Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Giant Iceberg Nearly The Size Of Delaware Breaks Off Antartica

The White Whale:

Here's the report from the MIDAS Project.

They say it will be named "A68" -- I saw on Twitter that some were suggesting it be named the #ExxonKnew -- and weighs over a trillion tonnes. That's about how much ice the planet has been losing per year for a few years now.

In the picture to the right, I'm guessing that's sea ice to the outer edge of the breakoff, which this iceberg will begin pushing through.

The Larsen C ice shelf is, suddenly, 12% smaller, and, "potentially less stable," says MIDAS. "This is the furthest back that the ice front has been in recorded history," says a MIDAS scientist. Another said, interestingly:
“We have been anticipating this event for months, and have been surprised how long it took for the rift to break through the final few kilometres of ice."
Mind, it did break off in the depth of the dark, Antarctic winter, but I'm sure he took that into account.

Friday, July 07, 2017

Larsen C, Almost Free

When last we looked, the Larsen C ice shelf was hanging on by an 8-mile sliver.

That's now down to 3 miles.

In the spirit of Layjez's calculation in the comments, that's 5 miles in about 36 days, or 1/7th of a mile per day. That's an average of only 0.2 meters per minute, compared to his (earlier) value of about 3 m/min.

So clearly this isn't linear, or easy to predict. The Antarctic is just coming out of its winter depth, which you'd think might have helped the crack to heal. But nature has other ideas.

At least this won't kill any penguins. That'd be a hell of a way to die.

Thursday, July 06, 2017

Good Lord, Here We Go Again

Geostorm, 2017:

More About RSS's Large Changes to Their Temperatures.

RSS has posted a FAQ about their version 4.0 changes for the lower troposphere temperature anomaly, here.

Roy Spencer says, yabutt, their new numbers (+0.18°C/decade, up from +0.12°C/decade) are still nowhere close to the model calculation of 0.27°C/dec. I don't know where that number comes from, so I asked him. Will let you know.

Frankly, I'm starting to wonder if either of these satellite datasets can be useful. Roy writes:
In general, it is difficult for us to follow the chain of diurnal corrections in the new RSS paper. Using a climate model to make the diurnal drift adjustments, but then adjusting those adjustments with empirical satellite data feels somewhat convoluted to us.
This doesn't sound good. If the one set of supposed experts can't follow what the other set of supposed experts are doing, then who are we to possibly judge?

Maybe it's time to just forget about the satellite measurements of the atmosphere and focus on surface, where measurements are much easier. That's where we all live, anyway.

Anyway, here are the data for RSS v4.0's 12-month moving average:

Pretty obvious warming.

Also, whereas RSS LT v3.3 shows 2016 to be the warmest year by, like UAH, 0.02 C, the new version v4.0 shows it to be the warmest year by 0.16 C. Huge and indisputable.

These differences will probably remain for some time -- I doubt UAH will do another entirely new version before Christy and/or Spencer retires, after which the UAH dataset will probably, unfortunately, fade into insignificance. It's now clearly the outlier when compared to RSS and the several surface datasets.

The (Comparative) Size of the Moon

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

New Atmospheric Temperatures from RSS -- They're Higher

As you may have heard, the team from Remote Satellite Systems (RSS), which like UAH has a model that attempts to calculate atmospheric temperatures, has a new version for the lower troposphere, version 4.0, upgraded from version 3.3. 

Here's their paper describing the changes.

You can read more about all this from Nick Stokes, here and here.

Personally I'm not interested in getting too far into the details, except to note that the changes are pretty big, especially after 2000:

RSS v4.0's trend for the lower troposphere is now +0.18 C/decade, compared to UAH v6.0's trend of +0.12 C/decade. That adds up over almost four decades, and again puts UAH at the outlier (when compared to GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT4, JMO and Cowtan & Way measuring surface temperatures).

"A Man Who Knows Everything"

Gerald 't Hooft:
"Following his family's footsteps, he showed interest in science at an early age. When his primary school teacher asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up, he boldly declared, "a man who knows everything."
Some background: 't Hooft is a Dutch theoretical physicist. In graduate school at the University of Leiden, he worked under the also-now-famous Martinus Veltman to study a interesting theory that was emerging at the time, called the Yang-Mills theory of the strong interaction.

His last name is pronounced something close to"tooft."

(I sat in a talk Veltman once gave at Stony Brook, when I was a graduate student. I don't remember much of it, but the room was small and crowded and I remember he had a big kind-of jolly authoritative air about him. And that everyone very much respected him. One of the most prominent professors in our department, Peter van Nieuwenhuizen, co-discovered supergravity -- basically Yang-Mills + gravity -- and was also Veltman's student. I wrote about him here for Physics World.)

The strong interaction is also called the nuclear force -- it's what keeps all the positively charged protons in the nucleus from repulsively exploding outward -- it's why the atomic nucleus can exist. Those protons are all positively charged, of course -- so how do they all stay together in the nucleus? It's because there is a force even stronger than electromagnetism -- the strong force. Yang-Mills theory is the theory of the strong force, of interacting quarks and gluons.

This quantum field theory had the same problem as did the earlier quantum electrodynamics -- a quantum field theory of electrons and photons developed by Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger and Tomonaga: calculations of real-world properties like how an electron careens off another electron gave results that were infinite.

Here's what separates physicists from mathematicians -- in the face of calculations that gave infinities and so were clearly(?) wrong when compared to the real world, the physicists plowed ahead anyway, looking more deeply into their equations and finding other infinities that cancelled out the first infinities. In essence they claimed

∞ - ∞ = some actual finite number that actually
agrees with experiments, like
maybe 1 over 137.036 times pi.

Talk about chutzpah! This looks absurd, but it works. Quantum electrodynamics was said to be "renormalizable." Freeman Dyson was the first to show this, when still a very young man. (He also showed that Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga's separate theories were equivalent [PDF].)

To my knowledge, quantum electrodynamics has never yet been proven, in a mathematically rigorous way, to give finite results like this. But some mathematicians are still trying. But the physicists didn't care (so much) for rigor, but for results.

And since then, physics students have been taught to "just shut up and calculate."

Anyway, 't Hooft, also as a very young man, showed that Yang Mills theories were also renormalizable -- infinities could be subtracted from infinities to give finite answers that also agreed with experiments.

't Hooft's calculations were more difficult than was Dyson's -- which was already tough enough -- because unlike electrodynamics, where the photons exchanged between electrons have no electric charge, the gluons of Yang-Mills theory that carry the force between quarks DO have a charge. It's just not an electric charge, but what's called "color charge."

As you know, electrons have a negative electric charge. Their antimatter partner, positrons, have a positive electric charge. And the photon, which carries the force between electrons and electrons, or electrons and protons, or electrons and positrons, etc. has no electric charge. That keeps things (relatively!) simple.

In the theory of the strong force, the particles that make up protons and neutrons, the quarks, also have a charge. It's not an electric charge, but was whimsically (and arbitrarily) given the name "color" charge. It comes in three values, not two: red, blue, and green. It's just a number, a property of quarks -- we're just not as "used to" color charge as we are electric charge. But if you think about it, we don't know what electric charge really is either -- we just know how particles and objects with it behave and interact, and we get used to not knowing more. (And maybe that's all there is to know about electric charge, anywayt?!)

So there are quarks with a red "charge," some with a blue "charge" and a green charge. And anti-quarks of the same color charges, or anti-red, anti-blue, etc.  These charges attract and repel in various ways -- there are eight gluons that take care of all that, emitted and absorbed by the quarks.

There's more, but this is our basic mental picture of it all.

The gluons also carry color -- actually, two colors, a color and an anti-color. This makes the Yang-Mills theory much more complicated, requiring "group theory," that you've probably heard mentioned at some point. The calculations are much more involved.

What 't Hooft showed, in the early 1970s, was that the calculations of Yang-Mills theory could also be made, despite all the infinities lurking everywhere, to give finite results. It was "renormalizable." That it, it was useful. It gave results, like 4.56309, that could be compared to the real world.

One of the ways 't Hooft and Veltman did this was simple but clever: instead of assuming the world had four dimensions -- time, length, width and height -- they assumed it has a little more of a dimension. Not five dimensions, just a little over four.

In they way mathematicians have used the letter "epsilon" to denote a very very small quantity -- this goes back to basic calculus -- 't Hooft and Veltman assumed space -- really spacetime, as we've known since Einstein -- had not four dimensions, but 4+epsilon dimensions.

It's just a mathematical trick. You assume that's what spacetime looks like, do your calculations with all the infinities, add and subtract them, and then in the end set episolon equal to zero. Simple, right?

Well, this technique, called dimensional regularization -- gives Yang-Mills answers that are finite, not infinite. Amazingly. It's a ludicrous trick, but it works.

For this, 't Hooft and Veltman received the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics. I wonder if, after all that, 't Hooft thought, maybe for just a day or two, that he did indeed know everything.

There's a lot more to 't Hooft, which you can get a sense of by perusing his Web site.

Monday, July 03, 2017

How Deaf Schizophrenics Hear Voices

I heard about this last week when driving from an FM radio DJ on a music station I listen to.

"Exploring how deaf people ‘hear’ voice-hallucinations," University College London, July 2007.

I thought it was a new scientific finding, but it turns out it's almost a decade old. In any case, I found it fascinating and it's stuck in my brain since.

As you know, people with schizophrenia often hear voices and see hallucinations. I was involved with a women for several years who was a home health care manager, and she would tell me about the mentally ill in the homes she supervised who saw eyes in walls or heard voices, and she convinced me it was something very difficult and sad to have to live with.

I'm sad to say that I have never actually known anyone with schizophrenia.

What this FM DJ talked about -- in the laughing, jovial, kind-of-thoughtless ways that DJ's speak in -- was how people with schizophrenia who are born deaf "hear voices." (I don't like calling them "schizophrenics," since schizophrenia does not encompass who they are -- they are not the disease, but people with the disease.)

They see, in their minds, disembodied hands in their internal mind vision that are signing words.

How amazing is that?

Deaf people -- rather, people who have deafness -- who were not born deaf, and who have schizophrenia, experience true auditory hallucinations. But people born with deafness apparently experience auditory hallucinations via sign language by disembodied hands or moving lips.
Participants born profoundly deaf reported non-auditory, clear and easy to understand voices. They were all confident that they did not hear any sounds, but knew the gender and identity of the voice. They reported seeing an image of the voice signing or lips moving in their mind.
I wonder what people born blind with schizophrenia experience.

This really fascinates me. Over the last few years I have been trying, for reasons I'm not going to get into here, to understand my mind better, why I am the way I am, and how experiences long ago have shaped me. I've always been smart, in a rational and logical way, but have been trying to look beyond that, because that certainly doesn't explain all of me. I've never had an especially high emotional quotient -- E.Q. -- I think, which to me seems as important in life as an I.Q. Maybe more important. And I've come to believe that one's mind -- the psychological state that somehow results from all our organic brain matter and cells and neurons -- is a seriously complicated place. It's obviously elevated our species to a high status, relative to others here (at least in some ways that seem important as we define them), but it's by no means perfect. Getting our minds to here has also included a lot of mental junk, properties of our minds that aren't necessarily advantageous -- schizophrenia, depression, neuroses, anxieties, sometimes OCD (which I actually have about corners -- I often feel that I need to touch them, on furniture especially, and I've had this impulse for a long time, thought it's by no means disabling). We get the good -- fantastically superior (relatively), useful minds, with understanding, foresight, creativity -- with the bad -- mental defects, mental illnesses, glitches, "negative" aspects.

Our minds are amazing things, maybe the most amazing thing in the universe (however egocentric that sounds), but they have by no means evolved to be perfect. Evolution gets the job done -- or we wouldn't be here and who we are -- but not perfectly, not cleanly, not with complications.

This deafness/schizophrenia study struck me in this regard. Their minds get the job done, maybe (?) in a less-than-average way, in terms of staying alive, etc., but the beast refuses to be simple, is full of disadvantageous thoughts (I guess -- they seem so) that in some ways are necessarily indigenous to our organic brain matter, that must accompany the good. Does that make any sense?

All I'm trying to say -- I guess? -- is that brains are terribly complicated things, putting us atop the heap of all other brains -- but also slippery and maybe even evil little bastards that we must schlep around if we want the good parts. I don't know.

That the mind can be so clever/sneaky as to convince people with deafness and schizophrenia that hands are signing in their mental vision, the disease trying to express itself no matter what the obstacles, kinda spooks me. What else is in there?

This Week in Science, 2,300,000 BCE

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

No Simple Formula for Circumference of an Ellipse

Did you know there is no simple formula for the circumference of an ellipse?

Earlier I wanted to calculate (don't ask) the average speed of each planet in its orbit. So I wanted to calculate the circumference of its elliptical orbit around the Sun. For the Earth the eccentricity is small, 0.0167, so it's almost a circle. But what of the other planets?

This is probably common knowledge, but I don't think I've encountered it before. To my surprise, there is no simple formula for the distance p around the perimeter of an eclipse. The best you can do is an infinite series, which can be quickly truncated in the case of the Earth, but not necessarily for other planets.

where a is the semi-major axis of the ellipse and b the semi-minor axis. (These aren't the orbit's perihelion and aphelion, but those can be easily calculated from a, b (=a*sqrt(1-e2)), and the eccentricity e: perihelion=a(1+e) and aphelion=a(1-e). The function in parentheses behind the sum for p is the combinatorical function, or binomial coefficient

(Here's how to take the factorial of a noninteger.) Anyway, for the Earth e << 1, so h << 1, so

which reduces to the circumference of a circle when e=0 (a=b), as it must.

Nothing so remarkable here -- I just never knew there was no simple formula for the circumference of an ellipse! Or if I did know, I'd forgotten.

PS: But there is a simple formula for the area enclosed by an ellipse:

Monday, June 26, 2017

The Orville, Coming in September

This upcoming TV series looks good, unless all the jokes are in the trailer. Due September 10th.

There's a new Star Trek series coming too, Star Trek Discovery, which somehow doesn't look as good:

GOP Rep Johnson Shows Why Single-Payer Is the Only Solution

Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) just demonstrated why private health insurance cannot provide necessary care to all Americans -- and, what's worse, while doing so he doesn't seem to understand that he made the best case for a single-payer system.
During an interview on Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd noted that Republicans in the Senate had held no hearings on their health care bill and so they could not say for sure why insurance companies were abandoning some markets.

Johnson sidestepped the refusal to hold hearings and insisted that he already knows the answer “but nobody wants to talk about it.”

The Wisconsin Republican pointed to Obamacare rules that forbid insurance companies from charging more for people with preexisting conditions.

“We know why those premiums doubled,” he opined. “We’ve done something with our health care system that you would never think about doing, for example, with auto insurance, where you would require auto insurance companies to sell a policy to somebody after they crash their car.”

“States that have… guarantees for preexisting conditions, it crashes their markets,” he continued. “It causes the markets to collapse. It causes premiums to skyrocket.”
Notice that Johnson is more concerned about markets than people. That's the fundamental problem. He likens people to old cars, which are thrown into a scrapyard when no longer userful. And he doesn't even realize what he's saying.

But it's been known for over 50 years that markets cannot provide quality, universal health care to everyone in a society. Nobel Laureate economist Kenneth Arrow showed why in the early '60s:

"Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care," Kenneth J. Arrow, The American Economic Review, Vol. LIII n 5 (Dec 1963)

For a synopsis you can read:

"Why markets can't cure healthcare," Paul Krugman, New York Times, July 25, 2009.
"Patients are not Consumers," Paul Krugman, New York Times, April 21 2011.

In short, markets cannot deliver health care like they deliver bread or shoes, because

(1) you cannot predict when you will need care
(2) or what care you will need (you need to rely on experts)
(3) you usually can't comparison shop, especially for the most expensive costs.

Buying health care is not like buying bread. Thus, you need an insurance system. And private insurance systems demand a profit, and a large administrative staff to analyze and deny claims (NOT paying for care is, after all, how they make their money). Private insurers refuse to insure those they think will be too expensive, and drop clients who have become too expensive. 

You can be sure I am taking this pretty fucking personally -- at my age I need health care. If my government can't help me get it I will seriously need to think about moving abroad to somewhere where it's affordable. And moving away from my family, especially my niece and nephew, who I am very close to and want to watch and help grow up, is one of the major thrusts of my life.

We all know that America has been in decline for some time now. This GOP health care bill -- really a tax cut bill; it's just that healthcare is where they found the money -- will kill people, will cause millions to suffer, will mean hundreds of thousands of the elderly will not be able to live in nursing homes -- and it is so severe it could possibly be what finally sends the U.S. over the edge.

And it won't reduce insurance premiums and deductibles and copays at all. With tens of millions of people lacking health insurance, but still needing care, hospitals will pay for them by charging those with insurance even more, like it was pre-ACA.

Imagine a political party that cares so much for the wealthy and so little for the rest of the country that they are throwing the country into the sewer. Try to imagine the hearts of such men. Because I can't.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

The 3 S's of Climate Change: Simple. Serious. Solvable.

I like this, from Scott Denning's Twitter profile (@airscottdenning):

"Tweeting about the 3 S's of Climate Change: Simple. Serious. Solvable."

Al Franken Made a Fool of Rick Perry

Admittedly, it wasn't very difficult. All Perry could do was just dumbly deny what the science says:

I think Franken might be thinking of running for President. He has a new book just out -- why now? -- and yesterday I heard him being interviewed on Oregon Public Radio. There he was sharp and smart and, just in the right amount, funny. But in the video above, he comes off as droll and a little bored. His points are smart -- far smarter than the hopelessly banal Rick Perry has, who can't explain any science to save his life -- so he'd need to work on that. But he could be just the right foil if Trump runs again in 2020 (which I doubt he will; I suspect he'll resign before them, maybe right before then). And Mike Pence would have no idea how to counter Franken's intelligence and humor.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Abdussamatov's Solar Irradiance Prediction is a Total Failure

Deniers like to believe there are reasons why a decline in the Sun's irradiance will lead to another ice age -- it's not true -- and one of their favorite papers is by H. Abdussamatov, which I don't think has even been published anywhere.

I've written about his claims before, and took a look again today. Abdussamatov is even more wrong than he was a year ago.

The vertical blue line on this graph is the present. According to Abdussamatov, the "new Little Ice Age epoch" should already have started.


Abdussamatov says he used PMOD data for total solar irradiance (TSI).

Here is PMOD's latest data page.

Which link to use for the latest TSI? This, I guess. It's hard to know. Good luck trying to figure that out.

Their FTP site was written as if this was 20 years ago. I can understand how back then the WWW was new, as was expecting scientists to post their data.

But in 2017? No way. Wake up, PMOD, and make your data easily available to the people who are paying for it.

Anyway, here, as best as I can determine, is PMOD's latest TSI data:

This dataset aren't anything like the one above. Abdussamatov predicted that TSI would now be about 1.25 W/m2 below the PMOD 1980-2005 base value of 1365.5 W/m2.

This isn't at all true. Abdussamatov didn't link to his data, so I can't reproduce his actual base values. PMOD's base value is, by my data, 1360.0 W/m2. And it is now nowhere 1.25 W/m2 below that base value.

Conclusion: Abdussamatov's prediction is a total failure.

James Randi

Saturday, June 17, 2017

World Coal Production Decreases For Third Straight Year

From Bloomberg News:

However, US coal production is was on a bit of an upswing in recent months.

Temporary, surely. And I don't see that Trump had any role in this whatsoever -- it started almost a year before he took office.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Celilo Falls, Now Gone

Here's a great picture of tribal salmon fishing at Celilo Falls, on the Columbia River, once the fourth largest waterfall in the world by flow rate (over twice the flow over Niagara Falls). It was submerged when the Dalles Dam was built in 1957. From the Oregonian article, "7 wonders of Oregon that no longer exist." Most of the salmon are gone too.

Wikipedia has this picture in color.

And here's a video of this beautiful thing before it disappeared.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

When Christopher Monckton Warned about Manmade Greenhouse Gases

He wrote: "...too much carbon dioxide is dangerous."

From the Evening Standard on February 2, 1988.

Via Ed Hawkins on Twitter.

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Con Beausang, Rest in Peace

I received the sad news today that one of my officemates in graduate school, Con Beausang, passed away the other day.

Con was an experimental nuclear physicist and held the Robert E. and Lena F. Loving Chair at the University of Richmond. Unfortunately I hadn't kept in touch with him after graduate school, but I have warm and cherished memories of him from our time at Stony Brook. He was unique, that's for sure.

I never, ever saw Con in anything other than a very cheerful mood. He would come into the office each morning to drop off his coat, before going down to Stony Brook's accelerator to work for the day. He'd breeze in with something like "Top of the morning to you, gents! What a fine, lovely day it is," regardless of what the weather actually was. He'd say something about his car, which he named and talked about like another person in his life, but closer than most. Sometimes he'd say something about us theorists (Con was in a research group that worked on the detailed structure of nuclei, while the other three us in the office did theory, which, as he observed, mostly involved just sitting around). Being Irish, he pronounced the word "three" as "tree." He taught me about Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf, and surprisingly, that phrase still rolls melodically right off my tongue. Once he and I were going somewhere and were on a sandy, dirt road and something in his engine caught fire; Con stopped and had me help him throw sand on it to put it out, then he got back in the car like nothing had happened. He always served a small scoop of ice cream the few times I went to his place for dinner. He was exceedingly easy to be around.

The administrative assistant at the University of Richmond's physics department told me they have been getting more and more graduate students in recent years, and she thought Con had a big part in that, "taking care of everyone."

I have more information about his death, but don't feel it's appropriate to share it in a public forum. Write me if you knew him and would like to know more. I also have his home address, if you want to send anything in memorial, to his wife Cindy.

I am very happy to have known Con; there was no one else like him. It almost seems like yesterday. How very sad that he is gone, and far, far too early.

Sunday, June 04, 2017

US's Progress Towards Meeting Its Paris Commitment (= On Target)

So, most of the US's recent reductions in CO2 emissions are due to fracking, which has produced enough natural gas at a low enough price to outperform coal, leading utility managers to shutter coal plants.

I don't see why this won't continue, Paris Agreement or not -- it's pure economics. I estimated here that 70% of recent US CO2 reductions are due to fracking -- that is, not down to a deliberate shift to renewable energy sources or increases in energy efficiency, but simply due to getting the same amount X of energy from natural gas instead of coal.

This shift can't go on forever. I estimated here that at best this can lead to a US per capita CO2 emissions about 15 metric tons (t) CO2/yr. That's still huge, relative to the world, whose per capita emissions are about 5 t CO2/yr.

Obama got lucky with fracking. It grew during the end of the GW Bush administration, and progressed strongly throughout Obama's two terms. The US committed to a 26-28% reduction in 2005 CO2 emissions by 2025. Fracking has actually put us on that trendline:

Trump can try to affect the 30% of US CO2 reductions that come from nonfracking sources -- better gas mileage, more electric cars, some utilities' shifts towards wind and solar, and what else? -- but I don't really see how he will delay the transition of utility power sources from coal to natural gas. That will remain as long as natural gas is the cheaper source.

And is Trump really going to expect car manufacturers to build cars that get less gas mileage? No -- they're not just designing and building for the US, but for Europe too, and Asia. And to consumers who can afford new cars, who are more smart and level-headed.

It seems to me that at best Trump can delay some CO2 reductions -- though only a fraction of what the US emits. The other reductions are happening because it's finally economical for them to happen.

And because major US states want them to happen, because they see and understand the future in a way that completely eludes Trump.

So I think Trump's decision on the Paris Agreement -- probably based more on his psychological weaknesses, of needing to always play the victim, to think that everyone, everywhere is against him, which he clearly projects onto America -- might not be as bad as is currently feared. But in no way because of him.

Friday, June 02, 2017

Some Good Cartoons

"Let These Cartoonists Illustrate The Horror Of Trump's Climate Change Stance"

PS: I don't buy into "horror."

Modern Cities: Stuff Goes In, Doesn't Come Out

An interesting through from The World in 2050: Four Forces shaping Civilization's Northern Future, by Laurence C. Smith (2009):

Who's Caused the Most Warming? The British!

At least, per capita, from 1850-2005.

This result is from a 2014 paper by Damon Matthews et al, "National contributions to observed global warming." The US is by far the biggest absolute contributor -- and even up through 2012, the US had emitted 2.4 times more than the Chinese and 9.6 times more than India.

(I used data from another source to estimate these numbers up to 2014, and got 2.1 times more than China and 8.6 times more than India.)

So it's rather ridiculous to complain about China and India when we've already contributed more than both combined.

But per capita, it's actually Great Britain that leads all other countries. All that coal burning in Dickensian London, I suppose. This is from the paper cited above (remember, it's only 1850-2005):

So Canada doesn't look so good, either, per capita. India practically vanishes.

Here's another graphic from that paper, again showing who leads in per capita emissions and who hasn't (yet) become affluent by emitting them:

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

The Larsen C Iceberg Is on the Brink of Breaking Off | Climate Central

That Larsen C ice shelf is now said to be in its last days.... "The crack has spread 17 miles over the past six days."

And this even as it's late fall in Antarctica, approaching winter.

Here's the graphic from the UK-based Project Midas team:

This ice shelf is floating, so it won't directly affect sea level. But, as Climate Central writes,
Once it breaks off, scientists are concerned that the rest of ice shelf could collapse afterwards, a fate that befell Larsen A in 1995 and Larsen B in 2002. In Larsen B’s case, the ice shelf collapsed in the span of a month following an influx of mild air.

The Trumpian Irony of US CO2 Emissions

I noticed that US CO2 emissions for Feb 2017 were 8% below those of a year ago, Feb 2016.

Ignoring the notion that Trump, in his first full month in office, had anything whatsoever to do with this, I was wondering how it happened.

The most obvious factor is temperature. Indeed, for the continental US, Feb17 was 1.7°F warmer than Feb16, according to NOAA's data. Is that enough to account for an 8% drop?

I don't know. Here are US CO2 monthly emissions as a function of the average US continental temperature:

This graph makes general sense -- there is some baseline below which emissions don't drop, due to vehicle transportation and industrial use, and upward wings on both sides due to home air conditioning (on the right) and household heating (on the left). 

That's all I know so far. I suspect that US CO2 emissions are going to keep falling during Trump's administration, as coal keeps going out of style and utilities switch to cheaper natural gas, and state- and city-wide efforts like this one in Portland, Oregon.

These individual efforts won't be enough -- I don't see how they can be without supporting federal regulations -- but it may well be that US CO2 emissions drop during Trump's administration. 

Of course, he'll take full credit for it, even though he had nothing -- in fact, less than nothing -- to do with it.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

A Tiny Insignificant Speck

Hey, it's just a cartoon. And some of us aren't afraid to be specks -- I think, in a way, it makes the universe all that more glorious.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Trump Proposes to Destroy US Science

Here are FY 2018 funding levels for several key federal R&D agencies, according to the American Chemical Society:

  • $9.4 million for the Chemical Safety & Hazard Board, (Funds used to shut down agency) 
  • $4.5 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, 17 percent below FY 2017 
  •  $5.7 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, 29 percent below FY 2017 
  • $725 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 24 percent below FY 2017 
  • $27 billion for the National Institutes of Health, 21 percent below FY 2017
  • $6.6 billion for the National Science Foundation, 11 percent below FY 2017
What a stupid, unthinking fool Trump is. Just stupid.

#MAGA - Make America Gasp Again

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Nearly All Warming Has Occurred Since 1965

Today NOAA announced that April was the 2nd-warmest year in their records. The monthly calculations of JMO and GISS found the same.

I thought I'd put up this chart, which is a calculation of the percentage of global warming that has happened since any point in the past. As usual, for any year Y:

total_warming(Y-to-present) = total_trend(Y-to-present)*(present-Y)

The total global warming from NOAA's data is now +0.95°C. Their record starts in Jan 1880.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The Excellent Blog, "The Science of Doom"

Have I ever mentioned here the blog "The Science of Doom?"

If not, I've been remiss. It's a mystery who writes it, but they obviously know their stuff. You could learn a lot about the basic of climate science, and more beyond that. While its postings can be irregular, it's worth following, and there is plenty of past content to keep you reading all about climate, the greenhouse effect, and what climate science is and implies.

Definitely check it out if you want to know more science.

Why Should I Pay?

Unfortunately, I don't know the exact source of this.

Lord (or Somebody Real), Please Help Us

This shows the damage deniers can do when people -- like Trump -- have no critical thinking skills. Trump reportedly got all worked up over a fake Time cover claiming that scientists once said an ice age was at hand. From Politico:

First, what kind of dummy is K.T. McFarland, deputy national security advisor, and -- well, we already know, don't we? -- what kind of a idiot is Trump?

Here's that fake Time cover:

I don't know who made it -- but they probably got a bonus this week for it.

By the way, as far as I'm concerned the definitive study on this claim is from Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck:

"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus," W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008

From this paper's abstract:
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
How dysfunctional is Trump? Reportedly he can't read more than one page of a national security briefing, and like a twisted narcissistic child, he has to see his name mentioned as often as possible. 
One unnamed source told Reuters that since Trump “keeps reading if he’s mentioned” in briefing materials, officials on the National Security Council have learned to insert the President’s name into “as many paragraphs as we can.”
I just hope we get rid of Trump before gets us all killed. (I really do.) 

Saturday, May 06, 2017

Sea Level and ENSO

I was looking around on Aviso's sea level FTP page, and came across this interesting graph, showing how sea level correlates with ENSOs.

MEI = Multivariate ENSO Index
MSL = Mean sea level. "Detrended" means the difference from the linear trend.

Added 5/7: Here's another one, right on the top page of the CU Sea Level page:

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Donald Trump blames constitution for chaos of his first 100 days | US news | The Guardian

Absolutely incredible: @realdonaldtrumo says the Constitution is a "really a bad thing for the country."

Significant Quarterly Jump in Ocean Heat Content

The ocean has recovered from its heat loss during last year's El Nino, and is again accumulating heat.

Here are the data: 0-700 m, 0-2000 m.

Over the last quarter, the 0-700 m region of the ocean gained 1.1 W/m2, and the 0-2000 m region gained 1.3 W/m2.

Over 12 months, these regions gained 0.3 W/m2 and 0.5 W/m2, respectively.

Though both these numbers are barely higher than they were 2 years ago, in 1Q2015.

Here are the latest big numbers: anyone who wants to explain global warming via natural factors has to come up with 0.18 W/m2 since 1Q1955 for the 0-700 m region, and 0.65 W/m2 since 1Q2005 for the 0-2000 m region.

That's 180 ZJ and 125 ZJ, respectively.

(1 ZJ = 1 zettajoule =  1021 Joules.)

The first value is how much sunlight (240 W/m2) reaches the surface in 17 days, and the second in 12 days.

This Ice Spike Grew in My Freezer in Less than 30 Minutes

Sometimes I wonder what the heck is going on in there.

Last Year, Green Electricity Cost Me an Extra Nickel a Day

Image result for green electricityAwhile back I subscribed to my electricity provider's -- Portland General Electric -- Green Source Program, where the electricity I receive is 100% renewable.

They just sent me my annual statement for 2016. Turns out that this clean power costs me only an extra nickel a day.

In 2016, I used a total of 2,378 kWh -- an average of 198 kWh per month. (The average residential use is 901 kWh/month.) Total cost = $408. To make it green, I paid an extra $19.01, which works out to $0.008/kWh -- an extra 4.9%. Or $0.052 per day.

A nickel a day. $1.59 per month. Which I can easily afford. Who couldn't?

PGE said my purchase of green electricity saved 3,755 lbs of CO2 emissions -- 1.71 metric tons, when the average US per capita emissions is now 16.9 tonnes.

And that this was equivalent to not driving 4,190 miles. (So they're assuming 0.41 kg of CO2 emitted per mile.)

I drove 6,743 miles in 2016 (I keep track for tax purposes, and also personal interest). Avg = 27 mpg. Much of it up to Portland for lacrosse games, volleyball games, soccer games and swim meets. Hey, I'm a great uncle.

I'm also now buying green offsets for my natural gas usage, but I don't have much data yet to report.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Reagan on Scientific Research

"The remarkable thing is that although basic research does not begin with a particular practical goal, when you look at the results over the years, it ends up being one of the most practical things government does."

-- Ronald Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation, April 2, 1988

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

New Study: Sea level Rise is Accelerating

Sea level rise is up 25% since the 1990s, according to a new paper in GRL, mostly due to melting in Greenland. From an AGU blog:

From the paper's abstract:
The new GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rate over January 1993 to December 2015 is now close to 3.0 mm/yr. An important increase of the GMSL rate, of 0.8 mm/yr, is found during the second half of the altimetry era (2004–2015) compared to the 1993–2004 time span, mostly due to Greenland mass loss increase and also to slight increase of all other components of the budget.
Here is their final result, after all bias corrections:

which clearly is increasing faster than linear. The paper doesn't actually give a value for the acceleration -- it obviously depends on the times chosen -- but I'll try to estimate it. 

They write, "The EM [Ensemble Mean] GMSL rate is significantly lower during the first period compared to the second one (2.7 ± 0.2 mm/yr versus 3.5 ± 0.15 mm/yr)...." 

The two observation periods are Jan1993-Dec2004 and Jan2004-Dec2015 (yes, there's a slight overlap; I don't yet know why). Their midpoints differ by 11 years, so the acceleration is about

where "SLR" is Sea Level Rise. This is about what I get from fitting the Aviso-only data to a quadratic, as I did here, which now comes to 0.06 mm/yr2.


Added 4:40 pm -- I went ahead and calculated the uncertainty for this acceleration, given the uncertainties in the paper (which are only 1-sigma). The 2-sigma error for the acceleration is quite high, 0.27 mm/yr2

It's high mostly because the error on the first interval's SLR is high, 13% -- and that's only 1-sigma. I have to read more to figure out why.

Remember, this paper is based only on the 23 years of satellite data.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Best #MarchforScience Posters and Signs

I'll keep this post pinned at the top for awhile as I find more and add them. Suggestions welcome.

Media preview

Media preview