Stromatolites on Mars?

The Case for Past Life on Mars Gets Stronger But how much evidence is needed until we can say there ’ s proof ?
In a new paper published in the International Journal of Astrobiology , Vincenzo Rizzo from the National Research Center in Cosenza , Italy , asks a provocative question : Why are many scientists reluctant to accept the use of geological methods to identify biological processes on Mars , when those methods are commonly used on Earth ?
He points to a case in Germany from 1908 , when a scientist by the name of Ernst Kalkowsky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sheet-like sedimentary rocks called stromatolites were of biological nature .
His contemporaries did not believe him .
But Kalkowsky was later proven correct , when it was recognized that stromatolites formed because biofilms—composed of cyanobacteria and other microorganisms—trapped sediments .
Stromatolites are now known to be the oldest evidence for life on Earth , stretching back at least 3.5 billion years , and they still exist in some remote regions , such as Shark Bay , Australia .
In his paper Rizzo follows in Kalkowsky ’ s footsteps by analyzing images from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rovers on Mars that indicate the presence of biotic macrostructures such as stromatolites .
He suggests that if no non-biological explanation can be found , the images should be considered as possible candidates for Martian stromatolites .
Rizzo shows many examples of structures that have an amazing resemblance to stromatolites on Earth .
Why does this remind me of amateur crater hunters ?
Because , it ’ s interpreting photographic imagery without physically examining the rocks .
The difference is that we can ’ t , yet , physically examine the rocks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided us with a lot of data about the rocks .
Meteorites found on Earth , thought to be from Mars , can be physically examined ; but they aren ’ t representative of the sedimentary geology of Mars .
I have little doubt that when we finally send manned missions to Mars and study its sedimentary rocks in detail , we will find evidence of past microscopic life… But , just because a picture of something looks like a stromatolite , doesn ’ t mean it is a stromatolite .
Lots of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out not to be what they first appeared to be .
Over the next 25 years , improved imagery revealed that the face was rather faceless… Evidence is steadily mounting that Mars could have supported life in the past and there are tantalizing indications that the Red Planet might still support be microscopic organisms .
So , unlike the Face on Mars and impact craters circled up on satellite images , there is reason to believe that geologic features resembling stromatolites , might actually be something like stromatolites… But , we can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sedimentary rocks back home to Earth .
Scientists disagree on how to define stromatolites .
A common definition goes something like : A laminated rock formed by the growth of blue-green algae ( i.e.
, cyanobacteria ) ” .
This definition is , in fact , such a gross oversimplification as be scientifically useless .
It does contain a modicum of truth , however , in that the largest volume of stromatolitic formations was likely formed by biogenic processes involving photosynthetic cyanobacteria .
Cyanobacteria ’ s metabolic byproduct , oxygen , rusted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them into earth ’ s atmosphere , and in so doing paved the way for aerobic-based life to emerge and diversify ; cyanobacteria ’ s contributions to life led to their own prodigious decline .
Stromatolites and their close cousins the thrombolites , are rock-like buildups of microbial mats that form in limestone- or dolostone-forming environments .
Together with oncoids ( formerly called “ algal biscuits ” or “ Girvanella ” ) , they typically form by the baffling , trapping , and precipitation of particles by communities of microorganisms such as bacteria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can form inorganically , for example when seawaters are oversaturated with certain chemicals resulting in precipitation .
Stromatolites are defined as laminated accretionary structures that have synoptic relief ( i.e.
, they stick up above the seafloor ) .
Stromatolite-building communities include the oldest known fossils , dating back some 3.5 billion years when the environments of Earth were too hostile to support life as we know it today .
We can presume that the microbial communities consisted of complex consortia of species with diverse metabolic needs , and that competition for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intricate structures we observe in these ancient fossils .
Microbial communities diversified through time , with eukaryotic organisms eventually joining the mix .
Excluding some exceedingly rare Precambrian fossils such as the Russian White Sea Ediacaran fauna , stromatolites and they ’ re the only fossils encoding the first 7/8th of the history of life on earth .
They encode the role that ancient microorganisms played in the evolution of life on earth and in shaping earth ’ s environments .
The fossil record of stromatolites is astonishingly extensive , spanning some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the forming organisms possibly having occupied every conceivable environment that ever existed on earth .
Today , stromatolites are nearly extinct in marine environments , living a precarious existence in only a few localities worldwide .
Modern stromatolites were first discovered in Shark Bay , Australia in 1956 , and throughout western Australia in both marine and non-marine environments .
New stromatolite localities have continued to be discovered in various places such as the Bahamas , the Indian Ocean and Yellowstone National Park , to name but a few localities .
The subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay-walled .
However , Vincenzo Rizzo was a coauthor of a paper published in February 2020 , Mars : Algae , Lichens , Fossils , Minerals , Microbial Mats , and Stromatolites in Gale Crater , Joseph et al.
, 2020 .
They make a very good case for the morphological similarities of Martian rocks to Earth rocks bearing microbial fossils .
Here is an example : The similarities are striking , but they note that… The authors were unable to precisely determine if these specimens are biological or consist of Martian minerals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Therefore , a review of Martian min-erals and mineralization was conducted and the possibility these formations may be abiogenic is discussed .
It is concluded that the overall pattern of evidence is mutually related and that specimens resembling algae-like and other organisms may have colonized the Gale Crater , beginning billions of years ago .
That some or most of these specimens may be abiotic , can not be ruled out .
Additional investigation targeting features similar to these should be a priority of future studies devoted to the search for current and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) ( PDF ) Mars : Algae , Lichens , Fossils , Minerals , Microbial Mats , and Stromatolites in Gale Crater .
Available from : https : //www.researchgate.net/publication/339777176_Mars_Algae_Lichens_Fossils_Minerals_Microbial_Mats_and_Stromatolites_in_Gale_Crater [ accessed Apr 15 2020 ] .
Fascinating stuff , but we won ’ t know for sure until we do this sort of thing on Mars… Even then , we may not know for sure .
By 1965 , NASA had 28 astronauts , all military or ex-military pilots .
In a nod to science — which American scientists felt NASA was neglecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three physicists , two MDs , and a geologist .
The geologist was Harrison Schmitt .
National Review readers may recognize the name — from 1977 to 1983 , Schmitt was a Republican senator from New Mexico .
But long before he went into politics , he was NASA ’ s only geologist-astronaut .
Geology was part of every astronaut ’ s training , but only in an uninspiring , perfunctory way .
Schmitt knew it would be absurd for astronauts to arrive on the Moon and not understand what they were looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take geology seriously ; what they needed , Schmitt decided , was a really good teacher .
Schmitt picked out Leon Silver , a prominent CalTech geologist with whom Schmitt had studied as an undergrad .
Silver was the sort of magnetic teacher each of us fondly remembers having had at one time or another ; Schmitt thought he was just the man who could suck the pilot-astronauts into a world of stones and dirt .
Silver ’ s geology field trips became standard .
The astronauts who went to the Moon knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rocks , they were looking for clues to the Moon ’ s history and , by extension , the history of the Earth , of the solar system , and of all creation .
They would keep their eyes open for collapsed lava tubes and dead volcanoes .
They would examine impact craters of the sort that vanish on the geologically active Earth , but are preserved forever on the geologically dead Moon .
They weren ’ t just looking for rocks — they were looking for specific minerals that could settle arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Silver told them to keep their eyes open for anorthosite , distinguished by telltale white plagioclase crystals .
Anorthosite , said Silver , would probably be scarce on the Moon — but it was what many geologists suspected the Moon ’ s original crust had been made of .
Finding a piece of it would be a triumph for the Apollo missions , and for science .
And Silver was in Mission Control when one of his best students , astronaut Dave Scott , radioed to Houston : “ Oh man !
Guess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we just found !
I think we found what we came for !
” What he ’ d found was the piece of anorthosite that ’ s now known as the “ Genesis Rock.
” The solar system is 4.5 billion years old ; the Genesis Rock is just 100 million years younger .
Planetary science had been revolutionized .
Science is never “ settled ” … When it settles , it gets boring .
Joseph , Rhawn & Graham , L & Büdel , Burkhard & Jung , Patrick & Kidron , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , R & Harb , Hoda & Ray , Joseph George & Ramos , Geraldo & Consorti , Lorenzo & Rizzo , Vincenzo & Gibson , C & Schild , Rudolph .
( 2020 ) .
“ Mars : Algae , Lichens , Fossils , Minerals , Microbial Mats , and Stromatolites in Gale Crater ” .
Journal of Astrobiology and Space Science Reviews 3 .
40-111 .
10.37720/jassr.03082020 .
Rizzo , Vincenzo .
( 2020 ) .
“ Why should geological criteria used on Earth not be valid also for Mars ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ extinct Martian lakes ” .
International Journal of Astrobiology .
1-12 .
10.1017/S1473550420000026 .
Dallas County Health and Human Services is reporting 89 additional positive cases of COVID-19 today , bringing the total case count in Dallas County to 1,877 .
Ten additional deaths are being reported , including : *A man in his 60 ’ s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the city of Dallas and had been critically ill in an area hospital .
*A man in his 70 ’ s who was a resident of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Dallas and had been hospitalized in an area hospital .
*A man in his 80 ’ s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the city of Dallas and had been hospitalized in an area hospital .
*A woman in her 50 ’ s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the city of Dallas .
*A woman in her 90 ’ s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the city of Dallas .
*A man in his 50 ’ s who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dallas and had been critically ill in an area hospital .
*A man in his 50 ’ s who was a resident of the city of Dallas and had been critically ill in an area hospital .
*A man in his 30 ’ s who was a resident of the city of Garland and had been critically ill in an area hospital .
*A woman in her 80 ’ s who was a resident of the city of Mesquite and had been hospitalized in an area hospital .
*A man in his 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city of DeSoto and had been found deceased at home .
I could make a very insensitive remark , but I won ’ t .
In the meantime , we all remain under “ house arrest ” thanks to Fire Marshal Gump .
Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins says Dallas is ‘ in the middle ’ of its coronavirus fight As Dallas County announced its highest one-day COVID-19 death toll , Judge Clay Jenkins said the peak is projected for the end of April or early May .
Author : Teresa Woodard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 DALLAS — Three weeks to the day after Dallas County ’ s stay-at-home order went into effect , the county announced 10 COVID-19 related deaths , its highest one-day total .
The victims range from a man in his 30s to a woman in her 90s .
Five of them lived at Brentwood Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation facilities in the city of Dallas .
“ Today is somber news , ” said Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins in a Tuesday afternoon news conference .
“ We lost 10 people today.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that is either the end of this month , or maybe the beginning of next month , ” he said .
“ I can ’ t stress how important it is that you don ’ t let up now.
” Hey Gump !
Look at your own fracking data !
Yesterday ’ s totals pushed the Mendoza Line crossing out to March 14 , 2035… Thankfully , the public ’ s patience with this “ free trial ” of socialism and the Fire Marshal Gump types is wearing thin .
How about @ @ @ @

Guest “geological story telling” by David Middleton
The Case for Past Life on Mars Gets Stronger
But how much evidence is needed until we can say there’s proof? By Dirk Schulze-Makuch
AIRSPACEMAG.COM
APRIL 13, 2020 In a new paper published in the International Journal of Astrobiology, Vincenzo Rizzo from the National Research Center in Cosenza, Italy, asks a provocative question: Why are many scientists reluctant to accept the use of geological methods to identify biological processes on Mars, when those methods are commonly used on Earth? He points to a case in Germany from 1908, when a scientist by the name of Ernst Kalkowsky proposed that layered mounds, columns, and sheet-like sedimentary rocks called stromatolites were of biological nature. His contemporaries did not believe him. But Kalkowsky was later proven correct, when it was recognized that stromatolites formed because biofilms—composed of cyanobacteria and other microorganisms—trapped sediments. Stromatolites are now known to be the oldest evidence for life on Earth, stretching back at least 3.5 billion years, and they still exist in some remote regions, such as Shark Bay, Australia. In his paper Rizzo follows in Kalkowsky’s footsteps by analyzing images from the Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity rovers on Mars that indicate the presence of biotic macrostructures such as stromatolites. He suggests that if no non-biological explanation can be found, the images should be considered as possible candidates for Martian stromatolites. Rizzo shows many examples of structures that have an amazing resemblance to stromatolites on Earth. […] Air & Space Magazine
Why does this remind me of amateur crater hunters? Because, it’s interpreting photographic imagery without physically examining the rocks. The difference is that we can’t, yet, physically examine the rocks on Mars. The rovers and orbiters have provided us with a lot of data about the rocks. Meteorites found on Earth, thought to be from Mars, can be physically examined; but they aren’t representative of the sedimentary geology of Mars.
I have little doubt that when we finally send manned missions to Mars and study its sedimentary rocks in detail, we will find evidence of past microscopic life… But, just because a picture of something looks like a stromatolite, doesn’t mean it is a stromatolite. Lots of visual images of things on Mars turn out not to be what they first appeared to be.
“The original ‘Face on Mars’ image taken by NASA’s Viking 1 orbiter, in grey scale, on July, 25 1976. Image shows a remnant massif located in the Cydonia region. (Image credit: NASA)” Space.com
Over the next 25 years, improved imagery revealed that the face was rather faceless…
Evidence is steadily mounting that Mars could have supported life in the past and there are tantalizing indications that the Red Planet might still support be microscopic organisms. So, unlike the Face on Mars and impact craters circled up on satellite images, there is reason to believe that geologic features resembling stromatolites, might actually be something like stromatolites… But, we can’t possibly know until astronauts bring Martian sedimentary rocks back home to Earth.
Defining Stromatolites Scientists disagree on how to define stromatolites. A common definition goes something like: A laminated rock formed by the growth of blue-green algae (i.e., cyanobacteria)”. This definition is, in fact, such a gross oversimplification as be scientifically useless. It does contain a modicum of truth, however, in that the largest volume of stromatolitic formations was likely formed by biogenic processes involving photosynthetic cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria’s metabolic byproduct, oxygen, rusted the earth, pumped enormous oxygen poison to them into earth’s atmosphere, and in so doing paved the way for aerobic-based life to emerge and diversify; cyanobacteria’s contributions to life led to their own prodigious decline. Stromatolites and their close cousins the thrombolites, are rock-like buildups of microbial mats that form in limestone- or dolostone-forming environments. Together with oncoids (formerly called “algal biscuits” or “Girvanella”), they typically form by the baffling, trapping, and precipitation of particles by communities of microorganisms such as bacteria and algae. In some cases, they can form inorganically, for example when seawaters are oversaturated with certain chemicals resulting in precipitation. Stromatolites are defined as laminated accretionary structures that have synoptic relief (i.e., they stick up above the seafloor). Stromatolite-building communities include the oldest known fossils, dating back some 3.5 billion years when the environments of Earth were too hostile to support life as we know it today. We can presume that the microbial communities consisted of complex consortia of species with diverse metabolic needs, and that competition for resources and differing motility among them created the intricate structures we observe in these ancient fossils. Microbial communities diversified through time, with eukaryotic organisms eventually joining the mix. Excluding some exceedingly rare Precambrian fossils such as the Russian White Sea Ediacaran fauna, stromatolites and they’re the only fossils encoding the first 7/8th of the history of life on earth. They encode the role that ancient microorganisms played in the evolution of life on earth and in shaping earth’s environments. The fossil record of stromatolites is astonishingly extensive, spanning some four billion years of geological history with the forming organisms possibly having occupied every conceivable environment that ever existed on earth. Today, stromatolites are nearly extinct in marine environments, living a precarious existence in only a few localities worldwide. Modern stromatolites were first discovered in Shark Bay, Australia in 1956, and throughout western Australia in both marine and non-marine environments. New stromatolite localities have continued to be discovered in various places such as the Bahamas, the Indian Ocean and Yellowstone National Park, to name but a few localities. Fossil Museum Dot Net
Stromatolites
Lower Proterozic (2.3 billion)
Eastern Andies South of Cochabamba, District of Cochabamba, Bolivia, South America
Fossil Museum Dot Net
Geological Evidence for Past Life on Mars
The subject paper, Rizzo, 2020, is pay-walled. However, Vincenzo Rizzo was a coauthor of a paper published in February 2020, Mars: Algae, Lichens, Fossils, Minerals, Microbial Mats, and Stromatolites in Gale Crater, Joseph et al., 2020. They make a very good case for the morphological similarities of Martian rocks to Earth rocks bearing microbial fossils. Here is an example:
The similarities are striking, but they note that…
The authors were unable to precisely determine if these specimens are biological or consist of Martian minerals and salt formations that mimic biology. Therefore, a review of Martian min-erals and mineralization was conducted and the possibility these formations may be abiogenic is discussed. It is concluded that the overall pattern of evidence is mutually related and that specimens resembling algae-like and other organisms may have colonized the Gale Crater, beginning billions of years ago. That some or most of these specimens may be abiotic, cannot be ruled out. Additional investigation targeting features similar to these should be a priority of future studies devoted to the search for current and past life on Mars. (1) (PDF) Mars: Algae, Lichens, Fossils, Minerals, Microbial Mats, and Stromatolites in Gale Crater. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339777176_Mars_Algae_Lichens_Fossils_Minerals_Microbial_Mats_and_Stromatolites_in_Gale_Crater [accessed Apr 15 2020]. Joseph et al., 2020
Fascinating stuff, but we won’t know for sure until we do this sort of thing on Mars…
“Astronaut Dave Scott on the moon during Apollo 15 in 1971. (NASA)” National Review
Dave Scott and the Genesis Rock (NASA) National Review
Even then, we may not know for sure.
Pluto and the Genesis Rock
By JOSH GELERNTER
July 31, 2015 […] By 1965, NASA had 28 astronauts, all military or ex-military pilots. In a nod to science — which American scientists felt NASA was neglecting — it hired six more astronauts: three physicists, two MDs, and a geologist. The geologist was Harrison Schmitt. National Review readers may recognize the name — from 1977 to 1983, Schmitt was a Republican senator from New Mexico. But long before he went into politics, he was NASA’s only geologist-astronaut. Geology was part of every astronaut’s training, but only in an uninspiring, perfunctory way. Schmitt knew it would be absurd for astronauts to arrive on the Moon and not understand what they were looking at. The lunar astronauts needed to take geology seriously; what they needed, Schmitt decided, was a really good teacher. Schmitt picked out Leon Silver, a prominent CalTech geologist with whom Schmitt had studied as an undergrad. Silver was the sort of magnetic teacher each of us fondly remembers having had at one time or another; Schmitt thought he was just the man who could suck the pilot-astronauts into a world of stones and dirt. […] Silver’s geology field trips became standard. The astronauts who went to the Moon knew they weren’t just looking for rocks, they were looking for clues to the Moon’s history and, by extension, the history of the Earth, of the solar system, and of all creation. They would keep their eyes open for collapsed lava tubes and dead volcanoes. They would examine impact craters of the sort that vanish on the geologically active Earth, but are preserved forever on the geologically dead Moon. They weren’t just looking for rocks — they were looking for specific minerals that could settle arguments about the Moon’s birth. Silver told them to keep their eyes open for anorthosite, distinguished by telltale white plagioclase crystals. Anorthosite, said Silver, would probably be scarce on the Moon — but it was what many geologists suspected the Moon’s original crust had been made of. Finding a piece of it would be a triumph for the Apollo missions, and for science. And Silver was in Mission Control when one of his best students, astronaut Dave Scott, radioed to Houston: “Oh man! Guess what we just found! Guess what we just found! I think we found what we came for!” What he’d found was the piece of anorthosite that’s now known as the “Genesis Rock.” The solar system is 4.5 billion years old; the Genesis Rock is just 100 million years younger. Planetary science had been revolutionized. (In fact, 45 years later, the Genesis Rock is still making waves. In 2013, researchers at the University of Michigan discovered it contained traces of water, casting doubt on the dominant theories of the Moon’s formation.) […] National Review
Science is never “settled”… When it settles, it gets boring.
References
Joseph, Rhawn & Graham, L & Büdel, Burkhard & Jung, Patrick & Kidron, Giora & Latif, Khalid & Armstrong, R & Harb, Hoda & Ray, Joseph George & Ramos, Geraldo & Consorti, Lorenzo & Rizzo, Vincenzo & Gibson, C & Schild, Rudolph. (2020). “Mars: Algae, Lichens, Fossils, Minerals, Microbial Mats, and Stromatolites in Gale Crater”. Journal of Astrobiology and Space Science Reviews 3. 40-111. 10.37720/jassr.03082020.
Rizzo, Vincenzo. (2020). “Why should geological criteria used on Earth not be valid also for Mars? Evidence of possible microbialites and algae in extinct Martian lakes”. International Journal of Astrobiology. 1-12. 10.1017/S1473550420000026.
Day 29 of America Held Hostage by ChiCom-19
At noon yesterday, Dallas County reported 10 fatalities in a single day…
Dallas County Health and Human Services is reporting 89 additional positive cases of COVID-19 today, bringing the total case count in Dallas County to 1,877. Ten additional deaths are being reported, including: *A man in his 60’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the city of Dallas and had been critically ill in an area hospital.
*A man in his 70’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the city of Dallas and had been hospitalized in an area hospital.
*A man in his 80’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the city of Dallas and had been hospitalized in an area hospital.
*A woman in her 50’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the city of Dallas.
*A woman in her 90’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the city of Dallas.
*A man in his 50’s who was a resident of the city of Dallas and had been critically ill in an area hospital.
*A man in his 50’s who was a resident of the city of Dallas and had been critically ill in an area hospital.
*A man in his 30’s who was a resident of the city of Garland and had been critically ill in an area hospital.
*A woman in her 80’s who was a resident of the city of Mesquite and had been hospitalized in an area hospital.
*A man in his 80’s who was a resident of the city of DeSoto and had been found deceased at home. 2019 Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19)
I could make a very insensitive remark, but I won’t. In the meantime, we all remain under “house arrest” thanks to Fire Marshal Gump.
Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins says Dallas is ‘in the middle’ of its coronavirus fight
As Dallas County announced its highest one-day COVID-19 death toll, Judge Clay Jenkins said the peak is projected for the end of April or early May.
Author: Teresa Woodard
Published: 6:11 PM CDT April 14, 2020 DALLAS — Three weeks to the day after Dallas County’s stay-at-home order went into effect, the county announced 10 COVID-19 related deaths, its highest one-day total. The victims range from a man in his 30s to a woman in her 90s. Five of them lived at Brentwood Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation facilities in the city of Dallas. […] “Today is somber news,” said Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins in a Tuesday afternoon news conference. “We lost 10 people today.” […] “We are looking at a peak now that is either the end of this month, or maybe the beginning of next month,” he said. “I can’t stress how important it is that you don’t let up now.” […] WFAA 8 ABC
Hey Gump! Look at your own fracking data!
CDC Week 14
CDC Week 15
Yesterday’s totals pushed the Mendoza Line crossing out to March 14, 2035…
Dallas County CHICOM-19 Population Cases Deaths 2,637,772 1,877 42 2.2% % of population with 0.07% 0.00% % with, rounded 0.1% 0.0% % without 99.93% 100.0% % without, rounded 99.9% 100% Menodoza Line (.200) 3/14/2035 0.200
Thankfully, the public’s patience with this “free trial” of socialism and the Fire Marshal Gump types is wearing thin.
Protesters against stay-at-home order block Lansing streets in ‘Operation Gridlock’
by Newschannel 3 Wednesday, April 15th 2020 LANSING, Mich. — On Wednesday, the Michigan Conservative Coalition protested Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order during a noon rally. In a Facebook event, the promoted the protest as Operation Gridlock, encouraging protesters to drive their cars to Lansing, creating a traffic jam in the city. “Everyone, every citizen, every business owner needs to get out of their house, out of their chair and get in their car, or truck, or anything that is legal to drive on taxpayer funded roads,” the Facebook event said. “Then drive to Lansing to circle the Michigan Capitol Building at 100 N. Capitol Avenue at noon on April 15.” […] NBC25News
How about some classic music?


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-15--Coronavirus Economic Stimulus: “We have not yet seen similar offers for clean energy companies”

Renewable energy companies are distressed that nobody in the Trump administration has called to offer them a share of Coronavirus economic stimulus cash .
• The coronavirus poses a serious threat to long-term climate change action by compromising global investments in clean energy and weakening industry environmental goals to reduce emissions .
• The International Energy Agency is urging governments to offer economic stimulus packages that invest in clean energy technologies .
• “ If the lesson learned is , let ’ s get back to the status quo ante , then [ the virus ] probably will slow down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate activist Bill McKibben told CNBC .
The International Energy Agency , or IEA , has warned the virus outbreak will likely undermine clean energy investment and is urging governments to offer economic stimulus packages that invest in clean energy technologies .
In the U.S. , the Trump administration has considered providing assistance for hard-hit industries such as the cruise ships and airlines , as well as offering low-interest loans to oil and gas producers that have seen declines in oil prices — a move that would further lock in carbon-intensive investments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ offers for clean energy companies , ” Lock said .
“ If economic stimulus packages drive money away from clean energy investments by infusing fossil fuels industries with short-term capital while ignoring clean energy supply chains … we could see a domino effect that would push us further away from our clean energy goals , ” she added .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Renewable energy companies are distressed that nobody in the Trump administration has called to offer them a share of Coronavirus economic stimulus cash.
Coronavirus could weaken climate change action and hit clean energy investment, researchers warn
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 13 20202:32 PM EDTEmma Newburger@EMMA_NEWBURGER
The coronavirus poses a serious threat to long-term climate change action by compromising global investments in clean energy and weakening industry environmental goals to reduce emissions.
The International Energy Agency is urging governments to offer economic stimulus packages that invest in clean energy technologies.
“If the lesson learned is, let’s get back to the status quo ante, then [the virus] probably will slow down the energy transition,” author and climate activist Bill McKibben told CNBC.
…
The International Energy Agency, or IEA, has warned the virus outbreak will likely undermine clean energy investment and is urging governments to offer economic stimulus packages that invest in clean energy technologies.
…
In the U.S., the Trump administration has considered providing assistance for hard-hit industries such as the cruise ships and airlines, as well as offering low-interest loans to oil and gas producers that have seen declines in oil prices — a move that would further lock in carbon-intensive investments.
“We have not yet seen similar offers for clean energy companies,” Lock said.
“If economic stimulus packages drive money away from clean energy investments by infusing fossil fuels industries with short-term capital while ignoring clean energy supply chains … we could see a domino effect that would push us further away from our clean energy goals,” she added.
…


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-14--Rhode Island Official Admits State’s Climate Lawsuit Is Meant To Wring Money Out Of Big Oil: Court D

Rhode Island Official Admits State’s Climate Lawsuit Is Meant To Wring Money Out Of Big Oil: Court Docs

A Rhode Island official acknowledged in 2019 that the state ’ s climate lawsuit against Exxon Mobil is partially designed to secure a steady stream of income for the state , court documents show .
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Director Janet Coit told attendees at a meeting in New York that the state sued the industry to find a “ sustainable funding stream , ” nonprofit group Energy Policy Advocates noted in court documents filed Wednesday .
Energy Policy Advocates discovered a memo through a public information request that revealed handwritten notes from Carla Frisch of the Rocky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her state ’ s General Assembly is refusing to take decisive action on climate change .
Energy Policy Advocates , a conservative nonprofit , filed an amicus brief Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit , the court responsible for adjudicating Rhode Island ’ s case against Exxon .
The group says the memos it obtained suggest the case should be heard in federal court .
“ This entry on its face represents a senior official confessing that Rhode Island ’ s climate litigation is in fact a product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lacking enthusiasm for politically enacting policies , including revenue measures , ” Energy Policy Advocates wrote in the court filing .
“ ( P ) laintiffs seek to use the courts in this manner to seek billions of dollars in revenues , for distribution toward political uses and constituencies , raising of which is properly attempted through the political process , ” Energy Policy Advocates added .
The nonprofit ’ s legal fight comes after Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin sued the energy industry in 2018 , arguing oil companies are contributing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rhode Island Joins AG Crusade To Blame Oil Companies For Climate Change ) Neither the Kilmartin ’ s office , Coit , nor the Rocky Mountain Institute have responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation ’ s request for comment about the nature of Energy Policy Advocates ’ court filing or the documents the nonprofit obtained .
Rhode Island is among the several states and cities to take on Exxon in recent years with mixed results .
A federal judge in California threw out two lawsuits June 25 that sought to do effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do now : punishing oil companies for supposedly hurting the environment .
San Francisco and Oakland were among a handful of California cities that sued Chevron in February for supposedly contributing to climate change .
Boulder , Colorado , joined the climate lawsuit shortly thereafter , saying the company was partially to blame for wildfires .
Class action firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP handled San Francisco , Oakland and New York City ’ s lawsuit .
Cities pay law firms no upfront cost in exchange for a percentage of any winnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earned millions , possibly billions , of dollars in contingency fees depending on the total winnings had the cities won their case .
All told , these three cities are asking oil companies to hand over many billions of dollars .
Hagens is not the only major law firm involved in such legal pursuits .
Sher Edling is representing Rhode Island and Honolulu , which filed a similar lawsuit Tuesday against the energy industry .

From The Daily Caller
Chris White Tech Reporter
March 13, 2020 1:31 PM ET
A Rhode Island official acknowledged in 2019 that the state’s climate lawsuit against Exxon Mobil is partially designed to secure a steady stream of income for the state, court documents show.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Director Janet Coit told attendees at a meeting in New York that the state sued the industry to find a “sustainable funding stream,” nonprofit group Energy Policy Advocates noted in court documents filed Wednesday.
Energy Policy Advocates discovered a memo through a public information request that revealed handwritten notes from Carla Frisch of the Rocky Mountain Institute that show Coit complaining that her state’s General Assembly is refusing to take decisive action on climate change.
Energy Policy Advocates, a conservative nonprofit, filed an amicus brief Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court responsible for adjudicating Rhode Island’s case against Exxon. The group says the memos it obtained suggest the case should be heard in federal court.
“This entry on its face represents a senior official confessing that Rhode Island’s climate litigation is in fact a product of Rhode Island’s elected representatives lacking enthusiasm for politically enacting policies, including revenue measures,” Energy Policy Advocates wrote in the court filing.
“(P)laintiffs seek to use the courts in this manner to seek billions of dollars in revenues, for distribution toward political uses and constituencies, raising of which is properly attempted through the political process,” Energy Policy Advocates added.
The nonprofit’s legal fight comes after Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin sued the energy industry in 2018, arguing oil companies are contributing to climate change. (RELATED: Rhode Island Joins AG Crusade To Blame Oil Companies For Climate Change)
Neither the Kilmartin’s office, Coit, nor the Rocky Mountain Institute have responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about the nature of Energy Policy Advocates’ court filing or the documents the nonprofit obtained.
Rhode Island is among the several states and cities to take on Exxon in recent years with mixed results.
A federal judge in California threw out two lawsuits June 25 that sought to do effectively the same thing Rhode Island is trying to do now: punishing oil companies for supposedly hurting the environment.
San Francisco and Oakland were among a handful of California cities that sued Chevron in February for supposedly contributing to climate change. Boulder, Colorado, joined the climate lawsuit shortly thereafter, saying the company was partially to blame for wildfires.
Class action firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP handled San Francisco, Oakland and New York City’s lawsuit. Cities pay law firms no upfront cost in exchange for a percentage of any winnings or settlement.
Hagens Berman could have earned millions, possibly billions, of dollars in contingency fees depending on the total winnings had the cities won their case. All told, these three cities are asking oil companies to hand over many billions of dollars.
Hagens is not the only major law firm involved in such legal pursuits. Sher Edling is representing Rhode Island and Honolulu, which filed a similar lawsuit Tuesday against the energy industry.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-14--UK Government pledges £800M carbon capture and storage fund

National energy supplies will be manipulated by the government long into the future , under the dubious banner of climate concerns .
Providers will have to go along with whatever the latest prescriptive policies are , including forcing up the price of gas .
Forget market forces and open competition .
What could possibly go wrong ?
In his Budget announcement [ this week ] , chancellor Rishi Sunak said the CCS Infrastructure Fund would be worth “ at least £800M ” , with the first site to be established by the mid-2020s , reports New Civil Engineer .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Teesside , Humberside , Merseyside and St Fergus in Scotland – in a move described by Sunak as “ levelling up in action ” .
CCS can provide flexible low carbon power and decarbonise many industrial processes .
It is important for the UK since other key sources of low carbon electricity – such as offshore and onshore wind and solar – are weather dependent .
Drax Group is currently running a bioenergy with carbon capture and storage ( Beccs ) pilot at its North Yorkshire power station .
Drax chief executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the development of the CCS clusters “ demonstrates the government ’ s commitment to communities and businesses in the North ” .
He added : “ By accelerating the development of vital negative emissions technologies like Beccs , which is being pioneered by Drax , we can permanently remove millions of tonnes of CO2 each year from the atmosphere.
” The chancellor also said he would remove incentives to choose gas over the cleaner option of electricity .
From April 2022 , it will raise gas prices and freeze electricity charges .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul Steen said this would be “ a commercial incentive for businesses to make positive decisions on decarbonisation and move away from natural gas fuels to low carbon sources ” .
Meanwhile , an additional £900M investment in high-potential technologies was also announced .
This will involve commercialising nuclear fusion technology , offering potentially limitless clean energy , and supporting the government ’ s National Space Strategy and space innovation fund .
A portion of this funding contributes to a wider investment of up to £1bn to develop UK supply chains for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced in September .
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure will ensure that motorists are never more than 50km from a rapid charging station .
According to Steen , this is “ positive news for the industry and for the decarbonisation of transport as a whole ” .

National energy supplies will be manipulated by the government long into the future, under the dubious banner of climate concerns. Providers will have to go along with whatever the latest prescriptive policies are, including forcing up the price of gas. Forget market forces and open competition. What could possibly go wrong?
In his Budget announcement [this week], chancellor Rishi Sunak said the CCS Infrastructure Fund would be worth “at least £800M”, with the first site to be established by the mid-2020s, reports New Civil Engineer.
The initiatives will create up to 6,000 jobs in Teesside, Humberside, Merseyside and St Fergus in Scotland – in a move described by Sunak as “levelling up in action”.
CCS can provide flexible low carbon power and decarbonise many industrial processes. It is important for the UK since other key sources of low carbon electricity – such as offshore and onshore wind and solar – are weather dependent.
Drax Group is currently running a bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (Beccs) pilot at its North Yorkshire power station.
Drax chief executive Will Gardiner said that the Budget funding for the development of the CCS clusters “demonstrates the government’s commitment to communities and businesses in the North”.
He added: “By accelerating the development of vital negative emissions technologies like Beccs, which is being pioneered by Drax, we can permanently remove millions of tonnes of CO2 each year from the atmosphere.”
The chancellor also said he would remove incentives to choose gas over the cleaner option of electricity. From April 2022, it will raise gas prices and freeze electricity charges.
Ramboll UK district energy head of department Paul Steen said this would be “a commercial incentive for businesses to make positive decisions on decarbonisation and move away from natural gas fuels to low carbon sources”.
Meanwhile, an additional £900M investment in high-potential technologies was also announced. This will involve commercialising nuclear fusion technology, offering potentially limitless clean energy, and supporting the government’s National Space Strategy and space innovation fund.
A portion of this funding contributes to a wider investment of up to £1bn to develop UK supply chains for the largescale production of electric vehicles, as announced in September.
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure will ensure that motorists are never more than 50km from a rapid charging station.
According to Steen, this is “positive news for the industry and for the decarbonisation of transport as a whole”.
Continued here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/2ILbfJt
March 14, 2020 at 02:03PM


Doomsday Deja Vu

Ronald Stein writes at Eurasia Review Greta Preaches Many Of The First Earth Day ’ s Failed Predictions .
Excerpts in italics with my bolds .
20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22 , 1970 .
That was more than three decades before the birth of high school dropout Greta Thunberg , the Swedish environmental activist on climate change , diagnosed with Asperger ’ s , high-functioning autism , and obsessive-compulsive disorder , We now look back at quotes from Earth Day , Then and Now , ” by Ronald Bailey , Reason.com .
May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apocalyptic predictions from Earth Day 1970 .
Considering the current doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next decade , many of those unscientific 1970 predictions are being reincarnated on today ’ s social and news media outlets .
Many of the same are being regurgitated today , but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago , yes 50 years ago , was that the “ the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degrees cooler by the year 2000 ” .
The 1970 ’ s were a lousy decade .
Embarrassing movies and dreadful music reflected the national doomsday mood following an unpopular war , endless political scandals , and a faltering economy .
The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970— okay , “ celebrated ” doesn ’ t capture the funereal tone of the event .
The events ( organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn ) predicted death , destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicted on and around Earth Day , 1970 : • “ Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.
” — Harvard biologist George Wald • “ We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation , and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.
” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner • “ Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources , not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial • “ Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make .
The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.
” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich • “ Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [ By 1975 ] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts , more optimistic , think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
” — Paul Ehrlich • “ It is already too late to avoid mass starvation , ” — Denis Hayes , Chief organizer for Earth Day • “ Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable : by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India ; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India , Pakistan , China and the Near East , Africa .
By the year 2000 , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will exist under famine conditions… .
By the year 2000 , thirty years from now , the entire world , with the exception of Western Europe , North America , and Australia , will be in famine.
” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter • “ In a decade , urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.
” — Life magazine • “ At the present rate of nitrogen buildup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.
” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt • “ Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.
” — Paul Ehrlich • “ By the year 2000 , if present trends continue , we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won ’ t be any more crude oil .
You ’ ll drive up to the pump and say , ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ and he ’ ll say , ‘ I am very sorry , there isn ’ t any.
’ ” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt • “ [ One ] theory assumes that the earth ’ s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust , fumes , and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes .
Screened from the sun ’ s heat , the planet will cool , the water vapor will fall and freeze , and a new Ice Age will be born.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been chilling sharply for about twenty years .
If present trends continue , the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 , but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 .
This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.
” — Kenneth Watt History seems to repeat itself as there will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak .
I guess we ’ ll need to critique the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see if they were any better than those from the first Earth Day 50 years ago .

Ronald Stein writes at Eurasia Review Greta Preaches Many Of The First Earth Day’s Failed Predictions. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. That was more than three decades before the birth of high school dropout Greta Thunberg, the Swedish environmental activist on climate change, diagnosed with Asperger’s, high-functioning autism, and obsessive-compulsive disorder,
We now look back at quotes from Earth Day, Then and Now,” by Ronald Bailey, Reason.com. May 1, 2000 of the spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions from Earth Day 1970.
Considering the current doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next decade, many of those unscientific 1970 predictions are being reincarnated on today’s social and news media outlets.
Many of the same are being regurgitated today, but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago, yes 50 years ago, was that the “the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 and that the temperature would be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000”.
The 1970’s were a lousy decade. Embarrassing movies and dreadful music reflected the national doomsday mood following an unpopular war, endless political scandals, and a faltering economy.
The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970— okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt
History seems to repeat itself as there will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak. I guess we’ll need to critique the 2020 doomsday predictions in the year 2050 and see if they were any better than those from the first Earth Day 50 years ago.
via Science Matters
https://ift.tt/39RKRts
March 14, 2020 at 01:02PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-03-14--A Brief Primer on Causation

A Brief Primer on Causation

So much of the debate surrounding climate change seems to hinge on questions of causation .
In particular , the two principal causation questions of interest are : • Is the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide the cause of global warming ?
• Is the global warming the cause of the current incidence of extreme or environmentally damaging weather-related events ?
The stock response to the first question is to say that anthropogenic emission is a cause to a certain extent , but with the extent theoretically determined and subject to scientific consensus .
The stock response to the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not directly attribute any single weather event to global warming but we can say by how much the risk of such an event has increased .
In this article I do not intend throwing my hat into the ring with respect to any of the arguments that have taken place , but I do note that many such arguments seem to be hampered by the fact that those involved will often appear to be treating the concept of causation differently when they state their case .
The result is that many such arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to argue in circles .
For that reason , I thought it might be an idea to present here a brief primer on the subject of causation and its relevance to the matters in hand .
Don ’ t worry .
I do not intend boring you with a dissertation on the history behind the philosophy of causation .
Instead , I will attempt a more pragmatic discourse by concentrating upon the nature of causal questions and what is required in order to answer them .
None of this will actually require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of causation – which is a good thing , because no-one has yet agreed upon one .
The questions I have in mind include the following : • What will happen if I do this ?
• Why did that happen ?
• To what extent can attribution be made to a single precursor when there are multiple precursors to an event happening ?
• Is a given precursor necessary and is it sufficient ?
• What should my policy be , given my current understanding of the causation of events and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Limitations of Data and Probabilities The traditional approach towards answering such questions is to collect data , look for patterns within the data and from them infer associations that could be causative .
The central assumption here is that if the probability of observing Y is increased by observing X , then X may be posited as a causal agent for Y .
In the language of conditional probabilities , X is a cause of Y if : Of course , one can immediately see the difficulty with this approach .
Simply observing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not prove a causal link .
In fact , the same effect might be observed if a common causation , Z , had been driving trends in both X and Y irrespective of any causal links between the two .
In such situations , Z is said to be a confounder .
To circumvent this problem , one compares situations in which Z is constant ( i.e .
one conditions upon Z ) to see if the effect persists , i.e .
Well that ’ s fine , but it does rather raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly know that all the potential confounders have been identified .
Furthermore , whenever one conditions upon a potential confounder , one runs the risk of holding constant an important causal agent in order to focus upon a relatively unimportant one .
Such a focus will have the effect of exaggerating the importance of the agent under investigation .
The fact is , one can observe probabilities until one is blue in the face but one will never properly tease out the causal story by doing that alone because causation isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be .
This obsession with observing probabilities as the basis for inferring causation has been a problem for many years .
Until relatively recently , probability had been the only game in town by which uncertainty may be analysed and so it is little wonder that its position as the sufficient concept behind causation has been inviolate .
However , in the last decade advances in the fields of AI and machine learning have provided important insights regarding what information and concepts are required to enable causal thinking .
And the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think causally without having a causal model that is founded on an ability to conjecture upon the consequences of interventions and the implications of a counterfactual history .
It is no good making field observations and trying to infer intervention , one has to explicitly model the intervention and then analyse the outcome in terms of altered observation .
Only then can one talk about causation .
In order to address causal questions one first has to construct a structural causal model ( SCM ) .
A SCM can be formalised in many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intuitive is the causal network , in which arrows are used to indicate a direction of influence .
For example , take the following : This is a simple network demonstrating that X is a cause of Z , mediating through Y .
Another simple construct might be : In this case Z is a confounder providing a common cause for X and Y , and whilst X and Y are associated they are not causally linked .
This is known as a fork .
Another simple construct might be : In this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors for Y .
This is known as a collider .
It should not be difficult for the reader to imagine that some quite intricate networks could be constructed using a combination of mediators , forks and colliders .
However , it is important to note that the result is only a model , sharing all of the simplifications and assumptions that any model has .
Be that as it may , once one has such a framework in place , and data has been collected to put flesh on the relationships ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule or function that specifies how Y varies with X ) one is then in a position to ask causal queries and see what answers are provided by the model .
These queries fall into three categories : Here one asks what would be the expectation of observing Y given that X has been observed .
These questions can be answered by simply referencing the conditional probabilities linking the two variables , i.e .
P ( Y|X ) .
To that extent , causal networks are similar in purpose to Bayesian belief networks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the expectation of observing Y following an intervention in which X is forced to take on a particular value .
Formally , this is expressed by applying the so-called do-operator , i.e .
one determines P ( Y|do ( X ) ) .
These are basically questions of prediction .
If X is a causation of Y then one would expect P ( Y|do ( X ) ) > P ( Y ) .
If this condition is not met then we need to rethink our causal model .
For example , Y @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and do ( X ) could be the mandated administration of a drug .
If the condition is not met , then the drugs don ’ t work .
The purpose of the do-operator is to preclude influences that could act as confounders with respect to X and therefore confuse the issue .
Here one accepts the observation Y but conjectures upon how it might otherwise have been with counterfactual values of X .
This enables one to explore the broader implications regarding causation .
For example , knowing the efficacy of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to see what impact that would have in the context of other posited causal links .
As with intervention , the query is graphically equivalent to removing arrows of influence and setting node values to posited values ( in this case counterfactual ones ) .
The detailed mathematics and methods behind the above analyses need not concern us here .
Suffice it to say , the game is all about determining the extent to which nodes within the network are ‘ listening ’ to others , i.e .
does changing the value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If there is such an ‘ information flow ’ , then there is a causation between the nodes , even if they may appear remote within the network .
It is worth emphasising that the same can not be said of a Bayesian belief network since there are no assumed directions of influence encoded into such a model – new probabilities may propagate as a result of updated information but no causal inference may be drawn from such updating .
The Importance of the Counterfactual Of the three basic forms of causal investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those premised upon the counterfactual are perhaps the most insightful .
Indeed , the central importance of counter-factuality is captured in a definition of causality offered by the philosopher , David Hume in 1748 : “ We may define a cause to be an object followed by another , and where all the objects , similar to the first , are followed by objects similar to the second .
In other words , where , if the first object had not been , the second never had existed.
” This is something of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by stressing the importance of regularity ( which , as I have explained , could be a spurious correlation ) before then introducing the much more impressive evidence of the counterfactual .
The cock crowing can appear to cause the sunrise , but one has to imagine the cock remaining silent before drawing any conclusions .
In fact , it is this ability to imagine the counterfactual that sets the human race apart and enables its capacity for causal reasoning .
With a SCM , one can model the counterfactual simply by altering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see what the impact is .
This is precisely what happens when climate models are re-run with anthropogenic emissions removed , in order to see how a prediction or retrodiction changes .
The difference is interpreted causally , and there is nothing wrong with that .
However , there are two important details regarding the modelling of the counterfactual that need to be mentioned here .
The first detail I have in mind was hinted at when former IPCC lead author , Professor Robert Muir-Wood wrote the following : “ Environmental Lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest .
If you can show that an event has doubled in probability , it may be possible to find some greenhouse gas emitters on whom to pin liability .
But would the evidence withstand courtroom cross-examination and questions such as : Who exactly built this climate model ?
How do you know it is reliable ?
” That is indeed a very good question , which many sceptics suspect should be answered in the negative .
The problem with such attribution studies is that they are premised upon models that are notoriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If one turns a blind eye to their structural uncertainties one can confidently draw causal inferences by playing the counterfactual game .
But is it wise to turn a blind eye to structural uncertainty in a structural causal model ?
If one is going to evaluate as one would in a legal case , then one must forensically examine the evidential weight being offered before making a judgement .
This detail often seems to be conveniently overlooked by those who rely heavily upon the credibility of attribution studies .
Such studies carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but one has to wonder what a good lawyer could do in a courtroom .
The second detail also has a legal dimension .
In law there are two concepts that are important when deciding an individual ’ s culpability : the probability of necessary cause and the probability of sufficient cause .
In causal inference , the probability of necessary cause is measured by calculating the Probability of Necessity ( PN ) .
It relates to the legal expression ‘ but-for causation ’ since it expresses the likelihood that a known outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the defendant ’ s actions .
For example , the defendant shoots at the victim and the victim dies from the resulting bullet wound .
Here PN is high since it is highly likely that the victim would still be alive were it not for the shooting ( i.e .
the shooting was necessary for the death to have occurred ) .
In causal inference , the probability of sufficient cause is measured by calculating the Probability of Sufficiency ( PS ) .
It relates to the legal expression ‘ proximate cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defendant ’ s actions would lead to the known outcome .
For example , suppose that the defendant had shot and missed , encouraging the victim to flee into the street , only to be knocked down by a herd of stampeding camels that just happened to be passing by .
Here PN is still high ( no shot means no fleeing ) but PS is low , reflecting the fact that the direct cause of death was very unlikely and had very little to do with the defendant ’ s actions ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
A high PN would normally result in a conviction , but not when combined with a low PS .
Of course , in our example the PS might have been a lot higher had the incident taken place next to a busy motorway and no camels were involved .
The reason why I ’ m telling you all of this is because the probability of necessity ( PN ) and probability of sufficiency ( PS ) have a great deal to do with attributions of specific weather events to climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following attribution statement made by Myles Allen and Peter Scott of the Met Office in the wake of France ’ s heatwave of 2003 : “ It is very likely that over half of the risk of European summer temperature anomalies exceeding a threshold of 1.6oC is attributable to human influence.
” This statement ( essentially a quantification of the Fraction of Attributable Risk ( FAR ) ) relates to the probability of necessity , since it focuses on the climatic trends that provide the context for the weather experienced that year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was fired ’ , and without it the possibility of the heatwave would have been diminished significantly .
However , it wasn ’ t the climate that killed , it ’ s the weather wot dunnit .
When one looks at the same problem from the perspective of the weather conditions , contingent as they are on several factors that have nothing to do with levels of CO2 , the probability of sufficiency is actually very small – it takes an awful lot more than the anthropogenic influence to create incidents such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this , a study conducted by Alexis Hannart of the Franco-Argentine Institute on the Study of Climate , using the structural causal modelling techniques outlined above , led to a determination of PN=0.9 and of PS=0.007 .
There is not a court in the land that would convict with such figures .
The fact that causality has this duality ( probability of necessary cause and probability of sufficient cause ) leads to many differences of opinion when attribution statements are discussed , with the alarmed usually focusing upon PN and sceptics focusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals concerned are often unaware that this is the true nature of their dispute .
Even when the science is agreed upon , the conclusions can look very different depending upon which facet of causality represents the major concern .
So who is right and who is wrong ?
So far I have discussed the issue as if it were a case of providing proof beyond reasonable doubt for each individual case .
However , this is not really the issue .
Instead , one should be looking at the long-term risk and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seen in this light , PS=0.007 still looks very significant .
Even though it stresses the relatively minor role played by climate in a specific instance , the dice is still loaded in such a manner that the risk of such an event increases significantly when longer timescales are considered .
And it is this long-term risk that drives policies such as those required for insurance : the fewer times we shoot our gun in public spaces , the less we have to insure against the habits of passing camels .
The reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly large from the point of view of politics and risk management .
As Hannart put it : “ PS is the appropriate focus for the planner when assessing the future costs that inaction will imply , but PN is at stake when assessing the future beneﬁts of enforcing strong mitigation actions .
Policy elaboration requires both sides of this assessment ; thus both PN and PS are of interest here.
” Even so , one can not help but suspect that the reason why the climate concerned seem so obsessed with PN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and bigger numbers are more scary , aren ’ t they ?
Well , they certainly are if one ignores alternative big numbers .
For example , when analysing causation relating to bushfires , the PN for the climate change contribution might look impressive , but what about the PN values associated with negligent forest management , or trends in arson ?
In fact , forget about their PN values .
Think about the PS values .
When it comes to starting bushfires , there is nothing quite as sufficient as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my question as to who is right and who is wrong would be that this is the wrong question to ask .
A much better question would be the one asked by Professor Robert Muir-Wood when he drew attention to the question of model reliability .
After all , as Judea Pearl , inventor of Bayesian belief networks and father of modern causal inference had this to say about the climate models : “ Though they are excellent at forecasting weather conditions a few days ahead , they have never been verified in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so could still contain systematic errors that we don ’ t know about.
” Thus speaks possibly the world ’ s leading expert on causal inference .
And then , of course , there is the old chestnut regarding the incalcitrant uncertainty over ECS .
But that ’ s quite another story…

So much of the debate surrounding climate change seems to hinge on questions of causation. In particular, the two principal causation questions of interest are:
Is the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide the cause of global warming?
Is the global warming the cause of the current incidence of extreme or environmentally damaging weather-related events?
The stock response to the first question is to say that anthropogenic emission is a cause to a certain extent, but with the extent theoretically determined and subject to scientific consensus. The stock response to the second question is to say that we cannot directly attribute any single weather event to global warming but we can say by how much the risk of such an event has increased.
In this article I do not intend throwing my hat into the ring with respect to any of the arguments that have taken place, but I do note that many such arguments seem to be hampered by the fact that those involved will often appear to be treating the concept of causation differently when they state their case. The result is that many such arguments are doomed to be unresolved as individuals continue to argue in circles. For that reason, I thought it might be an idea to present here a brief primer on the subject of causation and its relevance to the matters in hand.
Don’t worry. I do not intend boring you with a dissertation on the history behind the philosophy of causation. Instead, I will attempt a more pragmatic discourse by concentrating upon the nature of causal questions and what is required in order to answer them. None of this will actually require me to come up with a definition of causation – which is a good thing, because no-one has yet agreed upon one.
The questions I have in mind include the following:
What will happen if I do this?
Why did that happen?
To what extent can attribution be made to a single precursor when there are multiple precursors to an event happening?
Is a given precursor necessary and is it sufficient?
What should my policy be, given my current understanding of the causation of events and the likely outcome of any interventions?
The Limitations of Data and Probabilities
The traditional approach towards answering such questions is to collect data, look for patterns within the data and from them infer associations that could be causative. The central assumption here is that if the probability of observing Y is increased by observing X, then X may be posited as a causal agent for Y. In the language of conditional probabilities, X is a cause of Y if:
P(Y|X) > P(Y)
Of course, one can immediately see the difficulty with this approach. Simply observing a correlation between X and Y does not prove a causal link. In fact, the same effect might be observed if a common causation, Z, had been driving trends in both X and Y irrespective of any causal links between the two. In such situations, Z is said to be a confounder. To circumvent this problem, one compares situations in which Z is constant (i.e. one conditions upon Z) to see if the effect persists, i.e.
P(Y|X, Z=k) > P(Y, Z=k)
Well that’s fine, but it does rather raise the question as to how one could possibly know that all the potential confounders have been identified. Furthermore, whenever one conditions upon a potential confounder, one runs the risk of holding constant an important causal agent in order to focus upon a relatively unimportant one. Such a focus will have the effect of exaggerating the importance of the agent under investigation. The fact is, one can observe probabilities until one is blue in the face but one will never properly tease out the causal story by doing that alone because causation isn’t fully captured by probabilities and it never will be.
This obsession with observing probabilities as the basis for inferring causation has been a problem for many years. Until relatively recently, probability had been the only game in town by which uncertainty may be analysed and so it is little wonder that its position as the sufficient concept behind causation has been inviolate. However, in the last decade advances in the fields of AI and machine learning have provided important insights regarding what information and concepts are required to enable causal thinking. And the most important insight is that one cannot think causally without having a causal model that is founded on an ability to conjecture upon the consequences of interventions and the implications of a counterfactual history. It is no good making field observations and trying to infer intervention, one has to explicitly model the intervention and then analyse the outcome in terms of altered observation. Only then can one talk about causation.
Causal Inference – The Very Basics
In order to address causal questions one first has to construct a structural causal model (SCM). A SCM can be formalised in many ways, but the most accessible and intuitive is the causal network, in which arrows are used to indicate a direction of influence. For example, take the following:
X –> Y –> Z
This is a simple network demonstrating that X is a cause of Z, mediating through Y. Another simple construct might be:
X <– Z –> Y
In this case Z is a confounder providing a common cause for X and Y, and whilst X and Y are associated they are not causally linked. This is known as a fork. Another simple construct might be:
X –> Y <– Z
In this case X and Z are both causal factors for Y. This is known as a collider.
It should not be difficult for the reader to imagine that some quite intricate networks could be constructed using a combination of mediators, forks and colliders. However, it is important to note that the result is only a model, sharing all of the simplifications and assumptions that any model has. Be that as it may, once one has such a framework in place, and data has been collected to put flesh on the relationships (i.e. data that indicates the probability rule or function that specifies how Y varies with X) one is then in a position to ask causal queries and see what answers are provided by the model. These queries fall into three categories:
Here one asks what would be the expectation of observing Y given that X has been observed. These questions can be answered by simply referencing the conditional probabilities linking the two variables, i.e. P(Y|X). To that extent, causal networks are similar in purpose to Bayesian belief networks.
Here one asks what would be the expectation of observing Y following an intervention in which X is forced to take on a particular value. Formally, this is expressed by applying the so-called do-operator, i.e. one determines P(Y|do(X)). These are basically questions of prediction. If X is a causation of Y then one would expect P(Y|do(X)) > P(Y). If this condition is not met then we need to rethink our causal model. For example, Y could be the observation of a cure and do(X) could be the mandated administration of a drug. If the condition is not met, then the drugs don’t work. The purpose of the do-operator is to preclude influences that could act as confounders with respect to X and therefore confuse the issue.
Here one accepts the observation Y but conjectures upon how it might otherwise have been with counterfactual values of X. This enables one to explore the broader implications regarding causation. For example, knowing the efficacy of the drug one can imagine withholding treatment in order to see what impact that would have in the context of other posited causal links. As with intervention, the query is graphically equivalent to removing arrows of influence and setting node values to posited values (in this case counterfactual ones).
The detailed mathematics and methods behind the above analyses need not concern us here. Suffice it to say, the game is all about determining the extent to which nodes within the network are ‘listening’ to others, i.e. does changing the value of the first alter the second. If there is such an ‘information flow’, then there is a causation between the nodes, even if they may appear remote within the network. It is worth emphasising that the same cannot be said of a Bayesian belief network since there are no assumed directions of influence encoded into such a model – new probabilities may propagate as a result of updated information but no causal inference may be drawn from such updating.
The Importance of the Counterfactual
Of the three basic forms of causal investigation (associational, interventional and counterfactual) those premised upon the counterfactual are perhaps the most insightful. Indeed, the central importance of counter-factuality is captured in a definition of causality offered by the philosopher, David Hume in 1748:
“We may define a cause to be an object followed by another, and where all the objects, similar to the first, are followed by objects similar to the second. In other words, where, if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.”
This is something of a hybrid definition since it starts out by stressing the importance of regularity (which, as I have explained, could be a spurious correlation) before then introducing the much more impressive evidence of the counterfactual. The cock crowing can appear to cause the sunrise, but one has to imagine the cock remaining silent before drawing any conclusions. In fact, it is this ability to imagine the counterfactual that sets the human race apart and enables its capacity for causal reasoning.
With a SCM, one can model the counterfactual simply by altering the values associated with a causal agent to see what the impact is. This is precisely what happens when climate models are re-run with anthropogenic emissions removed, in order to see how a prediction or retrodiction changes. The difference is interpreted causally, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, there are two important details regarding the modelling of the counterfactual that need to be mentioned here.
Putting Models on a Witness Stand
The first detail I have in mind was hinted at when former IPCC lead author, Professor Robert Muir-Wood wrote the following:
“Environmental Lawyers are following the attribution studies with great interest. If you can show that an event has doubled in probability, it may be possible to find some greenhouse gas emitters on whom to pin liability. But would the evidence withstand courtroom cross-examination and questions such as: Who exactly built this climate model? How do you know it is reliable?”
That is indeed a very good question, which many sceptics suspect should be answered in the negative. The problem with such attribution studies is that they are premised upon models that are notoriously compromised in their role as material witness. If one turns a blind eye to their structural uncertainties one can confidently draw causal inferences by playing the counterfactual game. But is it wise to turn a blind eye to structural uncertainty in a structural causal model? If one is going to evaluate as one would in a legal case, then one must forensically examine the evidential weight being offered before making a judgement. This detail often seems to be conveniently overlooked by those who rely heavily upon the credibility of attribution studies. Such studies carry a great deal of scientific kudos, but one has to wonder what a good lawyer could do in a courtroom.
Causality and Culpability
The second detail also has a legal dimension. In law there are two concepts that are important when deciding an individual’s culpability: the probability of necessary cause and the probability of sufficient cause.
In causal inference, the probability of necessary cause is measured by calculating the Probability of Necessity (PN). It relates to the legal expression ‘but-for causation’ since it expresses the likelihood that a known outcome would not have happened were it not for the defendant’s actions. For example, the defendant shoots at the victim and the victim dies from the resulting bullet wound. Here PN is high since it is highly likely that the victim would still be alive were it not for the shooting (i.e. the shooting was necessary for the death to have occurred).
In causal inference, the probability of sufficient cause is measured by calculating the Probability of Sufficiency (PS). It relates to the legal expression ‘proximate cause’ and expresses the likelihood that the defendant’s actions would lead to the known outcome. For example, suppose that the defendant had shot and missed, encouraging the victim to flee into the street, only to be knocked down by a herd of stampeding camels that just happened to be passing by. Here PN is still high (no shot means no fleeing) but PS is low, reflecting the fact that the direct cause of death was very unlikely and had very little to do with the defendant’s actions (it’s the camels wot dunnit). A high PN would normally result in a conviction, but not when combined with a low PS. Of course, in our example the PS might have been a lot higher had the incident taken place next to a busy motorway and no camels were involved.
The reason why I’m telling you all of this is because the probability of necessity (PN) and probability of sufficiency (PS) have a great deal to do with attributions of specific weather events to climate change. Take, for example, the following attribution statement made by Myles Allen and Peter Scott of the Met Office in the wake of France’s heatwave of 2003:
“It is very likely that over half of the risk of European summer temperature anomalies exceeding a threshold of 1.6oC is attributable to human influence.”
This statement (essentially a quantification of the Fraction of Attributable Risk (FAR)) relates to the probability of necessity, since it focuses on the climatic trends that provide the context for the weather experienced that year. It is saying that a ‘shot was fired’, and without it the possibility of the heatwave would have been diminished significantly. However, it wasn’t the climate that killed, it’s the weather wot dunnit. When one looks at the same problem from the perspective of the weather conditions, contingent as they are on several factors that have nothing to do with levels of CO2, the probability of sufficiency is actually very small – it takes an awful lot more than the anthropogenic influence to create incidents such as the French heatwave. To put figures to this, a study conducted by Alexis Hannart of the Franco-Argentine Institute on the Study of Climate, using the structural causal modelling techniques outlined above, led to a determination of PN=0.9 and of PS=0.007. There is not a court in the land that would convict with such figures.
The fact that causality has this duality (probability of necessary cause and probability of sufficient cause) leads to many differences of opinion when attribution statements are discussed, with the alarmed usually focusing upon PN and sceptics focusing upon PS. Worse still, the individuals concerned are often unaware that this is the true nature of their dispute. Even when the science is agreed upon, the conclusions can look very different depending upon which facet of causality represents the major concern. So who is right and who is wrong?
It’s All About Policy
So far I have discussed the issue as if it were a case of providing proof beyond reasonable doubt for each individual case. However, this is not really the issue. Instead, one should be looking at the long-term risk and establishing policies to manage that risk. Seen in this light, PS=0.007 still looks very significant. Even though it stresses the relatively minor role played by climate in a specific instance, the dice is still loaded in such a manner that the risk of such an event increases significantly when longer timescales are considered. And it is this long-term risk that drives policies such as those required for insurance: the fewer times we shoot our gun in public spaces, the less we have to insure against the habits of passing camels. The reality is that both PN=0.9 and PS=0.007 are significantly large from the point of view of politics and risk management. As Hannart put it:
“PS is the appropriate focus for the planner when assessing the future costs that inaction will imply, but PN is at stake when assessing the future beneﬁts of enforcing strong mitigation actions. Policy elaboration requires both sides of this assessment; thus both PN and PS are of interest here.”
Even so, one cannot help but suspect that the reason why the climate concerned seem so obsessed with PN is that it provides for bigger numbers, and bigger numbers are more scary, aren’t they? Well, they certainly are if one ignores alternative big numbers. For example, when analysing causation relating to bushfires, the PN for the climate change contribution might look impressive, but what about the PN values associated with negligent forest management, or trends in arson? In fact, forget about their PN values. Think about the PS values. When it comes to starting bushfires, there is nothing quite as sufficient as a lighted match!
So the answer to my question as to who is right and who is wrong would be that this is the wrong question to ask. A much better question would be the one asked by Professor Robert Muir-Wood when he drew attention to the question of model reliability. After all, as Judea Pearl, inventor of Bayesian belief networks and father of modern causal inference had this to say about the climate models:
“Though they are excellent at forecasting weather conditions a few days ahead, they have never been verified in a prospective trial over century-long timescales and so could still contain systematic errors that we don’t know about.”
Thus speaks possibly the world’s leading expert on causal inference.
And then, of course, there is the old chestnut regarding the incalcitrant uncertainty over ECS. But that’s quite another story…


Bipolar Disorder Update

The press has taken a brief respite from their COVID panic , to focus on the normal climate fake news .
Jakobshavn Glacier Grows for Third Straight Year – Climate Change : Vital Signs of the Planet This is quite a change from 80 years ago , when the glaciers of Greenland were nearing “ catastrophic collapse.
” Ten years ago , experts said Greenland was doomed by the year 2020 .
Greenland is having one of their coldest years on record , and scientists there are getting buried in snow .
Greenland set their coldest temperature on record earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – Some records set in the past couple of weeks Sea ice extent is growing and normal at both poles .
Arctic sea ice extent is higher than eleven of the past fifteen years .
Arctic sea ice extent is right at the the 1981-2010 median edge .
There is more ice around Svalbard than there has been in many years .
Is the North Pole going to melt ?
Reports from fishermen , seal hunters and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth ’ s surface .
Formerly the waters about Spitzbergen have held an even Summer temperature in the neighborhood of 5 degrees shove freezing .
This year it rose as high as 28 degrees .
Last Winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen .
This is on the authority of Dr. Noel .
Last week , temperatures near the North Pole dropped to their coldest level in seven years .
Temperatures near the North Pole have been averaging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2013 , experts said the Arctic would be ice-free by 2015 , and there would be a “ methane catastrophe.
” Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian Around the time Stonehenge was built , trees grew almost to the edge of the Arctic Ocean .
There was little or no permafrost , and the Arctic was ice-free .
CO2 levels were very low at the time .
There was little permafrost and the Polar Bears survived just fine .
But like during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to find .

The press has taken a brief respite from their COVID panic, to focus on the normal climate fake news.
Greenland and Antarctica ice loss accelerating – BBC News
NASA says Antarctica is gaining ice.
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA
Greenland gained ice in 2017 and 2018.
Greenland Ice Sheet’s 2017 weigh-in suggests a small increase in ice mass | NOAA Climate.gov
2017 2018 2019
Greenland’s largest glaciers are growing.
Jakobshavn Glacier Grows for Third Straight Year – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
This is quite a change from 80 years ago, when the glaciers of Greenland were nearing “catastrophic collapse.”
17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier
Ten years ago, experts said Greenland was doomed by the year 2020.
Greenland ice sheet faces ‘tipping point in 10 years’ | Environment | The Guardian
Greenland is having one of their coldest years on record, and scientists there are getting buried in snow.
summit:status:weather
summit:status:webcam
Greenland set their coldest temperature on record earlier this year.
Belski’s Blog – Some records set in the past couple of weeks
Sea ice extent is growing and normal at both poles.
Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
Arctic sea ice extent is higher than eleven of the past fifteen years.
Arctic sea ice extent is right at the the 1981-2010 median edge.
N_daily_extent.png (420×500)
There is more ice around Svalbard than there has been in many years.
CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20200312.png (758×631)
Svalbard was ice-free in 1922.
Strange Things Happening In The Frozen Arctic Is the North Pole going to melt? Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface. Formerly the waters about Spitzbergen have held an even Summer temperature in the neighborhood of 5 degrees shove freezing. This year it rose as high as 28 degrees. Last Winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen. This is on the authority of Dr. Noel.
03 Dec 1922, Page 63 – The Washington Times at Newspapers.com
Last week, temperatures near the North Pole dropped to their coldest level in seven years.
Temperatures near the North Pole have been averaging about 5C cooler than four years ago.
Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
In 2013, experts said the Arctic would be ice-free by 2015, and there would be a “methane catastrophe.”
Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian
Around the time Stonehenge was built, trees grew almost to the edge of the Arctic Ocean. There was little or no permafrost, and the Arctic was ice-free.
Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia – ScienceDirect
Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago — ScienceDaily
CO2 levels were very low at the time. There was little permafrost and the Polar Bears survived just fine. But like during the present period, toilet paper was difficult to find.