The Global Warming IPCC 2018 Report

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC (SR15) was published two days ago, on October 8th, 2018. The Report was written by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “which is the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments concerning climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies.” (IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC, Press Release).

The Report’s findings are very bad. Its Summary for Policymakers starts with:

“Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.”

That’s 12 years from now.

IPCC 2018 - Copy
Extract from the IPCC (2018), Global Warming of 1.5 ºC, Summary for Policymakers. “Observed monthly global mean surface temperature (GMST) change grey line up to 2017, from the HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, Cowtan – Way, and NOAA datasets) and estimated anthropogenic global warming (solid orange line up to 2017, with orange shading indicating assessed likely range). Orange dashed arrow and horizontal orange error bar show respectively central estimate and likely range of the time at which 1.5°C is reached if the current rate of warming continues. The grey plume on the right of  shows the likely range of warming responses, computed with a simple climate model, to a stylized pathway (hypothetical future) in which net CO2 emissions  decline in a straight line from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 and net non – CO2 radiative forcing increases to 2030 and then declines. “

Which means that we warmed up the world by 1.0°C (1.8°F) since 1850-1900. Continuing the way we have been doing, we will add another 0.5°C (0.9°F) to the world temperature sometime between 2030 and 2052, making the total human-made global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F).

That’s 12 years from now.

Half a degree Celsius doesn’t sound so bad until you look at the highly confident model prediction saying that gaining that extra 0.5°C (0.9°F) will result in terrible unseen before superstorms and precipitation in some regions while others will suffer prolonged droughts, along with extreme heat waves and sea level rises due to the melting of Antarctica. From a biota point of view, if we reach the 1.5°C (2.7°F) threshold, most of the coral reefs will become extinct, as well as thousands of other species (6% of insects, 8% of plants, and 4% of vertebrates).

That’s 12 years from now.

All these will end up increasing famine, homelessness, disease, inequality, poverty, and refugee numbers to unprecedented levels. Huge spending of money on infrastructure, rebuilding, help efforts, irrigation, water supplies, and so on, for those inclined to be more concerned by finances. To put it bluntly, a 1.5°C (2.7°F) increase in global warming costs us about $54 trillion.

That’s 12 years from now.

These effects will persist for centuries to millennia. To stay at the 1.5°C (2.7°F)  limit we need to reduce the carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve 0 emissions by 2050.

That’s 12 years from now.

The Report emphasizes that a 1.5°C (2.7°F)  increase is not as bad as a 2°C (3.6°F), where we will loose double of the biota, the storms will be worse, the droughts longer, and altogether a more catastrophic scenario.

Technically, we ARE ABLE to limit the warming at 1.5°C (2.7°F), If, by 2050, we rely on renewable energy, like solar and wind, to supply 70-85% of energy, we will be able to stay at the 1.5°C (2.7°F). Lower the coal use as energy source to single digits percentages. Expanding forests and implementing large CO2 capture programs would help tremendously. Drastically reduce carbon emissions by, for example, hitting polluters with crippling fines. But all this requires rapid implementation of heavy laws and regulation, which will come from a concentrated effort of our leaders.

Therefore, politically, we ARE UNABLE to limit the warming at 1.5°C (2.7°F). Instead, it’s very likely that we will warm the planet by 2°C (3.6°F) in the next decades. If we do nothing, by the end of the century the world will be even hotter, being warmed up by 3°C (5.4°F) and there are no happy scenarios then as the climate change will be beyond our control. That is, our children’s control.

141-ipcc hope - Copy

There are conspiracy theorists out there claiming that there are nefarious or hidden reasons behind this report, or that its conclusions are not credible, or that it’s not legit, or it’s bad science, or that it represents the view of a fringe group of scientists and does not reflect a scientific consensus. I would argue that people who claim such absurdities are either the ones with a hidden agenda or are plain idiots. Not ignorants, because ignorance is curable and whoever seeks to learn new things is to be admired. Not honest questioning either, because that is as necessary to science as the water to the fish. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, I call idiocy and is remarkably resistant to presentation of facts. FYI, the Report was conducted by a Panel commissioned by an organization comprising 195 countries, is authored by 91 scientists, has an additional 133 contributing authors, all these spanning 40 countries, analyzing over 6000 scientific studies. Oh, and the Panel received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. I daresay it looks legit. The next full climate assessment will be released in 2021.

141 Climate change - Copy

REFERENCES:

  1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 ºC, an IPCC Special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Retrieved 10 October 2018Website  | Covers: New York Times | Nature  | The Washington Post | The Guardian | The Economist | ABC News | Deutsche Welle | CNN | HuffPost Canada| Los Angeles Times | BBC | Time .
  2. The IPCC Summary for Policymakers PDF
  3. The IPCC Press Release PDF
  4. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

By Neuronicus, 10 October 2018

The FIRSTS: The cause(s) of dinosaur extinction

A few days ago, a follower of mine gave me an interesting read from The Atlantic regarding the dinosaur extinction. Like many of my generation, I was taught in school that dinosaurs died because an asteroid hit the Earth. That led to a nuclear winter (or a few years of ‘nuclear winters’) which killed the photosynthetic organisms, and then the herbivores didn’t have anything to eat so they died and then the carnivores didn’t have anything to eat and so they died. Or, as my 4-year-old puts it, “[in a solemn voice] after the asteroid hit, big dusty clouds blocked the sun; [in an ominous voice] each day was colder than the previous one and so, without sunlight to keep them alive [sad face, head cocked sideways], the poor dinosaurs could no longer survive [hands spread sideways, hung head] “. Yes, I am a proud parent. Now I have to do a sit-down with the child and explain that… What, exactly?

Well, The Atlantic article showcases the struggles of a scientist – paleontologist and geologist Gerta Keller – who doesn’t believe the mainstream asteroid hypothesis; rather she thinks there is enough evidence to point out that extreme volcano eruptions, like really extreme, thousands of times more powerful than anything we know in the recorded history, put out so much poison (soot, dust, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur, carbon dioxide, mercury, lead, and so on) in the atmosphere that, combined with the consequent dramatic climate change, killed the dinosaurs. The volcanoes were located in India and they erupted for hundreds of thousands of years, but most violent eruptions, Keller thinks, were in the last 40,000 years before the extinction. This hypothesis is called the Deccan volcanism from the region in India where these nasty volcanoes are located, first proposed by Vogt (1972) and Courtillot et al. (1986).

138- Vogt - Copy.jpg

So which is true? Or, rather, because this is science we’re talking about, which hypothesis is more supported by the facts: the volcanism or the impact?

The impact hypothesis was put forward in 1980 when Walter Alvarez, a geologist, noticed a thin layer of clay in rocks that were about 65 million years old, which coincided with the time when the dinosaurs disappeared. This layer is on the KT boundary (sometimes called K-T, K-Pg, or KPB, looks like the biologists are not the only ones with acronym problems) and marks the boundary between the Cretaceous and Paleogenic geological periods (T is for Triassic, yeah, I know). Walter asked his father, the famous Nobel Prize physicist Louis Alvarez, to take a look at it and see what it is. Alvarez Sr. analyzed it and decided that the clay contains a lot of iridium, dozens of times more than expected. After gathering more samples from Europe and New Zealand, they published a paper (Alvarez et al., 1980) in which the scientists reasoned that because Earth’s iridium is deeply buried in its bowels and not in its crust, this iridium at the K-Pg boundary is of extraterrestrial origin, which could be brought here only by an asteroid/comet. This is also the paper in which it was put forth for the first time the conjecture that the asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs, based on the uncanny coincidence of timing.

138-alvarez - Copy

The discovery of the Chicxulub crater in Mexico followed a more sinuous path because the geophysicists who first discovered it in the ’70s were working for an oil company, looking for places to drill. Once the dinosaur-died-due-to-asteroid-impact hypothesis gained popularity outside academia, the geologists and the physicists put two-and-two together, acquired more data, and published a paper (Hildebrand et al., 1991) where the Chicxulub crater was for the first time linked with the dinosaur extinction. Although the crater was not radiologically dated yet, they had enough geophysical, stratigraphic, and petrologic evidence to believe it was as old as the iridium layer and the dinosaur die-out.

138-chicxulub - Copy

But, devil is in the details, as they say. Keller published a paper in 2007 saying the Chicxulub event predates the extinction by some 300,000 years (Keller et al., 2007). She looked at geological samples from Texas and found the glass granule layer (indicator of the Chicxhulub impact) way below the K-Pg boundary. So what’s up with the iridium then? Keller (2014) believes that is not of extraterrestrial origin and it might well have been spewed up by a particularly nasty eruption or the sediments got shifted. Schulte et al. (2010), on the other hand, found high levels of iridium in 85 samples from all over the world in the KPG layer. Keller says that some other 260 samples don’t have iridium anomalies. As a response, Esmeray-Senlet et al. (2017) used some fancy Mass Spectrometry to show that the iridium profiles could have come only from Chicxulub, at least in North America. They argue that the variability in iridium profiles around the world is due to regional geochemical processes. And so on, and so on, the controversy continues.

Actual radioisotope dating was done a bit later in 2013: date of K-Pg is 66.043 ± 0.043 MA (millions of years ago), date of the Chicxulub crater is 66.038 ±.025/0.049 MA. Which means that the researchers “established synchrony between the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary and associated mass extinctions with the Chicxulub bolide impact to within 32,000 years” (Renne et al., 2013), which is a blink of an eye in geological times.

138-66 chixhulub - Copy

Now I want you to understand that often in science, though by far not always, matters are not so simple as she is wrong, he is right. In geology, what matters most is the sample. If the sample is corrupted, so will be your conclusions. Maybe Keller’s or Renne’s samples were affected by a myriad possible variables, some as simple as shifting the dirt from here to there by who knows what event. After all, it’s been 66 million years since. Also, methods used are just as important and dating something that happened so long ago is extremely difficult due to intrinsic physical methodological limitations. Keller (2014), for example, claims that Renne couldn’t have possibly gotten such an exact estimation because he used Argon isotopes when only U-Pb isotope dilution–thermal ionization mass spectrometry (ID-TIMS) zircon geochronology could be so accurate. But yet again, it looks like he did use both, so… I dunno. As the over-used always-trite but nevertheless extremely important saying goes: more data is needed.

Even if the dating puts Chicxulub at the KPB, the volcanologists say that the asteroid, by itself, couldn’t have produced a mass extinction because there are other impacts of its size and they did not have such dire effects, but were barely noticeable at the biota scale. Besides, most of the other mass extinctions on the planet have been already associated with extreme volcanism (Archibald et al., 2010). On the other hand, the circumstances of this particular asteroid could have made it deadly: it landed in the hydrocarbon-rich areas that occupied only 13% of the Earth’s surface at the time which resulted in a lot of “stratospheric soot and sulfate aerosols and causing extreme global cooling and drought” (Kaiho & Oshima, 2017). Food for thought: this means that the chances of us, humans, to be here today are 13%!…

I hope that you do notice that these are very recent papers, so the issue is hotly debated as we speak.

It is possible, nay probable, that the Deccan volcanism, which was going on long before and after the extinction, was exacerbated by the impact. This is exactly what Renne’s team postulated in 2015 after dating the lava plains in the Deccan Traps: the eruptions intensified about 50,000 years before the KT boundary, from “high-frequency, low-volume eruptions to low-frequency, high-volume eruptions”, which is about when the asteroid hit. Also, the Deccan eruptions continued for about half a million years after KPB, “which is comparable with the time lag between the KPB and the initial stage of ecological recovery in marine ecosystems” (Renne et al., 2016, p. 78).

Since we cannot get much more accurate dating than we already have, perhaps the fossils can tell us whether the dinosaurs died abruptly or slowly. Because if they got extinct in a few years instead of over 50,000 years, that would point to a cataclysmic event. Yes, but which one, big asteroid or violent volcano? Aaaand, we’re back to square one.

Actually, the last papers on the matter points to two extinctions: the Deccan extinction and the Chicxulub extinction. Petersen et al., (2016) went all the way to Antarctica to find pristine samples. They noticed a sharp increase in global temperatures by about 7.8 ºC at the onset of Deccan volcanism. This climate change would surely lead to some extinctions, and this is exactly what they found: out of 24 species of marine animals investigated, 10 died-out at the onset of Deccan volcanism and the remaining 14 died-out when Chicxulub hit.

In conclusion, because this post is already verrrry long and is becoming a proper college review, to me, a not-a-geologist/paleontologist/physicist-but-still-a-scientist, things happened thusly: first Deccan traps erupted and that lead to a dramatic global warming coupled with spewing poison in the atmosphere. Which resulted in a massive die-out (about 200,000 years before the bolide impact, says a corroborating paper, Tobin, 2017). The surviving species (maybe half or more of the biota?) continued the best they could for the next few hundred thousand years in the hostile environment. Then the Chicxulub meteorite hit and the resulting megatsunami, the cloud of super-heated dust and soot, colossal wildfires and earthquakes, acid rain and climate cooling, not to mention the intensification of the Deccan traps eruptions, finished off the surviving species. It took Earth 300,000 to 500,000 years to recover its ecosystem. “This sequence of events may have combined into a ‘one-two punch’ that produced one of the largest mass extinctions in Earth history” (Petersen et al., 2016, p. 6).

138-timeline dinosaur - Copy

By Neuronicus, 25 August 2018

P. S. You, high school and college students who will use this for some class assignment or other, give credit thusly: Neuronicus (Aug. 26, 2018). The FIRSTS: The cause(s) of dinosaur extinction. Retrieved from https://scientiaportal.wordpress.com/2018/08/26/the-firsts-the-causes-of-dinosaur-extinction/ on [date]. AND READ THE ORIGINAL PAPERS. Ask me for .pdfs if you don’t have access, although with sci-hub and all… not that I endorse any illegal and fraudulent use of the above mentioned server for the purpose of self-education and enlightenment in the quest for knowledge that all academics and scientists praise everywhere around the Globe!

EDIT March 29, 2019. Astounding one-of-a-kind discovery is being brought to print soon. It’s about a site in North Dakota that, reportedly, has preserved the day of the Chicxhulub impact in amazing detail, with tons of fossils of all kinds (flora, mammals, dinosaurs, fish) which seems to put the entire extinction of dinosaurs in one day, thus favoring the asteroid impact hypothesis. The data is not out yet. Can’t wait til it is! Actually, I’ll have to wait some more after it’s out for the experts to examine it and then I’ll find out. Until then, check the story of the discovery here and here.

REFERENCES:

1. Alvarez LW, Alvarez W, Asaro F, & Michel HV (6 Jun 1980). Extraterrestrial cause for the cretaceous-tertiary extinction. PMID: 17783054. DOI: 10.1126/science.208.4448.1095 Science, 208(4448):1095-1108. ABSTRACT | FULLTEXT PDF

2. Archibald JD, Clemens WA, Padian K, Rowe T, Macleod N, Barrett PM, Gale A, Holroyd P, Sues HD, Arens NC, Horner JR, Wilson GP, Goodwin MB, Brochu CA, Lofgren DL, Hurlbert SH, Hartman JH, Eberth DA, Wignall PB, Currie PJ, Weil A, Prasad GV, Dingus L, Courtillot V, Milner A, Milner A, Bajpai S, Ward DJ, Sahni A. (21 May 2010) Cretaceous extinctions: multiple causes. Science,328(5981):973; author reply 975-6. PMID: 20489004, DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5981.973-aScience. FULL REPLY

3. Courtillot V, Besse J, Vandamme D, Montigny R, Jaeger J-J, & Cappetta H (1986). Deccan flood basalts at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary? Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 80(3-4), 361–374. doi: 10.1016/0012-821x(86)90118-4. ABSTRACT

4. Esmeray-Senlet, S., Miller, K. G., Sherrell, R. M., Senlet, T., Vellekoop, J., & Brinkhuis, H. (2017). Iridium profiles and delivery across the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 457, 117–126. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2016.10.010. ABSTRACT

5. Hildebrand AR, Penfield GT, Kring DA, Pilkington M, Camargo AZ, Jacobsen SB, & Boynton WV (1 Sept. 1991). Chicxulub Crater: A possible Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater on the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Geology, 19 (9): 867-871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1991)019<0867:CCAPCT>2.3.CO;2. ABSTRACT

6. Kaiho K & Oshima N (9 Nov 2017). Site of asteroid impact changed the history of life on Earth: the low probability of mass extinction. Scientific Reports,7(1):14855. PMID: 29123110, PMCID: PMC5680197, DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-14199-x. . ARTICLE | FREE FULLTEXT PDF

7. Keller G, Adatte T, Berner Z, Harting M, Baum G, Prauss M, Tantawy A, Stueben D (30 Mar 2007). Chicxulub impact predates K–T boundary: New evidence from Brazos, Texas, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 255(3–4): 339-356. DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.12.026. ABSTRACT

8. Keller, G. (2014). Deccan volcanism, the Chicxulub impact, and the end-Cretaceous mass extinction: Coincidence? Cause and effect? Geological Society of America Special Papers, 505:57–89. doi:10.1130/2014.2505(03) ABSTRACT

9. Petersen SV, Dutton A, & Lohmann KC. (5 Jul 2016). End-Cretaceous extinction in Antarctica linked to both Deccan volcanism and meteorite impact via climate change. Nature Communications, 7:12079. doi: 10.1038/ncomms12079. PMID: 27377632, PMCID: PMC4935969, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms12079. ARTICLE | FREE FULLTEXT PDF 

10. Renne PR, Deino AL, Hilgen FJ, Kuiper KF, Mark DF, Mitchell WS 3rd, Morgan LE, Mundil R, & Smit J (8 Feb 2013). Time scales of critical events around the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Science, 8;339(6120):684-687. doi: 10.1126/science.1230492. PMID: 23393261, DOI: 10.1126/science.1230492 ABSTRACT 

11. Renne PR, Sprain CJ, Richards MA, Self S, Vanderkluysen L, Pande K. (2 Oct 2015). State shift in Deccan volcanism at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, possibly induced by impact. Science, 350(6256):76-8. PMID: 26430116. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac7549 ABSTRACT

12. Schoene B, Samperton KM, Eddy MP, Keller G, Adatte T, Bowring SA, Khadri SFR, & Gertsch B (2014). U-Pb geochronology of the Deccan Traps and relation to the end-Cretaceous mass extinction. Science, 347(6218), 182–184. doi:10.1126/science.aaa0118. ARTICLE

13. Schulte P, Alegret L, Arenillas I, Arz JA, Barton PJ, Bown PR, Bralower TJ, Christeson GL, Claeys P, Cockell CS, Collins GS, Deutsch A, Goldin TJ, Goto K, Grajales-Nishimura JM, Grieve RA, Gulick SP, Johnson KR, Kiessling W, Koeberl C, Kring DA, MacLeod KG, Matsui T, Melosh J, Montanari A, Morgan JV, Neal CR, Nichols DJ, Norris RD, Pierazzo E,Ravizza G, Rebolledo-Vieyra M, Reimold WU, Robin E, Salge T, Speijer RP, Sweet AR, Urrutia-Fucugauchi J, Vajda V, Whalen MT, Willumsen PS.(5 Mar 2010). The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Science, 327(5970):1214-8. PMID: 20203042, DOI: 10.1126/science.1177265. ABSTRACT

14. Tobin TS (24 Nov 2017). Recognition of a likely two phased extinction at the K-Pg boundary in Antarctica. Scientific Reports, 7(1):16317. PMID: 29176556, PMCID: PMC5701184, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-16515-x. ARTICLE | FREE FULLTEXT PDF 

15. Vogt, PR (8 Dec 1972). Evidence for Global Synchronism in Mantle Plume Convection and Possible Significance for Geology. Nature, 240(5380), 338–342. doi:10.1038/240338a0 ABSTRACT

The FIRSTS: Increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere results in global warming (1896)

Few people seem to know that although global warming and climate change are hotly debated topics right now (at least on the left side of the Atlantic) the effect of CO2 levels on the planet’s surface temperature was investigated and calculated more than a century ago. CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases responsible for the greenhouse effect, which was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (the effect, that is).

Let’s start with a terminology clarification. Whereas the term ‘global warming’ was coined by Wallace S. Broecker in 1975, the term ‘climate change’ underwent a more fluidic transformation in the ’70s from ‘inadvertent climate modification’ to ‘climatic change’ to a more consistent use of ‘climate change’ by Jule Charney in 1979, according to NASA. The same source tells us:

“Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect”.

But before NASA there was one Svante August Arrhenius (1859–1927). Dr. Arrhenius was a Swedish physical chemist who received the Nobel Prize in 1903 for uncovering the role of ions in how electrical current is conducted in chemical solutions.

S.A. Arrhenius was the first to quantify the variations of our planet’s surface temperature as a direct result of the amount of CO2 (which he calls carbonic acid, long story) present in the atmosphere. For those – admittedly few – nitpickers that say his views on the greenhouse effect were somewhat simplistic and his calculations were incorrect I’d say cut him a break: he didn’t have the incredible amount of data provided by the satellites or computers, nor the work of thousands of scientists over a century to back him up. Which they do. Kind of. Well, the idea, anyway, not the math. Well, some of the math. Let me explain.

First, let me tell you that I haven’t managed to pass past page 3 of the 39 pages of creative mathematics, densely packed tables, parameter assignments, and convoluted assumptions of Arrhenius (1896). Luckily, I convinced a spectroscopist to take a crack at the original paper since there is a lot of spectroscopy in it and then enlighten me.

118Boltzmann-grp - Copy
The photo was taken in 1887 and shows (standing, from the left): Walther Nernst (Nobel in Chemistry), Heinrich Streintz, Svante Arrhenius, Richard Hiecke; (sitting, from the left): Eduard Aulinger, Albert von Ettingshausen, Ludwig Boltzmann, Ignaz Klemenčič, Victor Hausmanninger. Source: Universität Graz. License: PD via Wikimedia Commons.

Second, despite his many accomplishments, including being credited with laying the foundations of a new field (physical chemistry), Arrhenius was first and foremost a mathematician. So he employed a lot of tedious mathematics (by hand!) together with some hefty guessing along with what was known at the time about Earth’s infrared radiation, solar radiation, water vapor and CO2 absorption, temperature of the Moon,  greenhouse effect, and some uncalibrated spectra taken by his predecessors to figure out if “the mean temperature of the ground [was] in any way influenced by the presence of the heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere” (p. 237). Why was he interested in this? We find out only at page 267 after a lot of aforesaid dreary mathematics where he finally shares this with us:

“I certainly not have undertaken these tedious calculations if an extraordinary interest had not been connected with them. In the Physical Society of Stockholm there have been occasionally very lively discussions on the probable causes of the Ice Age”.

So Arrhenius was interested to find out if the fluctuations of CO2 levels could have caused the Ice Ages. And yes, he thinks that could have happened. I don’t know enough about climate science to tell you if this particular conclusion of his is correct today. But what he managed to accomplish though was to provide for the first time a way to mathematically calculate the amount of rise in temperature due the rise of CO2 levels. In other words, he found a direct relationship between the variations of CO2 and temperature.

Today, it turns out that his math was incorrect because he left out some other variables that influence the global temperature that were discovered and/or understood later (like the thickness of the atmosphere, the rate of ocean absorption  of CO2 and others which I won’t pretend I understand). Nevertheless, Arrhenius was the first to point out to the following relationship, which, by and large, is still relevant today:

“Thus if the quantity of carbonic acid increased in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression” (p. 267).

118 Arrhenius - Copy

P.S. Technically, Joseph Fourier should be credited with the discovery of global warming by means of increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 1824, but Arrhenius quantified it so I credited him. Feel fee to debate :).

REFERENCE: Arrhenius, S. (April 1896). XXXI. On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (Fifth Series), 49 (251): 237-276. General Reference P.P.1433. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846. FREE FULLTEXT PDF

By Neuronicus, 24 June 2017

Don’t eat snow

Whoever didn’t roll out a tongue to catch a few snowflakes? Probably only those who never encountered snow.

The bad news is that snow, particularly urban snow is bad, really bad for you. The good news is that this was not always the case. So there is hope that in the far future it will be pristine again.

Nazarenko et al. (2016) constructed a very clever contraption that reminds me of NASA space exploration instruments. The authors refer to this by the humble name of ‘environmental chamber’, but is in fact a complex construction with different modules designed to measure out how car exhaust and snow interact (see Fig. 1).

110-copy-2
Fig. 1 from Nazarenko et al. (2016, DOI: 10.1039/c5em00616c). Released under CC BY-NC 3.0.

After many experiments, researchers concluded that snow absorbs pollutants very effectively. Among the many kinds of organic compounds soaked by snow in just one hour after exposure to fume exhaust, there were the infamous BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes). The amounts of these chemicals in the snow were not at all negligible; to give you an example, the BTEX concentration increased from virtually 0 to 50 and up to 380 ug kg-1. The authors provide detailed measurements for all the 40+ compounds they have identified.

Needles to say, many these compounds are known carcinogenics. Snow absorbs them, alters their size distributions, and then it melts… Some of them may be released back in the air as they are volatile, some will go in the ground and rivers as polluted water. After this gloomy reality check, I’ll leave you with the words of the researchers:

“The accumulation and transfer of pollutants from exhaust – to snow – to meltwater need to be considered by regulators and policy makers as an important area of focus for mitigation with the aim to protect public health and the environment” (p. 197).

110-copy

Reference: Nazarenko Y, Kurien U, Nepotchatykh O, Rangel-Alvarado RB, & Ariya PA. (Feb 2016). Role of snow and cold environment in the fate and effects of nanoparticles and select organic pollutants from gasoline engine exhaust. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 18(2):190-199. doi: 10.1039/c5em00616c. ARTICLE | FREE FULTEXT PDF 

By Neuronicus, 26 December 2016

Save

Save

Only the climate change scientists are interested in evidence. The rest is politics

Satellite image of clouds created by the exhaust of ship smokestacks (2005). Credit: NASA. License: PD.
Satellite image of clouds created by the exhaust of ship smokestacks (2005). Credit: NASA. License: PD.

Medimorec & Pennycook (2015) analyzed the language used in two prominent reports regarding climate change. Climate change is not a subject of scientific debate anymore, but of political discourse. Nevertheless, it appears that there are a few scientists that are skeptical about the climate change. As part of a conservative think tank, they formed the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) as an alternative to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In 2013, the NIPCC authored Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (hereafter referred to as ‘NIPCC’; Idso et al. 2013), a scientific report that is a direct response to IPCC’s Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis (hereafter referred to as ‘IPCC’; Stocker et al. 2013), also published in 2013″ (Medimorec & Pennycook, 2015) .

The authors are not climate scientists, but psychologists armed with nothing but 3 text analysis tools: Coh-Metrix text analyzer, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, and AntConc 3.3.5 concordancer analysis toolkit). They do not even fully understand the two very lengthy and highly technical papers; as they put it,

it is very unlikely that non-experts (present authors included) would have the requisite knowledge to be able to distinguish the NIPCC and IPCC reports based on the validity of their scientific arguments“.

So, they proceed on counting nouns, verbs, adverbs, and the like. The results: IPCC used more formal language, more nouns, more abstract words, more infrequent words, more complex syntax, and a lot more tentative language (‘possible’, ‘probable’, ‘might’) than the NIPCC. Which is ironic, since the climate scientists proponents are the ones accused of alarmism and trumpeting catastrophes. On the contrary, their language was much more refrained, perhaps out of fear of controversy, or just as likely, because they are scientists and very afraid to put their reputations at stake by risking type 1 errors.

In the authors’ words (I know, I am citing them 3 times in 4 paragraphs, but I really enjoyed their eloquence),

“the IPCC authors used more conservative (i.e., more cautious, less explicit) language to present their claims compared to the authors of the NIPCC report […]. The language style used by climate change skeptics suggests that the arguments put forth by these groups warrant skepticism in that they are relatively less focused upon the propagation of evidence and more intent on discrediting the opposing perspective”.

And this comes just from text analysis…

Reference: Medimorec, S. & Pennycook, G. (Epub 30 August 2015). The language of denial: text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1475-2. Article | Research Gate full text PDF

By Neuronicus, 4 November 2015