gunther Weller's predictions (from the mid -1980s) - based on his ice core analyses- that future warming would be greatest in the Arctic.  This is  a phenomenon known as "Arctic amplification".  In papers and seminars delivered at the GI over 1985-1990 he pointed out that a much warmer Arctic also means a much more unstable polar region with more frequent intrusions ("waves")  of the polar vortex,  leading to frigid temperatures in parts of the U.S. such as we've seen the past few years.  In one seminar he described it "almost like moving the Arctic to the continental U.S."

Unpacking it further: there is generally an immense cold mass of air that sits over the Arctic.  Because of global warming, climate change the Arctic has experienced diminished sea ice, E.G.


As the sea ice mass melts there is less reflection of radiation into space and hence more rapid warming of the surface.  This diminished sea ice then results in more heat dispatched into the atmosphere. This in turn destabilizes the polar vortex - a low pressure area normally residing over the north pole. This instability then allows polar air to plunge southward into the continental U.S. .

The details leading to what we've seen the past several days (with temperatures in some locations even rivaling those in Antarctica) occurred on January 2nd.  NOAA monitors showed that part of the stratosphere had a rapid rise of 50 degrees F in just a few days.    The event split the unstable polar vortex, so that part broke off. Afterward, pockets of Arctic air migrated south causing the current deep freeze.

Let's also process that the warming onslaught is exacerbated by the rapid melting of permafrost. Vast expanses of former  Arctic permafrost have been reduced to mud, and also in the process of warming released methane - perhaps the Greenhouse gas which is most potent.  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/03/more-rapid-permafrost-melting-triggers.html
As reported by the University of Alaska -Fairbanks Arctic Research site:
In 2016, the latest year of complete records, the majority of Arctic observation sites reported the highest permafrost temperatures on record.

The takeaway is that these sub-zero super freezes we're seeing with polar vortex intrusions are likely to become more frequent in the future, not less. The deniers and climate dummies would do well to learn more about this phenomenon and why they should be fearful, not wise ass snarky, to play into the agnotology narrative.  See e.g.

Brane Space: The Pseudo-Science Agnotologists Strike Again!

brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/01/as-i-noted-in-earlier-blog-httpbrane.html

How The Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord Will Affect the U.S. And The Planet

"How many times do I gotta tell you? I don't care about this damned planet! Only how much money I can make off it!"

As most of us suspected, Trump yesterday confirmed that he will withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement.  In effect, this move (likely inspired by Steve Bannon) ensures the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases will quit the international effort to address dangerous global warming.

Let me be clear here that in my opinion the Paris accord was more like a kind of posturing, given it wasn't written by actual climate scientists. This is the lot who are aware of the risks of a planet subject to a radiative heating effect equivalent to 2.5 x 10 ⁷  TJ injected each year into the atmosphere or roughly 400,000 Hiroshima size A-bombs.  Had these scientists written the 25-page document it would have excluded fluffy, fuzzy words like: aim, encouraging, striving, facilitate, assisting and mobilizing.   Indeed, only two specific goals are stated:

1) To hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 C by 2100.

Which has already been rendered outdated by new data that shows at least a 4C rise.

And:

2) To achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of the 21st century.

None of these was ideal, apart from the fact all the goals stated were voluntary, i.e. signed on to by 197 nations with the understanding that their agreement to the emissions cuts was entirely based on trust. But rather than simply change its stated goals, the U.S. under Trump entirely removed itself from the deal, joining Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries not party to the Paris agreement. Again, there will be no penalty for leaving, with the Paris deal based upon the premise of voluntary emissions reductions by participating countries.

Invoking the sort of cretinous codswallop for which he's famous, Trump said yesterday in the White House rose garden :

"In order to fulfil my solemn duty to the United States and its citizens, the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accords or a really entirely new transaction, on terms that are fair to the United States,”

Adding:

“We will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. If we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine.”

But really the only one the U.S. can possibly negotiate with is itself!  The very notion of "renegotiation" of the Treaty is ludicrous given that each nation has already voluntarily set its own goals.  In the case of the U.S.  that would mean re-doing the original target of reducing emissions between 26 and 28 percent (below 2005 levels) by 2025.  Rather than withdraw like a bloody idiot, Trump could just have said we will instead aim for 15% or 20% of  2005 emissions by 2025. He essentially has tossed the baby out with the bathwater and cost the U.S. hundreds of thousands of renewable energy jobs in the process. As a reference marker, there were 260,000 solar energy -related jobs created last year compared to 53,000 for coal. China plans a $361 b investment in renewable energy by 2020.  This is projected to create 13 million new jobs for the Chinese middle and working classes, most starting at an equivalent of U.S. $15/hr. WHO do you think will be the big winner by the U.S. backing out?

Thus, the bottom line is that it is the U.S. economy that will be most seriously hit, even before the inevitable climate consequences kick in. (Most experts predict about 3 billion tons of additional CO2 in the atmosphere per year, and 0.5C of increased mean global temperatures by 2050. If we're already on a track to hit 3.0 C, that would mean 3.5 C instead and likely more than enough to melt most of what's left of Antarctica as well as Greenland. The Arctic having been melted down long before.)

Even if the U.S. did what it promised under the Treaty it is clear that all the above would merely be postponed, but it would be better than doing nothing and as I noted, the economic consequences are huge as well.  Trump, hitting his best fake blather form, also told the crowd outside the White House:

“The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries should expel any doubt as to why foreign lobbyists should wish to keep our beautiful country tied up and bound down … That’s not going to happen while I’m president, I’m sorry.”

Which is a total misrepresentation. The Paris "deal" hamstrings no one, no nation,  because it is based on each nation's having accepted emissions goals it designated for itself.   This,  again, discloses Trump has no use for truth and his only response is to justify his outrageous actions through lies,  deceit and dog whistle bull pockey to energize his daft supporters.

Barack Obama, issued a rare statement saying the new administration had joined “a small handful of nations that reject the future”. But he said that U.S. states, cities and businesses “will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got”. Former vice-president Al Gore called the move “reckless and indefensible”, while among the business leaders to express regret over the move was Jeff Immelt -  chair and CEO of General Electric  - who said “climate change is real” and “industry must now lead”.

Typical of his fondness for schmaltz and fake optics, Trump spoke after being introduced by a warm-up band playing the George Gershwin classic Summertime, and argued that the Paris agreement disadvantaged the U.S. to the benefit of other countries, leaving workers and taxpayers to absorb the costs and suffer job losses and factory closures.

Again, all lies. In fact, what it will cost the U.S. is an estimated two million green, renewable energy jobs. Most of those would have benefited Trump's own followers, voters in the industrial states.  According to Prof John Schellnhuber, a climate scientist and former adviser to the EU, Angela Merkel and the pope, the U.S. will be actually be the primary  loser from its withdrawal. He said:

  “It will not substantially hamper global climate progress but it will hurt the American economy and society alike.  China and Europe have become world leaders on the path towards green development already and will strengthen their position if the US slips back. The Washington people around Trump fail to recognize that the climate wars are over, while the race for sustainable prosperity is on.”

Trump’s decision also risks destabilizing the Paris deal, with remaining participants faced with the choice of trying to make up the shortfall in emissions cuts or following the U. S.  lead and abandoning the agreement entirely. The U.S. emissions reduction pledge was to account for a fifth of the global emissions by 2030. An analysis by not-for-profit group Climate Interactive showed that a regression to “business as usual” emissions by the U.S. could warm the world by an additional 0.3C by 2100.   This is almost certainly an underestimate. Indeed, to keep global temperatures from rising to only that modest increment and no more, man-made emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be reduced to zero by 2050. Ain't gonna happen, especially with only voluntary limits.

The most hilarious brain burp from Trump:

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

This elicited the following response from Bill Peduto, the Mayor of Pittsburgh, to its citizens:

"The false hope that you're being spoon fed by the president isn't going to rebuild our region. If our economy is going to advance in the twenty first century then we have to decide if we're going to be a part of it. Or if we're going to be left behind."

And he also advised the Donald not to speak for him or his city, as Pittsburgh plans to do all it can to make the emissions cuts as underscored by the agreement.

Undoubtedly, the withdrawal is a victory for the nationalist ideologues in Trump’s administration, such as his strategist Steve Bannon. These fools have argued the Paris deal undermines an “America first” approach, harms domestic coal production and hinders efforts to repeal Barack Obama-era regulations such as the Clean Power Plan.  But again, if you knew (and now you do - see above) that 263,000 solar energy jobs were created last year in the U.S. compared to 53,000 for coal, which way would you go?  Better, how in the hell does costing this nation millions of new jobs translate into "America First"?  Of the 2.6 million new jobs (e.g. wind turbine technician) in renewable energy that have been created in the past five years in the U.S.,,  half have been in the states that Trump won. How will he now explain the possible loss of those jobs?

Imagine then U.S. solar firms now going abroad to try to sell more solar systems and being greeted by skeptics - whether in Germany, Barbados or other places who say: "Well, you guys and your President just walked away from future deals. You're not committed to real green energy change!"

This is exactly why hundreds of large businesses, including Apple, Google and Walmart, also threw their weight behind the deal, with even fossil fuel firms such as ExxonMobil, BP and Shell supporting the accord as the best way to transition to a low-carbon economy and stave off the perils of climate change.. Now, in one fell swoop, Trump has obliterated all of that.

Another ideological imp behind the withdrawal was Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency head who has called Paris a “bad deal” that should be discarded.  Clearly, here's an idiot that needs to be educated about this country's already extensive investments in alternative energy jobs from solar energy engineer to wind turbine technician.

In his speech, Trump sought to frame his decision as part of this nationalist agenda, saying:

“The Paris agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense,”

Again, no external entity is doing anything at "America's expense". The national emissions cuts were agreed to by each country on its own, no external agency or committee forced it.

In a bid to calm the frayed nerves of countries most at risk from rising temperatures, the EU and China announced an alliance to stay the course earlier on Wednesday. Their joint declaration called climate change a “national security issue” and a “multiplying factor of social and political fragility.” The Paris pact is a “historic achievement” and “irreversible”, the document says.

Former CIA acting director Michael Morrell put it thusly:

"When I think of the world and the threats to the preservation of the nation there are only three. The first is nuclear war with Russia, the second is a natural catastrophe from a biological agent, and the third is climate change. If this goes through and the next president doesn't change it then it's going to have serious national security implications."

As for the U.S. and its future fortunes, John Kerry put it best:

"This step does not make America first, it makes America last."

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/73228/climate-change-isnt-the-hoax-trump-is

It's Official: 2015 Was Hottest Year On Record

Most may already have been aware but now they know 2015 was the hottest year on record, at least since reliable records began in 1880.  If the forecasts, as well as those of the UK Hadley Center prove accurate, then 2016 will exceed even the record 2015.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced their findings at a joint news conference Wednesday.  It is to be noted that the NOAA and NASA each track temperatures globally using slightly different analytical methods.  This in itself makes their joint statement and agreement even more significant.

By the reckoning of NOAA and NASA  our planet is inexorably warming in response to rising concentrations of CO2. Previous EOS Transactions papers have put the rise at a rate of 2 ppm/ year and we are already at nearly 390 ppm. Autos and coal factories contribute to this higher concentration but also deforestation. See e.g.

http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/11/new-high-resolution-forest-maps-reveal-world-loses-50-soccer-fields-trees-minute

How bad, how wretched, can it get? How about a heat index of 170F by the year 2100?


And this may well be conservative if specific thresholds are crossed (e.g. the 6C increase mark) by that year.

As a recent TIME report noted (Dec. 28, p. 18):

"A 3.5 C temperature rise would occur even if all (200) nations meet initial pledges to reduce carbon emissions.  This would still submerge coastal cities and drive over half of species to extinction."

It would also make life so horrific for humans, many will wish for extinction. Think of 6-8 month heat waves lasting even through supposed 'cold' months and temperatures hitting 95F- 100 F regularly - even in December. Think of it happening not just in the U.S. but globally.  And think of power grids mostly being down because they are unable to meet the vastly enhanced power demands, say for air conditioning.

All the indicators for 2015 show we are well on our way. For that year the average temperature was the highest in 136 years over the 1880-2015 interval, surpassing the previous record set in 2014 by 0..29F and marking the fourth time a global temperature record has been set.  Meanwhile, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62F (0.90 C) above the 20th century average. This is mind boggling given that the total increase up to mid-20th century had been estimated at 0.8C.

NASA scientists also emphasized that 15 of the past 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001. So much for the "global warming pause" the deniers have been using like a bogus cudgel since 1998.

Climate scientists at the UK Hadley Center For Climate Prediction and Research (which independently tracks global temperatures) also confirm the NOAA, NASA conclusions. Indeed, they note that global temperatures in 2015 reached 1C above pre-industrial levels for the first time. Admittedly, as I pointed out earlier, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/12/warmest-xmas-ever-in-east-dont.html

El Niño has contributed to this record with the increased warming of the Pacific Ocean.

However, the El Niño effect doesn't explain everything.  Climate expert Dr. Michael Mann explained to the New York Times, that even if the global climate weren't warming, the odds of setting two back-to-back record years would be about one chance in every 1,500 pairs of years.

He added that because the planet is warming, the odds of setting back-to-back record years are really closer to one in 10.  Most terrifying, is that there's good evidence that this is nothing compared to what's to come.  For reference, This graph shows how global temperatures have historically, for more than 400,000 years, tracked with carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere.

The graph at the top shows how the temperatures have soared since the start of official record keeping (source: The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 18, p. A7)

See also:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/20/its-official-2015-smashed-2014s-global-temperature-record-it-wasnt-even-close/

Poor Nations Getting 'Ambushed' By Global Warming

In his popular essay, 'Ambushed - The Warming of the World' - in the book 'Billions and Billions', Carl Sagan left open the possibility that much of our planet would indeed be 'ambushed" if we didn't pay enough attention. Now, it turns out that this is happening especially to poorer nations, which are going to be taking a disproportionate hit.

As reported recently (Denver Post, Oct. 22, p. 9A) with each upward degree "global warming will singe the economies of  three quarters of the world's nations and widen the north-south gap between rich and poor countries". This is according to a new economic and scientific study authored by Marshall Burke of Stanford University and Solomon Hsiang an economist and public policy professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

The pair examined 50 years of economic data in 160 countries and even county-by-county data in the U.S.  and found what Burke calls "the Goldilocks zone in global temperature at which humans are good at producing stuff" and relatively comfortable. This turns out to be for an annual temperature of 55.4 degrees give or take a degree. For all those nations at or above that temperature, every added degree slows productivity and increases discomfort.

The authors note that right now the U.S. is "close to the global optimum" - ignoring all the recent rain events including in South Carolina and Texas,  which are surely tied to global warming (given a warmer atmosphere holds much more moisture).  But, as it warms the U.S. will fall off that peak and become more like poorer nations now. For example, the authors calculate a warmer U.S. in 2100 will have a GDP per person that's 36 percent lower than now.

The authors' main figures are based on the premise and assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise at the current trajectory. But if it is out by as much as 50 percent (and many climate scientists now assert warming by 2100 will mark an increase of 4C not 2C) all the forecasts will collapse. The loss in GDP per person could easily be as much as 70 or 80 percent - especially if power grids are also adversely affected.

Meanwhile, if heat trapping CO2 continues to grow at the current rate they forecast the average global income will shrink by 23 percent at the end of the century. Again, if the increase is 4C and not 2C the gutting of income will be much worse,

As Prof. Hsiang puts it(ibid.):

"Climate change is essentially a massive transfer of value from the hot parts of the world to the cooler parts of the world. This is like taking from the poor and giving to the rich."

But left out of the authors' projections is that as the world continues to warm it will set off a mass migration of those from the hot regions that will dwarf the current migration to Europe. Some estimates put the humans fleeing the hot - destitute regions as high as 200 million and possibly 300 million, by 2025. They will assuredly all be seeking that elusive "equality".

Will the cooler regions be ready for that? We will have to see. But if the current migration from the Middle East to Europe is any indicator, we won't.

Methane Release Increases Because of Supply Chain Plumbing Leaks

Outside  Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks, AK in March, 2005. Methane there is continuously outgassing from the melting permafrost.

Today, methane - the chief component of natural gas - accounts for one fourth of global warming. Given the nasty effects of methane (it has more than 20 times the forcing factor of CO2)  one would have thought humans would take more care in not releasing any more than already estimated from natural events. (Themselves of anthropogenic origin).

In the latter case, I refer to the Nov. 26, 2013  issue of the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience, in which the authors warned that the Arctic Ocean is releasing methane at a rate more than twice what existing scientific models predicted.  Natalie Shakhova and Igor Semiletov at the University of Alaska- Fairbanks' International Arctic Research Center - after a decade spent researching the Arctic's greenhouse gas emissions- have found this unexpected result.

Shakhova, the lead author of the report, in an interview post-publication, warned the methane release rate iwa likely even greater than their paper describes.  In an interview describing the work in The Fairbanks News Miner, she said:


" We decided to be as conservative as possible. We’re actually talking the top of the iceberg.” 


The researchers focused on the continental shelf off the northern coast of eastern Russia - the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Underlying this region is sub -sea permafrost. When the permafrost melts, the methane can be released. For example, the submerged East Siberian Arctic Shelf contains much of the same stored carbon as the dry tundra to the south but also at least 17 teragrams of methane. (One teragram is equal to one million tons).

The vast carbon stores in the Arctic are also protected by the layer of sub-sea permafrost, but the new research shows it's in danger of disappearing.   Core samples taken of the sub-sea permafrost by  Shakhova et al show now the temperatures are near the freezing mark (30-32F)  Meanwhile, both the top and lower levels of sediment have already thawed. (Some climate modelers had previously suggested this wouldn't happen for five to seven thousand years.)

Shakhova added

"What we’re observing right now is much faster than what we anticipated and much faster than what was modeled,”

The consensus carbon budget estimates that more than half of carbon emissions are human-caused, but these estimates vastly underestimate the amount of carbon stored in the Arctic shelves, 

According to Shakhova:

“I believe strongly the Arctic sources are understated and need to be paid more attention,”


What is even more sobering now is the recent finding that humans are inadvertently releasing even more methane.  We are talking about unburned methane which leaks from wellheads, processing plants and pipelines all along the natural gas supply chain.  For the first twenty years after it's released into the atmosphere it is 84 times more potent  than CO2 as a global warming gas.  Thus, even small amounts leaked into the atmosphere can negate any advantage natural gas has over other fossil fuels.

An independent study commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund found the industry could cut methane emissions 40 percent or more  for less than a penny per 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas produced by leaky valves and by properly maintaining pumps and other devices.. As one EDF investigator Mark Brownstein put it:

"It's largely a plumbing problem. And plumbing is dead simple".

In response, the White House - to its credit- announced a goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry to nearly half of 2012 levels by 2025. Which is totally practical - as well as economical.

Nevertheless, no less a lard head and nincompoop than James Inhofe (R-OK), blasted the plan for "imposing a mandate designed to stifle our domestic energy industries."

Actually no, lamebrain. It would in fact conserve more natural gas resources the same as turning off faucets conserves water wastage. But then maybe Inhofe is as much a proponent of wasted energy as he is the dimwit notion that global warming is a hoax.

Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry insists voluntary control are sufficient. Yet fewer than 30 of 6,000-plus oil and gas operators across the nation have taken steps to lower their emissions..

Indeed, IF voluntary measures worked we wouldn't need federal standards or "mandates".

Thankfully, the EPA this summer will propose regulations for emissions of methane from new and modified oil and gas sources.

It's about time, because we are already flirting with catastrophe and a runaway greenhouse effect given the cavalier attitude of too many-  especially posturing right wing fools like Jim Inhofe.

Don't Believe in Global Warming? Go To Switzerland or Alaska!

The recent news (Denver Post. Sept. 19, p. 8A) that a UN World Meteorological Organization report shows heat trapping carbon dioxide at a record high of 396 part per million - up 142 percent since 1750- comes as no surprise to those of us who have been fortunate to travel to glacier regions - including Switzerland and Alaska. There you will see it before your very eyes with the too early melting snow at high altitude, and the receding glaciers such as the Eigergletscher we beheld  -much receded since we last saw it in 1978.

For reference - below I show a map of the Jungfrau region and the train routes we traveled on our recent trip. If the quality is not sublime it's because the map was actually photographed from a sign.


If you can locate Kleine Scheidigg, and trace the curvy red line up from it you will come to Eigergletscher. Tracking the red line (dotted) all the way up you will come to JungfrauJoch or  "the top of Europe".  A view of the receding glacier - seen from our train en route up to Jungfraujoch is seen below:


This was not the only receding glacier we beheld but it unnerved us because it was the one we most recalled - from our previous trip. We had taken slides then but alas, the mold and mildew in Barbados got to them. Meanwhile, on reaching JungfauJoch we enjoyed this scene:

Note the people but most especially the lines of rope  tied to posts in the foreground in the image below.  None of those ropes were there when we last came. Unlike when we were there in 1978, the powers-that-be had roped off the entire plateau area and posted signs to warn visitors not to jump over the ropes to go beyond. With no such rope boundaries in '78,  we managed to hike far beyond those confines to the top of a steep slope nearly parallel with the Sphinx Observatory (previous photo, far right) :

This time we observed chunks of snow and ice falling and suspect a primary reason is that global warming has rendered the snow-packed slopes more treacherous, and the risk of avalanche much greater. We'd have had to be fools to attempt what we did 36 years earlier.

When we traveled to Alaska, in March, 2005, we saw similar unnerving sights. Many of these while we traveled in a small 'flightseeing' plane to Mount Denali. One view from the cockpit of the plane is shown below:













The original deal is that we were supposed to land on a glacier near the peak and be able to walk around and see Denali up close and personal. This was the package promised. However, after several swoops low over the area the pilot warned he wouldn't be able to fulfill it. His 27 years of experience and hawk eyes informed him the supporting snow and ice was much too treacherous to sustain even a small plane landing. Did we really want our "money's worth"? Uh no.  What we saw, however, was enough to show us that those who denied global warming were spouting bollocks. Indeed, when I was at the University of Alaska over 1985-86 it was none other than Prof. Gunter Weller who had first shown how the Arctic was warming much more rapidly than the lower continent - and this was part of anthropogenic warming predictions.

This was spelled out for us when we visited Fairbanks and the University's Geophysical Institute where Weller did his work in the 1980s. We also got to see how extensively melting was occurring near the Alaska Pipeline:

While at the GI we also got to chat with several current atmospheric scientists who reinforced the import of Weller's work.

We also got to see the Ice Art Exhibit and learned that several ice towers (including one 150' tall) had collapsed due to melting permafrost beneath. Now, melting permafrost poses a major danger to structures as well as releasing an even more potent greenhouse gas: methane.

Meanwhile, here in Colorado, a report released Thursday by the Environment Colorado Research and Policy Center disclosed that Colorado's power plants now emit as much CO2 pollution in one year: 38.6 million metric tons, or as much as the entire country of New Zealand.

The evidence is there, and before us - staring us in the face- at least for those of us who've gone to Alaska and Switzerland and seen first hand the negative effect anthropogenic warming is having on key attractions, events and even buildings. Those unable to travel to such places can still see the current rapid melting of glaciers world wide at this link:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899

In other words, there really is no excuse not to be aware.

But, are we going to continue to just play the fool with our planet, or do something? That remains the key question and one hopes sincerely it starts to get seriously addressed next week when the leaders of 125 nations (minus China, Russia and India) meet for a summit to address the problem (again!). The primary objective will be to jump start negotiations for an agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change.

The problem is that whatever they do is likely going to be too little too late..

Most Americans Don't Accept the Big Bang: Are They Dumb Or Uneducated?

 

As regular readers of my blog know, I have zero tolerance for people who proffer opinions about scientific theories if they have never even taken a basic course in the  related discipline or area themselves.  Thus, if you are going to spout off about evolution you need to have at least taken a college Biology course (two semesters).  If you are going to opine about the Big Bang or global warming, then I expect you will have at least taken a high school physics course - again, two full semesters.  In an earlier blog post I even posted a basic thermal physics test for those who dispute anthropogenic global warming. See e.g.

 

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/12/thermal-physics-test-for-skeptics.html

 

Example:

 

The diagram below shows two bodies of equal mass (A and B) within a thermally insulated material. A has a thermometer inserted to take readings. A was initially at a temperature of 100C and B at 50 C when placed in thermal contact.

a) Find the temperature of the system of two bodies in thermal equilibrium. Is this the same as the reading of A’s temperature? (Show work, explain)
b) Which body undergoes a positive change in entropy?
c) Which body undergoes a negative change in entropy?
d) What is the total entropy change for the system, A + B?

 

Sadly, it is doubtful that even one of the ordinary folk who opine that global warming "doesn't exist or isn't driven by humans"  would be able to do this single problem. Since the Big Bang is ultimately concerned with thermal aspects of physics as well, expansion of plasma in space and time,  it is likely they wouldn't be able to do any of these problems or related ones, e.g.

 

a) One mole of a gas has a volume of 0.0223 cubic meters at a pressure P = 1.01 x 10 ⁵ N/m² at 0 degrees Celsius. If the molar heat capacity at constant pressure is 28.5 J/mol-K find the molar heat capacity at constant volume, C _v.,m.

 

b) 20 g of a gas initially at 27 C is heated at a constant pressure of 101 kPa (kiloPascals), so its volume increases from 0.250 m³ to 0.375 m³. Find:

i) the external work done in the expansion

ii)  the increase in the internal energy U
 

Now, the preceding dismal take is confirmed in a new Associated Press poll that has yet more depressing news for those of us already appalled at the diminishing quality of science education in this country. As noted in the attendant report:

A majority of Americans don’t believe in even the most fundamental discovery of 20th century physics, which 99.9 percent of members of the National Academies of Sciences do: that our universe began with an enormous explosion, the Big Bang

51 percent of people in a new AP/GFK poll said they were “not too confident” or “not at all confident” that the statement “the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang” was correct.
(…)
[T]he Big Bang question data was enough to “depress and upset some of America’s top scientists,” the AP said.

 If so, they haven’t been paying attention to the data about the scientific knowledge that Americans possess. The National Science Board (a part of the National Science Foundation) has produced an annual survey of American beliefs about science called the Science and Engineering Indicators since the 1980s.   Americans - as reflected in the AP survey -  both seem to find the Big Bang confusing and worse, to have faith-based conflicts with the scientific conclusions of cosmology.

 

I attribute a lot of this to fake scientists - actually pseudo-scientists (like Jason Lisle) - who gain a peanut gallery as well as prominence in the fundagelical religious sphere then profess to spiel on scientific issues like the Big Bang and the age of the Earth, confusing and undermining their followers. See e.g.

 

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/idiots-r-us-why-certain-pastors.html

 

In this case, it's not surprising to behold the other shaky scientific investments of Americans, including: that the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old, that life on Earth came about by natural selection, and that the Earth orbits the Sun not the other way around.

 

In most cases the observed 'shakiness' or lack of confidence in the scientific findings is partly to do with not having the necessary science background or education. Thus, the person without a decent physics education will tend to doubt the Big Bang theory, just as the person without an adequate biology education (which means no exposure to natural selection)  will lack confidence in natural selection and hence evolution.

 

But what about the educated person who still rejects the Big Bang (as Jason Lisle does), or global warming engendered by humans (as Richard Lindzen does) or evolution (as Jason Lisle also does)? In this case one must factor in pre-existing cognitive distortions such as the confirmation bias. This occurs when one selectively looks for and finds confirmatory evidence for strongly held, entrenched beliefs. Interestingly, this phenomenon is almost exclusively tied to those with conservative political and religious beliefs. Hence, their beliefs dominate their cognitive maps and outlooks and pave the way for the confirmation bias.

 

It isn't that they are 'dumb' but rather that their brains are contaminated by a bias which prevents them from seeing things objectively.  

 

The sad conclusion for the scientist looking for a hint that Americans are more open to modern scientific finds?  Don't hold your breath because the factors that engender American doubt in those finds isn't going away anytime soon. Even the best science education (at least to the baccalaureate degree level) may mitigate it, but if the person is steeped in religious convictions that inveigh against the findings there will be no progress. Distortions such as confirmation bias will work against it.

 

See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/55558/the-flat-earth-society-has-arisen-again