Tag Archives: Carbon Cycle

Reducing CO2 Emissions to Reverse Global Warming

Posted on by

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Reducing CO2 Emissions to Reverse Global Warming

We know that Global Warming can be reduced during the years of the century ahead of us if we — our civilization — steadily reduces its emissions of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) into the atmosphere.

Given a specific rate for the reduction of anthropogenic (our CO2) emissions:

— how long will it take to return Earth’s average temperature to its unperturbed pre-industrial level?, and

— how much higher will Global Warming (Earth’s temperature) become before it begins to decrease?

Answering these questions is the subject of my recent study. This work is based on a Carbon Balance Model, which I described in an earlier report. [1]

That model has been further refined in order to address these questions, and the details of that refinement are described in a technical report. [2]

Prior to the buildup of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the air, the fluxes of CO2 released by the respiration of Life-on-Earth; and the fluxes of CO2 absorbed from the air by photosynthesis, the surface waters of the oceans, and rock weathering chemical reactions; were in balance. That balance is known as the Carbon Cycle.

As the rate and buildup of anthropogenic emissions increased (after ~1750, but particularly from the mid-20th century), the Carbon Cycle was perturbed out of balance, and the magnitude of that imbalance is determined by the difference between two effects: Anthropogenic Sources, and Stimulated Sinks.

The Anthropogenic Sources are:

— the CO2 emissions by the human activities of fossil-fueled energy generation and industry, and

— the CO2 emissions from land use changes (deforestation and its attendant increase of wildfires).

The Stimulated Sinks are the additional absorption of CO2 by photosynthesis and the surface waters of the oceans, because of higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2. At a sufficiently high level of atmospheric CO2 concentration, both these sinks will saturate — stop absorbing CO2. What that “sufficiently high level” is remains uncertain.

The work summarized here includes more realistic (more complicated) models of these source and sink terms in the rate equation for the change of the Carbon Balance over time.

Now I am able to quantitatively link specific rates of the reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to consequent projected histories of the slowing and then reversal of Global Warming.

Such quantitative linkages have long been featured in the super-computer models of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, by the major Climate Science institutes; but now I have my own quantitative version of this correlation, which is analytical (expressed as math formulas, and enumerated with a hand calculator and basic home computer).

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions in year 2020 are 42.2GtCO2/y (42.2 giga-metric-tons of CO2 per year = 42.2*10^+12 kilograms/year). This magnitude of total anthropogenic emissions, E, is the addition of our fossil-fueled and land use emissions.

I considered three cases of the intentional steady reduction of annual human-caused CO2 emissions, which are defined to decrease exponentially. The characteristic decay time of each case is: 40 years (CASE 1, a 2.5% annual reduction), 100 years (CASE 2, a 1% annual reduction), and 200 years (CASE 3, a 0.5% annual reduction).

Emissions would be reduced to half their initial rate in 28 years for CASE 1; in 69 years for CASE 2; and in 139 years for CASE 3.

If each of these reduction plans were alternatively initiated in the year 2020, then:

CASE #1, ∆t=40y:

This trend reaches a peak of 449ppm and +1.32°C in year 2048 (in 28 years); it remains above 440ppm and +1.25°C over the years 2032 to 2064 (between 12 to 44 years from now); then descends to 350ppm and +0.56°C in year 2120 (in 100 years); and 300ppm and +0.18°C in year 2140 (in 120 years).

CASE #2, ∆t=100y:

This trend reaches a peak plateau of 485ppm and +1.6°C over the years 2078 to 2088 (between 58 and 68 years from now); it remains above 480ppm and +1.56°C during years 2066 to 2100 (between 46 and 80 years from now); it descends to 350ppm and +0.56°C in year 2202 (in 182 years); and 300ppm and +0.18°C in year 2225 (in 205 years).

CASE #3, ∆t=200y:

This trend reaches a peak plateau of 524ppm and +1.9°C over the years 2125 to 2135 (between 105 and 115 years from now); it remains above 500ppm and +1.72°C between years 2075 and 2190 (between 55 and 170 years from now); and descends down to 360ppm and +0.64°C in year 2300 (in 280 years).

Message to the Humans

The singular challenge for the progressive political and social elements of our civilization is to awaken the rest of the world — and particularly the “developed” and “developing” high-emissions nations — to a full commitment (demonstrated by action) to steadily and significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the rest of human history.

The sooner such reduction programs are initiated, and the greater the vigor with which they are implemented, the sooner we will begin slowing the advance of Global Warming and its continuing erosion of the habitability of Planet Earth, which humans have enjoyed for over 2 million years, and particularly since the end of the Ice Ages (~11,000 year ago).

With decades to a century of discipline applied to this purpose, we can even reverse Global Warming. The longer we wait to do this, the worse the consequences we will have to suffer through, and the longer it would take to extricate our species — and so many other wonderful forms of Life-on-Earth — from the Hell-on-Earth we are creating by our willful and destructive ignorance.

I can only imagine such major programs of CO2 emissions reductions being synonymous with the economic, political and social uplift of the vast majority of people, because Global Warming is directly caused by the unbounded economic, political and social exploitation of the many by the few.

The fact is that we all live on the same planet, and whatever happens to it — whether worsening conflagration and flooding in the now, or eventual cooling and restoration by human commitment — will affect everybody. There is no guaranteed escape.

The CO2 accumulation model that I have described here is just this old scientist’s way of saying: We can do so much better for ourselves, and our children deserve that we try.

NOTES

[1] A Carbon Balance Model of Atmospheric CO2
11 September 2020, [PDF file]
https://manuelgarciajr.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/a-carbon-balance-model-of-atmospheric-co2.pdf

[2] Trends for Reducing Global Warming
15 September 2020, [PDF file]
https://manuelgarciajr.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/trends-for-reducing-global-warming.pdf

<><><><><><><>

Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Are Fate

Posted on by

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Are Fate

I developed a model of Global Warming based on the anthropogenic perturbation of the Carbon Cycle. The essence of this model is a rate equation for the evolution of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere.

The interesting results from this model are projected trends for the CO2 concentration and the average global temperature during the next century. The character of those trends — whether rapid rises, shallow plateaus, or diminishment into the future — depend crucially on the magnitude of our civilization’s emissions of CO2, and whether those anthropogenic emissions increase or decrease with time. In the real world at present, they are increasing.

I have now been able to include the effect of linearly increasing or decreasing anthropogenic emissions into my Carbon Balance Model, which has been significantly improved.

This model also includes the effect of the increase in the rate at which atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by photosynthesis and the surface waters of the oceans, because those absorption rates are increasingly stimulated by the higher levels of CO2 in the air. This process of absorption-enhancement cannot continue indefinitely as the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, but at what point of elevated CO2 concentration it saturates and then absorption largely shuts down, is unknown.

The third process included in the model is that of the slow absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the chemical reactions of weathering on the surfaces of rocks and soils. CO2 not “quickly” scavenged from the air by photosynthesis or the surface waters of the oceans will stay airborne for 12,000 to 14,000 years. The ~2,500ppm spike of atmospheric CO2 that occurred 55.5 million years ago took 200,000 years to clear away. That geological episode is known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). At that time there was no ice at the poles, instead they were jungles and swamps with crocodiles. The global temperature at the peak of the PETM was as much as +12°C to +18°C warmer than in our pre-industrial 18th century.

I made three case studies from this model, called E-growth, E-flat, and E-fall.

E-growth

The E-growth case is driven by a relentlessly steady rise of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, based on the average upward trend of those emissions between years 1960 and 2020.

This trend arrives at 470ppm of atmospheric CO2, and a warming of +1.5°C (above pre-industrialization), in the year 2038 (in 18 years). It arrives 540ppm and +2°C in year 2055 (in 35 years); and it arrives at 800ppm and +4°C in year 2100 (in 80 years).

E-flat

The E-flat case is driven by a constant annual rate of 42.2GtCO2/y of anthropogenic emissions (42.2 giga-metric-tons of CO2 emissions per year), which is the rate in year 2020.

It arrives at 470ppm and +1.5°C in year 2041 (in 21 years); and 540ppm and +2°C in year 2070 (in 50 years); and 600ppm and +2.5°C in year 2100 (in 80 years).

E-fall

The E-fall case is driven by a steady linear reduction of anthropogenic emissions over 40 years: from 42.2GtCO2/y in 2020, to 0GtCO2/y in 2060; a reduction of 1.05GtCO2 every year for 40 years. This amount of annual reduction is 2.5% of the total anthropogenic emissions in year 2020. In this scenario, after year 2060 we would continue our civilization with zero CO2 emissions from our human activities.

This trend rises to 437ppm and +1.23°C during years 2035 to 2040 (from 15 to 20 years in the future) after which both fall. It arrives back down to 407ppm and +1°C in year 2059 (in 39 years); and 320ppm and +0.4°C in year 2100 (in 80 years).

Finally

In this year of 2020, we are presently at 417ppm and +1.08°C.

The math and physics details of this new work, as well as graphs of the trends calculated from it, are shown in the report (PDF file) linked at

A Carbon Balance Model of Atmospheric CO2
11 September 2020

Click to access a-carbon-balance-model-of-atmospheric-co2.pdf

 

<><><><><><><>

Possible Future Trends of CO2 Concentration and Global Temperature

Posted on by

Oakland, California, 10:15 AM, 9 September 2020, “Burning Land Eclipse”

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Possible Future Trends of CO2 Concentration and Global Temperature

Carbon dioxide gas (CO2) has been accumulating in the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (~1750), because increasingly voluminous fluxes of that gas have been exhausted from the lands and the oceans, and are beyond the capacity of natural CO2 sinks to absorb completely.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, carbon would cycle through a variety of processes that sustained the continuation of life, death, evolution and rebirth, and that all meshed into one grand balance. That balance is called the Carbon Cycle.

The explosive growth of human activity, numbers, exosomatic power, economic wealth, military overkill, and hubristic political pretensions, all spring from the access to and profligate use of heat-energy liberated from fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is the exhaust fume from our Promethean exertions for greater conquests — and wealth.

The carbon dioxide exhausted by our civilization’s generation of heat-energy, and from our massive exploitation of once virgin land areas, is an increasingly destabilizing perturbation of the Carbon Cycle. This perturbation is called Anthropogenic Emissions.

The imbalance of the Carbon Cycle reverberates through the natural world in many ways that are increasingly harmful and dangerous to Planet Earth’s habitability for ourselves and for many other animal and plant species. The central reality of this complex of growing threats to the viability of the Biosphere is called Global Warming.

Carbon dioxide gas traps heat radiated towards space, as infrared radiation from the surface of Planet Earth, reducing our planet’s ability to regulate its temperature by cooling to compensate for the influx of solar light that is absorbed by the lands and the oceans, and stored by them as heat.

Because of the existential implications of runaway global warming — as well as the intrinsic fascination to curious minds of such a richly complex and grand human-entwined natural phenomenon — scientists have been studying global warming, and its impact on the biosphere, which is called Climate Change.

While scientists of all kinds are excited to share their findings on climate change and impress their colleagues with their new insights, members of the public are singularly interested to know how climate change will affect their personal futures. Can science offer them clear and reliable answers to their questions — and fears — and provide practical remedies and technological inoculations to ward off the threats by climate change to our existing ways of life?

Science does what it can to offer practical insights and helpful recommendations, and humanity does what it usually does when faced with a collective existential crisis: it hides from the inconvenience of drastically changing its personal attitudes and societal structures, which is in fact the only way it would be able to navigate the majority of Earth’s people through the transition to a new social paradigm; a new, sustainable and harmonious relationship between human life and Planet Earth.

While I am grateful to all the professional climate scientists — and their related life scientists who study many aspects of this complex of geophysical processes and biological organisms and systems — for making known so much of the workings of the globally warming biosphere, I am nevertheless curious to gain a quantitative understanding of it all for myself. To that end, I have devised my own phenomenological thermodynamic “toy models” of global warming. The sequence of my reports charting the evolution of my quantitative understanding of global warming, are listed at [1].

My newest report describes a rate equation for the accumulation or loss of atmospheric CO2 over the course of future time. This equation is derived from considerations of recent data on the Carbon Cycle (from the Global Climate Project), along with some mathematical assumptions about the relationships used to quantify “carbon dioxide sweepers,” the processes that scavenge atmospheric CO2.

The results of this work are projections of possible future histories of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as a projection of the most likely trend of rising average global temperature.

The complete report on the new work (of which this is just a brief summary) is available at [2].

As is true of all future-casts, we will just have to wait till then to see if they were accurate, assuming we don’t do anything beforehand — collectively — to avoid the worst possibilities.

Such is the dance with the chaos and nonlinearity of the approaching future.

From the general mathematical result of this model, three possible future trends of CO2 concentration history were calculated:

CASE #1, “business as usual,” anthropogenic emissions continue at today’s level indefinitely;

CASE #2, anthropogenic emissions are immediately reduced to the point of holding CO2 concentration constant at today’s level, indefinitely;

CASE #3, anthropogenic emissions are immediately reduced to a trickle, so as to reduce the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere as quickly as possible.

Also, the trend of rising global temperature that accompanies CASE #1 was calculated.

CASE #1 is a pure growth trend, from 407.4ppm to 851.8ppm over the course of about 3,000 years (ppm = parts per million of concentration in the atmosphere).

CASE #2 requires that the anthropogenic emission rate be ~50% of the current rate (or 21GtCO2/y instead of 41GtCO2/y; for the units GtCO2/y defined as giga-metric-tonnes of CO2 emission per year).

This reduced rate of anthropogenic emission would just keep the CO2 concentration at 407.4ppm (from the beginning of 2019) into the near distant future (~1,600 years, and beyond), during which time the excess heat-energy presently in the biosphere would continue to degrade our weather, climate, environments, biodiversity, and planetary habitability.

CASE #3 would clear away the current excess of CO2 in the atmosphere, and then continue to reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration to a very low level over the course of about 700 years. This would require that anthropogenic emissions be immediately reduced to about one-fifth (1/5) of their current levels, and maintained at or below that level indefinitely.

The implication is clear: if we wish to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we have to reduce our anthropogenic emissions well below 50% of what they are today, maintain that discipline indefinitely, and wait centuries to millennia to achieve a significant reduction.

The global temperature excursion (above the average global temperature of the pre-industrial world) that accompanies CASE #1 rises steadily, though at a diminishing rate, from +1°C in 2019, to nearly +2.6°C in 2300 (~300 years). Along the way it passes +1.5°C in year 2065 (in ~40 years), and it passes +2°C in year 2120 (in ~100 years).

Global temperature would rise higher and sooner if the absorption rates of CO2 by photosynthesis and the oceans did not continue increasing — as they do today — in proportion to the increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. At present, increased CO2 concentration stimulates increased CO2 absorption. The model here assumes this is always true, but in reality this “sink growth” effect may saturate (be limited) at some higher level of CO2 concentration. Whether any such saturation limit on the absorption (sink) rate exists or not, is unknown.

If the +1.5°C and +2°C temperature rise milestones are truly to be avoided then it is imperative that anthropogenic emissions be drastically reduced immediately. As yet there is no sign that such reductions will occur.

The physics and mathematics of all this are fascinating, but the implications for civilization and life-on-Earth are stark.

NOTES

[1] One Year of Global Warming Reports by MG,Jr.
15 July 2020
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2020/07/15/one-year-of-global-warming-reports-by-mgjr/
Updated to 7 September 2020

[2] A Rate Equation for Accumulation or Loss of Atmospheric CO2
5 September 2020 (revised 9 September 2020)
[take a copy]
Rate Equation for Atmospheric CO2 (revised)

or view directly:

Click to access rate-equation-for-atmospheric-co2-revised.pdf

<><><><><><><>

ClimateSIM Junior, Simplified Prognostication from Unrealistic Hypothesis

Posted on by

Painting of the Roiling Ocean, by Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

ClimateSIM Junior, Simplified Prognostication from Unrealistic Hypothesis

Let me call the complicated work of supercomputer climatologists “ClimateSIM Senior.” Their efforts result in very complex “computer games” that simulate, up to a point, the Earth’s climate history, past and future.

What follows is a description of “ClimateSIM Junior,” my “speculative science” effort to model Earth’s climate, using formulas devised on pads of paper and numbers arrived at with a hand-held calculator (HP45). My purpose here is to present a simplified and only mildly inaccurate picture of “what is,” and to project from that with complete positive thinking, to ‘guesstimate’ “what could be.”

For data, I used the summary of the Carbon Cycle as published by the IPCC in 2007 (reporting on 2004 data), and a variety of estimates I have made and reported on over the course of the last year. The numbers to be presented are all internally consistent for the ease of storytelling, but the realities they represent are not actually known to the exactitude implied by the numbers shown.

Finally, I am not competing with nor contradicting ClimateSIM Senior, just trying to understand it better.

In 2020, the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) from Earth’s land surfaces is 36.3Gt/y (Gt/y = giga metric tons per year, or units of 10^12kg/year). This composite plume is split between industrial CO2 pollution, at 29.3Gt/y, and land use (or misuse) CO2 pollution at 7Gt/y.

Natural emissions of CO2 from land surfaces are: 0.3Gt/y from volcanoes, and 440Gt/y from respiration. The total of CO2 emissions from land surfaces is 476.6Gt/y.

The yearly absorption (or fixing) of CO2 from the atmosphere by land surfaces has three components: 0.7Gt/y by weathering reactions on soils and rocks; 440Gt/y by photosynthesis as in the pre-industrial past; and an additional 0.4Gt/y by photosynthesis in recent years. The total absorption of CO2 by land surfaces is 441.1Gt/y.

At present, land is a net emitter of CO2, at the rate of 35.5Gt/y, all anthropogenic.

The natural emissions of CO2 by the oceans, at present, are: 260Gt/y of CO2 released as in the pre-industrial past; and an additional 70Gt/y released in recent decades. The net emission from the oceans is 330Gt/y.

The uptake or absorption of CO2 by the oceans is: 260Gt/y as in the pre-industrial past; with an additional absorption of 80.4Gt/y in recent decades. The net absorption by the oceans is 340.4Gt/y.

At present, the oceans are net absorbers of CO2, at the rate of 10.4Gt/y, all anthropogenic.

With lands emitting 35.5Gt/y, and oceans absorbing 10.4Gt/y of it, CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere at the rate of 25.1Gt/y, which is equivalent to a rise in the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 of +3.2ppm/y (ppm = parts per million). We are at 417ppm now; if nothing changes then in one year atmospheric CO2 should be at 420.2ppm.

The anthropogenic accumulation of CO2 in the oceans is 481.2Gt (my estimate; “500Gt” or “about 500Gt” are casually stated elsewhere), and the average acidity level of the oceans is at a pH of 8.1. Today’s oceans are 26% more acidic than they were in pre-industrial times, when their pH was 8.2.

Now let’s dream. Imagine that all anthropogenic CO2 emissions cease immediately and permanently. The lands would become net absorbers of CO2, at the rate of 0.8Gt/y (by weathering reactions despite volcanic outbursts, plus lingering added photosynthesis). This clearing rate is equivalent to -0.10ppm/y. The 137ppm of excess CO2 above the pre-industrial level of 280ppm would be cleared away in 1,359 years. Further accumulation of CO2 in the oceans will have ended with the cessation of anthropogenic emissions.

The global temperature would continue to rise (because of atmospheric and oceanic heat-retention effects at a higher temperature than in pre-industrial times), but at a slower and slower rate, peaking at +3.8°C of average global warming above the temperature of 1910 (and +2.8°C above today’s global average temperature), for the century 300 to 400 years from now. Cooling would ensue thereafter, with a return to pre-industrial (1910) conditions in about 1,350 years from today.

By that time the terrestrial part of the Carbon Cycle would have returned to its pre-industrial level of performance, with the land surfaces acting as net absorbers of atmospheric CO2 at the rate of 0.4Gt/y, equivalently -0.0504ppm/y of atmospheric CO2 reduction.

With the atmosphere cleared of anthropogenic CO2, and its partial pressure reduced to its pre-industrial level, the oceans could begin an extra release plume of CO2 gas at a rate of 0.4Gt/y, to be fixed by weathering reactions on land. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 would remain stable at 280ppm (with minor natural fluctuations). The anthropogenic load of CO2 in the oceans would be cleared in 1,203 years, and their acidity would return to their pre-industrial level of 8.2pH.

Nearly all of the anthropogenic caloric load accumulated by the biosphere is stored in the upper 500 to 1,000 meters of the oceans, and is concentrated at the top. With the onset of atmospheric CO2 reduction and overall biosphere cooling (more heat, as infrared radiation, being radiated into space without being blocked by an excessive CO2 “thermal blanket”), oceanic anthropogenic heat would be able to diffuse out of the waters and radiate away. Over the 1,203 year time span of oceanic de-acidification, the excess heat stored in the upper 73 meters of the oceans would be radiated away (and excess heat from the cooler depths will have diffused closer to the surface).

Logically, there would be an overlap in the time spans over which the air and oceans, respectively, are cleared of their anthropogenic loads of CO2 and excess heat, but to calculate that with any degree of believability is a job for ClimateSIM Senior.

Today, this is the best unified story I can tell about the most optimistic hypothetical case for Earth’s recovery from global warming. It lies somewhere between a quantitative engineering estimate, and a dream.

Now for some policy recommendations. My suggestions to the Economic Mandarins of the United States are as follows:

If those Mandarins are Neoliberals:

1. Use that bloated, over-equipped U.S. military colossus to invade Brazil and gain control of the Amazon Basin. Then, stop the fires, kick out the ranchers and miners, and rehabilitate the rainforest “lungs of the Earth” to tamp down the onslaught of global warming. Also, help out the Brazilian people while you are at it.

2. A second target for the same type of action as in the above, is Siberia. But be sure not to spark a nuclear war in trying to gain control of it (so, don’t be too hasty, and also use diplomacy). Remember, stabilizing the geophysical climate aids in stabilizing a reliable business climate.

If those Mandarins happen to become Socialists:

1. Use that bloated, over-equipped U.S. military colossus — if you are unwilling to dismantle it because it is a “public works” program — to implement the 2 recommendations given to the Neoliberal Mandarins.

2. Also, immediately invade all offshore tax havens (many concentrated in the Caribbean) to repatriate tax-avoiding hoards hidden there. Use those stolen-from-the-public funds to underwrite the costs of maintaining the lives, for life, of all the nation’s people.

3. A good portion of the funds liberated from militarized and pirated-private sequestration will necessarily go to mitigating the impacts of global warming, in a variety of ways applied regionally.

4. It will also be necessary to contribute to international efforts at global warming mitigation and standard-of-living equalization, to simultaneously help meet national goals in those regards.

Being realistic, nobody really wants to hear about global warming, whether they are in government, business, or an “ordinary” member of the pubic. Government people don’t want any interruptions to their careers being in positions of power (and making money); business people don’t want any interruptions to their careers making money (and being in positions of power); and most members of the public just want an uninterrupted continuation of their comforts and entertainments — if they are not in absolute terrified panics over threats to their physical and economic survival, and don’t have the luxury of worrying about global warming.

As a result, there is no limit to how bad we can make global warning; which the Trump Administration (in the U.S.) and the Bolsonaro Administration (in Brazil) seem to be taking as a challenge.

In terms of dreams of utopia versus fears of doom and perdition, realize that the best utopia we could achieve would pale in comparison to our dreams about it, but be far superior to the conditions we live under today. If we are doomed by fate regardless of what good efforts we can make at improvement, then we will all drown together in that doom, whether we do so while exploiting each other mercilessly and quarreling bitterly, or whether we do so supporting each other in admirable solidarity. It is our epitaph to choose: nobility or ignominy. And, if we choose the former, an epitaph won’t be necessary.

<><><><><><><>