The Executive Director Of The American Meteorological Society Educates President Trump On Climate Change

Source: Physics.Org

Regardless of your view on climate change, the idea that change is not occurring around us as a result of actions over time is a far reaching concept.  Government officials (elected officials) -- senate and congressional leaders are in agreement.  Although, constituents may influence their ability to relay their position in a public forum.  Why?  Furthermore, why does our President of the United States feel such a compelling force to step in front of a camera and take a stance counter to what scientific evidence points to as being true?  To counter the misinformation spread by the President on an interview, the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) stepped up and wrote a letter in opposition to his actions.  Lets take a small step back before showing the letter written in opposition to the President.  What is the AMS?



The American Meteorological Society consists of more than 13,000 scientists with the following mission:

The American Meteorological Society advances the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society.

With a historical context as follows:

 Founded in 1919, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is the nation’s premier scientific and professional organization promoting and disseminating information about the atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic sciences. Our more than 13,000 members include researchers, educators, students, enthusiasts, broadcasters and other professionals in weather, water, and climate.

With this introduction to the Meteorological Society in mind, here is the letter from the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society below:

16 October 2018

President Donald J. Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Trump:

The interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday, 14 October, included several questions related to climate change, reflecting the fact that this is an issue of vital importance to the nation. You raised several points in your replies that provide an opportunity for input from the scientific and science policy communities.

There is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows that the warming global climate we have been experiencing in recent decades is primarily caused by human activity and that current long-term warming trends cannot be expected to reverse if no action is taken. These conclusions come from multiple independent lines of evidence. As is standard for the scientific process, each of these lines of evidence has undergone rigorous testing and has overcome all credible challenges. They reinforce one another and there are no contradictory lines of evidence that withstand scientific scrutiny. As a result, the basic scientific conclusions about climate change are extremely robust.

There are highly promising risk management options — ones that can reduce the risks of climate change, strengthen the U.S. economy, and promote job creation. Nevertheless, choices about whether and how to respond are complex, as you noted in your interview. People can welcome and accept the basic scientific assessments and still reach different conclusions about what to do. Many options would be consistent with your policy priorities.

You also said that scientists are making this political, which is misleading and very damaging. The scientific community welcomes all who commit to the pursuit of understanding through science irrespective of their political views, religious beliefs, and ethical values. As an institution, the American Meteorological Society takes no political positions and we proudly count among our members both individuals who strongly support you and those who routinely disagree. We are stronger for the breadth of our membership.

The American Meteorological Society would welcome the opportunity to work with your staff to ensure that they have full access to credible and scientifically validated information as you navigate the many difficult policy areas impacted by the Earth’s changing climate. We are confident that viable solutions exist and that they can be fruitfully developed if the best available knowledge and understanding is applied to the issues at hand.

Sincerely,

Keith L. Seitter 

As stated so clearly by Director Keith Seitter in the letter above, the evidence for climate change and the human component is overwhelming and robust.   The letter above is provided to the reader (you) to observe the evidence (support) that is sent to the President of the United States -- which he is obviously ignoring.  Scientific evidence is ignored?  Amazing.



The science is clear along with the growing support for the reality of change - which is greatly needed.  How to get that change implemented is unknown at the moment.  I will suggest though that part of the solution lies within each of us -- which is to say -- each of us should educate ourselves on the issue at hand and the scientific evidence which is being presented.  That education does not necessarily rely upon a college education,  just looking at the world around us.  As an example of this point, an article from 'The Scientist' titled "Sports Videos Give Clues to Climate Change" reports a new method used by scientists to observe the effects of climate change:

Over the course of five weeks, Van Langenhove identified 46 individual trees and shrubs that had been caught on film from multiple angles, giving the team 523 images to use to track when the plants leafed and flowered each year, and to measure the size of the leaves. When analyzing the data, the team found that during races that took place in the 1980s, almost no trees or shrubs on the course had begun to flower, and only 26 percent showed any leaves. But from 2006 onward, 45 percent of the same woody plants had started to leaf and 67 percent had started flowering by the time the cyclists hit the road in early April. And when the team correlated the plant data with local climate data—which have logged a temperature increase of 1.5 °C since 1980—the researchers found a solid link between warmer winter temperatures and earlier leafing and flowering (MEE, 9:1874–82, 2018).

The realization that video taken by an international sports organization could serve as a 'standard' for qualitatively observing the ecological changes associated with differing climates over time was ingenious.  This work shows that a person does not have to be educated (a formal education) to contribute to the evidence associated with climate research.  Each of us are scientists at heart as I have stated before.



Related Blog Posts:


Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK

Why Is International Climate Action Important To Your Higher Education Institution?

Scientists Write President Trump Regarding Climate Action

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real

There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???

Republicans Endorse Carbon Tax For Climate Change? Wow

EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?

Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan

Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice

French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations

135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK

Source: Slate

Europe has been on the forefront (proactive) of environmental/health measures with regard to regulation.  Reporting from 'Politico Energy' suggests that the proactive measures extend to advising/challenging President Trump of the United States of America on his harsh stance against participating in reducing climate change:

U.K. SCIENTISTS TO MAY: CHALLENGE TRUMP ON CLIMATE: Ahead of Trump's trip to the United Kingdom this week, 135 of its climate scientists wrote to Prime Minister Theresa May urging her to challenge the president on climate change. "As the United States is the world's second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, President Trump's policy of inaction on climate change is putting at risk the U.K.'s national security and its interests overseas," they wrote in the letter.

Any reasonable person would and should challenge President Trump on his ignorant position of withdrawing from the Paris Accord (or planning to).  His stance goes against evidence provided by science and political backing from a whole host of U.S. politicians - not to mention - a large portion of the population.  With this being said, hopefully, Prime Minister Theresa May does follow the advice of scientists below (in the letter) and challenge President Trump during his visit overseas.



Without further ado, here is the letter from 135 climate researchers shown below along with the authors of the letter (and their respective professional affiliations) listed at the end:

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing as 135 members of the UK’s climate change research community to urge you to challenge President Trump about his policy of inaction on climate change when he visits on 13 and 14 July 2018.

The UK has a strong track record on climate change. Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to warn of the risks of rising greenhouse gas levels at the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, and the UK became the first country in the world in 2008 to lay down in law, with strong support across the political spectrum, targets for reducing its emissions.

You have also demonstrated leadership on this issue domestically through your continued commitment to implementation of the Climate Change Act and your personal endorsement of the Clean Growth Strategy. Additionally you have shown international leadership through your personal involvement in discussions at, for instance, the One Planet Summit in Paris in December 2017, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London in April 2018, and most recently at the summit of G7 leaders in Charlevoix, Canada, in June 2018.

In contrast, President Trump has made clear that he does not intend to tackle climate change. He left the G7 summit before the discussion about climate change, and indicated that he would not sign that part of the communiqué. This was the latest signal by President Trump that the United States Government will not contribute to international efforts to manage the substantial risks caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

President Trump announced in June 2017 that he is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement and he has attempted to stop all financial support for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. With the help of the United States Congress, President Trump has also halted contributions to the Green Climate Fund which supports poor countries in their efforts to cut emissions and to make themselves more resilient to the impacts of climate change, including shifts in extreme weather events and sea level rise.

In addition, President Trump’s administration has attempted to weaken or remove many federal curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the latest projections by the United States Energy Information Administration suggest that its annual energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide will rise in 2018 and 2019.

In refusing to take action on climate change, President Trump is ignoring the advice both of international experts and of experts in the United States, such as the Global Change Research Program and the National Academy of Sciences. Since his inauguration as President in January 2017, Mr. Trump has overseen a number of actions to undermine climate researchers in the United States whose findings are used by policy-makers around the world.

As the United States is the world’s second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, President Trump’s policy of inaction on climate change is putting at risk the UK’s national security and its interests overseas. The Government’s ‘National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review’, published in November 2015, identified climate change as a major driver of global risk which threatens stability overseas and the UK’s long-term security. The UK is already being directly affected by the impacts of climate change: from 2000 onwards, it has experienced its nine warmest years and six of its seven wettest years since records began in 1910.

We believe that the UK Government should challenge President Trump about this policy of inaction on climate change. President Macron of France has publicly criticised President Trump’s stance and we believe that the UK should take advantage of its special relationship with the United States to show similar leadership. We do not believe that the best interests of the UK, or the rest of the world, would be best served by attempting to appease President Trump on this issue.

The UK Government is well-placed to draw the attention of President Trump to the case for urgently recognising and managing the risks of climate change. It can demonstrate, for instance, that economic growth does not have to be sacrificed in order to tackle climate change. According to the latest figures, the United States increased its real GDP per capita by 44 per cent between 1990 and 2016, while its annual emissions of greenhouse gases rose by 2.4 per cent. Over the same period, the UK’s real GDP per capita climbed by 46 per cent, while its annual emissions fell by 41 per cent. Hence the UK has shown that it is possible to achieve economic growth while strongly reducing annual emissions of greenhouse gases.

Above all, the UK government should make the argument that policy-making about climate change should be based on the best available evidence. Policy-makers should draw on the findings of the global climate research community, and take account of the risks it poses across the world and to future generations. Climate change should not be treated as if it were just as an issue of partisan domestic politics.

We are signing as individuals, rather than as representatives of our employers, but we list our affiliations as evidence of our membership of the climate change research community.

Yours sincerely (in alphabetical order),

Dr. George Adamson (Lecturer in Geography and Convenor of Climate Research Hub, King’sCollege London)

Professor Richard Allan (Joint Head of the Department of Meteorology, University of Reading)

Professor Chris Armstrong (Professor of Political Theory, University of Southampton)

Professor John Barrett (Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Leeds)

Professor Paul Bates (University of Bristol)

Dr. Anna Belcher (Ecological Biogeochemist, British Antarctic Survey)

Professor Mike Bentley (Department of Geography, Durham University)

Sam Bickersteth (Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford)

Dr. Stephen Blenkinsop (Senior Research Associate, Newcastle University)

Professor Martin Blunt (Shell Professor of Reservoir Engineering, Imperial College London)

Dr. Christian Brand (Co-Director, UK Energy Research Centre and Associate Professor in Transport and Climate Change, University of Oxford)

Dr. Chris Brierley (Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, University College London)

Dr. Stuart Capstick (Research Fellow, Cardiff University)

Professor Andy Challinor (Professor of Climate Impacts, University of Leeds)

Dr. Steven Chan (Research Associate, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Professor Peter Clarke FRAS FHEA (Professor of Geophysical Geodesy, Newcastle University)

Professor Mat Collins FRMetS (Exeter Climate Systems, University of Exeter)

Professor Peter Convey (British Antarctic Survey)

Dr. Kevin Cowtan FHEA (Research Fellow, University of York)

Professor Peter Cox (Professor of Climate System Dynamics, University of Exeter)

Dr. Christina Demski (Lecturer, School of Psychology, Cardiff University)

Professor Simon Dietz (Co-Director, ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Dr. Alix Dietzel (Lecturer in Global Ethics, School of Sociology, Politics and International Relations, University of Bristol)

Dr. Paul Dodds (Senior Lecturer in Energy Systems, University College London)

Professor Andy Dougill (Executive Dean of Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds)

Dr. Gareth Edwards FRGS (School of International Development, University of East Anglia)

Professor Paul Ekins FEI OBE (Professor of Resources and Environmental Policy and Director of the Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)

Dr. Marie Ekström (Research Fellow in Climate Change Impacts, Cardiff University)

Professor Nick Eyre (Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Oxford)

Dr. Robert Falkner (Research Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Sam Fankhauser (Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Paul Fennell FIChemE (Professor of Clean Energy, Imperial College London)

Professor Piers Forster FRMetS (Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds)

Dr. Nathan Forsythe (Newcastle University Research Fellow, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Professor Gavin Foster (Professor of Isotope Geochemistry, University of Southampton.

Professor Hayley Fowler (Professor of Climate Change Impacts and Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellow, Newcastle University)

Professor Pierre Friedlingstein (Professor of Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems, University of Exeter)

Professor Alberto Naveira Garabato (Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

Dr. Antonio Gasparrini (Associate Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Alyssa Gilbert (Director of Policy and Translation of the Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Dr. Philip Goodwin (Lecturer in Oceanography and Climate, University of Southampton)

Professor Andrew Gouldson (Professor of Environmental Policy and Deputy Director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds)

Professor Ben Groom (Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Dr. Robert Gross (Director, Centre for Energy Policy and Technology, Imperial College London)

Professor Michael Grubb (Professor of Energy and Climate Change, Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)

Professor Dabo Guan (Director of the Water Security Research Centre, University of East Anglia)

Dr. Selma Guerreiro (Researcher in Hydrology and Climate Change, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Prof. G. Hilmar Gudmundsson (Professor of Glaciology and Extreme Environments, Northumbria University)

Professor Joanna Haigh CBE FRS (Co-Director of the Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Professor Sir Andy Haines FMedSci (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Dr. Thomas Hale (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford)

Professor Ian Hall FLSW (Head of School and Research Professor, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University)

Professor Jim Hall FREng (Director of the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)

Dr. Catherine Happer (Lecturer, Media and Communications, University of Glasgow)

Professor Barbara Harriss-White FAcSS (Emeritus Professor of Development Studies, Oxford University of Oxford)

Professor Ed Hawkins FRMetS (Professor of Climate Science, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Reading)

Professor Gabriele Hegerl FRS FRSE (Professor of Climate System Science, University of Edinburgh)

Dr. William Homoky FCMS (Independent Research Fellow of the Natural Environment Research Council and Junior Research Fellow, St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford)

Dr. Scott Hosking (Climate Scientist, British Antarctic Survey)

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins CBE FRS (Chair, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Professor John Huthnance FRMetS MBE (Emeritus Fellow, National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, University of Liverpool)

Dr. Keith Hyams (Associate Professor, University of Warwick)

Dr. Ruza Ivanovic (Lecturer in Climate Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)

Professor Tahseen Jafry (Director of The Centre for Climate Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University)

Dr. Helen Johnson (Associate Professor in Climate and Ocean Modelling, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford)

Dr. Dan Jones (Physical Oceanographer, British Antarctic Survey)

Professor Philip Jones HonFRMetS (University of East Anglia)

Dr. Sam Krevor (Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth Science & Engineering, Imperial College London)

Professor Christine Lane (University of Cambridge)

Professor Caroline Lear (Head of The Centre for Resilience and Environmental Change, Cardiff University)

Dr. Alicia Ledo (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Aberdeen)

Dr. Elizabeth Lewis (Research Associate, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Professor Simon Lewis (Professor of Global Change Science, University College London and University of Leeds)

Dr. Xiaofeng Li (Research Scientist, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University)

Dr. Lorenzo Lotti (Energy Institute and Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)

Dr. Niall Mac Dowell FIChemE (Imperial College London)

Professor Georgina Mace DBE FRS (Professor of Biodiversity & Ecosystems, University College London)

Professor Anson Mackay (Professor of Environmental Change, University College London)

Professor Geoffrey Maitland FREng FIChemE FRSC FEI (Professor of Energy Engineering, Imperial College London)

Professor Yadvinder Malhi FRS (Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)

Professor David Marshall FRMetS FInstP (Head of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford)

Dr. John Marsham (Associate Professor, University of Leeds)

Professor Mark Maslin FRGS FRSA (Department of Geography, University College London)

Dr. Juerg Matter (Associate Professor in Geoengineering, Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

Dr. Amanda Maycock (Associate Professor, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)

Professor Catriona McKinnon (Director of the Centre for Climate and Justice, University of Reading)

Dr. Jim McQuaid FRMetS CChem (School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)

Dr. Dann Mitchell (Lecturer in Climate Physics, University of Bristol)

Professor Hugh Montgomery FRCP MD FRSB FRI FFICM (Professor of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London and Co-Chair of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change)

Professor Stephen de Mora FRSA FRSB FRSC CChem (Chief Executive, Plymouth Marine Laboratory)

Professor Richard Morris (Professor in Medical Statistics, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol)

Professor Benito Müller (Convener of International Climate Policy Research, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)

Professor David Newbery FBA CBE (Director, Cambridge Energy Policy Research Group)

Professor Dan Osborn (Department of Earth Sciences, University College London)

Professor Tim Osborn FRMetS (Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia)

Professor Jouni Paavola (Director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds)

Dr. James Painter (Research Fellow, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford)

Professor Richard Pancost (Director of the Cabot Institute, University of Bristol)

Professor Douglas Parker FRMetS (Met Office Professor of Meteorology, University of Leeds)

Professor Martin Parry OBE ( Imperial College London)

Professor Paul Pearson FGS (School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University)

Dr. Wouter Peeters (Lecturer in Global Ethics, Centre for the Study of Global Ethics, University of Birmingham)

Professor Arthur Petersen FIET FRSA (Professor of Science, Technology and Public Policy, University College London)

Professor Nick Pidgeon MBE (School of Psychology, Cardiff University)

Dr. Jeff Price (Senior Researcher, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia)

Prof Chris Rapley CBE (Professor of Climate Science, Department of Earth Sciences, University College London)

Dr. Tim Rayner (Research Fellow, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia)

Professor Dave Reay (Assistant Principal, University of Edinburgh)

Dr. Merten Reglitz (Lecturer in Global Ethics, University of Birmingham)

Professor Judith Rees DBE (Vice-Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Andrea Sella (Department of Chemistry, University College London)

Prof Daniela Schmidt FRSB FYAE (Professor in Palaeobiology, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol)

Dr. Tim Schwanen (Director of the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford)

Professor Nilay Shah (Director of the Centre for Process Systems Engineering, Imperial College London)

Professor John Shepherd CBE FRS (Emeritus Professor of Earth System Science, School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

Dr. Emily Shuckburgh FRMetS OBE (Darwin College, University of Cambridge)

Professor Henry Shue (Senior Research Fellow, Centre for International Studies, University of Oxford)

Professor Martin Siegert FRSE (Co-Director, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Professor Pete Smith FRS FRSE (University of Aberdeen)

Dr. Thomas Smith FRGS (Assistant Professor in Environmental Geography, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Dr. Julia Steinberger (Associate Professor in Ecological Economics, University of Leeds)

Professor Philip Stier (Academic Convener of the Oxford Climate Research Network and Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Oxford)

Professor Lindsay Stringer (ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds

Dr. Carol Turley OBE (Senior Scientist, Plymouth Marine Laboratory)

Professor Paul Valdes (Director, NERC Great Western Four+ Doctoral Training Partnership, University of Bristol)

Professor Tina van de Flierdt (Professor of Past Climate and Oceans, Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment and Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London)

Bob Ward FGS FRGS (Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Rachel Warren (Professor of Global Change and Environmental Biology, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia)

Professor Jim Watson (Professor of Energy Policy, Institute of Sustainable Resources, University College London and Director of the UK Energy Research Centre)

Dr. Matthew Watson (Reader in Natural Hazards, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol)

Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh (School of Psychology and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Cardiff University)

Professor Ric Williams (Chair in Ocean Sciences and Associate Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research & Impact, University of Liverpool)

Dr. Judith Wolf (National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, School of Engineering, Liverpool University)

Professor Philip Woodworth MBE (Emeritus Fellow, National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, University of Liverpool)

Professor Tim Woollings (Department of Physics, University of Oxford)

Related blog posts:



French President Macron Calls On U.S. Congress To Save The Planet


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS

Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future

How Do We See The Invisible (sub-atomic particles) In The Visible Region?

How is the invisible to the naked eye made visible to the naked eye?  Today, with the advancement of technologies many can view the invisible into the visible region through a microscope.  An electron  microscope allows us to see molecular frameworks with the use of electrons -- amazing.  Other forms of measurement involve indirect detection like looking for a "green fluorescent protein"(GFP) tag which lights up when a given expression or event occurs.  Of course, in the last case, the sample has to be exposed to light in order for the GFP tag to fluoresce.



The radioactive decay of the element Radon can be made visible through the use of a "Cloud Chamber."  Recently, I ran across a video demonstrating the visibility of radioactive decay and could not stop thinking about how cool the demonstration was.  Therefore,  I decided to share the demonstration with you.  Additionally, I will draw parallels with the "trails" that are visible after flying aircraft leave the sky.

Visualizing Radiative Decay!

Most of us have an idea of what radioactivity is - right?  Something along the lines of 'sub-atomic' particles being given off which are highly energetic?  Sound familiar?  Maybe not.  Lets consult our good friend 'Wikipedia' to help us out with a definition of 'radioactive decay'.  Here is an excerpt:

Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity) is the process by which the nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting radiation, including alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, and conversion electrons. A material that spontaneously emits such radiation is considered radioactive.

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay,[1][2][3][4] regardless of how long the atom has existed. For a collection of atoms however, the collection's decay rate can be calculated from their measured decay constants or half-lives. This is the basis of radiometric dating. The half-lives of radioactive atoms have no known lower or upper limit, spanning a time range of over 55 orders of magnitude, from nearly instantaneous to far longer than the age of the universe. A radioactive source emits its decay products isotropically (all directions and without bias)[5] in the absence of external influence.

Couple the description above to the picture below to get a full visualization:

Source: Inductiveload

How does a person measure radiation decay?



Hollywood offers a visual representation commonly depicted in movies surrounding the release of a 'nuclear weapon' or threat of exposure to radioactive compounds like the following shown below:

Source: Associated Press

A common instrument used to measure the amount of radiation that is being emitted off of a given sample is the 'Geiger Counter' and is shown below:

Source: TimVickers 

The instrument can sample a range of intensities.  But, what if the radiation that we are trying to measure is that of the natural background from the sky.  The background radiation is supposedly orders of magnitude than a release of a 'nuclear weapon' (which is true).



How does a scientist measure background radiation?



How about using a cloud chamber?



An instrument that is commonly used to measure radiation is called the 'Cloud Chamber' or 'Wilson Chamber' after the founder -- the Scottish physicist Charles Thomson Rees Wilson.   The structure of a cloud chamber is relatively simple.  A chamber is couple with a heater/cooler which has access to introduce a radioactive source into the interior space.  This will be demonstrated in the video below.  A picture of a cloud chamber from 'Wikipedia' is shown below:

Source: Cloudylabs

They are easily constructed and instructions for science projects involving the construction of a 'Cloud Chamber' can be found here.



As I mentioned in the introduction, I found a video which showed precisely and beautifully the radioactive decay of various elements.  The video on 'YouTube' is titled "Large Diffusion Cloud Chamber With Radon Gas Double-Decaying" and is broken down into frames below.  During frames, I commented or narrated on the content in each frame.  The overall message to take home from viewing the frames below is that the video allows us to see atoms precisely in their position from the 'alpha decay' leaving the nucleus.  The demonstration is absolutely amazing.



One more note is that the chamber is cooled at the bottom and heated slightly at the top to produce a temperature gradient.  The temperature gradient is similar to the temperature gradient in the sky as one goes to higher altitudes.  Therefore, after I show the video frames, I will draw an analogy with the "trails" from condensation commonly seen after an airplane flies across the sky.



First, lets start with a frame from the video which shows the chamber without any radioactive compound inserted.  As shown below, this is the natural background radiation that each of us are experiencing without noticing it at any given moment.



Background Radiation:

Relatively few interactions compared to the expected large amount of a concentrated decay like a 'nuclear weapon' or a 'radioactive source'.




Point Source:

Right after exposure to the cloud chamber.  Notice initially, there is a huge force of alpha decay pushing out from the source toward the other side of the chamber.  The pressure wave of alpha decay resembles the shape of the source -- a half spherical shape -- as shown below.



Point Source - 3 seconds after:

Notice the exponential diffusion of particles throughout the chamber. After a series of collisions producing further alpha decays, the motion becomes unpredictable -- as shown below.


Point Source - 9 seconds:

Still going.  Actually, the secondary decay is occurring at this moment.  The picture below shows the extent of the energetic alpha particles still colliding with more nuclei to produce (secondary) radioactive decay -- as shown still below.



Point Source - 19 seconds:

Crazy!  I wonder how long the team had to wait until the entire chamber came back to equilibrium.  The state of equilibrium would have resembled the 'background' still frame above.

Visualizing Temperature Gradients!

In the last section, the amazing demonstration of 'alpha' radioactive decay was made clear using a cloud chamber filled with ethanol gas.  I pointed out before presenting the 'still frames' of the diffusion of radiation that there exists an equivalent analogous situation that occurs on the 'macroscale'.  Not only does the event happen on the scale of everyday occurrences, the event is visible to a large audience of viewers from the ground.



The idea of 'chemtrails' is a popular conspiracy put forth to account for the seeming long white trails which follow an aircraft traversing the sky.  Here is an excerpt to describe such phenomenon taken from the 'Wikipedia' page on 'Chemtrails':

Chemtrail conspiracy theory is an unproven suspicion that long-lasting trails, so-called "chemtrails", are left in the sky by high-flying aircraft and that they consist of chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes undisclosed to the general public.[1] Believers in the theory argue that normal contrails dissipate relatively quickly and that contrails that do not dissipate must contain additional substances.[2][3] These arguments have been dismissed by the scientific community: such trails are normal water-based contrails (condensation trails) that are routinely left by high-flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions.[4] Although proponents have attempted to prove that the claimed chemical spraying does take place, their analyses have been flawed or based on misconceptions.[5][6]

Because of the widespread popularity of the conspiracy theory, official agencies have received many inquiries from people demanding an explanation.[2] Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly needed to confirm that supposed chemtrails are in fact normal contrails.[7]

With the corresponding visual description taken also from the 'Wikipedia' page for 'chemtrails' shown below:

Source: No machine

The conspiracy theorists are fascinating in their endeavor to seek an answer to this phenomenon.  Implying that the government is actively pursuing dumping chemicals into the environment in order to create such trails is non-sense.  Any particle growth with water vapor in the atmosphere will diffract light -- look at clouds.



The real culprit in the case of the so called 'trails' across the sky come from 'contrails' -- short for condensation trails -- made up of water vapor that has crystallized.  Here is the description from 'Wikipedia' for 'contrails' below:

Contrails (/ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for "condensation trails") or vapor trails are line-shaped clouds sometimes produced by aircraft engine exhaust, typically at aircraft cruise altitudes several miles above the Earth's surface. Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals. The combination of water vapor in aircraft engine exhaust and the low ambient temperatures that often exists at these high altitudes allows the formation of the trails. Impurities in the jet exhaust from the fuel, including sulfur compounds (0.05% by weight in jet fuel) provide some of the particles that can serve as sites for water droplet growth in the exhaust and, if water droplets form, they might freeze to form ice particles that compose a contrail.[1] Their formation can also be triggered by changes in air pressure in wingtip vortices or in the air over the entire wing surface.[2]

Depending on the temperature and humidity at the altitude the contrails form, they may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for hours and spread to be several miles wide, eventually resembling natural cirrus or altocumulus clouds.[1] Persistent contrails are of particular interest to scientists because they increase the cloudiness of the atmosphere.[1] The resulting cloud forms may resemble cirrus, cirrocumulus, or cirrostratus, and are sometimes called cirrus aviaticus. Persistent spreading contrails are thought by some, without overwhelming scientific proof, to have a significant effect on global climate.[3][4] Persistent contrails are sometimes called chemtrails in reference to the conspiracy theory regarding the undisclosed spraying of chemical or biological agents by various high-flying aircraft.

Again, as I just mentioned -- the crystals grow from water vapor attaching themselves to a 'seed molecule' and growing to the point of diffracting light.  I will give you a little known fact about 'contrails' that is not commonly known by the world.  This is in regards to the aircraft that you see at airshows.  Now that you know that the condensation has a role to play with 'contrails' -- you might be wondering the following question -- regarding air shows with fighter jets:



How do the jets make 'contrails' at a precisely given point in space in the sky?



The answer lies in the fact that the gun bay in a fighter jet where the ammunition is stored is emptied out -- for show jets.  In the space (gun bay), there is an oil container filled with oil.  There is a delivery system (via veins or tubes) that deliver the oil onto the exhaust of the jets to produce a 'contrail'.



Bet you did not know that!

Conclusion!

The ability to view the invisible is absolutely amazing.  In the paragraphs above, the size of the particle that has been shown to be visible spans from the sub-atomic of a radon nucleus to the particles (aggregates of ice crystals) in the sky.  When we look up and see a cloud, that is evidence of a particle grown from a 'seed molecule' with water vapor.  The diffraction of light gives way to the opaque (cloud) that is seen in the sky above.



Whereas, on the sub-atomic scale, the ejection of an alpha particle decaying off of a nucleus is seen as the trail from the thermal gradient.  Each is a representation of an indirect interaction.  Science offers us an explanation to a wide range of such situations.  Further, with these explanations, better decisions regarding science policy are possible in government.  Ranging from the international level to the local level, science plays a large role in the decisions.  If it does not, maybe in the future it should.  Having examples like the two above, give us an idea regarding the safety of radiation and chemicals in the sky.



Until next time, Have a great day!