Skeptics and Deniers: Global Warming and Mass Extinction - continued

Last post of the Skeptics and Deniers series was on Global Warming and Mass Extinction. This blog post will be its continuation, discussing the various factors that threaten wildlife.

The writers list four 'confirmed' factors:
1. Asteroid Collisions
2. Hunting
3. Agriculture
4. Introduced Species

Since the writers do not believe that Global Warming endangers wildlife, they give the factors that are not directly related to the current climate change. It provides an outline of the threats throughout time, giving a  glimpse of the  complex relationships between a species and the environment and also among species. 

There was an interesting piece of information linked to factor #3: although humans have taken over one third of the world's land for agricultural purposes, the land suited for farming is likely to to have been providing habitat for a small number of species. However, I have to take issue with what the book says soon afterwards: that because we choose land with high productivity for farming (more suited for agriculture), we leave out the rest of the world's land (on which more species live) to "nature". Are the writers implying that humans take control of land just for farming and do not use the rest for other purposes? If there is a reason for this misrepresentation, perhaps the writers are trying to give the impression that we do not impose that great an influence on the environment. It certainly wouldn't be a hindrance to the writers' opinion that human activity cannot have such a big impact as to cause an anthropogenic climate change...

Factor #4 was another point that I gave more thought to. It states that the development of transportation unintentionally brought new species to foreign land. Ships, cars, and planes meant the introduction of species to distant regions around the world. The book explained that the competition between the native and foreign species was inevitable, causing some to become close to extinction. I wondered whether this conflicted with ideas presented further in the chapter. Giving examples of various species - the Northern Pika, birds of the eastern region of the United States, etc. - the writers offer the following idea: as a reaction to the changes in climate around the world, many species' original habitats may become unsuitable; however, the animals are "strong" and have an "inherent ability to adapt"; thus, the range of their habitat will simply shift, causing no definite harm to their survival. The writers explain that mentioned species have shown to survive moving to different regions and that others will do the same. And yet, what is so different about this situation that the various species survive in this case, and do not in the first scenario - the introduction of species by human transportation? Competition between species exists in both, does it not? Is it due to the number of animals being shifted? Is it about how long it takes to make the shift? Please tell me what you think in the comments below! 

The final post of this series will be posted soon~!

Skeptics and Deniers: Concerned about 'Sea Level Rise'?

We've all been there. Worrying about coastal floods penetrating our mega-cities, sinking tropical islands, breaking down our historical monuments, swallowing entire nations, forcing the new climate refugees to desperately seek shelter in already over-populated settlements. Throughout school, we've learned about global warming and the consequent thermal expansion of oceans and the melting of icebergs, causing sea levels to rise. Simply, it's something that's understood. 

This post is part of the series "Skeptics and Deniers"; you can read the previous posts here, here, and here. This post is about the claims that Fred Singer and Dennis Avery make on the rise of sea levels. In Chapter 4, they state that there have been greatly exaggerated estimates of sea level rise; that there are no reasons for us to anticipate 'big' increases in sea levels; and that we do not have to spoil our coastal wetlands to fortify our coast lines. We will explore some of their ideas in detail below.

1. The book takes issue with the findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.* The writers point out that the IPCC has modified its forecasts on sea level rise over the years. For example, the 1990 estimate of 30~100cm increase by 2100 changed to to 9~88cm in 2001. This statistic has 'a wide range of uncertainty'. 

You can read more on IPCC's findings here.

Suddenly, after such little background information on the work of IPCC, the book says that according to INQUA, the IPCC has ignored the research conducted by scientists on sea levels and coastal development. The IPCC, instead, uses the results from computer models that are not yet verified. The writers move onto the claims from the former president of Sea Level Commission: that the IPCC has inaccurate reports; that there have been no such indications of the sea level rise in the past 300 years; and that satellite images have shown no change in the past 10 years. He says that there is no reason for us to fear massive floods in our future. 

The writers add that the IPCC proposed 0.09~0.88m of sea level rise from 1990 to 2100, whereas experts from the Sea Level Commission suggested a 10cm(±10cm). The EPA, the US Environmental Protection Agency, reported that there is 50% chance for 45cm and 1% chance for 110cm increase in sea level by 2100. The writers assume that such statistics would have been partly intended to produce news reports that concentrate on the latter statistic. The concluding paragraph states that the scientists studying sea levels have anticipated no rise in sea levels in the 21st century.

I believe this was one of the sections  where I realized that this book holds so many overstatements, generalizations, and manipulations of facts. I was startled at the progression of information and the specific quotes used by the book. After such meager details on the findings of the IPCC, the writers use very strong words to present the idea that the IPCC has been unreliable, ignorant, imprecise, and scheming. Besides the IPCC's modifications, there are no other aspects of IPCC's faults explained in the writers' own words. Singer and Avery were sometimes very vague in their explanations e.g., not stating exactly what the IPCC has ignored in the research conducted by other scientists, not elaborating on the lack of evidence in the past several centuries. I wondered why the intellectuals that Singer and Avery are did not report findings or facts of their own. I was stunned at the extreme ways in which the writers led to their apparent conclusion: that the findings of some scientists that contrast with those of the IPCC mean ALL scientists studying sea levels do not forecast ANY rise in sea levels. 

*The IPCC is an international body of scientists that advises the UNFCC on the state of climate science. It creates periodic assessment reports on climate change, which are subject to four rounds of review by experts and government representatives. 


2. There are examples of specific regions that have shown little or no increase in sea levels. The book states O.W.Mason and J.W.Jordan's findings in 2002 show only a 0.25mm/year increase in the Chukchi Sea during the past 6,000 years. According to the aforementioned research team at the Sea Level Commission, the sea levels of the Maldives have actually demonstrated an approximate decrease of 20~30cm since 1970. Australia's National Tidal Facility has found no evidence that sea levels are increasing in Tuvalu. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12651486

I was quite surprised at this information. Maldives and Tuvalu are some of the most common examples used to demonstrate the dangers of rising sea levels. The Maldives Profile of the BBC News begins with the words "None of the coral islands measures more than 1.8 metres (six feet) above sea level, making the country vulnerable to a rise in sea levels associated with global warming." The Washington Times in April 19, 2009 stated that "Estimates released at the Copenhagen International Climate Congress in February say the sea could swallow most or all of the islands by the year 2100." The Tuvalu government for the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly stated that "there is a potential that the entire land surface of Tuvalu could disappear as a result of sea level rise." 

This brings us back to the issue mentioned in the previous post. What is the right thing to do when there are conflicting reports on the same issue? Before we are armed with all the knowledge and expertise for us to carefully evaluate the way the research was conducted, we cannot be hasty in making our own conclusions. So what should we do in the meantime? Is it reasonable to dismiss the reports on the dangers these areas are facing for the simple reason of lack of evidence? 

I will be putting up three more posts for this series in the next three weeks. I hope you have enjoyed the discussions on this topic so far. :) 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12651486

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/19/rising-sea-levels-in-pacific-create-wave-of-migran/

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/ga-64/cc-inputs/Tuvalu_CCIS.pdf

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

Reading "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years"

Recently, I was strolling through the library aisles when I came across "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. From the cover, I could immediately see that the book was about how mankind isn't responsible for "global warming" - or, the recent surges in global temperature. In fact, according to the book, the climate change phenomena are a result of 1,500-year climate cycles that the Earth has been going through for 4.5 billion years.

The book expresses its doubts about the Greenhouse Effect - the absorption of solar radiation by greenhouse gases such as CO2 and N2O; the emission of GHGs from human activity cannot have an effect as large as a global temperature surge. The writers of this book assert that instead of trying to cut down on the production of such gases, we should try to develop the adequate technologies and other measures to prepare for the changes in climate for the years to come - inevitable, because that is how the Earth's system has always been, going through repetitive circuits of warm periods and little ice ages. 

* Anyone who's been following my blog will know that what I believe in doesn't agree with what the book says. I've talked extensively about global warming, greenhouse gases and climate change, all from a point of view that is quite the opposite of that of the book. But in the last few years, I've met people who share the book's ideas - surprisingly not a very small number. Investigating what the book says is a way of figuring out what they believe in and clarifying or reinforcing my own knowledge.

For the next few months, I'll be posting about my reading of this book, with picture and weather posts in between. I hope it will interest you as much as it did to me; after all, global news are often scattered with articles about climate change, and in order to interpret them in the most accurate or balanced way, we should be armed with the appropriate knowledge. 

Cheers :)

Continued From The Last Post: Why is Changma Changing?

In the last post, I introduced the changing patterns of the Korean Monsoon (Changma) and how this crucial part of Korean summers was making all of us - including me - quite confused. I wanted to investigate what factors were contributing to the changes in Changma; in today's post, I'll talk about the relationship between Eurasian snow cover and Korean summer rainfall. While I was researching specifically for information that pertains to Korea, I found quite a lot more research done on other regions such as Punjab of India - if you are interested in Eurasian snow cover and the rainfall in your own country, I'm sure you'll find a huge number of research papers done on that topic :)

The first document I used for my little research was the Korean Meteorological Administration's Changma Report of 2011. I was incredibly impressed with its rich content of diagrams and graphs, although the explanations and reasoning for the information they provided was a bit lacking. Still, I was able to find the work of many researchers such as Bamzai & Shukla 1999, Bhanukuma 1988 and Liu & Yanai 2002. I'll put the links to all the information I used at the end of this blog post. 

Before I go further, though, I realize that changes in rainfall patterns are part of climate change, and climate change may be considered a natural phenomenon. On the other hand, the biggest contributor to the recent change in climate is thought to be global warming. With my own experiences and research scientists' statements and findings*, I also agree that the increased global temperature and rainfall variability are anthropologically related. Please tell me what you think in the comments below - debate on climate change is always interesting :)

Western Eurasia is considered a unique geographical region where there is notable inverse correlation between winter snow cover and the subsequent summer monsoon rainfall in South East Asia. This inverse relationship is observed especially when the snow cover was greater or less than usual for both winter and the consecutive spring season. 

When the snow cover of Eurasia's western region is greater and eastern region less than usual in the spring, Korea's summer rainfall tends to increase. With excessive snow cover anomalies, the cooling and cyclonic circulation anomaly in the lower troposphere appear over northern Eurasia. This leads to a huge circulation response and then a weakened East Asia summer monsoon with deficient rainfall. Eurasian snow cover forms more than 60% of the Northern Hemisphere's snow cover, thus the changes in its snow cover give rise to massive changes in the nearby regions. 

But all of the above information still doesn't specifically answer why Eurasian snow cover influences the rainfall other regions...so what it is about the snow anomalies that cause changes in precipitation patterns? Persistent Eurasian snow irregularities in winter and spring cause changes in the temperatures of the surface and atmosphere. This causes albedo and soil hydrological effects; these are particularly important because they widen the difference between the land and sea thermal temperatures and the monsoon that follows. Albedo is known as the power of reflection of a surface (ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it). Snow albedo is particularly more variable: 0.2 for dirty snow, 0.4 for melting snow, and 0.9 for freshly fallen snow. 

I think this explains at least an important part of the relationship between Eurasian snow cover and Korea's Changma...but it's important to realize that although a lot of studies have been done on this topic, there is little data spanning many decades. Also, most of the research I found was focused on the Indian or Chinese monsoon, rather than other regions of Asia. If you happen to know a good source for information that is specifically about Korea, do tell me :)

Next post will be about an absolutely AMAZING discovery I made on my trip last weekend to Gwangju - see the picture below:

Can you figure out what this is? It looks like wood...

but there is also a metallic/rocky texture! 

* Before the 1970s, the variation and monsoon rainfall in East Asia  showed generally varying increases. Since the 1970s, global precipitation's divergent data demonstrated increases that almost coincided with increases in global temperature anomalies during the same period. For further information, please check out this research paper.


 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.784/full
 - http://www.pmd.gov.pk/rnd/rnd_files/vol5_issue10/8.%20The%20Effect%20of%20Eurasian%20Snow%20Cover%20on%20the%20Monsoon%20Rainfall%20of%20Pakistan.pdf
 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.784/pdf
 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167498711400036X
 - http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/q-and-a-climate-change-and-the-monsoon/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Science&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=Blogs
 - http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/04/south-asian-monsoon-is-on-the-change/
 - http://web.kma.go.kr/eng/

Oh, it's Spring!! ...And Leaving Already?

Pinks among the new greens

A few weeks ago, it seemed Spring had finally come. I no longer had to brace myself for an icy chill when walking out of a building, and to my utmost delight, there were glimmers of greens on tree branches. People on the streets seemed more relaxed, swinging their arms about, and embracing the sunlight. When passing shops and supermarkets, I could hear lyrics with acoustic melodies singing of the season "of new love", "hope" and "awakening of memories". Last year's popular spring song "Bom Bom Bom" (In English: "Spring Spring Spring") by Roy Kim flowed out of open car windows. I was incredibly happy at the coming of the new season; it felt serene and liberating (free of thick coats, suffocating scarves and gloves?). I wandered around delightedly - there were so many signs of new life, bursting near the brick walls of the library, by dust bins and next to lamp posts. I felt so blessed to be able to capture such tranquil beauty not only onto digital images but also onto my mind. 

"National cherry blossom bloom season"
and "cherry blossom festivals" are popular searches
(3/30/2014)

But there was tiny thought tugging at me; it was that the change in seasons was proceeding too quickly. The temperatures were not lingering around 8℃ to 13℃, rising little by little but reaching nearly 24℃ in just a week. Before I realized, the weather report was informing us of the imminent early summer weather. Spring festivals usually start in March and end in May; but by looking at the recent temperature changes, it seemed summer would be here much sooner than we expected. 

Shades of purple among crumpled leaves - anyone know what
these adorable flowers are called??

So what is responsible for such drastic changes in our seasons? Global climate change - an answer that is now neither informative nor unexpected. Yet, if we delve into the various effects and consequences of this new spring pattern (which will keep on changing throughout the years) we can grasp a fuller understanding of how our Earth is evolving. Plus, we will find ourselves asking questions that scientists and agencies all over the globe are pondering over. 




I have outlined some major points that give us a fuller picture of the changes in spring:

Right now, it seems like spring's just come
 - but summer is just around the corner!

1. The alteration of one of nature's most important cues, the arrival of spring warmth, means different organisms will react differently. Some species - those that manage to adapt - will benefit from this change whereas others will face a severe threat. 

2. Seasonal relationships between species can be disrupted. According to UK's Natural Environment Research Council, "different species change their seasonal timing to different degrees". The change in the action-reaction of behavioral patterns among organisms can bring about adverse changes in breeding rates and population size. 

3. Seasonal pattern changes occur differently by region; this means there can be further confusion among migrating animals as species from altered climate will interact with those from normal climate.

4. Short springs and longer summers mean mosquitoes and tics can be around for longer. Since they are capable of transmitting diseases, this is a threat to the vast majority of animal species including humans.

Humans activities are also affected: 

Both human and other species' activities are affected 

5. Businesses are among those who have to alter their strategies. According to Kook Min Il Bo News, fashion brands are hurriedly releasing their summer collections in Korea. Summer items are becoming more popular than spring items; accessories such as sunglasses which have been typically sold in "summer months" are now quickly being purchased in the "spring months". 

6. The distribution of number of visits to places such as public parks and water parks is changing. As weather becomes unpredictable, customer behavior that served as a model to businesses and governments is becoming unreliable. 

* Not directly related to the current Korean climate but another important point for when spring comes too early: If plants begin their fruition too soon, a later frost can destroy the foods produced. This affects not only animal species that rely on the foods but also farmers who depend on its produce. 

Final post for the blogpost series 'Should I be Worried?' to come soon-!

http://www.livescience.com/19679-climate-change-seasons-shift-mismatch.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/03/21/early-spring-may-signal-darker-climate-changes-ahead/

http://time.com/30638/the-end-of-spring-in-a-warming-world/

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sci_programmes/shifting-seasons-uk.html

http://news.kukinews.com/article/view.asp?page=1&gCode=cul&arcid=0007178958&cp=nv