Climate Change Week 3

It is now time to reflect on week 3 of the Climate Change MOOC.  This week has been about the here and now.  Or at least the past 150 years rather than the events of millions and billions of years ago discussed in previous weeks.  There is no doubt that the technology that is now available and the amount of effort put into examining climatic trends, does give confidence in the expert assessments of climate change.  It is also an indisputable fact that there has been a significant rise in the Earth's temperature during the 20th century and up to the present time.  The most recent decade is the warmest on record since measurements have been taken over the past 170 years.  This has resulted in rising sea levels from thermal expansion and the melting of land ice.  It is worth noting that, contrary to some peoples' views, melting sea ice does not increase the level of the oceans because floating ice displaces the same volume of water as it would if it were liquid - Archimedes principle.  There have also been some extreme weather events - floods, heat-waves, hurricanes, etc - but apparently it's not possible to attribute a particular event to climate change because it might be due to natural fluctuations.  Interestingly, although the world is getting warmer and the Arctic ice cap is reducing in size, the Antarctic sea ice is expanding.  This paradox is explained by the influence of winds and waters in the southern oceans.

As we know, carbon dioxide is one of the key gases in the warming blanket around the planet and this week we learnt more about the carbon cycle.  10 petagrams of carbon (a petagram is 10 to the power 16 grams!) are released into the atmosphere each year as a result of human activities.  90% comes from the burning of fossil fuels and the remaining 10% from deforestation.  Out of the 10 petagrams of CO2 released each year, the atmosphere increase is about 4.5 petagrams.  The rest is absorbed by the land and the ocean.  Without this absorption, the atmospheric CO2 would be much greater and we don't really know how these carbon sinks will be affected by climate change.  I did an analysis of the emissions in metric tons per capita for the following countries:

Turkey (where I live) 4.1

UK (where I come from) 7.9

USA 17.6

China 6.2

India 1.7

The emissions from China are increasing year on year, which is hardly surprising.  China is fast becoming the manufacturing centre for the world and as an increasing global population demands more manufactured goods, China's CO2 emissions will increase.  This assumes, of course, that the increase in manufacturing capability still depends on the use of fossil fuels.

After three weeks into the course, I am now convinced that anthropogenic (I love that word even though 'human-induced' is probably more widely understood!) activities, are strongly linked to the rise in global temperatures.  What, in my view, is debatable is whether recent extreme events are natural fluctuations or exacerbated by human activity.  I have found the discussions interesting.  I do feel that some participants have very fixed views on the cause and consequences of climate change, maybe I do!  But I really am trying to keep an open mind and evaluate the material objectively in order to improve my knowledge of an issue that is so important to the future of humanity.

So onwards and upwards, roll on week 4!

Climate Change Week 2

So it's week 2 of the Climate Change MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) and it's continuing to live up to my expectations.  Before I get into my reflections for this week, it is worth making a few comments on the MOOC process, which is new to me.  I had concerns that because MOOC is MASSIVE, with unlimited participation and open access via the web, it would be unmanageable.  But my concerns were certainly unfounded.  In fact, far from being unmanageable, it actually seems to manage itself, rather like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, et al.  So although there are obviously many participants with different backgrounds, skill levels, aspirations, etc., the way in which each participant 'tailors' the course to suit his or her requirements, results in an individual learning experience.  So well done FutureLearn, I'm impressed!

This week we have been studying past climate change starting at around 4.5 billion years ago.  The Earth has been habitable for all that period but has seen a tremendous range of climatic conditions.  Interestingly, 4.5 billion years ago the sun was about 25% to 30% less bright than now and yet if today's sun was 'turned down' to that level, the planet would freeze.  But it didn't.  The reason it was warmer than expected, was because of a thicker layer of warming gases.  OK but as the sun warmed up over the years, why didn't the planet get much hotter?  The continents weathered as a result of rain water and carbon dioxide forming a weak acid, which dissolved rocks and the carbon washed into the oceans where it was used by organisms to form shells.  These ultimately were deposited on the ocean floor to form carbonate rocks.  This is how the carbon was taken out of the atmosphere and the climate self regulated.  Clever isn't it?!

There were two notable periods in the planet's history, 2.2 billion and 700 million years ago, when the planet froze and became a giant snowball.  The theory is that on both occasions something happened to cool the planet so the ice caps expanded.  As they grew they reflected more sunlight, causing more cooling and more ice cap growth until the whole world was covered in ice.  The freeze was broken by volcanic activity, which is not affected by the big freeze, this pumped carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus creating atmospheric warming, and so on.

We learnt about more recent climate change in the past 2 million years.  Some of the changes in the past thousands of years have been totally predictable and are as a result of variations in the shape of the Earth's orbit and the angle and location of its axis.  The three factors affecting the sun and therefore the Earth's climate, are eccentricity (change from circular to elliptical orbit), obliquity (change of tilt of the Earth's axis and precession (wobble of the Earth's axis).  Evidence of climate change was explained and particularly before modern times when measurements were (and are) taken under carefully controlled conditions.  Methods that are employed include tree rings and ice cores.

Finally we discussed the relevance of the fact that on 9 May 2013, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million.  This level has not been reached since the Pliocene period, three to five million years ago.  The temperature then was about 2-3 degrees C higher than now.  Are there any conclusions that can be drawn from that?  Well many participants think there are, but my own view is that it is too simplistic to relate the Earth's temperature solely to the increase of man-made CO2.  That said, I am still a strong advocate of the need to reduce significantly man-made CO2 emissions.

I was less hasty this week before doing the course test and it paid off with a better result!  I am looking forward to week 3.

Climate Change Week 1

I have started an online course from FutureLearn - https://www.futurelearn.com.  The course is 'Climate change: challenges and solutions', led by the University of Exeter in the UK.  It is my first experience of an online course and I am thoroughly enjoying it.  The course lasts eight weeks and at the end of each week the students are required to reflect on what they have learned.  So for the next eight weeks, my blog posts will record my reflections.

The greenhouse effect is fundamental to understanding climate change but the greenhouse metaphor isn't a good one.  The heat in a greenhouse escapes through the glass but a small amount gets trapped.  The greenhouse actually warms up because of prevention of airflow, which stops the loss of heat by convection.  This is a similar effect to the heat in an unventilated car on a hot day, which is why it is a dangerous place to leave your pets.  This contrasts with the earth that is kept warm by a 'blanket' of gases.  The most significant gas is water vapour, but the others are carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and nitrous oxide.  The earth reflects about 30% of the sunlight that it receives, which means it has an albedo of 0.3.  Ice and snow have high albedos, i.e. reflect a lot of the radiation, whereas the oceans have low albedo, i.e. absorb a lot of the radiation.  If there was no reflection, the earth's average temperature would be around -18 deg C, but the blanket of gases warms the earth's surface to an average of around +15 deg C.

Climate can be thought of as a highly complex system with feedback mechanisms that produce self-regulation.  The key system components are the atmosphere, the hydrosphere (oceans, rivers, lakes), the biosphere (living things), the cryosphere (ice and glaciers) and the lithosphere (surface of the earth's crust).  Heat from the sun causes water to evaporate from the hydrosphere and biosphere.  Clouds are formed, which precipitate (rain and snow) and water returns to the earth's surface.  Water then returns to the hydrosphere, or if it is frozen snow it can enter the cryosphere.  Sunlight on the cryosphere can transform it into vapour by a process called sublimation.  The water cycle can be affected by many factors involving human activity.

There are many feedbacks in the climate system - closed loops of cause and effect.  Some feedback loops have the mathematical terminology of positive, because they are reinforcing.  Some feedback loops are termed negative because they are balancing.  Here are three examples of feedback in action within the climate system:

The first example is when water evaporates in the atmosphere, the molecules of water vapour absorb radiation from the earth and vibrate.  They then re-emit heat radiation, resulting in further warming.  This is positive, reinforcing feedback.

Another example of positive feedback is when solar radiation hits sea ice, most is reflected because of the ice's high albedo.  The ocean's surface, on the other hand, has low albedo and absorbs most of the radiation.  So as the system warms up, the sea ice melts, which increases absorption by the oceans, warming the sea water, causing more ice to melt, and so on.

The final example is negative feedback.  All bodies give off radiation and the warmer the body the more radiation it gives off.  When it gives off more radiation, that cools it down.  This is known as the Stefan Boltzmann effect or the Planck feedback.

So this complex climate system has a multiplicity of positive and negative feedback loops that self-regulate.

That's my summary of the first week's theoretical aspects from the course.  But one other aspect that really registered with me was appreciating the difference between weather and climate.  Weather is really the day-to-day elements that we experience such as temperature, rain and wind.  Climate change on the other hand, looks at long-term (30 years+) changes in weather.  Where I live in Turkey, the climate is temperate Mediterranean, the characteristics being long hot and dry summers, cooler and wetter winters.  We have all been around long enough to experience all sorts of weather conditions but even in my advancing years, I don't think I could seriously make objective judgements on climate change like, for example, increases in average temperatures in some parts of the world.  So weather is all about short-term conditions that are easy to measure and evaluate.  Whereas climate variations are all about long-term changes, which are assessed by averaging and probabilities.  This really wasn't obvious to me until I started the course.

So it's been very informative and good fun so far.  My only mistake was that I rushed into the test for the week, which was foolish because I dropped a few points.  Next week I won't be so hasty!

Don't stop the flow

As the world thinks it is recovering from the financial crisis, which started in 2008, I can't help thinking about FLOW.  The financial crisis was, after all, a serious interruption of worldwide capital flow.  In the US, for example, there were surplus houses, offices, shops and production capacity, as well as surplus labour.  So surplus capital and labour co-existed but putting them back together was and continues to be, a torturous process involving immense human suffering.  If the world economy fully recovers, and in my mind that's a big 'if', then life will proceed at a pace and the 2008 crisis will soon be forgotten.  Uninterrupted capital flow will be the name of the game, economic growth will be the principal objective for countries and companies, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer - business as usual.  The joy of the return to 'normality' for those who benefit from it (i.e. all but the growing group of disadvantaged) will soon be forgotten and taken for granted.

Capital flow rules, OK?

When someone has a heart attack, there is a serious interruption to the blood flow within the body and all organs are under threat.  If a person is lucky enough to be treated and he or she recovers, healthy blood flow resumes and life proceeds as 'normal'.  The life-threatening crisis gradually becomes a distant memory.

Blood flow rules, OK?

If you are on the internet and start experiencing problems with access to websites or even complete dropouts, then the flow of data to and from your computer will have slowed down or maybe ceased completely.  That can be extremely frustrating, particularly if you are in the middle of doing something very important.  However, whilst you will be delighted when the 'normal' service resumes, the interruption will soon be forgotten as you carry on with your computing tasks, regarding an adequate internet service as a 'given'.

Data flow rules, OK?

Two weeks ago, the drain blocked to my septic tank, the initial symptoms being the water in the the toilets not returning to the expected level after flushing.  After the blockage was freed, the system worked normally and I was delighted, particularly as the remedial action took place one day before a friend was coming to stay for two weeks.  But again my delight was soon forgotten and it wasn't long before I took normal flushing toilets for granted.

Sewage flow rules, OK?

In the part of Turkey where I live, interruptions to electricity and water supplies are not unusual.  Life without electricity or water, even for a few hours, can be at least annoying and for some distressing.  I feel ecstatic when the water returns to flowing out of the tap or the lights come back on but as with the previous examples of 'flowing as usual', the joy is short-lived and water or electricity are taken for granted.

Water and electricity flows rule, OK?

There are plenty more examples of flows in our lives that we assume will always be around but when they are not, we miss them like crazy.  We can't spend our lives worrying and having contingency plans for every flow that might go.  But maybe instead of being blasé about the wonders of life, natural and man-made, we should be far more appreciative of all that we've got.  That way, we would be less fazed when we are deprived of the treasures that we regard as 'essentials' but are really life's bonuses.

So be joyous when things come

Don't be sad when they go

You're more fortunate than some

You should go with the flow!

Broken Resolutions

It's that time of year again.  No doubt there will be plenty of new year's resolutions in the offing.  If the statistics of recent research are to be repeated, the majority of those making resolutions will fail.  Now there are plenty of 'experts' offering reasons why resolutions fail and conversely, how to succeed.  I'm not an expert and I don't want this post to be a lecture or self-help programme, but merely food for thought.  It's just personal observations on what I see as the futility of rigid ambitious resolutions and maybe a more likely-to-succeed road to change.

Life is about evolution.

Evolution is the change in the inherent characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.  It is the continuous adaptation to the environment through successive very small changes over a long period of time.  So what relevance has evolution to resolutions?  Well let me be clear that this is 'Hayman's Theory' and is not based on any firm scientific foundation that I am aware of.  I believe the body and mind adapt to small and slow changes, 'evolution', rather than huge and rapid changes, 'revolution'.  So a resolution that involves a sudden change of lifestyle, for example a regular diet of burger and chips replaced by green succulent rabbit's food, is unlikely to succeed.  On the other hand, small incremental changes, starting by reducing the quantity and frequency of the burger and chips diet, are more likely to be sustainable.

The second analogy between successful resolutions and evolution, relates to the fact that evolution is all about genetic survival.  The catchphrase is: Survival of the fittest.  So changes are generally for the better, not for the worse.  That said, the evolution of humans from four-legged to two-legged is possibly a cause of widespread back problems.  But if we accept that change for the better is preferable to change for the worse, than maybe we should view resolutions in that light.  Yet most resolutions are 'negative', i.e. giving something up, like stopping smoking, reducing drinking, cutting out chocolates........you get the picture?!  Whereas each negative could be reframed as a positive.  So stopping smoking leads to longer life, more money in your pocket, better smelling breath and so on.

To conclude, small changes over long periods of time aimed at positive lifestyle changes are preferable to the misery of the rapid infliction of pain without any obvious gain.

Happy New Year!