text:
greenjacketsbaseball.com | The Official Site of the Augusta GreenJackets
#WeRuleTheRiver
Auggie's Holiday Movie Night Individual Tickets Promotions Daily Promotions Season Ticket Memberships FREE Jr. Jackets Kids Club 2019 Silver Jackets E-Z-GO Salute to Soldier
Nightly Luxury Suite Concourse Suites E-Z-GO Picnic Patio Group Tickets Birthday Celebrations Military Partnerships Youth Programs School Programs FUNdraising Scout Nights
Schedule Game-by-game Results 2020 Printable Schedule
2020 GreenJackets Employment Opportunities Corporate Partners SRP Park Parking SRP Park A-Z Guide SRP Park Rules SRP Park Seating Chart Donation Requests Contact Us/Front Office Staff
Roster Watch Video MiLB.TV Listen Live
Tickets & Promotions Group Outings Schedule Club Info Stats & Scores Team Shop News
Augusta GreenJackets News
SRP Park to Host Georgia Southern v. The University of Georgia
Georgia to host game at SRP Park on Wednesday, March 4th
By Augusta GreenJackets | December 3, 2019 1:11 PM
NORTH AUGUSTA, SC: The Augusta GreenJackets, South Atlantic League affiliate of San Francisco Giants, in partnership with the University of Georgia (Southeastern Conference), are excited to announce that on Wednesday, March 4th, the University of Georgia will make its third trip to SRP Park to host Georgia Southern University (Sun Belt Conference). First pitch is slated for 6:35PM.
"We're excited to make our third trip to SRP Park where we've played well in front of great crowds," said Georgia head coach Scott Stricklin. "We enjoyed opening the new stadium in 2018 with a win over Clemson, and then last year, we defeated The Citadel. It's a great place to watch a ball game, and we are looking forward to playing Georgia Southern this season. We hope to see the stadium filled with Red and Black!"
Individual tickets go on sale to the general public at the SRP Park Box Office (187 Railroad Ave, North Augusta) on Friday, January 17th at 9AM. Fans who would like to purchase online will be able to start at 10AM. There will be NO phone orders for the Georgia Southern v. Georgia game.
"We are very excited about playing the University of Georgia at SRP Park. This is a great venue for what should be an electric college baseball environment for our players and fans," said Georgia Southern University Head Coach, Rodney Hennon.
The GreenJackets & the University of Georgia will open up VIP ticket sales to GreenJackets Season Seat Holders, Sponsors & both University of Georgia and Georgia Southern University Booster Clubs from Monday, January 13th through Thursday, January 16th at midnight. University of Georgia and Georgia Southern University Booster Club members will receive correspondence from their respective schools.
"We are thrilled to host Georgia Southern University and the University of Georgia at SRP Park in 2020 for a showcase on the river," stated GreenJackets Vice President Tom Denlinger "We are committed to making SRP Park a premier baseball destination in the bi-state area and look forward to making this an annual tradition."
Ticket Pricing for Georgia Southern v. University of Georgia game:
Club Seats (Both 1st and 3rd Base)- $25
VIP Loge Box- $20
Premier Box- $20
Batter's Box- $15
Dugout Reserved/Reserved- $13
General Admission/Standing Room Only- $10
GreenJackets Information on reserving seats for Georgia Southern v. Georgia game:
Monday, January 13th Pre-Sale will open up for 2020 GreenJackets Full Season Ticket Members & Holders & Sponsors
Tuesday, January 14th Pre-Sale will open up for 2020 GreenJackets Half Season Ticket Members & Holders
Wednesday, January 15th Pre-Sale will open up for 2020 GreenJackets 20 Game Members & Holders
VIP Sales will cease on Thursday, January 16th at midnight
VIP Sales do not guarantee your GreenJackets Season Seat location.
You are allowed to reserve up to Eight (8) seats for the Georgia Southern v. Georgia game
About the University of Georgia
Chartered by the state of Georgia in 1785, the University of Georgia is the birthplace of public higher education in America - launching our nation's great tradition of world-class public education. What began as a commitment to inspire the next generation grows stronger today through global research, hands-on experiential learning and extensive outreach. Jere W. Morehead (JD '80) is the University of Georgia's 22nd president, taking office on July 1, 2013. As Georgia's flagship institution, the university is recognized for its commitment to student excellence, particularly through an emphasis on rigorous learning experiences both inside and outside the classroom, hands-on research, and leadership opportunities. Our students have earned more than 50 Rhodes, Marshall, Truman and other prestigious national academic scholarships over just the past decade. The University of Georgia continues to be one of the best values in public higher education in the nation. U.S. News & World Report's 2019 "Best Colleges" edition has UGA ranked 13th among public universities.
About the Georgia Southern University
Georgia Southern University, a public Carnegie Doctoral/R2 institution founded in 1906, offers 141 degree programs serving more than 26,000 students through nine colleges on three campuses in Statesboro, Savannah, Hinesville and online instruction. A leader in higher education in southeast Georgia, the University provides a diverse student population with expert faculty, world-class scholarship and hands-on learning opportunities. Georgia Southern creates lifelong learners who serve as responsible scholars, leaders and stewards in their communities. Visit GeorgiaSouthern.edu.
About SRP Park/Augusta GreenJackets
SRP Park is the anchor piece of Riverside Village, a live, work, "playball" development which includes apartment living, retail, restaurants, class "A" office space, and a Crowne Plaza Hotel and Conference Center. To learn more about SRP Park and hosting events and availability, visit www.thesrppark.com.
2020 Augusta GreenJackets season seat memberships are on sale now. To learn more about the benefits and to get in on the 2020 action, visit www.gjmembers.com or call (803) 349-WINS (9467).
To stay up to date all season long, sign up for the 'Jackets Buzz e-newsletter by visiting: https://atmilb.com/2JAkNrM
Opening Day is Thursday, April 16th at SRP Park - mark your calendars to Catch the Buzz!
-GreenJackets -


Lansend an HP Business Partner is an HP Authorized Reseller.
As an HP Authorized Reseller, Lansend can procure and deploy the whole range of HP desktop PCs, notebook PCs, printers and servers for all of your business needs. All HP products will include the full HP warranty and warranty can be extended by procuring the appropriate HP Care Pack Services.
Our HP product specialists can help identify the appropriate HP PC, laptop or Laser Printer for your specific need. We are especially adept at configuring HP ProLiant servers.
Founded in a one-car garage in Palo Alto by William "Bill" Redington Hewlett and Dave Packard, Hewlett-Packard Company or HP is the world's leading PC manufacturer.


Home / Brooklyn GOP / Brooklyn GOP Radio / Brooklyn YRs / Gene Berardelli / Marty Golden / People's Republic of New York / Russell Gallo / Superstorm Sandy / Adjusting To The New "Normal"
Adjusting To The New "Normal"
Dunne Pl., a court that runs alongside my home, was flooded for some time after "Superstorm Sandy", as were many homes situated below street level in Sheepshead Bay.
Many have taken notice of the lack of activity from me in the past few months on this and other websites. First, let me thank those of you who reached out to me to see why I haven't been my normal, chatty self - your friendship means a lot.
But things have been anything BUT normal lately.
Let me backtrack just a bit. When my best friend and co-host Russell Gallo went "all in" on his Assembly race, I did as well. It was a privilege to work with Russell - one of the few genuine, honorable people I know in politics and in life.
For many months, my normal routine was the same. I would go to work, then volunteer for Russ every spare moment I could, and then arrive home when my family was sleeping. Between legal work and campaign work, every spare hour was filled.
Towards the end of the campaign, as we all know, Superstorm Sandy hit and changed all of our lives. My home and my family were hit pretty hard. And everything that I knew to be "normal" was obliterated.
The night of the storm was the scariest experience of my life. Prior to and during the early part of the storm, I didn't think much would happen. After all, my family had lived in this home for 4 generations (my nephew is generation #5 to live here) and has never flooded. Never. But, I guess there's a first time for everything.
Right around 7 PM that night, the ocean came rolling up my street. Neighbors like me who didn't evacuate ran and drove up the street to higher ground. Water came into the house slowly at first. Then, the force of the surge blew my basement door off of its hinges and the deluge rushed in. By 9 PM, the two bedrooms in my basement were under 7 feet of water. Dressers, bookshelves and closets were tossed around as if they were light as a feather by the rising water.
When the water started coming in, I immediately worried about getting through the night. I knew there would be no rescue by police, fire or EMTs. Thank goodness for the CERT training my family and I took (and thanks Senator Golden for sponsoring it!) because it kicked into our brains and, as it turned out, saved us. I immediately closed our gas valve so no water would get into it and turned off our electrical breaker box for all rooms except our kitchen. We then moved my father's medical equipment to the kitchen and plugged everything in so he would be able to use it.
After that, we sat in the kitchen and waited.
Outside was like a war zone, or at least the closest I've ever come to a war zone. The courts behind my house that were below grade were completely flooding out families in those homes. Transformers were sparking and popping like popcorn. The wind was howling and suffocating to anyone who went out on our deck to see what we could see. A few houses away, a home was ablaze, with no help in sight. Every other house was in total darkness except our kitchen lights.
It felt like days, but it was only 90 minutes until the water outside started to recede.
The water in the courts behind my house couldn't recede once the water levels on the streets lowered. It was trapped. Many of my neighbors that stayed in those homes were trapped in their second floor. Others have to swim to stay alive. Over a week later, the water was still there.
We had our home and our health. Dad didn't require any medical attention, everyone else made it through fine for the most part (with many a frayed nerve). For the most part, we saved everything that was important. Photo albums were rescued. Clothing was bagged and laundered. Keepsakes were found. And thanks to the family's quick thinking, we never lost power, and our heating system was easily and quickly repairable within a week.
The next day, and everyday since, my family and I have been digging out from the storm. Compared to most, we were lucky - we only lost stuff. A lot of stuff. But it's just stuff. Stuff can be replaced in time.
I'm so proud of my family. Never did anyone sulk, or complain or look for pity or put on a sad face.
And not only did we pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, we reached out to our neighbors and helped them, too. While the menfolk (myself and my sister's fiance) were tearing down walls and bagging up what felt like tons of garbage, Mom and my sister Linda were checking on elderly neighbors and children in the area to make sure they were OK. Neighbors helping neighbors - it was a beautiful thing.
They were a big part of organizing food and clothing distribution and, later on, help set up a tool library to lend power tools to those who needed help with demolition. They were with everyone - government, elected officials, non-profits, more than a few crazy volunteers - and they were great. One day, there would be a truckload of clothing distributed in front of my house delivered from contacts upstate. Another day, it was a trailer load of tools donated by the Red Cross. They amazed me.
I'm especially proud of my sister, who found her inner advocate. She's been at the forefront of working to make sure, as she and Mom put it, "no neighbor will be left behind".
They even rescued a little Chihuahua-Yorkie mix from the ravages of the storm. Of course, what else could we name her but Sandy. She, like us, is also on the comeback trail.
There are so many details that I know I've left out, but that's the story in a nutshell. We're living what I call the new "normal" and adjusting to it more and more each day.
And very soon, that new "normal" will include talking politics on-air with my best friend on Brooklyn GOP Radio.
Godspeed to Gene, the rest of the Berardelli family, and all of our friends and neighbors.
very heartening. thanks God you went thru this difficult time with faith and courage. The New Normal can always be transferred to the Best of our times by the brave men and women of this great country!
Say positive Gene. To all the Young Republicans I wish you all a Happy Holiday season.
Please try to stay positive. I know it is hard, when the negative comes. Try to take that negative and make it into a positive.
Remember their are people that have it worst then you and have nothing. Be thankful for what little you have and to try to share some nice thoughts with everybody you meet everyday and when you wake in the morning and look in the morning say to yourself.
Remember their are people that have it worst then you and have nothing. Be thankful for what little you have and to try to share some nice thoughts with everybody you meet everyday and when you wake in the morning and look in the mirror say to yourself.
Hello Gene, I am very sorry to hear what you and your family went through. Thank God everyone is OK. You and your family will be in my thoughts and prayers. Please let me know if you need help with anything. Glenn Nocera. President of the Brooklyn Young Republican Club.


text:
Q: Firefox 57: How to get a new tab be a blank page? Firefox did an update on itself. I have now found the checkbox to stop that. But the latest version (57) has a not-so-charming feature. When I open a new tab, I get some wierd page like an ad for facebook and a bunch of other crud. I've tried two add-ons to make new tabs be a blank page, neither works. How can one open a new tab and get a blank page?

A: New tab page, options button at upper right corner. Customize display.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Born and raised in colorful Colorado, my passion for the outdoors and adventure developed naturally. Having a keen interest in photography and videography early on in life led me to pursue a bachelors degree in Digital Filmmaking and Video Production at the Art Institute of Colorado.
After graduation, I took an internship with Warren Miller Entertainment and quickly turned the opportunity into a full time role with the company. Aside from editing trailers and sequences for the annual film, I also worked as an on mountain cinematographer and served as a road manager on National and International film tours.
After 6 years with Warren Miller, I shifted into the commercial world and worked on freelance projects with outdoor brands such as Vail Resorts, Red Bull, POC Helmets, Backcountry.com, TREW Gear and Freeskier Magazine. This led to work on commercial projects with companies like Pepsi, Inspirato and BWBacon.
After a few years of commercial work, the mountains were calling again and I moved to Jackson, WY to work with Teton Gravity Research. During my time there I served as Associate Producer and Editor on "Higher", Produced and Directed a segment for "Paradise Waits" and was Producer, Director, Editor and Narrator for Jackson Hole Mountain Resort's 50th Anniversary Documentary "Born To Be Wild".
In 2015, I created a new company, The Overview Effect, and continued working with clients such as Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, Warren Miller Entertainment and TREW Gear.
I am a highly motivated and skilled director, cinematographer and editor with over 10 years of production experience. If you need a solid leader and team player on your next shoot, please don't hesitate to be in touch.
Women should be celebrated everyday! This February @dutchsimpson and I captured some of the most powerful and ripping athletes @jacksonhole and it just so happened to be the snowiest February on record. Thanks to these ladies for showing some grit and patience during some long days in the trenches @caite_zeliff @shawnapaoli @lynseydyer @hadhammer @halinalaboyd @jmcmillan @curlsinthewild #thefutureisfemale swipe —> to see the full thing!


FAR Eastern University ended National University's three-year dynasty in the men's division, while La Salle hoisted the women's trophy for the second straight year in the UAAP chess tournament over the weekend at the UST Quadricentennial Pavilion.
It was the Tamaraws' 14th men's crown, the most in the league, while the Lady Woodpushers from Taft snared a record ninth championship in the distaff side.
Finishing with 40 points, FEU actually secured the men's championship in the 13th round following a 2-2 standoff with La Salle Saturday. The Morayta-based chessers then put an icing on the cake with 2.5-1.5 win over eventual third placers Adamson in the final round Sunday.
Rookie of the Year winner Jeth Morado led the Tamaraws by winning the Board 2 gold, while Romy Fagon was the team's other gold medalist in Board 4.
The Bulldogs saw their reign end after a 2-2 draw with University of the East Saturday.
As a consolation for NU, which has 34.5 points, International Master Paulo Bersamina, who topped Board 1, was named the season MVP for the fourth year in a row. Arnel Ilagan was the other gold medalist for the Bulldogs in Board 6.


Need a Dumpster Rental in Hiko?
We have the commercial and residential dumpster service you need in Hiko.
At DumpsterZone, we strive to bring you the best service at the best price available. We have a wide selection of dumpster sizes in stock in Hiko, NV, with flexible & timley pickup and delivery. Give us a call today for all your dumpster rental and roll off needs.
Your roll-off dumpster in Hiko, NV is only a phone call away. Don't delay!
Dumpsters are available* in Hiko.
Most Hiko dumpster rental companies will take care of securing this permit for you if you rent from them. Make sure that if you're planning to put the dumpster on the street, the company has made the appropriate arrangements. You should also ensure that you get the permit in a timely manner and at the correct cost. If you thought the dumpster company was getting a permit and they did not, you will be the one who will have to pay the fine that is issued by the authorities.
Yet dumpster accommodations are not one size fits all. To help you keep costs in order, you pay simply for the receptacle size which fits your level of trash. Thus whether anyone rent a 10-, 20-, as well as 30-yard capacity dumpster, you have precisely the expanse of area you need to jettison your entire junk. Get hold of your local useless hauling assistance today to get a free, no-obligation appraisal on the different sizes of dumpsters.
The rolloff dumpster is a larger than what you see usually dumpster which is brought to your location, usually filled up in order to capacity, after that picked up once more. If you need a dumpster and it is your first time, then search for a few excellent sites on the net first. They've everything structured to get you a nearby dumpster almost as quick as you may ever are interested. Because it's regional, that means the particular dumpster costs less, and it'll arrive quicker.
As the time approaches, commence to set some misconception. Mark the house as a sale made participant. Start marking each item with the selling price you think you can actually sell it regarding. Be realistic regarding these prices; if you think you possibly can make more on antique dealer site, market it there instead-but if you really weren't able to sell it on the net, don't expect a good exorbitant selling price in person! Collect tables as well as old comforters to display products on. Start off early the day of simply by setting anything out where people can easily see them, grab yourself some sort of chair as well as a brimmed hat, and prepare to sell! The roll off Dumpster for Rent in Hiko, NV looks like a miniature dumpster that you could rent for your own personal as well as business work with. You can get these kinds of dumpsters in call up sizes including some definitely big shapes that will competing the ones you employ at your regional dumpster. You may be wondering just precisely why they are called roll off Dumpster for Rent in Hiko, NVs from the start. Well the reason they are called roll off dumpsters is because they bring them on a massive truck. The18 wheeler will raise and the dumpster will actually roll off.
Let us discuss the reason behind all these horrifying difficulties affecting the environment of Alaska; it is none other than our careless deeds. We're also contaminating your surroundings simply by disposing the particular solid squander in the wrong type of way. Bed mattress the contamination of the talk about affected by the wrong type of disposal of waste? This solid squander generated as a result of household projects and professional projects while piled up with our job spot for longer period of time, produces toxic fumes into the surroundings contaminating atmosphere. The squander waiting your job area will get built up with the dust probing your workers to many contagious diseases. Some residents with the state elect to channel the trash into normal water. Contaminating the lake by throwing the reliable waste will result in making the particular survival of inhabitants in the water miserable. Consumption of this contaminated water will probably affect the well being of occupants as well.
These are the basic most convenient way in order to dispose of human being wastes. Due to these squander management organizations for supplying you with dumpsters on rent where you can deposits different types of human being waste created at the construction site such as disposal food items packages storage units made of report etc.
It has to be accepted that urbanized cities are the heart for the most involving construction waste materials, industrial waste materials that is made in the country, additionally they become origin for era of environmentally friendly yard waste materials and property hold waste materials because people from the urbanized cities will almost always be back of changing styles hence choose constant restoration of the assignments. People in construction challenge and people from the nearby area get more influenced if the garbage piled up in such locations is piled involving is not eliminated immediately. It is impossible to distinct such a huge trash generated from these assignments immediately if perhaps trash removing is continued self, these is the time whenever a dumpster hire become inevitable to pay off the trash. Volume of professional Dumpster for Rent in Hiko companies available in the make your job much easier when compared with expected. They will act as a handy guide to the first time customers in selecting the right size dumpster as per their particular customized needs. They even supply a clear directions about the kind of trash along with amount of garbage that can be cast into the garbage dumpster.
The company you train with should be warm and friendly and helpful. The company can assist you choose which dimensions dumpster to rent. You should be provided a small, channel or big dumpster to rent. You do not want to pay too much using a big dumpster when you only needed a tiny or channel dumpster. If you have massive amounts of items in all of your surface buildings along with barns, you may need a couple of dumpster. The large dumpster will hold four a lot or 10 pickup truck loads of garbage and/or debris.
Ak is the biggest state in United States by area. It is located in N . West involving North American place. The state is bordered by Canada to the east, the Arctic Ocean to its northern border, and the Sea to the west along with south, having Russia even more west across the Bering Strait. The economic system of the state is backed up by oil and gas sector. The harmful gases which emit with the industries along with solid waste materials generation would be the major options for pollution in Alaska.
Start using a smaller supplier. Big Box companies charge major rates, largely because you will be paying for their particular national marketing strategy every time you publish them a check mark. Smaller companies do their particular business along with marketing with a smaller range, which means they must be able to offer you a better selling price on your garbage Dumpster for Rent in Hiko.
Third, prepare yourself to pay upfront. Most companies acknowledge cash or maybe credit cards. To get the best price, phone around along with comparison shop. Several companies provides you with a deal if you ask for one particular.
One of them is to know if this company can offer anyone services inside the shortest period possible. Should you be constructing or maybe renovating a new building, you should want every thing to move fast and in a new coordinated approach. If you are developing a house which is meant for organization, you would need it to be completed within period so that consumers move in. It is for this reason that you need a Dumpster for Rent in Hiko corporation that will be around to provide services and find your project moving. Therefore, think of this as since the additional time you waste materials, the more dollars you are likely to eliminate.
Exactly why are these services good for you? Whether renovating your home or constructing a new one, you've just got so much to accomplish other than getting rid of that garbage at the end of your day. You have to take charge of the internal, painting, decorations, catering in a party. It truly is a full time job. It's also possible to go for these types of if you want to handily get rid of the garbage that your bbq party left out.
A dumpster is a large container, which is mostly made up of steel or plastic. These are used for the temporary hard drive of muddle and it helps in disposing the garbage generated at your house . renovation or construction undertaking hassle free.
It is wise to rent the dumpster with trolley wheels on so that you can move the item from the home to the barn on the garage if needed.
With all these kinds of advantages, you will need to definitely pick a Dumpster for Rent in Hiko, NVs corporation to clean your home and surroundings around your home construction internet site.
You shouldn't sense that you have to put a huge entire in your budget to get rid of waste materials. Look at the prices of several businesses in your area and find out how they evaluate against one another. You can do this simply by calling each one individually or using the internet to have price comparisons. There are several web based web-sites that allow consumers to look at the prices and services of multiple companies at one time. There is commonly no charge with this kind of internet service and no obligation to purchase.
These Dumpster for Rent in Hiko, NVs allow a tenant to dispose of as much garbage as they should. For example, should you be redoing an entire roof there'll a lot of rubbish dropping from every path. These dumpsters help you to dispose of your garbage as it occurs instead of creating a heap connected with garbage to be concerned about after your career is completed. They make these dumpsters therefore durable in which weight isn't an issue. They also provide an appropriate lining with regard to materials that can be dangerous otherwise disposed of instantly, such as razor-sharp objects or areas with nails herniated from them.
Although people do not understand it, there are certain resources that cannot be inserted inside these kinds of Dumpster for Rent in Hiko, NVs. It's important that you know which in turn materials are not to go in your current dumpster when you rent one particular. Special waste items or dangerous wastes should not be placed in these kinds of containers. Neglecting to follow the following pointers can result in fees as well. Supplies that are instructed to be reprocessed are not authorized in dumpsters along with other trash - they are to be reprocessed and incorporated into their own pot.
Yard cleanups: From overgrown properties to dirt caused by hurricane damage, occasionally you just have additional yard waste materials than you'll be able to deal with alone. Don't help to make an unsightly pile outdoors. Dumpster services present you with a simple solution for carrying off leaves, trees, timber, even excess dirt.
You now know which in turn next day Dumpster for Rent in Hiko, NV to settle on for your construction job, you are prepared to rent the item and get your job underway. It can be nice to find out you can save income when you do not order the next day Dumpster for Rent in Hiko, NV that is too large for your specific construction job.


text:
Residence Time and Prof Essenhigh
Posted on 3 October 2013 by Glenton Jelbert
Residence Time is something that crops up now and then in the denialist literature. A classic example is a 2009 paper titled "Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide" (Energy & Fuels 2009, 23, 2773) by Essenhigh. Thankfully Gavin Cawley has now managed to publish a response, which should settle the matter (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u). However, I thought it might be helpful to explain the science with a simple analogy that is easily accessible.
In the original Essenhigh [1] paper a Sankey diagram is presented (reproduced below [2]). It includes the following data:
Flows into the atmosphere:
60Gt/y from vegetation
90Gt/y from surface oceans
5.5Gt/y from fossil fuels
155.5Gt/y Total
Flows out of the atmosphere:
61.3Gt/y into vegetation
92Gt/y into surface oceans
Atmospheric content: 750Gt
Essenhigh's argument is that residence time (which is the content divided by the outflow) is 750Gt divided 153.3Gt/y, which equates to ~5 years. Therefore human contributions are irrelevant because the molecules of carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere are removed within 5 years.
What he ignores (though it's equally clear in his own diagram) is that there is a net flow into the atmosphere of 2.2Gt/year. It is this flow that would be absent without fossil fuels (and other activities like deforestation) and therefore is rightly attributed to man's behaviour.
Allow me to make a simple analogy with a queue (this idea comes from Prof David MacKay's [3] highly readable Sustainable Energy: Without The Hot Air, which is available for free on-line):
Consider a queueing system which can handle 150 people per hour (cf 150Gt/y). Suppose 150 people are arriving per hour, and there are 750 people in the queue (cf 750Gt carbon content in the atmosphere). Then it is clear that a person will be in the queue for 5 hours (cf 5 year residence time).
However, if the number of people arriving goes up to 155 people per hour, clearly the queue will grow (cf an increase in the atmospheric carbon content), even though the queueing system will initially continue to have a 'residence time' of 5 hours (though it slowly grows from there).
From this it is apparent that the residence time is not the pertinent factor. In our analogy, the important factor is the number of people in the queue (cf the amount of carbon in the atmosphere). It is this that changes over the order of hundreds of years, even though any given molecule is only in the atmosphere for 5 years. The studies that calculate this time scale are not making the elementary error of forgetting about natural flows as is suggested in the Essenhigh paper.
For a more detailed discussion, including evidence from the shift in isotope concentration, see the more recent IPCC reports (also available for free). Section 2.3 (Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases), and Section 7.3 (The Carbon Cycle and the Climate System) are particularly relevant in this context.
The Essenhigh paper also makes the assumption that the exit flow is proportional to the atmospheric concentration (that is, that the exit from the atmosphere will increase as the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere increases). This quibble is not as central as the queue analogy discussed above, but nonetheless is an interesting demonstration of how simple assumptions can give wrong results. The reality is that there are positive feedback loops in many cases, so that increased CO₂ causes heating which causes an increase in CO₂ (and other greenhouse gases) through the melting of permafrost, the heating of the oceans (which releases CO₂ as it heats), and the reduction of vegetation (for example the Amazon is projected to become drier as the climate changes). This could cause abrupt and irreversible climate change. Completely the opposite of Essenhigh's a priori assumption that higher concentrations cause higher uptake.
[1] Robert Essenhigh is an Emeritus Professor of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University.
[2] For the sake of readers who may not have access to Energy & Fuels, below is the diagram from Energy & Fuels 2009, 23, 2774
[3] David MacKey is the Regius Professor of Engineering at the University of Cambridge, and chief scientific advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Printable Version | Link to this page
Comments 1 to 39:
Tom Curtis at 21:04 PM on 3 October, 2013
XRAY1961 @1, there have, in the past, been increases in CO2 concentration as large, and even larger than that (though probably not as rapidly). Therefore the mere fact of the increase does not prove that the increase was anthropogenic. Further, it is logically possible that the timing was mere coincidence - so while that timing is highly suggestive of the cause, it does not establish it to the standard scientists would normally accept. Fortunately, there are at least nine other lines of evidence that, together, establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the rise in CO2 concentration is anthropogenic.
Of these, one of the most important, and the one that Gavin Cawley most favours, is the mass balance argument. We know that the CO2 increase was anthropogenic, because each year, the total increase in CO2 is less than we put into the atmosphere. Therefore nature is taking CO2 out of the atmosphere each year, and consequently cannot have caused the rise in CO2 concentration.
BojanD at 23:46 PM on 3 October, 2013
Therefore the mere fact of the increase does not prove that the increase was anthropogenic.
I think that's not what XRAY1961 had in mind. I think he meant that since Essenhigh implies (or openly states?) that anthropogenic contribution is negligible, then the source of rising CO2 concentrations should be huge and therefore not difficult to isolate. So I wouldn't go with 'completely disproves', but it gives it a lot of problems.
It's astonishing that such faulty papers could get published. Beyond belief, really. I guess a college student could make such a mistake, but this ...
Dikran Marsupial at 23:55 PM on 3 October, 2013
BojanD/XRAY1061 The fact that CO2 levels have been increasing at a time anthropogenic emissions have been rising doesn't disprove Essenhigh's hypothesis, but the fact that they have been rising more slowly than anthropogenic emissions does (as Tom points out).
The error usually made by these types of argument is to compare the gross volume of anthropogenic and natural fluxes into the atmosphere without considering the fluxes out of the atmosphere as well. The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is caused by the difference between total emissions and total uptake. Anthropogenic emissions are small compared to natural emissions, but natural uptake is bigger still, and it is the difference between natural emissions and natural uptake that determines the natural comtribution of CO2 to the atmosphere (and it is negative!).
FWIW Essenhigh's paper says very little about what is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2, just that it can't be anthropogenic because the residence time is short. My paper explains why this is incorrect, residence time is short (4-5 years), but the conclusion does not follow.
Anyone can make a mistake, however the NIPCC report cites Essenhigh's paper and uses similar arguments, that is a far more egregious error as the problems with Essenhigh's paper had already been widely discussed in climate blogs and in the journal itself. It would ony take a google scholar search of the papers that cite Essenhigh's to have discovered that, which is basic scholarship.
BillEverett at 02:34 AM on 4 October, 2013
The link in "Thankfully Gavin Cawley has now managed to publish a response, which should settle the matter (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u)" doesn't work.
Dikran Marsupial at 04:20 AM on 4 October, 2013
BillEverett The link http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u works for me. Hopefully the link in the article will be fixed shortly.
ubrew12 at 05:47 AM on 4 October, 2013
"Prof David MacKay's [3] highly readable Sustainable Energy: Without The Hot Air" This link is not working. I think it wants to go to: http://www.withouthotair.com/
vmin at 11:12 AM on 4 October, 2013
I do not think that Essenhigh's calculation of the residence time is accurate. Majority of CO2 molecules absorbed by the ocean and vegetation are not removed permanently but returned back to the atmosphere. So the more appropriate analogy would be: 150 people are processed an hour form the 750 in queue. 140 of them are returned back to queue, thus only 10 are removed from queue. Consequently the real residence time is 75 years, not 5.
vmin Residence time is defined as the mean length of time a molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere before being taken up by the terrestrial or oceanic reservoirs, so Essenhigh is correct in using the term residence time. His error lies in not understanding the difference between residence time and adjustment time, which is the characteristic timescale with which the atmospheric concentration responds to a change in sources and sinks (which corresponds to your 75 year figure). The IPCC define these differing definitions of lifetime in the glossary of the WG1 report, but unfortunately do not clearly distinguish between them in the report itself (although the 1990 report that Essenhigh cites makes the distinction very clearly).
chriskoz at 19:56 PM on 4 October, 2013
Essenhigh's 5y residence time number is bogus not only because it fails to consider the natural inflow (emissions from ocean/biosphere back to atmosphere) but also because, due to limited capacities of the natural sink such as ocean, the flow rates (determined by Henry's law) change over time.
Only a part of CO2 molecules has a residence time of rougly 100y (a bit more than 75y calculated by vmin@8 but the same ballpark). In case of 1000GtC emissions, that part is some 50% - i.e. 500GtC of the original emissions being absorbed by the ocean surface results in OA reaching new equilibrium, therefore no more CO2 can be absorbed by Henry's law.
The rest (500GtC) must wait for the deep water mixing and the reaction with sediments which takes 1-10Ky. Only 300-400GtC is taken that way, again due to limited sediment capacity.
The rest (100-200GtC) must wait for the rock weathering processes which take sometime from 100Ky to 500ky (depending on current geological conditions).
So, the residence time is not a simple constant number when we are dealing with such big amounts comparable to the natural sink capacity. In case of the emission scenarios considered in Anthropocene, it means 10 to 20% of emissions will stay in A for up to half a million years.
Obviously, such science is well beyond Essenhigh, who makes very basic mistakes (i.e. ignores the inflow & Henry's law) that preclude any understanding of carbon cycle in geological sense.
chriskoz Essenhigh's 5 year figure for residence time is correct, and indeed agrees with the figure given in the IPCC WG1 report. His error lies in not understanding the distinction between residence time and adjustment time.
We should not be too hard on Prof. Essenhigh, his research record in his own field (combustion) appears to be very good, and it is all too easy to make this kind of error in moving into a tangentially related field. The email correspondence I had with Prof. Essenhigh while writing my response published in Energy & Fuels was generally very cordial.
raywey at 04:23 AM on 5 October, 2013
A useful analogy (and a bit closer to the actual situation than the queue) especially here in Caifornia where lots of people have spas and swimming pools:
My pump circulates water into and out of my spa at an input rate of **** (fill in your
favorite number) and removes it at the same rate. But I have taken my garden whose
and added water at a much smaller rate (&&&&). The residence time for any molecule of water in the spa is short compared to the time the hose fills an empty spa, but does anyone think that it is not the hose that is causing the water level in the spa to increase?
william at 04:35 AM on 5 October, 2013
There is a grain of hope, losely related to Prof. Essenhigh's contentions. Carbon dioxide varies about 7ppm annually or more accurately, 8 up and 6 down. Natural processes remove far more CO2 than any silly system we could devise to sequester Carbon dioxide. Of course we must first stop pouring Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere but then we could give Gaia a chance and restore her systems for removing CO2 to their full potential.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/removing-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.html
funglestrumpet at 04:59 AM on 5 October, 2013
HELP!!! Could someone please help a poor confused bloke like me who comes here to help them do battle at the street level on the climate change front (think Daily Mail readers and the like)?
For instance, when 'debating' with a typical denier on the "global warming has stopped" meme, I have tended to use the argument that it takes ages (plus or minus an age or two) for CO2 to fall out of the atmosphere (and sod what Newton might have to say on the topic because apples are a lot heavier than CO2 molecules and thus fall more readily).
It follows that global warming cannot have stopped because the excess CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere over that last half century or so is still airborne and will be there for a long time yet warming the planet as it does so. Five years is not even near half an age, so what number of years should I use in presenting my case, 5, 50, 75 or what?
I imagine the answer lies in the article somewhere, but it is well hidden from a simpleton like me.
MA Rodger at 05:39 AM on 5 October, 2013
funglestrumpet @14.
Archer 2005 concludes with the following line that may be what you are looking for. (I have edited a little it to make its meaning clearer.)
A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ''300 years, except for 25% of the CO2 that lasts forever."
MA Rodger @ 15
Thanks, that is exactly what I was looking for!
Jose_X at 06:21 AM on 5 October, 2013
funglestrumpet @14:
Man is adding CO2 and some of that is leaking back out. This we all seem to agree on. But..
The argument described at the top is a simplified model. Too simplified. It assumes that the atmosphere is a pipeline. It obviously is not. While an engine might have most of the air coming in at one location then move to exit elsewhere, perhaps crudely approximated as a single file queue, the atmosphere has lots of CO2 rise high to areas where there are few sinks. There is no physics that I know that suggests a model of a queue applies. The CO2 is *not* following a path single file that takes it way up high and then spins and comes down to leave at the ground level. That 5 year figure is the result of a simplified queue model. You can forget about it unless perhaps you want to believe the man-made CO2 entering and leaving the atmosphere is doing so in as a queue.
Another analogy is the difference between fast moving draft air in a narrow cooridoor that is open at each end. This is like a queue. The atmosphere instead is like a huge balloon with two openings near each other, where one opening slowly adds air and the other slowly removes it. In this balloon example, we have nothing resembling a queue.
Besides that the flow is not like a queue IMO, you are asking a different question than what is presented above. The five year is supposed to be the average time for CO2 to move into the atmosphere and back out, but the question you are asking is how long before we return to the same quantity of CO2 we had if we stop adding CO2. You care about how long before the air in the balloon gets back to the same quantity if we remove one of the several drivers adding air into the balloon.
If we stop adding, there will be a net loss of CO2 that will slowly work its way back towards a more natural condition. It will take many years to make it most of the way there, but like an exponetial decay curve (if that model were to resemble the effect) we would never really get back all the way. Of course, the earth is more complex. If we plant and manually sustain more trees (or add other CO2 sinks.. eg, consume CO2 via microorganisms that sequester the result in some chemical form), then we could not only get back to "normal" as defined by today's system but even go beyond it. And then there are planetary effects and basically a bunch of effects (feedbacks) that don't follow the exponential decay model either.
Sorry to not give you a precise answer. You asked in the right place and some studies address that concern. I just wanted to give an idea that what you are asking has nothing to do with this abstract 5 year calculation.
funglestrumpet @14, here is take two (using two different analogies than the earlier air in balloon analogy, water in tank and food in body).
The argument in this article (even if using a too crude model) is about how long it takes for a molecule of "man-made" CO2 to come into the atmosphere and leave.
Is that what you care about? If I have a large tank to which I am adding water but from which some water is leaving, do you want to know how long before the water molecule I add leaves at the bottom? Do you care if the addition is slow and the escape is slow so that the transit time is 1000000 years? Would it make a difference to you if instead the addition and escape were super fast and took 1 second?
I think the primary question (the question as goes global warming) is how fast that tank is being filled *after* we take into account the result of both the additions and the subtractions.
Do you want to know how fast it takes for the food you eat to exit OR do you want to know how much weight you are putting on after taking into account how much you eat and what leaves the body?
The latter is what is important. The argument above tries to make a claim about the latter based on (a crude) analysis of the former without taking into account net gains or losses.
If you care about the latter, then the answer you want is how long it would take for the CO2 to return to "normal" (ie, to some base reference level after factoring out natural factors that may change that reference level over time) after we remove the "man-made" components. Ie, you want to know how long before I return to my "normal" weight after I stop eating that extra dessert after every meal. How long it takes for the food to pass through your body (very fast or very slow) is irrelevant.
funglestrumpet @14, here is the summary:
We can roughly liken CO2 going into and out of the atmosphere using 3 analogies.
1 -- We don't care about how long it takes for extra man-made air put into a ballon, or water put into a tank, or food put into a body, to exit.
2 -- We care instead about how long it will take to return to normal volume once we stop adding the man-made air, water, or food.
The argument described in this article crudely measures how long it takes a man-made molecule of air, water, or food, to exit, but that doesn't address what we care about: how long it takes for these systems to return to the normal levels after we stop adding the man-made air, water, or food. I don't care about the speed of travel in my body of my daily cheesecake (from entry to exit). I care about how long before I lose the weight I put on because of that cheesecake.
Jose_X @ 17, 18 & 19 Thanks for taking so much trouble and effort to answer the question I didn't ask, but should have. Now I understand it better, thanks to you, I rather think I might have won a few discussions in the past rather unfairly! Still, all's fair in love and war, isn't it?!
Leto at 22:28 PM on 6 October, 2013
Could someone please explain what is known about the dependence of the fluxes upon the amount of CO2 in each compartment of the system? That is, which fluxes are proportional to the concentration of CO2, which fluxes have a rate-limiting bottle-neck that is indifferent to the concentration, which have a combination of these (saturable kinetics), and so on? How would the magnitudes of the fluxes change, for instance, if atmospheric CO2 was 200 ppm (or 600 ppm) instead of 400 ppm?
The mass-balance argument suggests that nature has obligingly absorbed some of our excess CO2, with natural processes acting as a net sink, but is this something that could have been predicted from first principles, or is it simply an observation after the fact? To me, it suggests that sink fluxes are more active when there is more CO2 around, which is what I would have expected intuitively, but what does the evidence suggest?
Note that I'm not talking about potential positive feedbacks from permafrost melting, and so on, just the main fluxes at work now.
Thanks in advance for any clarification.
Leto @21.
That's a lot of question you present in 21 ranging from the basic to the quite technical. I will not address most of it.
CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere. For a long time that was but an inference based on ocean & atmosphere measurement & data for fossil fuel use. The biosphere absorption was not measured and assumed to be the sole missing CO2 sink. However, I hear the biosphere can now be assessed (estimated) as a sink.
These two sinks were always predicted although it took some time to fully understand why oceans didn't absorb much more CO2 than they actually did. The oceans can now be modeled with some confidence as a CO2 sink (See the Archer link @15 or AR4 for instance.) The net effect of the biosphere is not something that can be predicted so easily. Plants will absorb more CO2 at higher levels up to a point but such absorption depends on the type of plant involved and relies on climate providing the environment to maintain such growth. This reliance on climate extends to carbon within soils which can also become a significant source/sink with changes in rainfall or temperature (eg the permafrost melting). Thus predicting future biosphere absorption is only for the brave.
The amount of our emission that are presently absorbed is about 43% if changing land use is accounted for. This value waggles about with ENSO but has remained reasonably constant over the last half century. The value is simply the result of the rate of increase of our emissions. So far there is no obvious indication of changes in absorption in oceans or biosphere. Although saying that, the last 18 months has seen inceases in atmospheric CO2 higher than I would have expected during ENSO-neutral periods. Is it a marker of things to come? We will have to wait and see.
daveburton at 00:14 AM on 21 August, 2019
Re: "Atmospheric content: 750Gt"
Glenton, that was back around 1981. It's about 907 Gt, now:
(411 ppmv CO2 + 1.85 ppmv CH4) × 2.196 GtC/ppmv = 906.6 GtC.
funglestrumpet, the practical (first 2/3 or 63%) anthropogenic CO2 residence time is about fifty years.
Some folks claim much longer residence times for anthropogenic CO2, but, from a practical perspective, they're wrong. Those calculations are based on a modeled very "long tail." Since I don't think anyone believes that a CO2 level of 320 or 340 ppmv could have any deleterious effects (compared to 275 or 280), the long tail (representing CO2 levels below 330 ppmv) should be disregarded. All that matters is the first e-folding time.
Paul Pukite at 00:58 AM on 21 August, 2019
DaveBurton said:
"Some folks claim much longer residence times for anthropogenic CO2, but, from a practical perspective, they're wrong"
The residence time should actually be called an adjustment time and because of the fat-tail physics of diffusion, the value of that time is actually indeterminate and can be considered to be hundreds or thousands of years.
This is basic condensed matter physics and you can read more about this topic in our book Mathematical Geoenergy and specifically in Chapter 9 Section 6.
The issue with people like Dave Burton is that they have probably only encountered 1st-order models in their technical experience, and that's why they bring up concepts like "the first e-folding time" which is a dead giveaway to their lack of broader scientific knowledge.
Paul Pukite, it appears that you've missed my point. Don't you know what "from a practical perspective" means?
I thought this was clear, but I guess not: "Since I don't think anyone believes that a CO2 level of 320 or 340 ppmv could have any deleterious effects (compared to 275 or 280), the long tail (representing CO2 levels below 330 ppmv) should be disregarded."
Let me try again to explain it.
The folks who claim very long anthropogenic CO2 residence times (or adjustment times, if you prefer) do so to magnify the supposed harmful effects of elevated CO2 levels. It is a key parameter when calculating the so-called "social cost of carbon," used to set things like carbon tax levels and offset prices.
It is not a minor consideration. A 1000-year residence time is used to justify 20x the tax rate of a 50-year residence time.
Are you with me so far?
But everyone, even the most fervent alarmists, agree that there are no harmful effects from CO2 levels "elevated" to less than, say, 340 ppmv. So, since that "long, fat tail" represents CO2 levels below 330 ppmv, it is obviously a mistake to use it to magnify the supposed harms of CO2 emissions.
In the CO2 decay curve, the first e-folding time reduces the anthropogenic CO2 increment by about 63%. I think everyone understands that there are no plausible harms from CO2 levels that low. All that matters is the first e-folding time, which is about fifty years.
Moderator Response:
[DB] From the AR5:
"The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale. {Box 6.1}"
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Inflammatory rhetoric and sloganeering snipped.
MA Rodger at 05:09 AM on 23 August, 2019
daveburton @24,
You seem to think that the (410-280=) 130ppm anthropogenic CO2 increase in the atmosphere would drop by 63% over a period of "about 50 years" (according to daveburton @22) and presumably conclude that today's CO2 levels would leave us with (280+0.37x130=) 330ppm after that time period. Even if your talk of e-folding time were applicable to the draw-down period of CO2 from the atmosphere, I don't think this use of the 63% is correct.
The anthropogenic emissions total 650Gt(C), enough to raise atmospheric levels from 280ppm to 585ppm if it were emitted all at once. The 410ppm in today's atmosphere has thus already lost 43% of its added CO2 and if emissions stopped today we could expect something like a further 37% reduction over 1,000 years, leaving perhaps a level of 340ppm in AD3000. And there it will stop for tens of thousands of years if natural processes are allowed to run their course.
While I have no inkling what you are considering with this multiplier of 20x for (20x50years=) 1,000 years residency time, I do wonder how it should be re-calculated for a residency time of tens of thousands of years now we will be leaving CO2 above your threshold 340ppm level for such long periods.
Yikes! Obviously my <pre> block with nicely formatted code got turned into one enormous line, and it ruined the formatting for the whole page!
I'm very sorry!
Please just delete that, Mr. Moderator.
Trying again, with explicit line-breaks added...
Mr. Moderator, I meant no offense, but I'm not aware of any comment policy that I violated, and I do not understand why you deleted so much of my comment.
MA Rodger, here's where the "about fifty year" practical residence/adjustment time comes from. Well, actually, a number of scientists have independently calculated approximately the same figure, but this is how I did it.
Start with the observation that the rate at which natural systems (oceans & terrestrial biosphere, mainly) remove CO2 from the air is governed chiefly by the CO2 level in the air. When the CO2 level is higher, so is the removal rate. When the CO2 level is lower, so is the removal rate.
Some people think the removal rate is governed by the emission rate, and that it's necessarily "about half" (leaving an "airborne fraction" which is also about half). They are mistaken. There is no physical mechanism by which any of the major contributors to the removal rate could be governed by the emission rate. It is the CO2 level, not the CO2 emission rate, which primarily governs the removal rate.
For the oceans, the removal mechanism is dissolution into surface water per Henry's Law, and then then transport to the ocean depths by currents and calcifying coccolithophores, and complex chemistry which is beyond my ken.
For the terrestrial biosphere it is "greening."
AR5 estimates that the terrestrial biosphere removes about (2.5/9.2) = 27% [p. 6-3] or 29% [Fig 6.1] of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the atmosphere, each year, and that the oceans remove another 26% [Fig 6.1]. (There are wide error bars on those numbers, but the ≈55% sum has narrower error bars than the two addends have.)
Of course, other things also affect the CO2 removal rate, as is obvious, for example, from the detectable effect of very large volcanic erruptions on measured CO2 levels. But the most important factor governing the CO2 removal rate from the atmosphere is clearly the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
Those numbers are known, with fair precision. For the last sixty years we have very good records of both atmospheric CO2 levels and production/use rates of fossil fuels & cement (from which can quantify the main sources of anthropogenic CO2 emissions).
From those data we can calculate how much CO2 was removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks (oceans, biosphere, etc.), each year.
Since we also know the atmospheric CO2 level each year, we can easily build a spreadsheet, and fit a curve, showing the approximate net rate of CO2 removal as a function of the CO2 level.
Dr. Roy Spencer did that, and found it is very closely approximated by a very simple function, which you can read about here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/a-simple-model-of-the-atmospheric-co2-budget/
Using Dr. Spencer's "simple model," I wrote a tiny Perl program to simulate the effect on atmospheric CO2 level of a sudden cutoff of CO2 emissions. Counting 280 ppmv as "pre-industrial," 63% of the anthropogenic CO2 is gone from the atmosphere in 54 years, and 2/3 is gone in 60 years:
# estimate CO2 removal rate in ppmv/yr as a function of CO2 level in ppmv,
# per Dr. Roy Spencer's "simple model"
# ref: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/a-simple-model-
# of-the-atmospheric-co2-budget/
sub removal_rate {
local($co2level) = shift;
local($removalrate) = 0;
local($co2elevation) = $co2level - 295.1;
local($ratio) = 47.73;
if ($co2level <= 295.1) {
$removalrate = 0;
$removalrate = $co2elevation * 0.0233;
return $removalrate;
# SIMULATE DECLINE IN CO2 LEVEL IF EMISSIONS SUDDENLY WENT TO ZERO
$co2level = 410;
$year = 2019;
print "Simulated CO2 level decline, with level starting at
$co2level ppmv in $year, and zero emissions:\n";
while ($co2level > 300) {
printf("$year %5.1f\n", $co2level);
$year += 1;
$removalrate = &removal_rate( $co2level );
$co2level -= $removalrate;
Here's the result of a simulation run, with CO2 starting at 410 ppmv in 2019, and zero emissions:
2073 327.3 <== residence/adjustment time (e-folding time) = 54 years (using 280 ppmv as base)
2079 323.0 <== two-thirds of the anthropogenic CO2 is gone in 60 years (using 280 ppmv as base)
Of course we know that this simple model would not accurately model the "long, fat tail," with CO2 levels under 300 ppmv. But the point I made previously is that, for practical purposes, that doesn't matter, because we all know that CO2 levels that low are harmless.
[BW] I tried to correct your comment by adding some more line breaks - may make the code itself not work, though due to syntax errors now.
Eclectic at 13:48 PM on 23 August, 2019
Daveburton @27 ,
someone of note once said: things should be made as simple as possible . . . but not too simple.
Dr Spencer has made an interesting exercise in curve-fitting, somewhat resembling the multi-planet atmospheric pressure/temperature curve-fitting that "demonstrated" the non-existence of the GreenHouse Effect. ( To his credit, Spencer has always been scathing about those who claim the non-existence of the GHE. )
For the "simple model", Dr Spencer has also made some peculiar assumptions about the "natural equilibrium" ; about terrestrial biosphere CO2 draw-down ; and about the oceanic contribution ( CO2 solubility, buffering, and overturning currents timescales ).
The Spencer "simple model" is so simple, that it is simply unphysical.
I would like to think Dr Spencer would consider it a waste of your time for you to rest an important argument on such over-simplicity.
daveburton at 15:09 PM on 23 August, 2019
Thanks, Mr. Moderator!
I'm sorry, I guess trying to post code in-line was just a bad idea. The tiny program is in this archive, as calc_est_co2_removal_rates_v02.pl along with everything else needed to run it under Windows, and some other stuff:
http://sealevel.info/CO2_Residence_Times/allfiles2.zip
Eclectic, Dr. Spencer's simple model is doubtless a good approximation of reality as long as CO2 levels are well above 300 ppmv, which corresponds to atmospheric CO2 levels and removal rates that are known with good accuracy. For CO2 levels below 315 ppmv (dates older than 1958) the numbers get fuzzier.
Did you notice the relatively high "natural equilibrium" level he found (295 ppmv)? That might reflect the anthropogenic additions to larger carbon reservoirs, like ocean and soil, and it might be evidence of the widely assumed "long, fat tail."
Yes, thank you, Daveburton, I noticed the 295ppm figure — and also the 500ppm figure that the model indicates cannot be exceeded under Dr Spencer's stated conditions of artificiality.
Curiouser and curiouser, as Lewis Carroll would say. As you know, he ("Carroll") was a mathematician — but even the delightful nonsenses his fertile mind created, had not extended into acronyms like GIGO. He would have had fun with that sort of thing !
MA Rodger at 19:03 PM on 23 August, 2019
The problem is as described by Eclectic @28&30. Roy Spencer is not renowned for errorless analysis. This 2018 blog of Spencer's you rely on is no more than an exercise in curve-fitting that leads to the ridiculous conclusion that if humanity restricts itself to pumping 10Gt(C)/year of CO2 into the atmosphere (as it did in 2018), continuing year-after-year for ever-&-ever-&-ever, the atmospheric CO2 level will stablise over 200 years at 500ppm(v) CO2.
This is plainly nonsense. Where does all this extra carbon accumulate? And if paleoclimate studies show atmospheric CO2 levels in past eons at 2,000ppm for over a hundred million years, were did the carbon come from to maintain such levels? According to Spencer's model, simply to maintain it at 500ppm over such a period would require emissions upward of 1Zt(C). I'm pretty sure the planet doesn't contain that much carbon!!
You are perhaps correct to suggest that many misinterpret the Airbourne Fraction which is simply a product of our rising emissions. It is not a subject much discussed beyond the Af concept itself. In terms of the draw-down mechanism, Af is a very poor concept to start from. So in Af terms in 2018, that 57% of 2018 CO2 emissions drawn-down out of the atmosphere is better seen as comprising something like a draw-down of 4% of the emissions 2014-18, 2.5% of the emissions 1999-2013, 0.6% of the emissions 1919-98, etc. These approximate numbers I obtain by scaling one of the 1000_cswv plots in Fig 1 of Archer et al (2009) 'Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide' which models a single 1,000Gt(C) impulse. The draw-down dynamics under the gradual release of AGW mean these numbers will not entirely match the AGW numbers, but they do well enough as a rough guide.
Eclectic wrote, " ...the 500ppm figure that the model indicates cannot be exceeded under Dr Spencer's stated conditions of artificiality."
Dr. Spencer's simple model does not say that 500 ppmv can never be exceeded under any circumstances. But if emissions are held steady at 10 Gt/year, atmospheric CO2 level will level-off at just shy of 500 ppmv.
That should not surprise you. It is a natural result of the historically-verified fact that when CO2 levels go up, so do CO2 removal rates. That simple fact, alone, even without reference to a particular quantified model, ensures that a constant CO2 emission rate must result in a plateau in CO2 level.
Do you have an electric stove or toaster? Even though you keep pumping electricity into the nichrome wires, the temperature levels off, and ceases to rise. That's simply because the rate of energy loss rises with the temperature. So the temperature plateaus as it approaches equilibrium: the level where incoming and outgoing energy flows are balanced.
Since the rate of CO2 loss from the atmosphere rises with the CO2 level, the CO2 level must plateau, as it approaches the level at which the flows of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere are the same.
MA Rodger wrote, "This is plainly nonsense. Where does all this extra carbon accumulate?"
It's not nonsense, it's fact.
The extra carbon migrates to other reservoirs, like the oceans (the biggest), soil, marine sediments, etc. Those reservoirs dwarf the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and, importantly, dwarf the amount of carbon available in recoverable fossil fuels.
MA Rodger wrote, "if humanity restricts itself to pumping 10Gt(C)/year ... continuing year-after-year for ever-&-ever-&-ever..."
Fossil fuels are a finite resource. So we obviously will not (cannot!) continue to emit 10 GtC/yr from fossil fuels "for ever and ever."
Have you never wondered why most people assume CO2 levels won't ever exceed 600-800 ppmv? It's because for CO2 levels to continue to rise at their current rate, CO2 emissions must continue to accelerate — and resource constraints ensure that that can't continue forever. So the rise in CO2 levels must taper off.
What's more, even if CO2 emissions accelerate fast enough to maintain the current growth rate in atmospheric CO2 level, that would mean CO2's climate forcing trend will fall below linear. Since the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmically diminishing, in order to maintain a linearly increasing temperature forcing from CO2, the growth rate of CO2 levels in the atmosphere must increase approximately exponentially.
That is, in fact, what has happened, for the last forty years or so. CO2 emissions have increased so dramatically that CO2 levels have increased on an approximately exponential curve, so the temperature forcing from rising CO2 levels has increased at an approximately linear rate (actually slightly more than linear). You can see that in a graph of log(CO2). Notice how straight the graph is for the last forty years:
https://www.sealevel.info/co2.html?co2scale=2
Eclectic at 05:17 AM on 24 August, 2019
Sorry, Daveburton, but your heated-wire analogy is even wider of the mark than Dr Spencer's much-too-simple Simple Model.
The design of the Simple Model fits at best tangentially with physical reality. And 40 years is a short period — nor do we have the luxury of time to sit back and observe another 40 years or so, as the Simple Model diverges from the (complex) real world.
As MA Rodger points out : the paleo evidence demonstrates the falsity of Spencer's too-simple Simple Model.
Yes, the oceans are big. Yes, the oceans contain contain sixty-times the carbon found in the pre-industrian atmosphere (which was in full equilibrium with the oceans). But what has that got to do with your "fact"?
The ocean carbon content is a complex mix of carbonate species that populate our salty seas. The actual amount of dissolved carbon dioxide in the whole global ocean is a tiny portion of the total, perhaps 200Gt(C), less than a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is this alone that that the atmosphere directly balances with (this balance achieved only when it appears at the surface).
Given the complex set of carbonate species within the oceans and the complex ocean currents, it is very odd that they would ever allow atmospheric levels to remain constant while the ocean absorbed a large constant flux of dissolving CO2. (When I say "very odd" I mean it is utter nonsense.) And were it not so, the accepted scientific works on the subject would be themselves very odd.
Have you actually examined the workings of Spencer's model? (The spreadsheet of it is linked on this Spencer blogpage) If you set the future anthropogenic emissions to a fixed value (Spencer sets it to 10.109Gt(C)/yr) , atmospheric CO2 levels tend to a constant value:-
CO2[atm-ppm] = 195 + 20 x Emissions[GtC]
So drop emissions to zero and see the pre-industrial CO2 level restored in two centuries. while negative emissions, suck out 15Gt(C)/yr and by AD2191 the atmosphere is entirely denuded of CO2.
daveburton, doesn't that strike you as "very odd"?
Eclectic wrote, "your heated-wire analogy is even wider of the mark..."
It is just a simple example illustrating a general principle. It's how negative feedback systems work. If the removal rate increases with system output level, that's a negative feedback mechanism. A constant forcing input will then result in a plateau at "equilibrium," where the negative feedback has caught up with the constant input.
That's true when the input forcing is energy added to your toaster via electricity, and the negative feedback mechanism is radiative & convective heat loss from a nichrome wire.
It's also true when the input forcing is CO2 added to the atmosphere, and the negative feedback is CO2 removal from the atmosphere via dissolution in the oceans and terrestrial plant uptake.
The principle is true regardless of whether the negative feedback is linear or nonlinear. For the nichrome wire example, there are actually three significant negative feedbacks, all with different transfer functions: radiative heat loss goes up in proportion to the 4th power of the temperature relative to 0K, convective heat loss goes up in approximate proportion to the temperature difference between the wire and ambient air, and the resistance of the wire also goes up with temperature. The fact that all three have different-shaped transfer functions doesn't affect the conclusion: because they are negative feedbacks, a constant input (forcing) must result in a plateuing output, gradually approaching equilibrium.
Eclectic continued, "The design of the Simple Model fits at best tangentially with physical reality."
It fits extremely well for the period for which we have accurate measurements:
Eclectic continued, "nor do we have the luxury of time to sit back and observe another 40 years or so, as the Simple Model diverges from the (complex) real world."
Well, I obviously don't, at my age.
But mankind does have that luxury, and you should not expect Roy's Simple Model to diverge much from reality over the next 40 years. It is the "long, fat tail" (due to increased carbon levels in non-atmospheric reservoirs) which is not modeled by the Simple Model. Regardless of what happens with CO2 emission rates, CO2 removal over the next 40 years will be dominated by the removal mechanisms which the Simple Model models well.
Eclectic continued, "the paleo evidence demonstrates the falsity of Spencer's too-simple Simple Model."
All models are false, but some are useful. Roy's Simple Model is very useful. It is a very good fit to measured reality, and it will continue to be a good fit as long as the CO2 removal mechanisms which are currently most important continue to be most important. When CO2 levels drop below 300 ppmv, and the accumulation of anthropogenic carbon in non-atmospheric reservoirs becomes an important factor affecting atmospheric CO2 levels, then his Simple Model will diverge from reality.
MA Roger wrote, "Yes, the oceans are big. Yes, the oceans contain contain sixty-times the carbon found in the pre-industrian atmosphere (which was in full equilibrium with the oceans). But what has that got to do with your "fact"?"
Mankind has increased CO2 level in the atmosphere by about 47%. We've increased carbon content in the oceans by only about 0.4%.
So, why does that matter? Because it is that accumulation of carbon in non-atmospheric reservoirs that is not modeled by Roy's Simple Model. In other words, his Simple Model assumes the other carbon reservoirs have infinite capacity.
That's a pretty good simplifying assumption, as long as the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 dwarfs the anthropogenic increase in carbon in other reservoirs. It will diverge from approximating reality during the "long, fat tail," when the anthropogenic increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide no longer dwarfs the anthropogenic increase in carbon in other reservoirs.
MA Roger wrote, "it is very odd that they would ever allow atmospheric levels to remain constant while the ocean absorbed a large constant flux of dissolving CO2."
Atmospheric levels will remain constant when transfer of carbon to the oceans and other carbon reservoirs removes CO2 from tha air as quickly as anthropogenic emissions are adding it. (They're currently removing it only about half as fast as we're adding it.)
MA Roger asked, "Have you actually examined the workings of Spencer's model?"
MA Roger wrote, "If you set the future anthropogenic emissions to a fixed value... atmospheric CO2 levels tend to a constant value"
Which is, of course, correct.
MA Roger wrote, "while negative emissions, suck out 15Gt(C)/yr and by AD2191 the atmosphere is entirely denuded of CO2. daveburton, doesn't that strike you as "very odd"?"
Not at all. If you start with a physically impossible assumption, you get a physically impossible result. The only thing I can think of which could possibly remove a net 15 GtC/year from the atmosphere when CO2 levels are below 300 ppmv, is some idiot genetically engineering a fast-growing, fast-propagating C4 tree.
Please don't do that! The Earth doesn't need another K-T Extinction!
Daveburton ,
I appreciate your comedic comments about wires and feedbacks. Although they belong in an earlier lesson than Homeostasis 101.
Likewise, Dr Spencer's Simple Model provides farcical amusement, thanks to its disconnect with reality — why yes, its curve fits reality at least in part . . . just as the Aristotelian model of the planets is a moderately good fit to the observed motion of the planets across the night sky, at least in part!! But unlike our Spencer, our Aristotle had a decent excuse for his blunders.
Daveburton, when I mentioned sitting back and observing "another 40 years or so" , I was of course not alluding to the future experience of someone as unimportant as me (or possibly you). Or perhaps you were just pulling my leg about "that", too.
No . . . I was alluding to something far more important: namely the human race. And here we get to the crunch, Daveburton, the really important point about Spencer's far-too-simple-to-be-scientifically-useful model.
# What do you think was the actual underlying reason for Dr Spencer to publicize his strange little "Simple Model".
( Not for comedy, I suspect. Nor for the edification of genuine climate scientists.)
It would be better if you could come up with some support for your advocacy of Spencer's silly model rather than presenting unsupported assertions that it is "correct". All we have otherwise is the 'big ocean' which you say must be thus effectively an infinitely large sink. You tell us "Mankind has increased CO2 level in the atmosphere by about 47%. We've increased carbon content in the oceans by only about 0.4%." (Note Roy doesn't reckon to your 47% figure.)
If that was correct that the percentage ocean carbon increase has to match the atmospheric percentage increase (which it doen't), that will have massive implications for a whole lot of stuff. (1) The projections of CO2 levels in the RCP scenarios would be massively revised if Spencer's model were anything like reflective of reality. Now I know Spencer denies that CO2 has any sigificant warming impact on the climate but this CO2 model would give him a brilliant second string to his contrarian bow (and how he needs one, as the other ones have proved pretty useless). (2) The implications for ocean acidification are massive and for fresh water it doesn't bear thinking about. (3) The low CO2 levels of the ice ages will have to be entirely re-thought. If atmospheric CO2 levels drop by a third, there would be 13,000Gt(C) being pumped out the oceans and into .... where? Golly, that's a tricky one!!
Yet (and I note that up-thread I wrongly called it a blog from last year 2018) in the four months since this model was posted (April 2019), I see no reference to it beyond that blog. It didn't even get a posting on the planet Wattsupia (which is a really bad sign!!!) Is Spencer too busy chatting to fellow contrarians at the Heartland Institute (where he seemed to have said nothing about his grand revalation)? So why the silence? My take is that Spencer's model is so embarassing that Spencer hopes it goes away. So, daveburton, you are not helping the reputation of poor old Roy with your insistence that his model is correct (when it patently isn't).
By the way, that long fat tail may be a lot stumpier than Spencer's model implies. The idea that the oceans are sucking up carbon at a rate constant with the level of atmospheric CO2 above an equilibrium of 295ppm(v) doesn't seem to hold over the period 1958-2010. Rather than a constant level of uptake, the rate has dropped by a half from the start of this period (1959-78) to the end of this period (1991-2010). That isn't exactly constant over centuries as Spencer's model assumes.
In truth, daveburton, your words do correctly assess Spencer's model when you say "If you start with a physically impossible assumption, you get a physically impossible result." That is exactly what Spencer's silly exercise in curve-fitting has done.
Bob Loblaw at 12:02 PM on 26 August, 2019
DaveBurton:
You seem to be using terms like "fact" and "observation" a lot when what you are saying does not fit their definitions. You also say "If you start with a physically impossible assumption, you get a physically impossible result." Let's look at the model you present in that light.
When you present the model in comment #27, you claim:
Start with the observation that the rate at which natural systems (oceans & terrestrial biosphere, mainly) remove CO2 from the air is governed chiefly by the CO2 level in the air.
This is only crudely close to reality. The rate of CO2 from the atmosphere to the land and oceans requires a gradient, not a concentration. The rate will depend not only on that gradient, but on the efficiency that CO2 can move along that gradient. In fact, the model you present has that explicitly, where in your code you say (bolding mine):
The gradient is the result of the expression "$co2level - 295.1", and the efficiency of movement along that gradient is the value 0.0233 in the expression "$co2elevation * 0.0233". (That coefficient must have units that include a per unit time term)
In this model, there is an implicit assumption that the only stable CO2 level is 295.1 pm. Any excess above that value will be removed until CO2 returns to 295.1 ppm.
Oddly, it also state that the removal rate is zero if CO2 concentration falls below that point. Thus, it assume that there are no natural processes capable of lowering CO2 level below that majick value of 295.1 ppm. This falls into the "not even wrong" category, as we have indirect observations of CO2 levels much below this during the last glacial periods.
The model clearly starts with a physically impossible assumption. So, in your own words, it produces a physically impossible result.
...But let us consider the possibility that something majick can occur, so that the surface can somehow maintain a concentration of 295.1 ppm so it can suck the CO2 out of the air any time the atmospheric concentration is >295.1 ppm. What does it do with that CO2? It can't stay at the surface, because in the model the surface is always capable of sucking CO2 out of the air even if the atmospheric concentration is only 295.2 ppm. There must be some gradient to move CO2 away from the surface into the oceans or land.. And whatever is moving it into the coeans and land must majickally stop when atmospheric CO2 drops to 295.1 ppm, because if it didn't then the surface CO2 concentration would have to drop if there is no replacement of CO2 from the atmosphere. Remember? In your code you said:
Now, you may try to argue that this model only applies to the special CO2 that is added due to human activities. To make that claim you are going to have to provide some sort of plausible mechanism by which nature can tell the difference between an atmospheric CO2 molecule that came from burning fossil fuels, and one that came from the multitude of natural sources. (Hint: it can't.)
To loosely quote Monty Python's Oscar Wilde sketch, the model you present is not a "gleaming shaft of gold".
scaddenp at 13:13 PM on 26 August, 2019
Since rate of removal is proportional to gradient, and sea is gradually becoming more saturated, then over time spans of 100s to 1000s of years, CO2 removal must slow (in fact as oceans heat, they will expel CO2 not absorb it).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Info: The Perch River Dam area is very interesting, if you like trails as well as wildlife or/and fishing. There are some trails here and there, this is on DEC property.
Directions/Location: This comes in two parts. You can visit either or both sides of the dam area.
–To visit the northern side get on Route 12 (Bradley Street Road) heading northward from Watertown, you will pass under the Route 81 overpass. Head out for around 6.6 miles from this point and you will eventually come to a low area with a parking area and marshlands. Continue past this a short distance and you will find the Vaadi Road on the right, travel down the Vaadi road about .8 miles. You will be at the top of a hill and be able to look out over the Perch River Dam area and marsh.
At this location, near the top of the hill, you can take a right and go into a small parking area that overlooks the dam on the right.
If you continue past this parking area a few feet look to the left, and there will be a small sign that denotes the beginning of a trail heading into the woods.
If you go a little farther past the parking area, look to your right again and there is another small dirt road near the foot of the hill. This will take you to the parking area for one of the dams (that you can see from the parking area on top of the hill). Click here for a map – Map. You can walk across the top of this dirt dam, as well as fish from it. Walk halfway down the dam and you will find a trail on the right. Watch for the geese (and their droppings!).
If you continue down the Vaadi Road you will pass the other dam on the left (which you can also walk on), another small parking place, and a couple small bridges where people fish. About a mile up the Vaadi Road from the trail and dam, you will come to a look-out area with a tall tower and short path leading to it.
–To visit the southern side of the dam get on Route 12 (Bradley Street Road) heading northward from Watertown, you will pass under the Route 81 overpass. From this point go about 4.5 miles and look for the Parish Road (County Road 16) on the right [a note – the corner of the Vaadi Road and Route 12 and the corner of Route 12 and the Parish Road are about 2.1 miles apart from each other]. Continue down the Parish Road for about 1.8 miles and look for a dirt road and a DEC sign on the left (if you get to the very sharp right-hand curve you have went slightly too far). Get on the dirt road and continue to the end. You will be on the opposite side of the dam. There is plenty of walking in the woods but no real trails. If you have a bike the road is interesting to ride. There are also some small trails throughout the woods, sometimes they can be hard to find. About halfway down the road is a valley with the stone ruins of a large barn that spanned the valley, as well as the ruins of a stone spring house, nearby this are some more ruins of the cellar of an even older stone house. You can find some info about this on this page, about halfway down the page.
Also see quick aerial map at bottom of page.
Coordinates/Waypoint(s): 44'05.530N -75'57.781W (44.092167 -75.963017) trail into woods.
44'05.462N -75'57.781W (44.091033 -75.963017) top of dam.
44'06.054N -75'57.093W (44.100900 -75.951550) observation tower.
Difficulty: Easy walking unless you go into the woods.
For More Information: Contact DEC.
dam, fishing, Jefferson County, Perch River, river. Bookmark.


text:
The International Space Station can be the base of important research before the countries that support it withdraw funding, according to scientist and former astronaut Tom Jones. Credit: NASA
Backing the station
By&nbspTom Jones|May 2017
Important research planned at the ISS
NASA points to the International Space Station as its test bed for technologies and techniques needed to establish humans at the moon and, eventually, Mars. But continued ISS funding beyond 2024 is uncertain, and may reduce those funds needed for human expeditions into deep space. If NASA wants to eliminate the deep-space unknowns facing its astronauts, and reap a bigger return on the more than $80 billion the U.S. has spent on its construction and operation, it must step up its game at the ISS. That means finding the resources needed to keep the ISS open for research beyond 2024, and accelerating its exploration-focused research there.
Searching for exploration answers
Since crews began living and working on the station in 2000, some research has always been aimed at enabling humans to conduct long-duration expeditions to the moon, near-Earth asteroids, or Mars, such as studies of how to keep astronauts healthy during months spent living in free fall.
For example, physiologists have worked hard to understand and prevent the debilitating effects of free fall (weightlessness) on the heart, lungs, skeletal muscles and bones. Over the past 16 years of ISS habitation, crew health experts have developed a vigorous exercise protocol — 90 minutes per day — that largely maintains cardiac health, lung capacity and muscle tone. Even bone mass loss has been reduced to "tolerable" levels for six months or more in free fall. The exercise machines — a treadmill bicycle ergometer and a strength-training device — are bulky and heavy. Their extensive use and failure history at ISS are aiding the design of smaller, lighter and more reliable fitness machines for service in deep space.
But questions on long-term health in free fall remain. More than half of ISS astronauts experience changes in vision, usually nearsightedness, which sometimes persists well after return to Earth. The retinal changes observed are similar to those experienced by patients with elevated cerebrospinal fluid pressure.
Researchers suspect that the headward shift in body fluids seen in free fall puts increased pressure on the optic nerve and retina, changing their shape and altering vision. NASA is just beginning to evaluate countermeasures such as applying negative pressure to the lower extremities to reduce intracranial pressure. Preventing adverse (and perhaps permanent) vision changes is a high priority, and deserves sustained NASA focus.
One of the most highly visible exploration-driven experiments at ISS was astronaut Scott Kelly's 340-day stay in orbit in 2015-16 — longer than a transit to or from Mars. After landing, Kelly showed some deficiencies in muscle dexterity, postural control and fine motor skills. Overall, however, Kelly's experience showed that a year in space is not significantly more stressful than a six-month stay.
Reliable and efficient human life support systems are essential on journeys far from Earth, where spare parts are not available and system performance is a matter of life and death. Future systems may include space-grown plants, which can recycle crew CO2 and waste while producing oxygen and fresh food. At ISS the Vegetable Production System (Veggie) is testing methods for plant growth in free fall. The experiment grows salad-type crops like lettuce or cabbage to supplement the shelf-stable, preserved foods comprising the astronauts' menu. A new Advanced Plant Habitat will expand farming to arabidopsis, small flowering plants related to cabbage and mustard.
The new plant habitat was to arrive at the ISS on an Orbital ATK Cygnus cargo freighter in April. Crews still grapple and berth arriving cargo ships like Cygnus, Dragon and Japan's H-II Transfer Vehicle using manual robot arm controls. Future modules bound for deep space will probably be assembled robotically, as various components arrive to become integral parts of a larger craft.
To develop such autonomous techniques, NASA launched to the ISS in February a relative navigation sensor suite, called Raven. The size of a roll-on suitcase, Raven will operate from the ISS port truss, tracking arriving and departing spacecraft with visible and IR cameras and a flash LIDAR (laser) ranging system. Using Raven, NASA hopes to mature the sensors, machine vision algorithms and processing needed to conduct autonomous rendezvous and docking, both for satellite servicing and assembly of future Mars-bound spacecraft.
These are all worthy investigations, but NASA's challenge now is to make sure it gets remaining answers out of ISS before its decommissioning, perhaps as early as 2024. Because of the time needed to conceive, develop and launch exploration-driven experiments to ISS, NASA must put its most important research in motion within the next couple of years — certainly before 2020.
Keeping the research window open
The station's programmed demise means NASA must prioritize exploration work there to reap results in time. Although NASA would like four extra years to conduct vital deep-space research at ISS, doing so would force difficult funding choices. On March 21, President Trump signed the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017; the new law calls for "maximizing utilization of the International Space Station," including research meant to develop and test exploration technologies. But the law provides no extra funding to do so.
Some in Congress view ISS funding (about $3 billion annually) as diverting NASA's focus from Mars. At a March 22 hearing on the station's future, Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, chairman of the House Space subcommittee, said in his opening statement, "We ought to be aware that remaining on the ISS [beyond 2024] will come at a cost." Babin further warned, "Tax-dollars spent on the ISS will not be spent on destinations beyond low Earth orbit. …The longer we operate the ISS, the longer it will take to get to Mars."
NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations, Bill Gerstenmaier, responded in testimony: "It's … wrong to assume that ISS and exploration are competing. … They're really helping each other." Gerstenmaier cited the crew health research underway at ISS, but there are many opportunities for exploration technology and science work still unfulfilled. NASA must start planning, developing and flying these investigations as soon as possible, lest its research window close in 2024 with vital questions left unanswered.
To take full advantage of ISS in solving its exploration challenges, NASA should put new or expanded demonstrations like these on its station "to do" list, shifting funds within the human spaceflight budget as necessary:
• Expanded trials of deep-space habitats, such as the inflatable Bigelow Expandable Activity Module. NASA should commission and fly a full-scale inflatable habitat structure and evaluate it for strength, radiation protection and durability against micrometeoroids.
• Tests at ISS of next-generation life support systems, further closing the recycling loop for wastewater and exhaled carbon dioxide. These systems should demonstrate improved efficiency, reliability and reduced maintenance.
• Rigorous ISS testing of a new exploration spacesuit with greater dexterity, mobility and durability. Astronauts could identify any flaws in its life support system, high-capacity batteries, radiation shielding and human-machine interfaces before committing it to more demanding planetary surface work.
• Evaluation of new radiation protection materials and countermeasures to reduce astronauts' cosmic ray exposure. Promising materials and methods can then be tested further in lunar orbit, outside Earth's magnetosphere.
• Introduction of improved food technologies that reduce packaging weight, yet preserve the taste and nutritional value of space fare.
• Deployment of a portable centrifuge at ISS, testing the ability of a rotating, partial-G environment to maintain the health of laboratory animals in extended free fall.
• Tests of free-fall extraction of water and metals from meteorites, and later, returned asteroid material, aimed at in-space propellant production to support Mars expeditions.
Not every deep-space challenge can be solved at ISS. The station's low Earth orbit, for example, is well within Earth's magnetosphere, and so doesn't replicate the solar flare and cosmic ray radiation environment found at the moon and beyond. But if NASA uses a small fraction of its exploration funding to fly and test real hardware at ISS, it can show rapid and sustained progress in eliminating its deep-space unknowns.
By extending station operations through 2028, NASA will be able to demonstrate frequent, visible progress toward deep space, showing the seriousness of its efforts to reach the moon and Mars. By maximizing its technology and operations return from ISS and keeping those answers coming through 2028, NASA can also showcase its value to potential commercial operators, who would ideally take over station operations in the late 2020s.
Instead of treating ISS as a financial millstone beyond 2024, NASA should ensure that its expansive orbital outpost, purchased so dearly over three decades, could deliver the exploration answers we need.
Human SpaceflightSpace ScienceCommercial Spaceflight
About Tom Jones
Tom flew on four space shuttle missions, including his last flight, STS-98, in which he led three spacewalks to install the American Destiny laboratory on the International Space Station. Tom is a senior research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
The inflatable Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, center, is a potential deep-space habitat in the middle of a two-year demonstration mission at ISS. Credit: NASA
Raven is deployed outside the ISS to test sensors that may make it easier to operate spacecraft autonomously. Credit: NASA
Job No. 1: Detect and avoid
Toward "a beautiful web of airplanes"
Strategizing about Mars


PAC Mate BX 440/OMNI Form Fit Leather Case with Strap!!!
The BX 440/OMNI form fit custom leather case is designed to enable the Pac Mate user to easily utilize the note taker while the case is on the unit and allow the unit to be carried on a comfortable strap. The face of the unit is covered with a zipper pocket cover secured with heavy Velcro. The zipper pocket cover may be flipped on to the rear and secured under the unit if the user needed to utilize the note taker while walking. The zipper pocket includes inlayed credit card/ ID holders and two flash card holders which provide privacy and security for important information and data storage.
The BX 440/OMNI case is manufactured with high quality materials such as leather to provide durable outer protection, foam inlay, to provide cushion for the note taker and brush tricot with fabric interior to protect the keys and note taker cover. The case is equipped with a large heavy duty black metal zipper and black plastic hooks to provide security, durability and safety. In addition, the case is equipped with a On/Off switch cover plate which provides the user peace of mind the unit will not accidentally turn on when not in use. Finally, the case utilizes a one and a half inch adjustable heavy strap with a large comfortable shoulder strap. The strap includes an attachment to secure a GPS receiver.
Don't forget the Accessory Pouch it holds your note taker recharger unit on the side of BX 440 Case.