Excellent overview of Global Warming science by math professor Joe Mazur

 https://worldfinancialreview.com/two-hundred-years-of-talking-about-climate-change/

One can correctly say that it goes as far back as two hundred years when the French mathematician Joseph Fourier calculated that the earth warms from solar radiation and that its atmosphere acts like an insulating shield heated from above and below.⁸ “Like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the rays of the sun but retains the dark rays of the earth,” he said. In 1862, the Irish physicist, John Tyndall, found that planet-escaping CO₂ warms the planet. Those discoveries linked the temperature of the atmosphere to CO₂. Then, near the end of the nineteenth century, the Swedish physical chemist, Svante Arrhenius, started thinking about the causes of the ice ages.⁹ After what he described as tedious calculations (actually tens of thousands), Arrhenius published that increased carbon dioxide levels cause temperature differences and long-term variations in climate.¹⁰

In 1956 the Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass concluded in the American Journal of Physics that continued industrial releases of carbon dioxide would increase the atmospheric temperature by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit per century. Governments, then, were warned about the greenhouse effect and its catastrophes for the future.¹¹

We were warned about future extreme global impacts of sea risings, heat waves, floods, and droughts, alerted of coincidental effects of weather pattern shifts, drops in crop yields, species extinction, typhoons in Southeast Asia, and tornados in the Midwest US.

Some public figures labeled the predictions hoaxes stirred by purely coincidental climate changes with no causal connection to greenhouse gas emissions.¹² But now we have a well-researched report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on August 9, 2021, that tells us just how real the Earth’s climate is changing “in every region and across the whole climate system.”¹³ It should shock everyone into questioning politicians’ obligations to save the world.

The IPCC report solidly connects the emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities to the expected average global temperature (AGT) rise exceeding 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit in the next twenty years. Climate change deniers fail to understand is that a 2.7-degree increase in AGT can be double that on land and triple or quadruple that in some regions of the world. For millennia we have lived in a relatively stable climate acceptable for adapted human habitation having a narrow band of threshold boundaries. Some parts of the world – including the southwest US – were once uninhabitable without temperature-controlling technologies. But those technologies are also contributors to the problem. They use fossil fuels to cool rooms while contributing to atmospheric heat. How long will it be before that cycle breaks down?

Like the answer to any bottomless question, we do not know. We do know, however, that the impacts of climate change are with us.

Hi Professor Emeritus Joe Mazur: This is "drew hempel" again - thanks for your well-written global warming article. As you might remember I first contacted you about your "Euclid in the Rainforest" book since I studied conservation biology/sustainability in Costa Rica for one of my undergraduate semesters. I was reminded of the book "Environmental Endgame" that came out around 2006 - Professor Robert Nadeau, the author, focused on the use of supercomputers for global warming modeling - and the chaos science involved. The Economist review ignored this key focus of the book but math professor Steve Strogatz around the same time did an interview for "The Edge" warning that the chaos iterations of supercomputers means that science is inherently authoritarian and essentially the machines are in control. Your war drone AI automation articles also present good evidence to that end. In my "debates" with my engineering relatives - careers at 3M or HVAC production - and followers of "Faux" news - I have simply pointed out that if we assume that global warming is real, the solution is going to be just an increase in some technocratic control. My uncle admitted that his house was now "smart controlled" so he could not even change his thermostat on his own. 

Anyway - I use http://arctic-news.blogspot.com to get a deeper analysis of the empirical evidence that has been dismissed or ignored even by the IPCC (since those reports require a government consensus signoff before publication). So Natalia Shakhova's research group has documented a 1200 gigaton "pressurized" methane hydrate reservoir in the world's largest ocean shelf - this is starting to abrupt and a 50 gigaton "abrupt eruption" is considered very probable. Just such a "50 gigaton" eruption would heat up Earth another .6 Celsius global average.

Oceanographer Jim Massa at Alaska - he worked directly with Shakhova's research group and he corroborates their claims. He emphasizes (on his youtube channel) that there's been 500 extra zettajoules accumulated in the ocean, starting in 1995. So the entire extra heat in the atmosphere from the past 10,000 years of human civilization is around 30 zettajoules. The ocean heat is accelerating out now into the atmosphere and melting the arctic ice fast from beneath. Ocean research has documented this as "heat blobs."

OK so then the research group of Daniel Rosenfeld discovered ten years ago that the Aerosol Masking Effect is twice as bad as previously though - the supposed "ice age" hysteria that you refer to in your article. James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who focuses on global warming, has now emphasized that indeed it is from the reduction of diesel pollution and coal burning that is now the fastest rate of temperature increase in the atmosphere. 

So when we combine all these factors it is what conservation biologist Guy McPherson called the "McPherson Paradox" - or predicament of an accelerating ecological crisis. McPherson emphasizes that E.O. Wilson was the first to publish how we already were having a mass extinction of species crisis back in 1992. And that is when I was in Costa Rica reading E.O. Wilson's book on biodiversity for my research there.

I then got arrested eight times doing civil disobedience, and I worked at six nonprofits making some money by begging door to door for donations or washing dishes or data entry/paper shuffling. I got some policy changes driven through by activism, creating campaigns and coalitions. I also got some threats and harassment. 

A fascinating researcher on CIA drug smuggling to prop up those wars on the periphery of the U.S. Empire is Douglas Valentine. Maybe not all of his research is completely precise but he has personally interviewed CIA drug smugglers still living in Indochina in retirement. So when you reference the black market for surplus weapons paid for by blood diamonds, etc. plus don't forget there's some $600 billion a year of hard cash drug money being laundered into U.S. banks to prop up the "productive economy." hahaha.

I learned that when I took my NAFTA course in 1992 - actually it was called "Latin American International Relations" and my professor noted some one trillion in drug money coming into the U.S. every year. I was shocked but I didn't realize my IR degree was more like a "business" major - so none of the other students had their "thinking caps" on. I wrote my paper promoting the Ejidos of Mexico - the traditional communal organic farms and my professor said I would fail the class and she gave me a "D." After that I just reguritated her class notes - stopped thinking - and I got a C in the class. hahahaha.

I have plenty of stories like that of course but by 1996 I realized we were "doomed." Still Algae can sequester 100 gigatons per year of CO2 - and so algae could save civilization if we chose to focus on Algae as Sir David King does and Raffael Jovine.

I did an Algae talk on youtube maybe six months ago.

thanks,

drew