Happy New Year! - Jeondong Cathedral in Jeonju

Happy New Year

Happy New Year

May we all have a vision now and then

Of a world where every neighbor is a friend

Happy New Year

Happy New Year

May we all have our hopes, our will to try

If we don't we might as well lay down and die

You and I

That's the chorus from ABBA's song Happy New Year. It ends on a somewhat...grim note but it carries the essence of my new year resolutions every year. :) May we all live to our fullest, work our utmost to do good for our world, embrace challenges as opportunities for growth, gain experience from our mistakes, and most of all, be filled with happiness and gratitude for who we are and what we can be. 

Below are pictures from my visit to Jeondong Cathedral in Jeonju on Christmas day. The atmosphere there was incredibly peaceful and serene even with all the festivities outside, just perfect for a moment of contemplation on the year 2014. :)

Again, I wish you all a very happy new year!

P.S. The first blog post in 2015 will be the continuation of the Skeptics and Deniers series on the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

Skeptics and Deniers: "The Failure of the Greenhouse Theory"

In Chapter 3, authors Fred Singer and Denis Avery of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years explain why they believe the "Greenhouse Theory" is flawed. Here, they use a particular format that they adapt throughout the entire book: directly quoting those who spread "rumors" about the Greenhouse Gas Effect (Part A) and then those who refute it (Part B). I will state the reasons that they outlined and analyze the information and statements that they gave. 

* I read the Korean translation of this book. I won't be quoting often, but when I do, please be aware that the words that I selected may not be the same as those used in the book.  

1. Are Polar Bears in Danger?

Part A: www.worldwildlife.org/climate/index.cfm, 2004
According to the World Wildlife Fund, we must reduce emissions of gases from burning fossil fuels in order to stop Global Warming. It articulates that slight changes in the increases of Earth's temperature may pose a huge threat to wild animals like polar bears. 
  
Johan Olsson in "The Effects of Global Warming", 12 January 1996
According to Olsson, most of the electricity that we use is produced by burning coal. We must begin by trying to save electricity through efforts such as improving the efficiency of air conditioners or heaters.

Part B: John Tierney, "The Good News Bears," New York Times, 6 August 2005
He says that numerous newspaper articles profess Global Warming will melt the icebergs of polar regions, possibly causing the extinction of polar bears before the 22nd century. He adds that there has actually been a recent increase in the number of polar bears spotted by inhabitants of the Resolute Bay. In Canada, for example, where most of the world's Ursus maritimus live, the number increased by at least 20 percent during the ten years up to 1996. Right after providing this piece of information, there is a single sentence that mentions that a major reason for this change may be the ban on hunting polar bears. This is followed by another sentence: in the 1930s, the North Pole was as warm as 1996; before 1930s, the temperature was even higher than 1996. 

In my opinion, Part B is highly misleading. Without reading carefully, one can gain the impression that Global Warming may not be affecting the population increase/decrease of polar bears. Although it includes the idea that the apparent rise in polar bear numbers may be due to prohibiting the bear hunting, it only fleetingly mentions it in just one sentence. Without a proper connection, there is a comparison of the temperature between the 1930s and 1990s. Instead of simply stating that the polar bear population increased largely due to the banned hunting (which is what I think it is), the added information in the conclusion brings about the idea that the alleged cooler climate have increased the number of polar bears. Moreover, it does not state by how many degrees the climate was warmer in the 1930s. Is it by 1°C? Or 0.4°C? Without this specific information, can the readers see a definite relation with the temperature decrease? 


2. Are Icebergs Melting? 

Part A: The Nansen Environment and Remote Sensing Center, University of Bergen, March 1995
The effects of Global Warming will appear first in the melting of icebergs in the North Pole. The warming of the atmosphere will result in changes of ocean circulation, reduction the volume of ice on land, etc.

Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1992), 22~23
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is still rising, along with the Earth's temperature. Icebergs in the polar regions influence the weather of the entire planet; when they melt, a major calamity will definitely strike.

BBC News, "Rapid Antarctic Warming Puzzle", 6 September 2001
According to British scientists, part of the South Pole is warming much faster than other regions on Earth. They believe that this warming phenomenon is the strongest in at least the past 2000 years. Researchers say that 75% of ice cores show an increase in temperature over the past 50 years. The rapid warming has melted seven Ice Shelves over the same period.

Part B: "Antarctica: To Melt or Not to Melt?" Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cooler Heads Project 5, no. 3 (7 February 2001)
According to the Year 2000 'Journal of Climatology' Issue 13, icebergs in the South Pole are showing changes that are opposite to climate model predictions - their surface area is actually increasing. Warming and cooling of approximately 5 degrees can change the iceberg volume by 1~1.5%.

"For Land's Sake," <www.worldclimatereport.com> (17 March 2004), Geophysical Research Letters 31: 105204, doi:10.1029/2003GL019024.
Some researchers say that the information released by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is highly inaccurate. The materials do not include the data on decades of slight cooling in the South Pole.  

When I read this part, I was reminded of another book that I read: 'Weather Science' by Gerhard Staguhn, published in 2012. (Again, I read the translated version I found in the library) I read in chapter 14 that the warming occurs much slower in the South Pole than the North Pole or Greenland due to its great surface area. However, there have been observations of significant changes. The ice of the South Pole are continuously moving out to the oceans. Icebergs on the coastal line are breaking off and flowing across the water. According to satellite data, the volume of ice in the southern pole has been decreasing by 150 cubic meters every year. 

How should we compare the information provided in Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years with others (ex. another book like 'Weather Science')? How can we, as readers, evaluate the reliability of the sources? For now, all I can say is that I have been led not to accept seemingly objective pieces of data - such as increase in volume, temperature, etc. right away. Additionally, when I read about the increase in surface area of ice in Part B, I realized this did not necessarily mean ice was actually increasing. When ice melts, breaks off and floats away, its surface area may increase, but not the volume when it begins to melt further.

Edited: The next 'Skeptics and Deniers' blog post will be about the book's views on rising sea levels.

The First Snow in Seoul

This morning, I saw tiny specks of ice scatter outside my window. Naturally, I was really excited.  The first snowfall of the year made it feel like Christmas was coming soon. More importantly, though, it brought me relief. 

After my blog post in November, the weather became surprisingly warm...almost to the extent that my friends and I joked that Spring was already here. The temperature stayed in the range of 11.3℃ to 8.3℃. It was worrying, because it actually seemed like the rest of nature had also skipped Winter. Flowers - famous for coloring February through April in shades of saffron and lavender pink - appeared in the middle of November. In small numbers, Forsythia and Azalea bloomed. It was surreal to see tiny flowers and buds beside snowflakes. Now, it finally feels like the winter holiday season has arrived. With the thermometer pointing below 0℃, I'm hopeful that the seasons will go back to normal. 

Here are some pictures I took today. The photos in the beginning don't show any snow but scroll down for the ones that do!

If I had seen this a few months later I would have been really happy...
instead of worrying about what would happen to it

Clumps of green and yellow

Can you see the buds up there?

"Caster Sugar", remember?

The next pictures were taken at Yangjaecheon.

Quite deserted

Try comparing the depth of water shown in other pictures
of the skipping stones in previous Yangjaecheon posts!

For those who have been waiting for my posts on climate skepticism ("Skeptics and Deniers"), I'm sorry for the delay. I will be uploading a post this week - an analysis on the book 'Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" and the science related to some of the content in the book.

Before Snow Settles in Seoul

According to the Korea Tourism Organization, autumn lasts from September to November here. Although there can't be an official time of the year when a season starts or ends, the need for bracing against the wind in woolly scarves tells me that winter isn't very far away. 

I wanted to share a several snapshots of Autumn with you. Unlike the other photos that I posted earlier which had foliage of auburn and copper, these ones are mostly green. They were taken around the campus of Sookmyung Girls' High School and near Mountain Umyeon. Enjoy :))) 

 The bleached leaves almost look like sheets of snow.

A little bit shaky with an awkward part of a branch

 hanging on the right, but I do love the silver whistlegrass

under the clear blues, don't you?

 Before they burst into mustard and lemon

Skeptics and Deniers: Let's Talk Global Warming

First of all, I'm terribly sorry for such a late post. A lot of things are happening lately and I was just caught in the midst of a storm of deadlines, assessments, etc. I can truthfully say, though, that this post took a long time to write. Climate skepticism is one big issue, so quite a lot of research and thought went to this post. 

As written on the previous post, this series is going to be about the book written by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years which was published in 2006. Over 16 chapters, the authors argue that the current rise in global temperature is not due to greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activity but part of natural cycles in the Earth's climate. Instead of trying to reduce gas emissions, they say, we should prepare for the effects that follow. 

Honestly, I began reading with a little doubt - how far could anyone challenge something that persists and prevails in education systems, political conversations, and scientific research? Climate skepticism wasn't a concept that I was greatly familiar with; as a firm believer in the influence of human activity on global warming, I decided to read this book to see what the other side was thinking about.

After a couple of hours of reading, I could see why it had caused such a sensation.  It quoted 'Greenhouse Warming Advocates" and "alarmists" and then directly refuted the details. This was a truly effective way to get the readers to question everything they had learned through primary and secondary education, newspapers and presentations. I began to realize that there may have been imperfections and flaws in the explanations for human impact on global warming. However, I noticed some serious errors and flaws in the book as well. Here's an example of a point that I found to be misguided or unfounded:

- What the book says: The rise in temperature caused by human industrial activity is insignificant. There has only been a few degrees increase. 
  What I noticed/realized: Nowhere in the book is ocean acidification mentioned. A huge bulk  - 25%, according to Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory - of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is dissolved in oceans and other water bodies like rivers and lakes. The reaction with water forms carbonic acid which eventually gives a bicarbonate ion and hydrogen ion, increasing the water's acidity. This is a reason why the actual number of degrees increase in temperature has not been increasing as much...although this may change when the threshold for the maximum carbon dioxide for absorption is reached.

As you can see, there are some aspects of the story in the book that I cannot agree with. Throughout the series of these blog posts, I will give a glimpse of what the book says, as well as my own opinions and questions that I had while reading this book. 

Now, I will talk briefly about the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, a point that the authors make early in the book. Remember, the opinion in this book is that big alterations in our climate are not due to human activity but through inherent cycles of change that the Earth goes through anyway. It will give you a hint as to how they set out their story, as well as the science that is important to know in understanding how the Earth's climate system works. 

One crucial "linkage" between the Earth's climate and the changes in the sun is cosmic rays. Under normal conditions, the sun emits a "solar wind" that shields our planet from cosmic rays that "bombard the rest of the universe". When the sun is weak, more cosmic rays reach the Earth's atmosphere. Here is a direct quote from the book: "... more of the cosmic rays get through to the Earth's atmosphere. There, they ionize air molecules and create cloud nuclei. These nuclei then produce low, wet clouds that reflect solar radiation back into outer space. This cools the Earth."

We must consider another aspect which, of course, concerns the ozone layer in our stratosphere. According to climate models mentioned in the book (Ah, climate models! Another matter that has to be discussed, maybe in the next post), "a 0.1 percent change in the sun's radiation could cause a 2 percent change in the Earth's ozone radiation, affecting atmospheric heat and circulation." When the sun is in a more active state, there is an increase in the ultraviolet rays reaching the Earth. Below is a diagram of how ultraviolet rays break oxygen molecules, some of which turn into ozone. 

Image from Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Derivative work by Smartse

What do you guys think? Do you think factors such as the sun's cycles of change give enough reasons for believing that we aren't really responsible for global warming? Why do you think our teachers, politicians and non-governmental organizations tell us otherwise? Why are some people so adamant on denying our impact on the Earth's system? 

If you would like to share your ideas, please post comments below! 

Next post will be on the authors' reasons why the "Greenhouse Theory fails". 

Read part of the book here: 

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/unstoppable_global_warming_by_s_fred_singer_and_dennis_t_avery.html