Weather Extremes

While everyone's attention has been focused on the tragedy from Hurricane Harvey (more on that in a future posting), there are some other weather extremes that have been taking place.

I was talking to a friend who lives in San Francisco and she told me the temperature there was over 100 degrees. I was floored! Sure enough, the recorded temperature on September 1 was 106 degrees F. We have a word for temperatures like that in Texas - heat wave! And, we're use to temperatures over 100 degrees. How does this compare to normal San Francisco temperatures? It's the all time high temperature ever recorded there. The average high for September 1 is 70 degrees - 36 degrees cooler.

At the same time, there are wildfires raging in the west. Fires have been burning all summer and, as of September, there are dozens still burning.

This is not some cherry-picking, either. While it is true the Northwest US is experiencing widespread record high temperatures, it actually is a worldwide thing. Worldwide 2016 temperature averages were the highest ever recorded and by a wide margin, breaking the previous record, set in 2015, by .2 degrees C (.36 F). That makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record high average temperature. (What was that? There hasn't been any warming since when?)

The thing I find interesting is how as soon as a snowflake falls, climate change deniers are out laughing and asking 'where is global warming.' And yet, when temperature records are smashed, they remain silent. The amusing thing is that their posturing actually supports the scientific evidence. When deniers come out and say something along the lines of, 'This particular date in this particular city was the coldest day recorded in 30 years,' what they're really saying is that temperatures that used to be the norm haven't been experienced in 30 years. Why would that be?

Meanwhile, Bangladesh is suffering from the worst flooding in 40 years. Bangladesh is a country prone to severe flooding, so that statement is highly significant. The death toll in Bangladesh from this one event is estimated at 142, as of September 3. Stunningly, over 1200 people have perished in flooding in Nepal, India and Bangladesh since June.

Even without Hurricane Harvey, we see severe weather is becoming worse and worse. And now, Hurricane Irma is on the way.

ISIS and Climate Change Viewed as World's Greatest Threats

An international poll, conducted between February and May of this year, asked 42,000 people in 38 different countries about what they viewed as the greatest threat from among eight threats. Choices were: ISIS, climate change, cyberattacks, global economy, refugees coming from Iraq and Syria and lastly Russia, America and China’s power and influence. On a worldwide basis, ISIS was the number one threat among 62% of respondents. Climate change came in second - at 61%! The third biggest perceive threat was cyberattacks and global economy tied at 51%. A drop of 10 percentage points.

In other words, the world views climate change to be essentially the same threat as a group of merciless thugs who commit unbelievable atrocities.

In the US, 74% viewed ISIS as the biggest threat. Climate change came in third at 56% (cyberattacks were second). So, a majority of Americans view climate change as one of the major threats to our society. And, if you view it as a threat, that means you have to view it as real.

This is surely a troubling signal to the fossil fuel industry and it's supporters. As it should be.

Another Indication Deniers Are Losing the PR Battle

The purpose of climate change denial lobbyists is to convince the public that lawmakers shouldn't take any action to address climate change. This is to protect the profits of certain groups, especially the fossil fuel industry which supplies most of the funding for these lobbyists. They have been very successful at this in the past, but there have been signs lately that indicate they are now losing the battle for the public's mind. Take a look at how irrelevant one of these lobbyists, Tom Harris, has become. Now, the lobbyists themselves have been gracious enough to show us they no longer matter.

The Climate Depot has long been one of the most notorious of these denier lobbyists. Marc Morano of that organization has a long track record of  making false statements and false arguments. He is also the communications director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), yet another fossil fuel supported organization. He has even gone as far as providing the personal contact information for climate scientists and encouraging people to send them threatening and harassing communications. In the movie Merchants of Doubt he not only admits this but calls it one of his proudest accomplishments and laughs. Now this shining example of humanity has made his own film - Climate Hustle. The purpose of this film is to supposedly show how climate change is all a big hoax and nothing to worry about.

The plan was to premier their new film in Paris during the COP21 conference with the hope they would make a big splash. Oops! They succeeded in making some news, but not the way they were hoping. The premier was a massive dud and they couldn't fill the theater, even with free tickets.

So, what we have is the deniers are spending a huge amount of fossil fuel money on a project that even the deniers won't watch for free. Well, they are right about one thing. Fossil fuel money does create jobs. If nothing else, I'm sure the people who worked on this project appreciate the money they were paid.

But, you have to wonder how much longer this boondoggle will continue when no one is listening to them anymore.

The Irrelevent Tom Harris: The Future of Denialism

Tom Harris is a well-known paid shill for the fossil fuel and tobacco industries.  He denies this, but he has a long track record that is hard to hide. He was the Executive Director of the now defunct Natural Resources StewardshipProject (NRSP), which was controlled by energy business lobbyists. He was the Director of Operations for High Park Group (HPG), a fossil fuel PR agency, and worked for APCO Worldwide which promoted tobacco interests. He is also affiliated with the anti-science Heartland Institute which promotes tobacco interests and is funded by the fossil fuel industry (FFI) to spread climate change denial misinformation. Possibly his worst reference is his association with the so-called ‘Friends of Science’, even though they are the furthest thing from being friends of science, or society for that matter. This group has been shown to receive its funding from the fossil fuel industry, something they went to great lengths to hide (why is that?).

According to ExxonSecrets.org, ICSC is linked to the following fossil fuel supported organizations (organizations with an * after their names are known to receive funding from ExxonMobil):

The Heartland Institute*;
CFACT;
Science and Public Policy Institute;
American Council on Science and Health*;
International Policy Network - North America*;
Cooler Heads Coalition;
Tech Central Science Foundation*;
Australian Science Coalition;
Institute for Public Affairs;
Competitive Enterprise Institute*;
George C. Marshall Institute*;
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition;
and the Fraser Institute*

All of these organizations are known to receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, many times via Donors Trust or the Heartland Institute. In other words, the organizations paying ICSC are all paid by the fossil fuel industry.

In his role as executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), Mr. Harris is paid to put editorials in as many media sources as he can with the goal of providing false information with the express purpose of deceiving the public into not supporting any actions that may impact the profits of his employers in the fossil fuel industry. At first glance, it would seem the FFI is getting their money's worth. By my count, Tom Harris has written or co-written articles that have appeared in over 20 news outlets since the beginning of October. They even hosted an alternative meeting in Paris during the COP21 conference.

But, let's take a closer look. These articles have appeared in important news outlets such as the North Korean Times (yes, THAT North Korea), the Uzbekistan Newsnet, Pagosa Daily Post, Your Houston News, the Malay Mail, the Lethbridge Herald, Daily Inter Lake, and Mothers Against Wind Turbines. I don't view any of these as being relevant sources of outreach.

And, when we actually read his articles (a really unpleasant exercise of wading through lies, false arguments, and deception), we find increasingly shrill claims and statements. Along the way, he made gems of statements such as "I have never worked as a PR rep for any company or sector (see his resume above) (Munroe News Star),  "...the idea that we control tropical cyclones is nonsense." (Yes, it is and no one is making any such claim. So, why is Mr. Harris claiming someone is?) (Westmoreland County Times), and "Coal sector workers ... must demand that their leaders defend them properly."  (The coal industry probably has the worst record of any industry since the slave days of abusing its employees. Why would coal workers turn to the industry leaders?" (Daily Inter Lake).  

And, how about that Paris meeting? I saw only one report in the news media (yes, only one). That article stated there was  an audience of "about 35 mostly greying, white, middle-aged men, and a handful of women." Seriously? COP21 had representatives from 195 different countries, and the deniers can get only 35 individuals? I'm going to guess that most of them were the people hosting the conference.

Now, he may be facing criminal charges in Canada as a result of his actions.

Mr. Harris is taking on the appearance of someone who has fallen to the wayside and knows it. But, he shouldn't feel lonely. All of the other FFI lobbyists are right there with him.

The message is clear. No one is interested and no one is listening.

Maybe ExxonMobile should ask for it's money back.

the idea that we control tropical cyclones is nonsense. - See more at: http://westmorelandtimes.com/news/17304/30/opinion-hurricane-patricia-records-not-real/#sthash.sZOEdllD.dpuf

the idea that we control tropical cyclones is nonsense. - See more at: http://westmorelandtimes.com/news/17304/30/opinion-hurricane-patricia-records-not-real/#sthash.sZOEdllD.dpuf

the idea that we control tropical cyclones is nonsense. - See more at: http://westmorelandtimes.com/news/17304/30/opinion-hurricane-patricia-records-not-real/#sthash.sZOEdllD.dpuf

Exxon Investigation - What Does It Mean?

If you haven't hear by now, the New York attorney general has begun an investigation of ExxonMobil concerning the corporate claims on climate change. The basis for the investigation is to determine if the company lied to the public and its shareholders about climate change and the effect it might have on shareholder value. So, what does all of this mean, if anything?

The call has gone out recently for a RICO investigation of the fossil fuel industry, ala the tobacco RICO investigation. Some deniers have been stating it couldn't happen because there is no proof of wrong-doing. There are two problems with that statement. The first being the deniers don't get to define what is, and isn't, evidence. Their definition of 'evidence' is a signed confession and tape recordings of secret meetings where corporate executives use a movie-script to lay out their nefarious conspiracy to deceive the world for their own benefit. Anything less than that and it isn't evidence. Russell Cook is a notable proponent of this line of thinking. But, like I said, they don't get to define what constitutes evidence - the legal system does. The other problem the deniers are going to have is there doesn't have to be proof of wrong-doing in order to conduct an investigation. There only has to be enough evidence to issue subpoenas and begin deposing people. It's funny the way evidence and testimony starts appearing when that happens.

So, denier claims that there is no basis for an investigation clearly are obviously not valid (is anything the deniers say valid?) because the New York attorney general is conducting one.

So, back to the original question - what does this mean? I think it means the forces are building. When we look at the situation with the tobacco industry we see it took a long while for the lawsuits to begin and once they did, tobacco consistently won. And, yet, they continued and we all know how tobacco was eventually brought down and its deceitful practices fully exposed. Today, I believe we are witnessing the same kind of evolution. Things are building against the deniers and the fossil fuel industry. More and more, they sound shrill and panicky. Their claims are becoming increasingly bizarre and less rationale. Even people who support them are realizing how silly their statements are becoming.

Will ExxonMobil be charged? I don't know the answer to that. I believe, from what I've seen, there is a good case for it. But, that will be for the AG to determine. A bigger question is if the US AG will initiate a RICO investigation. That would be the coup de grace for the deniers. Once the evidence from that came to light, the denier lobby would dry up quickly. The FF people would be radioactive.

And, here's the thing. The evidence obtained by the New York AG could be what finally motivates such an investigation.

Hopefully, we're seeing the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel industry anti-science campaign and their dark money support of the denier lobby.  Of course, the next question is, will it be in time?

Dutch Government to Appeal

This last June, a court in the Netherlands ruled the Dutch government was not doing enough to protect its citizenry from the effects of climate change. The government has now announced it will appeal that decision. It will be interesting to see how the Dutch government rationalizes how it should not be held responsible for protecting its own people.

Exxon Knew About Climate Change in 1981

It has now been revealed Exxon Mobil knew about manmade climate change as early as 1981, but continued to fund denier institutes for decades after that to the tune of more than $30 million. This information was included in a large file of emails released by the Union of Concerned Scientists which they label as the Climate Deception Dossier.

This could be a devastating disclosure. A similar disclosure about the tobacco industry led to the Department of Justice filing a racketeering suit. Will we be seeing a racketeering lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry? We should. They have actively worked to deny the reality of climate change for the express purpose of preventing any actions to address the problem. Any such activities would certainly affect their profits. There has been considerable harm to millions (billions?) of people worldwide as a result.

Another thing I'm wondering about. Will this play out with as much attention as the doctored Climategate emails, which, even doctored, showed no misconduct but is still cited by deniers even today. Do you think any of those deniers will acknowledge these released (not stolen and altered) emails concerning activities by the fossil fuel industry?

Climate Change May Be A Factor in 2016 Election

Is it possible climate change will impact the 2016 presidential election? To answer that, take a look at the map of the drought in the Western U.S.

Source: U.S. Drought Monitor

We can see there are currently roughly nine states experiencing significant drought problems: Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Utah and New Mexico. These nine states possess 109 votes in the electoral college. Of those, Obama took 85 in 2012 and Romney won 24.

Source: Wikipedia

Obama won the election with 332 electoral votes to 206 for Romney. If the Republicans are to have any chance to win the election in 2016 they will need to hold the states that went their way in 2012 and take 64 away from the Democrats. That isn’t a huge task, but it is a large one.

But, I think the Republicans are handicapping their own effort with the climate change denialism. The western states in drought are suffering immensely from the drought. Someone on, or worried about, water rationing may not feel very receptive to a politician trying to sell the message that things are business as usual and it’s all just natural variability. If their stand on climate change persuades even a small percentage of the population in those states to vote Democrat, the Republicans will be faced with the prospect of the vote percentages being shifted against them. This would result in the states voting Democrat in 2012 being more firmly in that camp. Meanwhile, states that voted Republican in 2012 might be more difficult to hang on to.

Considering the Republicans will need to find 64 votes to take away from the Democrats, this would not work to their advantage. If the Republicans really want to win the White House (and, I’m assuming they really do), it will be important for them to stop denying climate change and start admitting there is a problem the world needs to deal with.

That, at least, would be a step in the right direction.

More Record Temps in June

The NCDC released their Global Analysis for June this morning. The quick take is that June 2015 was the hottest June ever recorded. The worse news is that this broke the record set only last year - and it did so by .12 degrees C, a huge increase. This past June was .88 degrees C hotter than the 20th century average. It was the fourth highest departure from average ever recorded. The two highest departures occurred this year in February and March, both at .90 degrees C above the long-term average. January 2007 had the third highest departure at .89 degrees C.

Along with March and May, June is the third month to break it's monthly record this year. July 2014 through June 2015 was the hottest 12-month period ever recorded. The record it broke was set just last month. In fact, the 10 hottest 12-month periods have all occurred in the last ten months.

With all of that news, I don't think I need to go into more details. It was hot and getting hotter. Here's the tally to date:

June was the hottest June ever recorded;

May was the hottest May on record;

April was tied for the fourth hottest April on record;

March was the hottest March on record;

February was the second hottest February on record;

January was the second hottest January on record.

So far, 2015 has three hottest months, two second hottest months, and one fourth hottest month ever recorded.


For the last 12 months, the tally is:


June 2015 was the hottest June ever recorded;

May 2015 was the hottest May ever recorded;

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

March 2015 was the hottest March ever recorded;

February 2015 was the second 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;

July 2014 was the fourth hottest July ever recorded;


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

And, don't forget, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded.

Onwards and upwards.

The Death of Thousands Highlights John Coleman's Lie

One of the submissions to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge was John Coleman's Youtube video, "How It Started." This is one of the most grossly false productions I've seen made by any of the deniers, and I have seen some real whoppers. Simply put, almost everything John Coleman says in this film is an outright lie. Of course, Coleman is associated with the Heartland Institute, so that pretty much explains it all.

Unfortunately, current events are highlighting just how much Mr. Coleman is a liar. Let me quote part of my response to his film:

I think I have shown just how this video is an absolute falsehood, from beginning to end. but there is one more statement he made that I want to address. He stated we have not had a deadly heat wave since the 1950s. This is so offensive that I have to address it.

A heat wave in New York City in 1972 killed almost 900 people.

A heat wave in 1980 killed nearly 10,000 people in the United States from a heat wave.

A 1988 U.S. heat wave killed between 5,000 and 10,000 people, although some estimates go as high as 17,000.

A 1995 heat wave in Chicago, IL led to "many deaths."

A 1999 heatwave resulted in over 500 deaths across the U.S.

But, this is just in the U.S., what about other countries?

In the heat wave of 2003 in Europe, between 46,000 and 70,000 people perished.

For Mr. Coleman to stand there and say that there have been no deadly heat waves since the 1950s is so offensive that it discredits everything he has to say (But, of course, he has no credibility remaining by this point anyway, so what's the harm in one more lie?). And, let's make sure we understand something, he started this video bragging about his credentials as a meteorologist! Are you going to believe that a meteorologist with over 30 years experience has no knowledge of these horrible heat waves and did not check his facts before making the video? I do not believe that for an instant. I believe he made his statement with deliberate intent to deceive.

John Coleman does not have a degree in science and only worked as a TV weatherman. This does not stop him from claiming to be a meteorologist and even signing the so-called Oregon Petition, which is supposed to be limited to scientists. Still, with his experience as a weatherman, there can be no doubt that he is fully aware of at least some of the listed heat waves - and those were just a sample. Now, reality strikes again.

A heat wave that is in progress in Karachi, Pakistan has already killed as many as 140 people. This record-breaking heatwave has brought temperatures as high as 112 degrees F (44.8 C). This heat wave follows right after a heat wave in India last month killed over 2300 people. Temperatures in India reached 120 degrees F and it was hot enough to melt the roads.

(UPDATE(6/23): The death toll in the Pakistan heat wave is now up to nearly 750 people, bringing the total death toll in the two heat waves to approximately 3,250 victims.)

(UPDATE (6/25): The toll from the Pakistani heat wave is over 1000 people dead and many thousands being treated at area hospitals. Between the two heat waves, approximately 3,500 people have died and tens of thousands have suffered injury.)

So, Mr. Coleman, would you like to address how approximately 2,500 people have died from heat waves in mere weeks, but you claim there have been no deadly heat waves since the 1950s? I bet you won't, for one simple reason. Consider this quote from a civil assistant surgeon:

"All they need to do is follow basic precautions like avoiding working in the sun. Not many listen. What can we do? It's a problem of poverty."

There's the key. It's the POOR people that are dying. I guess we can amend Mr. Coleman's statement to say, "No rich people have died in heat waves since the 1950s." Strangely enough, the man who submitted Mr. Coleman's video to the challenge, Patrick Stratoti, just this evening made comments about how it is the poor people who will suffer if we do anything about global warming. I wonder if he's willing to go to Pakistan and India and tell that to the families of the people who died?

But, that's not the end of it. The EPA is now estimating heat waves will kill over 12,000 people per year by 2100. And, that is just in the United States. 12,000 PER YEAR!  By the way, the rich people will simply turn up the air conditioner, so guess who will be doing the dying?

As Pope Francis said in his encyclical, it is the poor people of the world who are suffering from climate change the most.

GOP Defunds Climate Science

We have seen Republicans in Florida and Wisconsin prohibit state employees from using terms such as 'global warming,' 'climate change' and 'sea level rise,' but the U.S. House has upped the ante by several orders of magnitude - they are cutting the funds for the earth sciences, which includes climate research. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, lambasted the bill in a 1 May statement:

“If enacted, the NASA authorization bill headed to the House floor later this month would do serious damage to the Nation’s space program, as well as to Earth-observation and Earth-science programs essential for predicting, preparing for, and minimizing the damage from disasters both natural and human-induced.”

The funding is included in the America COMPETES legislation (HR 1806) which came before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The bill cuts funding for earth sciences by nearly 20% and possibly (depending on circumstances) as much as one-third. Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) called the America COMPETES legislation “a fiscally responsible, pro-science bill that sets the right priorities for federal civilian research.” But, Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), a member of the House panel, said the legislation would significantly impair NSF and DOE and she called H.R. 1806 “a tragedy in waiting.” She contrasted the current bill with the earlier COMPETES acts of 2007 and 2010, which she said sought to ensure the country’s continued scientific preeminence while growing the economy, stating,

“In contrast, H.R. 1806 is preoccupied with questioning the motives of the National Science Foundation and the integrity of the scientists it funds. In addition, it would put up multiple roadblocks to progress in clean energy [research and development], under the guise of preventing ‘picking winners and losers,’ even as H.R. 1806 picks its own winners and losers,”

I just keep wondering, if there is no global warming, why are they so afraid of it?

Will Forbes Backtrack?

One of the biggest media stooges for the fossil industry is Forbes Magazine. They are terrible about running articles and editorials denouncing climate science. At first, this might make sense. The fossil fuel industry is a heavy hitter and is able to provide Forbes with lots of financial support. But, on the other hand, there are plenty of industries that stand to lose because of climate change and these are the magazine's customers as well. Does it make sense to provide deceit to support one customer at the expense of others? I suppose if the money is enough, it does. See the Wall Street Journal for another example of this policy.

So, it was with some surprise that I read an article in Forbes laying at least some blame for the California drought on climate change. Is the magazine changing its tune? I bet not. They have had scientifically accurate editorials before. I guess one accurate article in ten counts as providing a balanced viewpoint, in their logic. Still, it is interesting.

I still have some issues with the article in that it hedges on the question, 'is the drought due to manmade climate change?' This is the 'have you stopped beating your wife' question brought out all the time. I say that because I want you to define 'caused' before I give an answer. A question like this is always asked of scientists in order to get an answer that can be manipulated. Let me explain.

Imagine a common courtroom scene and the defense is cross-examining the scientific expert witness. The defense lawyer asks, is there a probability that two people, who are not related, can have exactly the same DNA? Yes, there is a chance. Ah hah! So, there is a chance the DNA evidence is actually from someone else.

What is missing from this answer is how large that probability is. If there is any chance at all that at any time in the history of the universe, two beings, somewhere on all of the planets in all of the galaxies that have ever existed since the beginning of time, or ever will exist before the end of time, could have the same DNA? Yes, there is a chance.

That is how the mind of a scientist works. But, that isn't the same as what the average person thinks. To the average person, when a scientists says there is a chance it means it is a reasonable expectation, not something that has to be expressed in scientific notation.

Is there a chance I can win the Powerball fifteen times in a row? Yes, there is a chance. Really, really small chance, though. And, that's the point.

What is the probability that we would have the drought of today without manmade climate change? My estimates are that the probability is prohibitively low. It is possible there would be a dry-spell from normal climatic patterns, but there is essentially no chance that we would have what we have today without manmade emissions changing things. Reading the scientific literature leads me to conclude that it is not possible to have the situation we have today without manmade emissions. Yes, the California drought is manmade.

We, as scientists, need to start saying it in terms like that. Yes, there are naturally occurring patterns (we know this because the climate scientists have done the hard work to identify them). But, those naturally occurring patterns would not lead to this current situation.

Now, we just need to ask if Forbes has stopped beating its wife.

Another Reason to Care About Climate Change - ISIS

A new study was released today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing how the drought in Syria has been, at the least, made worse by climate change. The drought lasted from 2007 until 2010 and was the worst ever recorded in Syria (strange how we keep seeing the 'worst ever' or the third 500-year event in the last five years). Because of this drought, approximately 1.5 million people moved from rural areas into the cities. The influx of climate refugees into the cities caused civil unrest and was a factor in the beginning of the Syrian civil war. That civil war continues today and was a major factor in the rise of ISIS. Climate change was not the only factor involved, but it contributed to making the drought worse, leading to subsequent events.

This is very consistent what the Department of Defense has said about climate change. It is also consistent with previous studies that found climate change is adding to regional armed conflicts.

I know the deniers will debate this and that is unfortunate. While we are debating, the issue will continue to get even worse. The data is in and things are playing out just as predicted.

And, the evidence continues to mount that climate change is not doing us more good than harm

The Senator With The Snowball

Senator James Inhofe is one of the biggest disgraces of the United States. This is a leading member of the U.S. Senate and he uses that platform to repeatedly demonstrate just how ignorant he is. I shudder to think what the rest of the world thinks of the U.S. education system every time this man opens his mouth.

If you aren't familiar with him, he's the man that claims "manmade global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public." He's the guy that says climate science is a conspiracy by Barbara Streisand and the Weather Channel. "It's all about money. I mean, what would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings if people weren't scared anymore?"

What's funny about that statement is Inhofe has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry, making him one of the top recipients of oil money. Hmmm. Do you think there's a link between all the money he gets from the fossil fuel industry and his fight to protect their interests at the expense of his constituents?

Inhofe is also famous for coming out every time there's a cold day in the winter (when its supposed to be cold) and make some statement about how it proves climate change isn't real. Then, he disappears on those winter days when the temperature hits a new record high. I'm sure he thinks he's being clever. The rest of the world knows he's an idiot.

Now, he's done it again. He brought a snowball into the Senate and claimed it was proof climate change isn't real. But, it backfired. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse took him to task about it. Whitehouse cited numerous authoritative sources saying climate change is real and then repeatedly asks, who are you going to believe, these excellent sources? Or, "the Senator with the snowball." Watch the video.

There's nothing we can do about Inhofe. We're stuck with him. But, we can be thankful to Senator Whitehouse for the new catch phrase for all of the people that reject science and think they're clever: they are another Senator with a snowball.

Denier Willie Soon Facing Investigation

It isn't often I get to pass on good news on the climate change front, but this is one of those times. Well-known professional denier Willie Soon is facing investigation for failure to report financial conflicts when submitting papers for publication.

Mr. Soon is normally advertised as an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, but is actually an aerospace engineer, not a physicist and certainly not a climate scientist.

Mr. Soon is well known in the denier community as a champion and is frequently cited as a 'scientist' that rejects AGW in an attempt to give credibility to claims AGW isn't real. One of his claims is that any climate change we may be experiencing is due to solar variability. His scientific claims are routinely debunked.

He is also well known in the scientific community as someone that has rejected science and is closely associated with the Heartland Institute. Heartland is funded by the fossil fuel industry and is engaged in the effort to "confuse" the issue on climate change, providing funds to individuals to undermine climate science. Anyone associated with Heartland is suspect and certainly anyone associated with them has sacrificed any scientific credibility they may have ever had. Soon is a shining example of that.

Mr. Soon was also part of a team that made a submission to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. I rejected their 'proof' on the basis that they only claimed they didn't like future forecasts of damage due to climate change. Somehow, they thought this proved AGW isn't real.

When asked about his funding sources, Mr. Soon has stated no amount of money would affect his research. Well, if that is the case, why has he been so reluctant to reveal his funding source? Now, we know why.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, Greenpeace has obtained documents showing Mr. Soon has received at least $1.2 million in funding from the fossil fuel industry. In his documents, he has described his anti-climate science papers as 'deliverables.' This, it turns out, is an ethics violation. He, and anyone else, is free to obtain their funding from where ever they can get it, but they have to reveal that when there is a potential conflict of interest when submitting scientific papers. Mr. Soon failed to do that.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center has launched an investigation into Mr. Soon's actions.

This is just the latest example of how the deniers work. We have already heard this same story with Richard Lindzen, another scientist (this time with MIT) that denied ever receiving fossil fuel money, but was eventually caught lying about it.

Why do we see this pattern? If AGW isn't real, why do deniers have to align with organizations that are well-known for falsifying research? Why are they continually lying about their funding? Why are they always providing false arguments and false statements as 'evidence'? Why, if the science is valid, are they not providing valid science?

Maybe because there is no valid science to support their claims?

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.

It's Official - 2014 Hottest Year Ever Recorded

NASA and NOAA released the annual state of the climate report for 2014 this morning. They also held a live streaming video of a joint press conference. The report came out 30 minutes prior to the news conference and was on the National Climatic Data Center website. At least, that is what I was told. When I tried to get into both the NCDC site and the streaming conference they were so busy I was unable to. I missed the conference all together and it took a full hour to see the report. Apparently, people all over the world were eager to hear what they had to say. That is a good thing. It means this issue is getting a lot of attention. Hopefully, that will translate into some actions.

Now for the report highlights.

As expected, the report for December stated it was the hottest December ever recorded for the globe.
 
Also to no surprise, 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. The report stated

The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20^th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38^th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21^st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record.

I wonder how many people claiming global warming has stopped will read those last two statements. Nine of the ten hottest years have occurred since the year 2000. How is that possible, if warming has stopped?

What is disturbing about last year's heat is that it did not have an El Nino. For more than 30 years, each hottest year all had El Ninos, including the very extreme year of 1998 which deniers like to cherry pick as their starting point on heat records. This was the first time since 1990 that a year without an El Nino set the heat record. What that means is that a regular year is now hotter than an extreme year 16 years ago. At this rate, we will look back on 1998 with fondness and longing, in terms of temperature. (Ah, yes! 1998! The good old days.)

Tell me once again about how there has been no warming for 17 years.


An article in Scientific American listed five of the hottest places on Earth:

• Australia set heat records for the second year in a row, including heat waves in the (southern) summer with temperatures over 120 degrees F; followed by heat waves in the fall and spring.

• Eastern Pacific Ocean: An El Nino was expected to form this year, but failed to appear. This didn't stop the region from setting temperature records. NOAA reported the sea surface temperature for the global ocean was 1.13 F (.63 C) above the 20th century average for the September to November time period. The previous record was 0.11 F (.06 C). 
• Siberia: The Arctic region has seen the greatest amount of warming in recent decades and Siberia saw temperatures 9 F (5 C) above the 1981 - 2010 average (where is that heat island effect in Siberia?). Ice on the Ob River broke up two weeks earlier than normal. 
• California: Record drought, record heat. The first 10 months of 2014 were the warmest in state history since 1895.
• Northern Europe: While the U.S. had a cold winter, that same weather pattern caused it to be warmer than usual in Europe. Many countries saw the warmest spring in as much as 100 years. January to October was the warmest 10-month period on record for Central England since 1659, and the warmest such period for the Netherlands since 1706.

The annual report gave this tally for the year:

Six months of 2014 (May, June, August, September, October, and December) were record warm, while April was second warmest, January, March, and July were fourth warmest for their respective months, and November was seventh warmest.

The tally I kept from the monthly reports was somewhat different (they are now saying April was the second warmest and the monthly report lists it as tied for warmest) and came out this way:


December was the hottest December ever recorded;


November was the 7th hottest November ever recorded;

October was the hottest October ever recorded;

September was the hottest September ever recorded;

August was the hottest August ever recorded;

July was the fourth hottest July ever recorded;

June 2014 was the hottest June ever recorded;

May was the hottest May ever recorded;

April tied 2010 as the hottest April ever recorded;

March was the fourth hottest March ever recorded;

We got a break in February. It was only the 21st hottest February ever recorded;

But, that break followed the hottest January since 2007 and the fourth hottest January on record.

So, let's see what the final score was for 2014: one 21st hottest month, one 7th hottest month, three 4th hottest months, and seven hottest months ever.

Additionally, we had the hottest overall year ever recorded.

2014 Global Climate Conditions Coming

NASA and NOAA will holding a joint conference Friday, January 16 at 11 EST to announce the data on 2014 temperature and climate conditions. The announcement will live streamed. Click on this link of the announcement, including a link to listen to the announcement live.

We already know 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. Tomorrow we'll hear just how bad it was.

Global Warming Problems In Australia

Australians decided to elect a prime minister that is a devoted climate change denier. Once elected, Tony Abbott went about dismantling any kind of climate change reform he could get his hands on. One of the things he did was to get the carbon tax repealed. So, instead of having the polluters pay for the pollution, he decided the taxpayers should.

Now, Australians are getting more of what they paid for. Last year (2014) has been found to be the third hottest year in Australia's history. They got off pretty easy. It has been found to be the hottest year ever recorded for the planet over all. This hot year is leading to the worst wildfire season they have had in the last 30 years. I'm sure Prime Minister Abbott will tell them he isn't a scientist but the science isn't settled. Isn't that what they say when they can't refute the science?

I'm sure the Australians losing their homes to the fires will be comforted by his ignorance.

State Leaders Hiding Climate Change Science

A number of state elected officials have come out as deniers. That is fine and is their right. But, what some of them are doing is to work on hiding any climate science that shows it is real. This is not only wrong, but I find it very interesting after reading statements from them, such as this one from Georgia congressman Rick Allen:

“Limiting debate to one side is not the same as being conclusive.”

If limiting debate to one side is wrong, then why are so many deniers doing just that? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (the source of that quote) interviewed a dozen state leaders and reported the results in a front-page article. It was bad news. In particular were the politicians that used the "I'm not a scientist, but...," line. What they are really saying anytime someone uses that line is, "I'm not a scientist, but I'll go ahead and demonstrate what a jackass I am anyway." While it was nice the paper reported on this problem, they still contributed to it with the way they wrote the article, apparently giving credence to the claims of deniers in order to appear 'balanced.' Including ignorance and science denial is not being balanced. It only helps to energize elected officials that would rather see their constituents hurt than to take a look at the science.

In Nebraska, state Senator Beau McCoy amended an authorization for a state-funded study to determine the effects of climate change on the state. His amendment would only allow scientists to report on naturally occurring climate change and prohibited any reporting of manmade climate change. In response, scientists refused to use the money and found independent funds. Their report was released last fall and was pretty grim. They found manmade climate change would result in severe storms, floods, warmer nights, scorching summers and drought for the state. Not good news for a state that depends so strongly on agriculture. You would think the state leaders would want to know this kind of information so they could plan for the future.

All of this raises a question, why would Beau McCoy, and everyone that voted for his amendment, want to hide this information? Why would they be willing to sacrifice the best interests of their constituents by hiding climate science?

But, he isn't the only one. Take a look at what happened in South Carolina. That state funded a similar report and it was finished on 2011. It wasn't released until 2013 after it sat on the shelf for about a year and a half. It wasn't released until a newspaper requested to see a copy. The problem with the report is that, like the one in Nebraska, it showed the state would suffer from the effects of manmade climate change. Once again, why would state leaders sacrifice the well being of their constituents?

North Carolina leads the charge into ignorance, though. This is the home of the NC-20 political action group that claims it is representing the best interests of the 20 counties along the Atlantic coast. They are climate change deniers of the highest order and actually brag about getting a bill passed that prohibits the state from taking action on sea level rise using any data except historical data. In other words, these people have prevented the state from taking any action to prepare for any sea level rise that results from manmade climate change. They call this a 'huge win' and list it on their 'Successes' page. 

Think about that. They are bragging about how they guaranteed the coastal counties will be unprepared for sea level rise while claiming they are there to represent the best interests of those counties. Why would they do that? What would they have to lose by being aware of what climate scientists have to say?

One last question. If climate change is so good for us, as the deniers claim, why are so many state elected officials working so hard to hide it?