Guest Submission: The Global Warming Alarm is Meant to Control and Not Save Humanity

The following was submitted as a guest posting. My rebuttal and comments follow at the end.

CK

The Global Warming Alarm is Meant to Control and Not Save Humanity

Global warming and climate change are the biggest threats facing human society, so say some scientists. But are human activities solely responsible for this problem?

There’s no denying that we have witnessed unusual global climate in the last few years, like the weird San Diego weather in 2015, or 2016 being the hottest year till date. But can we attribute this unusual occurrence only to man-induced industrial activities like burning fossil fuels or vehicular emissions? I bet not.

The answer, in all likelihood, will be no. Scientists, however, have thrusted that fear upon us and have made us think twice before we even rev our scooters. I have been closely reading and staying abreast of climate-related events and news and couldn’t help but notice the exaggerated claims that point heavily towards man-made CO2 emissions.

There are enough research papers on global warming and climate change that justify those who believe it to be a serious threat. Hence, before arriving at a conclusion, I did some thorough research, certainly not limited to mindless comments about global warming being a hoax.

Here’s what I found

Climate scientists from the UK have released a set of “actual data” before it was doctored to support their false claims about global warming. The charts show that the temperatures are actually falling, and the global climate is getting cooler, heading towards a mini ice age.

Supposedly, even NASA has been reporting false climate records for years now as per data computational expert Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Veteran Journalist Gunter Ederer reported Ewert’s findings which shows that the last 100 years’ climate data (especially post the WWII) have been altered to show non existent rise in temperatures.

News pieces on ‘soaring temperatures’ and ‘hottest recorded weather in many years’ highlight that scientists blame it all on industrial productions. However, this is probably not justified. Industrial activities have followed a rising trend over the last 150 years and over this period, the average global temperature has fluctuated multiple times as listed below.

1881: 13.8 Degree Celsius

1895: 12.9 Degree Celsius

1905: 14.3 Degree Celsius  

1920: 12.9 Degree Celsius

1930: 13.9 Degree Celsius

1975: 13.0 Degree Celsius

2000: 14.0 Degree celsius

2010: 13.2 Degree Celsius

These numbers are as per the records released by Ewert. Nasa has now reported the 2016 average temperature as 14.8 Degree Celsius, which is debatable. But looking at the above changes, we can expect the number to fall somewhere close to 13.5 Degree Celsius in the next 10 years.

The fluctuating numbers got me wondering about the melting snow caps and the “classic” polar bear clinging on to the last remaining ice berg images used as a sign of threat. There is an explanation to this as well. The Arctic region is the first area prone to be affected by the warmer waters brought in by the Atlantic current’s cyclical shifts. It’s a common phenomenon that slowly melts down the ice for years before forming it back. The images uploaded by the Daily Mail show this variation and an increase in the Arctic ice caps after 2012.  

Controlling People’s Minds

The global warming scare has now turned into a $1.5 Trillion dollar industry which the UN Programs and Governments would be minting through fundings. Millions of tax dollars are flowing into the banks of the UN clean energy programs. They justify nuclear power to be the largest clean energy source that could replace the threat caused by fossil fuel emissions. But what they ignore is the immediate threat of a nuclear accident similar to the Fukushima radiation that could cause irreparable damage to the environment.

The Climate Change industry has grown at a rate of 17% - 24% between 2005 and 2008, and 15% in 2011 alone, as reported by the Climate Change business journal. They use climate threat as a justification for the high priced renewable sector, green buildings and hybrid vehicles.

The robust increase of this industry also accounts for the $1.9 billion dollar climate change consultancy market, with $890 million earned solely in the US.

Climate change deniers do care about the environment

As a citizen of my country, I too am concerned about the environment, and the pollution caused by everyday human activities, but do not believe that it is the sole cause of climate change. There is a difference between caring for the environment and scaring people into believing in climate threats. True environmentalists do not play with people’s fears.

Although we must shift to greener alternatives to contribute to the betterment of our environment, it should not be done at the cost of making people believe a lie. I will keep reading up on the true causes of climatic variations and whether they are really contributing in nearing doomsday.

Author Bio:

Ethan Miller is a private ESL teacher who also works as an online tutor. Apart from his passion for teaching, he loves to write and holds a degree in creative writing. When he is not teaching or writing his book, Miller loves to blog and is a huge fan of educational technology. You can follow Miller on Facebook and Twitter and check out his blog.

REBUTTAL AND COMMENTS

Mr. Miller’s comments are welcome here, but there are many factual problems that are typical among claims made the by the anti-science community. In emails, Mr. Miller stated he believes in global warming, but his views were “thrashed and vividly abused” at a discussion forum. As a result, he researched what the deniers where saying to him and his research led him to the viewpoint expressed above. 

Let’s start at the beginning. In his first line, Mr. Miller states climate change is the most important issue facing humanity “so say some scientists.” No. This is incorrect. Essentially, every single climate scientist agrees that AGW is real and over 92% of all scientists across the board agree with the statement. What this means is anyone who denies the reality of global warming is immediately claiming to be smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. Finding a few online denier sites that provide false arguments and deceitful claims does not trump years of graduate school and professional experience doing research. 

Mr. Miller then “bets not” that human activity is responsible for all of the climate changes we are witnessing. Don’t bet a lot, Mr. Miller. You’d lose. The reality is solar activity is declining. Deniers like to say the climate changes on its own and then leave it to the audience to assume that means the climate is warming on its own. Why can’t the climate be cooling on its own? The reality is solar activity is declining and the climate, if left to itself, would be cooling right now. That means we are not only responsible for the warming above the baseline, we are also responsible for the warming between the cooler temperature that would prevail naturally and the baseline. So, yes, we are responsible. 

Mr. Miller continues with the statement, “Scientists, however, have thrusted that fear upon us…” and states they have made “exaggerated claims” about carbon emissions. I would first note that these are unsupported statements. What does he mean by “thrusted that fear”? What scientists do is research and discovery for the purpose of increasing our understanding. We are not in the business of ‘thrusting fear’ on people, only increased understanding. If the work of scientists causes people to be fearful, it is most likely because people are acting in an irresponsible manner. Medical researchers were not attempting to scare people about the dangers of smoking, they were only trying to make them aware. It was the understanding of the dangers of their harmful habits that made them fearful. Likewise, informing the public about the dangers of climate change and global warming is not an attempt to scare them, it is an effort to make the public understand the science. If you are now scared because of our bad habits, then do something about it. Don’t blame the scientists for informing you we are driving on a dangerous road. It is not knowledge that makes the road dangerous. The road would still be dangerous without any understanding.

Mr. Miller continues by stating, “There are enough research papers on global warming and climate change that justify those who believe it to be a serious threat.” Click on his link and look closely. You should immediately see the serious, fatal flaw in his statement. These are not “research papers.” They are “essays.” A research paper is something that is written after applying the scientific method to scientifically valid data. This paper is then submitted to a refereed journal for review by fellow scientists for accuracy and validity. Only then is it published. Something posted in a blog (including this one) does not meet that standard and is not a research paper. You can say anything you want in an essay and you are not required to produce any supporting science or data. Just opinion. In the above reference to the 99% of climate scientists, the researchers found only one paper out of 24,000 did not support AGW. Stating “there are enough research papers” to justify climate change deniers is not factually correct. There are no research papers to support their claims. 

Wow! This response is getting pretty long and we haven’t even gotten through the first page of Mr. Miller’s submission. This, unfortunately, is pretty typical of anti-science claims. There’s a whole lot of falsehoods and not a lot of truth. Take Mr. Miller’s next comment as a perfect example:

“Climate scientists from the UK have released a set of “actual data” before it was doctored to support their false claims about global warming.” 

Yikes! I could spend an entire day discussing just how false and misleading this one sentence is. Let’s just summarize it by saying it is a prime example of not knowing how scientific instruments work. There is raw data and adjusted data. The reason it is adjusted is because the data is provided with no reference or calibration. Two instruments sitting side-by-side should produce the same result. If they don’t, the data is adjusted in a calibration process. There is nothing nefarious about this. In fact, just the opposite. It is the calibration process that makes the data valid. You cannot use raw data for any scientific work because it means nothing until it is calibrated. I don’t want to get into all of the details here because this posting is already getting too long, but you can read a detailed explanation (from real climate scientists, not bloggers) in this article here. There are many, many more credible explanations of the process. This is just one of them.

This last explanation should cover all of Mr. Miller’s claims involving the temperature record. There is only a problem if you use the raw data. Using the calibrated data, we get this for the world temperature from 1880 to 2014. (Source: NOAA):

Really. Does anyone have any questions after that? By the way, 2015 would top out as the hottest year and 2016 is on track to beat even that one.

Continuing, Mr. Miller states the ice fluctuates through natural cycles and the Arctic sea ice has recovered after the disastrously low minimum of 2012. First, you have to define ‘recover.’ If he means the extent became larger, then that is a correct statement. If he means it returned to a healthy state and stayed there, then the statement is totally false. Here are the facts: the ice extent for 2016 has already become the second lowest extent on record, surpassed only by that 2012 record. Here is the trendline (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center) for the September sea ice extent (the 2016 number is not yet included but may have bottomed out at 4.137 million square kilometers).

Clearly, the Arctic sea ice is not recovering to a healthy state and any claim to the contrary is simply not true.

Mr. Miller then uses a single, unsupported reference to claim there is a ‘climate change industry’ worth approximately $1.5 trillion per year. As I said, these numbers are not supported and the term ‘climate change industry’ is very vague and includes things such as environmental engineering. By this definition, putting insulation in your attic to reduce your air conditioning bill qualifies as ‘climate change industry’ and you are, somehow, contributing to some international conspiracy. He also, inexplicably, assigns this industry to the UN, the favorite bogeyman of the anti-science crowd. But, if we are going to discuss money, let’s discuss the estimated costs of climate change – approximately 400,000 deaths and $1.2 trillion dollars per year. That study is a few years old. I would expect both numbers to be significantly higher by now.

Mr. Miller concludes by claiming climate change deniers care about the environment. This is like saying a smoker cares about his health. Sorry, no can do. Either you care about the environment and work towards protecting it, or you don’t. You cannot go around rejecting the science, obstructing all efforts to address the problem while spreading the lies, and then claim you care about the environment. No matter how much they object, it is easy to see deniers don’t care about the environment because their words and actions show otherwise.

One last comment, Mr. Miller referred to “mindless comments about global warming being a hoax.” I love this statement. Claims about global warming being a hoax are the ultimate tin-hat moment and shows how utterly incapable deniers are of being able to produce any science to support their claims. Anyone taking even a few minutes would quickly come to the conclusion there is no reality to it.  First, consider how many people would have to be involved in this hoax. The number of ‘climate scientist’ is hard to pin down because that covers such a broad range of specialties. For instance, I am a physicist who does research in climate change. Does that make me a climate scientist? If so, no register anywhere in the world would reflect that. In fact, climate is a mostly geophysical process so a great number of climate scientists are geophysicists. Obviously, biology is also a major feature, so many climate scientists are biologists. You can see how this trend would continue with all sorts of disciplines. How do you go about counting them? We can make some rough estimates based on the number of papers being published. In the above reference to the 99% consensus, the researchers found nearly 70,000 authors published climate research papers over a two-year period. Using those figures, it would be easy to estimate the number of climate scientists is into the hundreds of thousands. Add in support staff, students, interns, etc. and you are talking about over a million people worldwide. Now, imagine that each and every one of these million-plus people are complicit with this hoax and all of them are keeping it secret. And, remember we are talking worldwide, including some countries that don’t like us and have no motive to cooperate with us. Truly, you have the greatest conspiracy in the entire history of mankind. And, the amazing thing is that there isn’t even a single shred of supporting evidence.

Here’s the fundamental truth about the greatest hoax in human history – it isn’t happening. What you have are people who can’t accept reality and make up for that deficiency by cooking up impossible scenarios. Oh, and don’t bother with any evidence. Who needs evidence? Well, scientists do, for starters.

In conclusion (thankfully), Mr. Miller’s submission is full of inaccuracies and false statements. But, that is what the anti-science lobby produces.

 

Clear Demonstration of Denier Logic Failure

One of the most common false arguments I hear about climate change is that it isn't real because the models don't work. This is not only a false argument, it is a false statement. I wrote a posting about it last year that is still valid.

But, there is more to the story. Models improve with time. Deniers want models to be perfect right away and, if they aren't, then the science is invalid and should be abandoned. But, what if that were applied to weather models? Then, the models we use for daily weather and things like hurricane forecasts would never improve. Take a look at the improvement made in hurricane forecast models:

Source: NOAA

Now, ask the deniers if they would rather not have improved hurricane forecast models. When they answer, ask them why the wouldn't want improved climate models?

I'm betting they won't be able to give you a logical answer.

Record Heat Continues Through July

Sounding like a broken record, the NCDC released their Global Analysis for July this morning. I have to wonder if there is anyone on the entire planet who would be surprised to hear July was the hottest July ever recorded. The previous record was set in 1998 (the record El Nino period). Last month broke that record by .08 degrees C (.14 F) and that is a significant amount. This past July was .81 degrees C (1.46 F) hotter than the 20th century average. This was the hottest month ever recorded - any month, not just July. That is 1627 months since the records began.

July is the fifth month to break it's monthly record this year. The other four are February, March, May, and June. April was originally classified as the fourth hottest April but is now listed as the third hottest. February was previously listed as the second hottest, but is now listed as the hottest February ever.

So far, 2015 has five hottest months, one second hottest months, and one third hottest month ever recorded, not to mention the hottest of all 1627 measured months. January through July 2015 is the hottest such period ever recorded.

For the last 12 months, the tally is:

July 2015 was the hottest July (and hottest any month) ever recorded;

June 2015 was the hottest June ever recorded;

May 2015 was the hottest May ever recorded;

April 2015 was tied for the third hottest April ever recorded;

March 2015 was the hottest March ever recorded;

February 2015 was the hottest February ever recorded;

January 2015 was the second hottest January ever recorded;

December 2014 was the hottest December ever recorded;

November 2014 was the 7th hottest November ever recorded;

October 2014 was the hottest October ever recorded;

September 2014 was the hottest September ever recorded;

August 2014 was the hottest August ever recorded;

Adding up the score for the last 12 months gives us: one 7th hottest month, one 3rd hottest month, one second hottest month, and nine hottest months ever.

But don't worry. The deniers are still telling us there hasn't been any warming for ### (insert the number of your choice - they do) years.

What if Climate Change is Real?

This video is a lecture given by a climate scientist at Texas Tech University. It is the kind of thing people like Tom Harris and Russell Cook would never watch because it shows, graphically, just how wrong they are. Everyone else should watch it. It is about 18 minutes long and worth it. I did not post this because it talks about Texas, but it didn't hurt, either.

What if Climate Change is Real?

Western U.S. Snowmelt Streamflow Has Already Occurred

As we all know, much of the western U.S. has been in extreme drought for several years. This year's incredibly low snowpack is going to make it even worse. The snowpack works by storing water in the mountains during the winter, then slowly releasing it during the spring and summer to provide water during the dry season. But, not this year. The snowpack is already gone in most of the west and the streamflow has already occurred. Now, there will be no flow during the hot, dry summer months that are about to start. Try to imagine what the headlines are going to look like this summer.

Lake Mead reached the lowest level ever recorded at the end of April - 1079.03 feet. If it falls below 1075 feet by January 1, mandatory water restrictions will be put into effect. The lake level has fallen 132 feet since 1998.

The drought itself is not believed (at this time) to be anything really out of the unusual. What is different is our ability to change things. We have changed the land use, but most importantly, we have changed the climate. The temperature is higher, which means mountain precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow. The snow line gets higher every year, so even the places that do get snow are getting less. And, the higher temperatures mean there is a much higher rate of evaporation of the existing water. That leads to less water and even higher temperatures.

What was that about climate change being good for us? I didn't quite catch that.

Temperature Record This Winter

I was on a field trip yesterday to the Gault Site, one of the most important archeological sites in the Americas. It was a great trip and our host was extremely knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the work done there. I learned a lot during the five hour tour. Then, we topped it off with dinner and wine at the The Vineyard at Florence. They had good food and even better wine. All in all, it was a really nice day, even if the weather was on the chilly side. But, there was one incident I took exception to.

The archeologist giving us the tour brought up the subject of climate change and dismissed the idea of manmade climate change by stating the 'climate always changes.' Normally, I let statements like this go by without comment. People have the right to reject the science, if that is what they want to do, and I am not on some campaign to challenge everyone on their opinions. However, this was a man of science and it was irresponsible for him to make a statement like that. Not only was his statement a false argument, but by using his venue as a recognized expert in his field of study, he was lending credibility to something he was not knowledgeable about. So, I took him to task about it.

When I pointed out how erroneous his statement was and how the science of AGW was absolutely conclusive, someone made the comment, "Tell that to the people in Boston." Well, I have and I do. In fact, the severe winter they are having in the northeast is due to global warming and it is pretty easy to prove it. We know the cold air comes from the Arctic region. So, tell me, where does the energy needed to move that mass of air come from? When you answer that question, you have all the proof any reasonable person needs.

The other significant point about Boston is that we are not discussing Boston warming, we're discussing global warming. So, how is the rest of the world doing while Boston is digging out of all of that snow?

According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been 15,000 record highs so far this winter (2014-2015). Yes, you read that correctly - 15,000 record high temperatures. At the same time, there have been 10,000 record lows. In fact, no state had an average temperature in the bottom ten lowest on record. Let that sink in. Despite all of the talk about the amount of snow and the bone-chilling cold, not even a single state had a top ten record cold winter. Not one.

Even I was a bit surprised by this. I have been following the cold air masses closely and they have been cold and frequent. I thought, surely, some of the states were seeing a significantly cold winter. But, no. The reason is pretty simple, it has gotten so warm and winters have become so mild they seem to be so much worse than they really are - at least when you compare them to the way winters used to be. When you consider the cold winters the Eastern U.S. used to have, this current winter turns out to be not so bad.

So, to answer the gentleman's objection from yesterday, I really will tell the people in Boston man made global warming is real.

Climate Change and the California Drought

There has been a great deal of debate about the topic of what is causing the massive drought in California. Has manmade climate change caused the drought, made it worse or had no effect on something that would have happened anyway? This question is compounded by climate scientists that have taken the tack of saying you can't tell for certain if climate change has caused a particular event or not. To this last I say, 'Bunk!'

These are the facts:

• The climate has more energy now than it has at any time in at least 800,000 years. This is indisputable. (Please, if you want to deny the science go away right now.)
• Weather is dependent on energy in the atmosphere. No energy, no weather. 
• The more energy there is, the more energetic weather will be.

Quite simply, everything today is the result of climate change. It is no longer an issue of determining what is impacted by climate change, the problem is determining what isn't. It is not possible to say anymore that you 'cannot tell if an event is effected by climate change' because they all are. Literally.

So, the question about the California drought and climate change is no longer about if it was made worse, or even caused, by AGW. It was. And, we all have to pay the more than $2 billion in damages it is causing. That comes out to about another $7 per year for every person in the country. Add that to the hundreds, or thousands, of dollars you are already spending because of climate change. The question has become what, and when, are we going to have what it takes to do something about it.

Oh, did I mention the Koch brothers are laughing their asses off at you?

Well, now a new study confirms what I've been saying. Sorry - they didn't confirm the Koch brothers no longer have asses. But, they did confirm the California drought is due to manmade emissions.

Basically, what they found is a drought doesn't just happen in a period of low precipitation. It is more likely to occur when there is also elevated temperatures. Well, with global warming, every year has elevated temperatures, meaning any period with reduced precipitation is at risk of leading to a drought.

I find it particularly interesting to note their statistics. According to their research, there have been six drought in the last 20 years and 14 droughts in the 98 years before that. That comes out to .3 droughts per year over the last 20 years and .14 droughts per year for the 98 years before that. That means California droughts are twice as likely today as they were previously.

At what point do people stop looking at the statistics like this and say, 'Yes, I understand the climate is seriously changing right now.'

At what point do people stop denying the science and say, 'Yes, the billionaires are the only ones benefiting from this?'

Global Warming and Crops

Global warming denialists frequently state rising CO2 levels are good for crops because plants use CO2 to make food. This is one of those classic examples of how they omit anything that goes counter to their claim. It is true plants use CO2 during photosynthesis to make carbohydrates. But, increasing CO2 levels do not automatically translate into higher and better crop yields. What is being left out of that statement is how rising temperatures lead to other things, such as reduced crop quality, droughts, floods, storms, insects and disease and all of those things are becoming worse with global warming.

This issue was discussed this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). I found a particular statement to be rather frightening.

"If you look at production from 2000 to 2050, we basically have to produce the same amount of food as we produced in the last 500 years"

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-hampering-world-food-production.html#jCp

"If you look at production from 2000 to 2050 we basically have to produce the same amount of food as we produced in the last 500 years."

The article also pointed out how we could solve this problem if we have enough time, maybe 1000 years. But we have only 10 to 20 years. 

The fact is, global warming is not good for crops and we will be paying the price. Just look at the drought in California these last few years and the effect it has had on agriculture in that state.

Here are some other examples of the effects of global warming on crops:

Rising CO2 levels result in lower than expected yield increases.

Other studies indicate rising CO2 levels will result in a 2% yield reduction per decade.

Rising CO2 levels are harmful to rice, resulting in reduced crop yield.

Worldwide yields are already dropping.

Even if the yield goes up, the nutritional value will go down.
 
And, the forecast for American farmers is not good.


In the 50 years starting with 2000 we need to produce as much food as in the previous 500 years, and things aren't looking good. 

"If you look at production from 2000 to 2050, we basically have to produce the same amount of food as we produced in the last 500 years"

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-hampering-world-food-production.html#jCp

January 2015 Continues 2014 Trend

The bad news on the climate front keeps coming in. The National Climatic Data Center released its Global Analysis for January 2015 this morning. Among the highlights (lowlights?) was the statement that January 2015 was the second hottest January on record for combined land and ocean temperature. Only 2007 was hotter. Checking the records shows January last year was the fourth hottest on record, so we are already hotter this year than at the same time last year.

The report also said the ocean temperature was the third highest on record. This was particularly bad because the only two years that were warmer were January 1998 and January 2010, both of which had El Ninos in progress. We are in a neutral ENSO condition right now. The difference in temperature between today and the record set in 1998 is only .06 degrees F (.03 C), which means the normal temperatures of today are nearly the same as the exceptional temperatures of past years.

Let's start the grim count for 2015:

January was the second hottest January on record.

So far, 2015 has one second hottest month ever recorded.



But, let's also take a look at the last 12 months.

For the last 12 months, the tally is:

January 2015 was the second hottest January ever recorded;

December 2014 was the hottest December ever recorded;

November 2014 was the 7th hottest November ever recorded;

October 2014 was the hottest October ever recorded;

September 2014 was the hottest September ever recorded;

August 2014 was the hottest August ever recorded;

July 2014 was the fourth hottest July ever recorded;

June 2014 was the hottest June ever recorded;

May 2014 was the hottest May ever recorded;

April 2014 tied 2010 as the hottest April ever recorded;

March 2014 was the fourth hottest March ever recorded;

February 2014 was the 21st hottest February ever recorded.

So, let's see what the final score was for the last 12 months: one 21st hottest month, one 7th hottest month, two 4th hottest months, one 2nd hottest month and seven hottest months ever.

Additionally, we had the hottest overall year ever recorded in 2014.

This is not a good start to the year.

Winter Storms and a Simple Math Exercise

I love hearing someone make the same lame jokes about winter storms and global warming. They think they're being cute, but the reality is they are simply showing they don't understand what is going on. They ignore the fact that we will still have winter even with global warming. This is because winter is caused by the way Earth is tilted on its axis.

Every year, on about September 21, the North Pole experiences its one and only sunset of the year. Gradually, over the next three months, the part of the Arctic region experiencing 24-hour nighttime will increase until, on about December 21, everything north of the Arctic Circle has a 24-hour nighttime. Then, that amount will gradually decrease until the North Pole experiences its one and only sunrise on about March 21. What this means is by January and February, there are parts of the Arctic region that have been sitting in dark for 2-4 months. That is going to make those areas cold. Take a look at this current temperature graphic:

Source: Polar Portal

It is no-kidding cold up there. So, it is no wonder we still have winter storms. If that mass of air moves down into our area we are going to feel it, even with global warming. But, it takes energy to move that mass. Lot's of energy.

So, let's do a simple exercise to see for ourselves.

First, take a look at this graphic showing the cold air mass moving into the the eastern U.S. today:

Source: Climate Reanalyzer

I'm sure I don't need to tell the people under that purple area that it is no-kidding cold there, too. That mass of air moved down from the Arctic and is now moving across the country. But, it didn't just happen by itself. It took energy to get there. Let's do a back of the envelope calculation and get an idea of how much.

We want the mass of that blob. To do that, we can find the surface area under the purple region and multiply the area by the pressure (weight per area) and then convert from weight to mass. If we approximate the cold air region as a circle we can calculate the area as pi*r^2. We can estimate the purple blob is about 1000 miles across. A mile has 5280 feet, so it is about 5.3 x 10^6 feet across. Dividing our diameter by two, we get the area is:

Area = pi*([5.3 x 10^6]/2 feet)^2 = about 2.2 x 10^13 square feet

A square foot has 144 square inches, so our area, in square inches, is

2.2 x 10^13 square feet x 144 square inches/square feet = about 3.15 x 10^15 square inches.

Atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving us a total weight of

3.15 x 10^15 square inches x 14.7 pounds per square inch = about 4.6 x 10^16 pounds.

That is the approximate weight of that big purple air mass over the eastern U.S., but we want mass, preferably in the metric system. There are 2.2 pounds to a kilogram (on the surface of Earth), so the mass of this air, in kilograms, is about:

4.6 x 10^16 pounds x 1 kilogram/2.2 pounds = about 2.1 x 10^16 kilograms.

The amount of energy this mass has can be found by calculating its kinetic energy, the energy of movement. That means we need a speed. I have read winds speeds of up to hurricane strength, but we won't go that high. We can estimate an average speed of about 44 miles per hour and that equates to 20 meters per second. Using that speed, we can estimate the amount of energy as:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * m * v^2
                         = .5 * 2.1 x 10^16 kilograms * (20 meters per second)^2 = about 4.2 x 10^18 joules.

How much energy is that? In comparison, the entire planet generates about 6 x 10^20 joules of energy per year. In other words, by our simple exercise, we can see it would take the entire planet about 2.3 days to generate the amount of energy consumed in moving this one single air mass. And, our calculation is actually very low. We did not include friction, interior fluid dynamics, the work required to move the air in front of our air mass out of the way, the work required to move air in behind the air mass, the expansion and compression of gases, etc. There is, in fact, a whole lot more work involved than just getting the mass up to speed.

So, where did that huge amount of energy come from? Well, obviously, it came from the atmosphere. But, where did the atmosphere get it? Simple. It came from the greenhouse effect. If there was no greenhouse effect, energy coming in as sunlight would be reradiated and reflected back out to space and there wouldn't be anything left over to do any work. Some of it must be stored in the atmosphere to be used later on. Most of that is being done through the natural greenhouse effect that has always been there. But, has that greenhouse effect been enhanced by manmade emissions? We can check the frequency of storms to see. If the number of winter storms has been increasing, we can conclude the energy is coming from some other source than naturally stored energy, i.e., AGW.

NSIDC lists the top 57 storms to hit the U.S. These figures show 20 of those storms occurred since 2010 (inclusive). That is an average of 3.33 storms per year. Nine storms occurred in 2000 - 2009, an average of .9 storms per year. Five storms occurred in the 1990s, an average of .5 storms per year. Five storms also occurred in the 1980s, an average of .5 storms per year. Four storms occurred in the 1970s, an average of .4 storms per year. Eleven storms occurred in the 1960s, 1.1 storms per year. There were three storms listed for the 1950s (.3 storms per year) but it doesn't indicate if that means there were only three storms or they didn't list them for years prior to 1956, so we'll leave that figure out of our discussion.

Listing them in order, from the 1960s to the 2010s, we see the average number of severe winter storms per year went from 1.1, .4, .5, .5, .9 and 3.33. After the 60s, there is a definite trend of an increasing number of severe storms per year. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the amount of energy in the atmosphere was increasing. And, we would expect to see the amount of energy in the atmosphere to be increasing if AGW was real.

So, this simple math exercise and this data supports the conclusion that AGW is real and is changing our climate. Is this conclusive? No. There are two significant omissions in this calculation that are important. The storm activity I listed was for severe storms only. What about non-severe storms? How do they factor in? Also, this activity was for the U.S. only. What about the rest of the world? What was going on there?

I could not find data listing all winter storms, so I will leave the focus on severe storms only and I think that is adequate for the question we want to answer - are the number of storms increasing, decreasing or staying about the same.

Wikipedia has a list of windstorms to hit Europe. Going through and picking only the storms to hit in the winter months, I get five storms hit in the 1960s, four in the 1970s, six in the 1980s, ten in the 1990s, 16 in the 2000s and 17 in the 2010s (through Feb 2015). The yearly averages come out to: .5, .4, .6, 1.0, 1.6 and 3.6. The data for Europe is very consistent with what we saw for the U.S. and we see the number of storms for Europe have also been increasing in recent decades at an accelerating rate.

So, our simple exercise shows why we have winter storms, even with global warming. And, it also happens to provide additional evidence AGW is real and getting worse.

So, yes, winter storms really can be the result of global warming.

What Isn't Being Said About the Megadrought

You have probably seen the announcements concerning research by NASA scientists indicating the U.S. is probably headed for a megadrought later this century. A megadrought is defined as one that persists for 30 years, or more. The probability of it happening is heavily dependent on how we go about dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, the probability of such a drought occurring is estimated at 12%. If greenhouse gas emissions level off in the middle of the century the probability increases to 60%. If we continue to increase greenhouse emissions the way we are ('business as usual' scenario) the probability increases to about 85%. The Southwest and the mid-America regions will be the most effected and the droughts will likely be worse than anything seen in the last 1000 years. 

The report has gotten a lot of press. For example, see the article here, here, here, or here. Just for starters. It has certainly been getting a lot of attention.

But, there is something important that I have not seen reported in any of these articles. Take a look at this NASA video that shows the progression of the drought.  In particular, look closely at the depiction starting about 1:35 into the video. This shows how the drought will progress and intensify over the years. Sure enough, the Southwest and mid-America regions get hit pretty hard. But, that isn't all. Take a look to the south. See what is going to happen to Mexico and Central America. It is even worse than what is projected to happen to the U.S. They are going to get clobbered!

You might be saying, 'I'm really sorry to hear that. I feel for those poor people but we will obviously be having our own problems to deal with.' If you do, then you're really missing the point - their problems are our problems.

The population of Central America is about 42 million. The population of Mexico is another 122 million. That means there would be somewhere around 165 million desperate people on our southern border, not including population growth. There will be large numbers of people interested in coming to the U.S.. Widespread desperation will also lead to a rise of radical extremists promising solutions to all of the problems of anyone willing to follow them in a campaign of violence and revolution. In addition to the social problems, it would also mean economic disruption. We get nearly all of our bananas and much of our coffee from this region. In exchange, we sell them over $1 billion per year in food products alone.

The drought in California cost consumers over $2 billion last year. The probable megadrought will cost us much more than that, but would also result in a flood of humanity coming here, violence at our borders and even more economic losses.

One more time, tell me how climate change is good for us?

Stormy Arctic

I read an excerpt from a new book on storms in the Arctic and the all of the associated effects. It was an interesting read and really made some excellent points. The Arctic is warming and it is warming faster than any other region of the planet. The author, Edward Struzik, states

Between 1951 and 2012, for example, temperatures in the region exceeded the freezing point an average of 110 days. In 2010 and 2011, they did so 127 times. In 2012, the warmest year on record in the Arctic, it happened 134 times.

Over the past two decades, the number of ice-free days averaged 80 per year. In 2012, there were 96 ice-free days that significantly accelerated the erosion that is already taking place.

The results of that warming are not good. Animal species, plants, wet lands and coastline are disappearing. Communities are falling into the ocean. And, storms are getting worse.


Reductions in sea ice are making Arctic storms more frequent and more severe. This is happening a number of ways. Sea ice traps humidity but as the ice melts the open water fills the atmosphere with moisture and is doing so earlier every year. This moisture then fuels storms that normally wouldn't occur before the fall but are now happening during the summer months. Also, the ice cover keeps storm waves from getting too intense. Now, waves and storm surges are getting bigger as the ice disappears. Rising sea levels are causing storm surges to travel ever further inland. And, ultimately, ice would pile up on the coast and protect it from the storm action, but that protection is now disappearing and the results are grim.

Struzik tells of towns disappearing in the Arctic region as the coastline erodes away - slowly, initially but at increasing rates. Coastlines that were loosing fewer than 7 meters per year in the 1950 - 1979 time period are loosing more than 25 meters per year today.

In case you are thinking, 'so what?', let me tell you the estimated engineering costs associated with all of this will be in the several hundreds of billions of dollars in just Alaska. That estimate comes from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is only the cost of mitigation for about 60 coastal communities at risk of falling into the sea. Do you think the fossil fuel companies are going to pony up that money? Do you think the Koch brothers will donate any of their fortune? Don't count on it. The money for all of this will come from tax payer dollars. In other words, the American taxpayer will be paying for this.

Let's see. $100 billion dollars comes out to about $300 for every person in the country (bad news for a family of four!). And, the estimate is there will be 'several' billions of dollars of engineering costs. Where are those deniers that keep telling us global warming is good for us?

Canada does not come out very well in his account. Prime Minister Stephan Harper is a devoted anti-science advocate and has nearly shut down all science research in the country while actively trying to remove environmental regulations. Government scientists are prohibited from discussing their research with media. Government agents are sent to science conferences to monitor what Canadian scientists are saying.

Arctic research is being slashed, but the country then spent $300 million on a gravel road to a tiny village on the Arctic coast that will see only about $4.2 million in benefits from it. The people that will see the most benefit? Is there any surprise it is the fossil fuel industry that wants to build a natural gas pipeline through the area?

So, the Canadian government is shutting down research and instituting a Joe McCarthy policy, while spending hundreds of millions on a single road for the mega-wealthy fossil fuel companies. Too bad they didn't decide to spend that $300 million on research and let the fossil fuel companies build their own road.

Like I said, it is an interesting read. Not pleasant, but interesting.

Midwest Floods Becoming More Frequent

I have noticed over recent years how often a storm is described as being a "100-year" or "500-year" or even a "1000-year" event. If something is supposed to happen only once in centuries, how come we're getting them every few years. For instance, there have been record floods in the Midwest U.S. in 1993, 2008, 2011, 2013 and again in 2014. Maybe we need to redefine what it means to be a 100-year flood.

Or, maybe the definition of a 100-year flood isn't wrong at all - at least under previous conditions. Maybe the problem is the conditions have changed.

Researchers at the University of Iowa used river gauge data from the U.S. Geological Survey to determine the flood rate in the Midwest U.S. to examine that very question. What they found is that 34% of the stations they examined recorded an increased amount of flooding, while only 9% recorded a decrease.

The researchers just reported the findings without attempting to link them to climate change. However, these findings are exactly what we would expect, and have been predicted, as a result of climate change. As the air gets warmer it can hold more moisture. Then, when it gives it up, this will result in more severe precipitation events - flooding.

By the way, the economic cost of these floods runs into the billions of dollars. For those claiming climate change is good for us, would you mind explaining this, please?

The Cost of Climate Change Keeps Going Up

Let’s discuss the cost of climate change. The fossil fuel industry and its lackeys keep telling us climate change is good for us – the more the better. Literally, that is what they are saying. For example, take this quote from The Spectator:

Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.

By the way, his "expert" for all of this information is Richard Tol, an economist and well-known denier with a reputation for getting his facts wrong. In one of the big "Oops" moments in denier history, he analyzed the 97% consensus statement in an attempt to disprove it and - surprise! - proved it was correct. He has no scientific background that I am aware of.

I thought we could take a look for ourselves and see just how much global warming and climate change are costing us now and likely to cost us in the future.

One of the ways to look at the cost of climate change is to examine the economic cost. This is known as the social cost of carbon (SCC). Right now, the government puts the social cost at $37 for every ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted. We are currently emitting about 40 billion tons of CO2 per year, so that comes out to about $1.5 trillion per year. Yes, that was trillion, with a 't.' And, that expense is not only incurred every year, but is also increasing as emission amounts increase.

That is horrible news, but it gets even worse. Researchers at Stanford University examined this figure and have estimated it is more likely $220 per ton. That comes out to a staggering $8.8 trillion per year! Every year! And, climbing!



Why the big difference? The Stanford group included the effects current damage does to future growth.

“If climate change affects not only a country's economic output, but also its growth, then that has a permanent effect that accumulates over time,” Frances Moore, co-author and environmental scientist, said.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, they are on the high side with their calculation. It is possible, but it is widely believed the government figure is way too low. Just for the sake of argument we'll say the value is at the midpoint between their value and the government's value. The economic cost at that rate is then about $5.2 trillion per year. That amount is larger than the GDP of every country in the world except the U.S. and China.

By the way, the poorer you are, the more you'll be affected. Poor countries will fare worse than rich ones.

Keep that figure in mind when someone tells you climate change is good for you.

Then, there is sea level rise. A study found the sea level numbers for 1901 - 1990 were overstated and, as a result, the data shows the rate of sea level rise since 1990 is 25% higher than previously thought and accelerating.

If you live anywhere near a coast (as the majority of the human population does), you might want to think about how much damage you will incur as a result of rising sea levels and the cost of protecting yourself.  Factor that in when calculating how much climate change will cost you.

How about drought? The current drought in California is likely to a more common story in the future and will result in a series of ripple effects, such as increased wildfire, loss of timber, floods, erosion and degraded water quality, just to name a few. The drought is estimated to be causing California billions of dollars per year in economic damage, mostly to farmers and agriculture workers. Those are the people least able to afford the damage.


Then, I saw these little tidbits in Scientific American (August 2014, vol 311, no 2, pg 22-23):

Five National Landmarks Threatened by Climate Change:

• Statue of Liberty - After Superstorm Sandy, the National Park Service began work on flood-proofing Liberty Island. Cost: Unspecified.
• Faneuil Hall, Boston - The city is planning building renovations that may include flood-protection walls. Cost: Unknown.
• Cape Hatteras Light, NC - In 1999 the National Park Service moved the lighthouse 2,900 feet to protect it against shoreline erosion and rising sea levels. Cost: $11.8 million.
• NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston - Installed new roofs to protect withstand more severe hurricanes. Repairs from 2008's Hurricane Ike cost about $80 million.
• Mesa Verde Nation Park, Colorado - The National Park Service is performing prescribed burns and treating the cliffs to protect against flooding and erosion. Cost: Unspecified.

The American taxpayers will be footing the bill for all of those expenses.

Still not convinced? How about the study that showed as temperature goes up, economic productivity goes down? A team at the Bureau of Economic Research found that every day life gets more expensive as the temperature goes up. They found a country's economic activity decreased by about 1% for every degree over 59 degrees F. The damage comes from increased costs associated with higher temperature. For example, if you have to pay more for electricity because you are running the air conditioner longer, you have less money to spend on other things. Notice that the people who benefit from that situation are the same ones responsible for creating it in the first place and are so eager to convince you it isn't a problem. As the temperature goes up, the total damage to economies around the world will amount to many billions of dollars.

Not enough? Take a look at this article in Eos that shows how climate change is causing cholera to spread. More epidemics around the world. Expenses for those epidemics will be in the billions of dollars.

I also saw this quote in Physics Today:

As the average global temperature rises, mountainous areas across western North America are experiencing significantly less ice and snow. A hundred years ago, Glacier National Park included some 150 ice sheets, but today it has only 25. The implications are vast for the surrounding areas. Rising air and water temperatures are affecting local ecosystems, fish, and wildlife. And because at least 80% of the water supply in the US West comes from its mountains, the loss of the natural reservoir that glaciers provide is also being felt by cities, farms, and industry all across the region. Although manmade global warming has a significant impact on the ice retreat, it is not the only cause. And the shrinking glaciers are only the first symptom of larger changes to come, says Daniel Fagre at the US Geological Survey.

To bring it home, take a look at this list I saw of seven ways climate change can kill you:

• 1. Bug bites that kill
• 2. Breathing problems, including asthma
• 3. Less nutritious food
• 4. An allergy season that goes on forever
• 5. Heat waves
• 6. Too much or too little water
• 7. Sunny days that make you dreary

And, the fishery industry is expected to lose between $17 and $41 billion between now and 2050 due to climate change.  Also, don't forget that ocean acidification results in a declining shellfish population.

There is plenty more and I don't need to go through it all, but I thought I would mention one last piece of news. That blizzard that hit New York City this past week cost the city $200 million in lost economic activity. Severe weather events like this are already becoming the norm. Tell me, how many 'storms of the century' have there been in the last few years?

So, I think we can see from just a very small sampling that we can definitely say global warming and climate change are not good for us. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

But, you know who will make money off of climate change? The same people that are hell bent for everyone to believe its good for us.

Lindzen Continues Deceptions

Sometimes I read something that is so ridiculous I just know people are going to believe it merely because they figure no one would say something that stupid if it wasn't true. Well, yes there are people that would say something stupid and Richard Lindzen is just such a person. Take a look at the latest example of this:

Top MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Senate’s Climate Change Vote Is Ludicrous’

Just a quick note before we start - According to the MIT webpage, Lindzen is an emeritus professor, meaning he is no longer an active professor there. He is, in fact, working at the Cato Institute, a well-known front for the fossil fuel industry and one of the organizations I refer to as The Three Stooges. That means we are being subjected to deception right from the beginning of this article.

One quick question: If the denier position is so scientifically sound, why do they have to resort to deception so often? Just asking.

So, what did this "top MIT climate scientist" have to say about it?

Lindzen said Sanders’s amendment to a bill that approves the Keystone XL pipeline an “attempt to hijack science for political purposes.”

“Climate change is of course real; change being the normal state of affairs in climate,” Lindzen told Climate Depot. “Climate change has caused catastrophic problems on occasion throughout the earth’s history. While man may have contributed somewhat to climate change in recent years, his contribution to the above is highly questionable, and continues to be debated.”

“In the case of Bernie Sanders, a socialist, he is undoubtedly dreaming about nationalizing the energy industry,” Lindzen said. “For the U.S. Senate to accept guidance from Sanders’ bizarre dreams is ludicrous.”

As you probably know, the U.S. Senate voted on three amendments to the Keystone pipeline bill. These amendments addressed the issue of climate change and humanity's role in causing it. The amendments were, in fact, completely political, but were certainly not ludicrous. They were much more productive than the Republican's "I'm not a scientist but I'm going to proceed to prove I'm a jackass anyway," statement. For one thing, it got even the fossil fuel king, Inhofe from Oklahoma, to admit climate change is not a hoax. Yes, he tried to weasel his way out of that statement, but it is now on record that climate change is not a hoax.

The purpose of the amendments was to put it right out there, once and for all, just which senators support the science and which ones reject it. That is not a ludicrous thing to do and, in my opinion, was very successful. That is my opinion. Here is another.

Lindzen is also wrong in his statement this was done to hijack science for political purposes. Lindzen knows all about hijacking science and has been guilty of it for years, including lying about the funding he has received from the fossil fuel industry for decades until he was caught red-handed. You would think someone like that would know all about hijacking science, but apparently not. This Senate vote was an attempt to make the science the whole issue and to subvert the whims of Mr. Lindzen's employers. The same ones that provide Inhofe's political funding.

Why does fossil fuel industry want to keep the science out of government decision-making? Simple. It will cost them money. Instead, they want the rest of us to carry the expense. Lindzen has been a major player in this effort with his research into finding feedback mechanisms. Strangely, all of his research only finds negative feedback mechanisms with the claim that this will cancel out any manmade effects. Not so strangely, all of his research has been found to be invalid. That is what happens when you go in to find a preconceived conclusion. Of course, it helps to get paid for it all by the people that benefit from the bad research.

So, this was not a case of hijacking science for political purposes - it was an attempt to put valid science into the political decision making process and to exclude the pseudoscience of people like Lindzen.

But, that wasn't enough for him. He had to state this was all a part of a plot for the government to nationalize the energy industry. Where is the evidence for such a claim (and, I don't mean the tin-hat bloggers). Where is the real evidence to show the government wants to nationalize anything at all, not to mention something as massive as the energy industry, the third largest industry in the U.S. Talking about alarmist claims. Why is it alarmist for scientists to warn about the effects of real climate change, but it isn't alarmist for Mr. Lindzen to accuse the government of conspiring to take over such a massive industry? It was not only alarmist on Mr. Lindzen's behalf, but irresponsible as well. But, that is what he gets paid to do.

At the same time, this article failed to mention a statement made by a reputable scientist, Nobel Prize winning Mario Molina. It wouldn't look very good for Lindzen if Dr. Molina's statement was included. For instance, Lindzen states the issue is still in debate. It isn't. Dr. Molina states,

There has been a very well financed public relations campaign by some interest groups to question climate change science. And they have succeeded quite well—in response to these efforts the media very often still communicates the idea that there are two sides to this question, that there are some scientists who think that it’s a serious problem but other scientists think that it’s still debatable whether society has to do anything about it. And it’s a myth: There are surveys that show 97 percent consensus among informed scientists who have published on climate change issues.

The basic science is very well established; it is well understood that global warming is due to greenhouse gases. What is uncertain is projections about specifics in the next few decades, by how much will the climate change. And that’s why we focus on communicating the concept of risk: It is not necessary to have absolute certainty about the dangers that society will face in order to take action.

You wear seatbelts in your car not because you’re certain that you’re going to have a crash but because there’s a possibility. You build houses likely to withstand an earthquake not because you’re certain that there will be an earthquake but because there might be one. These examples involve probabilities that are much smaller than the probabilities that climate change will have very serious impacts. So it’s totally unacceptable for society not to act.

Oops. Mr. Lindzen got even another claim wrong.

Like I said, Lindzen's statement is so ridiculous I'm afraid there are people that will actually believe it. More the pity.