Is Climate Change to blame for Islamic Terrorism?

                                                                         Is climate change to blame?


A new study carried out by scientists at Columbia University shows that Syria is experiencing a severe drought.  The drought in Syria began in 2006 and is likely a product of global warming.  The scientists suggest that economic distress resulting from the drought helped trigger the civil war in Syria which in turn gave birth to the Islamic State.

At first the possibility of a link between climate change and the birth of the Islamic State and their particular brand of extremist terrorist seems a bit far-fetched.    Yes, computer modeling shows that global warming causes droughts, and yes, very severe droughts are now impacting many regions around the world from California to Australia to Brazil to India to the Middle East.  But surely it isn't fair to blame Islamic Terrorism on Global Warming when so many regions are suffering drought without giving rise to violent extremists?

Possibly not, but the general principle behind this idea is worth noting.  Global Warming is inevitably going to cause immense social disruptions in the future.  Global Warming is already producing extreme droughts, economic disruption and political stress around the world.  In the near future tens of millions of refugees will be displaced by rising sea levels, with many of these refugees coming from densely populated areas on deltas in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, and Africa.  And no doubt other unpleasant things will happen as the climate continues to rise.

There is no way to predict the exact societal effects of global warming.  In some places the social stresses from global warming may result in nothing more than lawsuits---in other places rebellions and  violent jihad may be born, and in some place we may see wars between states over water and other natural resources.

Yes, climate change will be to blame for triggering these problems.

Lyndon Johnson and the 50th Anniversary of Geoengineering

                                                        LBJ's Great Society didn't include Geoengineering


The idea of Geoengineering was first proposed 50 years ago.  In 1964 Manabe and Strickler first noted that intentionally injecting "freezing nuclei" into the upper atmosphere would create more clouds and reflect solar radiation back into space.  Just one year later in 1965 a report on the environment commissioned by President Lyndon Johnson noted the work of Manabe and Stricker, and said:

This potential method of bringing about climate change needs to be investigated as a possible tool for modifying atmospheric circulation in ways that might counteract the effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The report commissioned by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 is a remarkable document to see 50 years later, because it lays out many of the consequences of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that we are facing today.   The 1965 report starts out by warning that significant global warming will inevitably occur if CO2 emissions aren't curtailed, and goes on to note that this will cause glaciers and ice sheets to melt, sea level will rise dramatically, and the ocean and other waters will become warmer and more acidic.

LBJ was probably too busy with the war in Vietnam to personally read this report, but his administration responded to the suggestions of scientists that geoengineering needed to be investigated as a way to counteract global warming in the same way that all subsequent presidents have done---he ignored it.  Even today when the global warming issue is much much more prominent then it was 50 years ago, there is almost no research support for geoengineering.

Its interesting to note that the 1964 report says nothing about reductions of CO2 emissions---the authors assumed that CO2 emissions into the atmosphere were inevitable in the modern global economy.  However, since the 1980s the main effort to combating global warming has gone into voluntary efforts to reduce fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions like the Kyoto Accords.  These are well-meaning efforts, but after decades of this approach its clear that this approach has failed to reduce global CO2 emissions.  In fact, the data shows that global CO2 emissions have actually increased significantly since the Kyoto accords were adopted in 1992.    These facts suggest that now, on the 50th anniversary of the idea of geoengineering,  its time for the federal government to reassess and to begin to investigate various kinds of geoengineering concepts as "possible tools ... that might counteract the effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide."

Let's Rename Geoengineering Something Like "Climate Improvement"

                                                                               

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the move to change the name of global warming to something like "pollution death" in an attempt to make it sound scarier. Now some scientists are suggesting changing the name of geoengineering to something less scary.

The concern is that the word geoengineering is frightening  and confusing, and also gives the wrong impression about what exactly what us planetary geoengineers are considering doing. The problem, some say, is that the term "geo" refers to the earth rather than just to climate, and the word engineering conjures up images of an engineer designing a bridge or a man operating a train---something that is much simpler than the complex global climate system. Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert recently wrote:

“Engineering is something you do to a system you understand very well, where you can try out new techniques thoroughly at a small scale before staking peoples’ lives on them.....Hacking the climate is different—we have only one planet to live on, and can’t afford any big mistakes.”

Personally, I like the term geoengineering----most geoengineering ideas involve modifying or augmenting some natural earth process in the ocean, land, biosphere or atmosphere, and so clearly involve the earth. Other geoengineering concepts involve storing CO2 in some natural repository in the Earth. For instance, my own CO2 Antarctic Pumpdown geoengineering proposal would store the CO2 in the cryosphere. The term "geo" therefore perfectly fits the actual nature of geoengineering. And as far as the term engineering----one definition of engineering is the scientific manipulation of large systems.  Its exactly right.

Still, if we are going to stop using the term "geoengineering" lets be smart about the term we replace it with.  Some scientists who want the term "geoengineering" to be abandoned have suggesting replacing it with “climate intervention.” However the term "climate intervention" is even more misleading, in my opinion. "Climate Intervention" sounds like our good friend Mr. Climate has had too much to drink again and is falling down the stairs so we are going to do a "climate intervention" and put Mr. Climate in a cab and take him to a detox clinic.

If we are going to replace geoengineering with something less scary, then we can find a phrase that's better than "climate intervention".  We want a term that describes the process of manipulating Earth's climate in a way that sounds harmless and helpful and friendly and inviting.  We want a term that nobody can say they are against.  And I've thought of the perfect term----lets replace geoengineering with the term "climate improvement."

How could anyone be against climate improvement*?

*pssst---just don't tell anyone that it actually means "geoengineering".

A Good Reason to Drop Everything and go Snorkeling in Australia

                                                                      You'll be sorry when it's gone....
Go right now.  

Go to your closet, find your snorkeling gear, dust it off, pack it up with a sunhat, your swimsuit and  flip flops, buy a plane ticket, fly to the western Pacific and settle into a bungalow by a tropical beach.  Then wake up, get on your swimsuit, walk out to the beach,  put on your snorkeling gear and flippers, and slip into the water.   Swim out a bit, stop, spit in your mask and poke it around with your finger until the glass is clear, put the mask back on and adjust it so fits well, and then swim out farther.  When you get to the reef, put your head down and dive down to look at the coral and the fish.  See how many colors you can find---red, yellow, orange, purple, mauve, blue.  Then find even more colors.

Go right now or it might be too late.

Go to Hawaii and Palau and Australia and Tahiti and New Guinea and the Phillipines.  Go to the Coral Sea Islands.  Go to the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Go to the Red Sea.  Go to Aruba, Bonaire, Antigua and the Cayman Islands.  Go to the Line Islands, Belize, New Caledonia, Andros and Nassau.  Go to the Zhongshan Island, the Great Chagos Bank, Saya Del Malha and the Reed Bank.   Go now. 

A global coral bleaching event is going on right now. The world reached a record warm temperature in 2014, and the oceans are now so warm that corals can't take it. The corals are stressed, vast areas of corals are bleaching and losing their colors, and some corals will die. Small, local coral bleaching events happen every few years, but this coral bleaching event will be global. It will be the worst coral bleaching event in 20 years.

Bleaching started months ago on reefs in the Northern Marianas Islands, Guam, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Hawaii, Kiribati and Florida. Right now bleaching is going on in the Southern Pacific Ocean, including on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

What are you waiting for?  We're in the middle of a massive global coral bleaching event, and even stronger bleaching events are likely to occur in future years as global warming intensifies---doesn't it make you want to put on your snorkeling gear and paddle out to a coral reef to see the incredible colors of the corals and the fish right now?

As I foretold you, were all spirits, and are melted into air, into thin air

                                                        ......Are melted into air, into thin air

In Shakespeare's play "The Tempest" Prospero brings the play to a conclusion by saying:

Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air

The bad actor in global warming is CO2 coming from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.  Altogether, it is estimated that humans have put about 350 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began.  And this CO2 has indeed melted into air, into thin air, as its' build-up in the atmosphere is literally invisible.   

The global warming theory predicts that the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect, trapping more solar energy and producing a gradual warming of the Earth.  Up until now scientists have had to point at the temperature record to prove that the greenhouse effect was growing stronger---there was no way to directly measure changes in the greenhouse effect.  But now, for the first time, scientists have now directly measured the magnitude of the Greenhouse Effect caused by CO2 buildup in the atmosphere.

Using incredibly sensitive instruments located in Alaska and in Oklahoma, atmospheric scientists measured the amount of extra heat being trapped in the atmosphere due to the build-up of CO2.  Their measurements indicate that an additional 0.2 Watts per square meter in infrared energy is being released by the excess CO2---about  10% more heat then would be trapped and emitted if CO2 concentrations were still at natural levels.  The data also clearly shows that this number is increasing each year as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. 

So the debate over the effect of atmospheric CO2 on the Earth's greenhouse effect is now resolved.  The scientific data now clearly shows that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing an increase in the greenhouse effect.  This brings to mind more words from William Shakespeare, who wrote:  

                   Be sure of it; give me the ocular proof

When it comes to the greenhouse effect and global warming, we now have ocular proof.  Even better, we've got the numbers to prove it.

.  

Alaskan Forest Fires Cause Global Cooling

                                                   NASA Satellite image of smoke from forest fires 
                                                                covering central Alaska, July 2005


A new study published in Nature Geoscience suggests that huge forest fires in the Boreal Forests of Alaska, Canada and Siberia are causing global cooling.  The basic idea is that after forest fires consume blocks of the Boreal Forest, they leave behind a land surface with a higher albedo, which cools the planet.   In winter the burned over land is covered with snow (albedo = 0.9) and in summer the trees are replaced with bare ground, wildflowers, and shrubs (albedo = 0.6).  In contrast, Boreal forest has an albedo of ca. 0.08-0.12, so that areas of burned over forests reflect 6 to 9 times more sunlight then a standing Boreal Forest.  The smoke from forest fires also blocks some sunlight, and locally cools the ground.

The exact amount of global cooling caused by forest fires probably isn't very large, as even the largest forest fires in Alaska burn much less than 0.01% of the standing Boreal Forest, and forests become re-established in even the largest burned areas after a few decades.

These forest fires are an interesting example of the side effects of Global Warming.  Temperatures in Alaska, Canada, Siberia and other high latitude areas are increasing much more rapidly then average global temperatures.  Warmer air temperatures in Alaska are drying out the soil and making the forests more susceptible to forest fires.

The link between Global Warming and forest fires suggests that huge fires will become more common as global temperatures continue to rise.  This is obviously bad news for the forests,  but Alaskans don't like it either.   Up until the late 1990s, it was rare for forest fires to cover the entire state with smoke.  But since then, huge forest fires have become a regular and unwanted feature of summers in Alaska, and heavy smoke is often present for weeks over large parts of the state during June, July and August.

                                  Large Forest Fires Have Become Common During the Summer in Alaska

Why Simple Minds Run Hot: Debunking the Climate Change Debunkers

                                                How to Model Global Climate Change on your 1991 PC Junior


A recent scientific paper published in the peer-reviewed Chinese "Science Journal" purports to debunk the theory of Global Climate Change.   This paper, entitled "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model" was authored by four well known opponents of the idea that the Earth is undergoing global warming in response to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere.  

While I applaud the thread of independent thinking that these four exhibit in going against the vast majority of scientists on the global warming question, unfortunately their paper reveals that these four scientists have a very poor understanding of the climate system of the earth.

The "irreducibly simple" climate model they rely upon is nothing new---it is what is commonly known as a "black box" model and similar models have been used for decades in Freshman Physics and Meteorology courses at universities. There are even dozens of PC and video games that incorporate the same kind of simple model.   The first computer game with a black box model of climate was called "Sim Earth" --- it came out in 1990.  It ran on a PC Junior and the original Macintosh, and it produced the same kind of results that these authors are relying upon.

I don't know if the four authors actually based their simple model on the 35 year old Sim Earth video game or not, but its basically the same model.  Black box models assume that earth is a big black box filled with air, that solar heating of the atmosphere is constant, and that as more CO2 accumulates in the earth's atmosphere the atmospheric temperature rises in response to the Greenhouse Effect. So far so good. They then calculate a "sensitivity factor" showing how much the Earth's temperature rises in response to given increments in atmospheric CO2 ---- and thats where they go wildly wrong.

The authors conclusions can only make sense if the Earth actually did consist of nothing but some atmosphere gases in a planet-sized black box. But of course the earth also has oceans and ice sheets, and these huge features have much different "sensitivity factors" to solar heating then the atmosphere does.

Anyone who has ever visited the seashore has experienced this for themselves.  When the sun comes up and the beach gets hot, you cool off by swimming in the ocean and catching the cool sea-breeze.  And people who have gone hiking in the mountains know that even on hot sunny days snowfields and glaciers remain icy cold.  

Oceans and glaciers don't warm up in response to solar energy as rapidly as the atmosphere does.  The earth's temperature is being buffered by its oceans and glaciers.  Study after scientific study have shown that Greenhouse Warming is not only warming the atmosphere, it is also heating up the oceans and melting glaciers and ice sheets all over the earth, and the atmosphere, hydrosphere and cryosphere are interacting together in complex ways in response to global warming.    It may be difficult for some simple minds to grasp, but the complexity of the earth's climate system cannot be successfully modeled with an "irreducibly simple climate model"  that is a dead ringer for an old video game that ran on a 1991 8-bit PC junior.

The authors of the paper Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model Christopher Monckton1, Willie W.-H. Soon2, David R. Legates3, William M. Briggs4

1. Science and Public Policy Institute, Haymarket, VA 20169, USA; 2. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA; 3. Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA; 4. New York, NY 10021, USA