Contrarian Papers Debunked

What if the contrarian scientists are right? What if that 3 percent of scientists claiming manmade climate change is real are correct and the 97% are wrong? A team of scientists decided to put this to the test via the scientific method. They took contrarian papers, assumed they were correct, and tried to replicate the results. I'm sure you can guess the results. You can find their paper here.

What I found most interesting is the reason they said most of the research failed - cherry picking. That's right, the most common false argument among deniers is used by denier scientists to falsify their research. Another cause? They simply ignored any laws of physics that didn't fit their hypothesis. Really. Is anyone surprised by that finding?

The researchers do throw a bone to the contrarian scientists, they say the errors may not be malicious. They concede it is possible the errors were honest mistakes by new scientists.

I love the conclusion:

“Science is never settled, and both the scientific consensus and alternative hypotheses should be subject to ongoing questioning, especially in the presence of new evidence and insights,” the study concluded.

This is the exact wording deniers use in an attempt to discredit real science. Karma is a bitch. 

The PETM and Climate Change Today

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is a period in Earth's history that occurred about 55.5 million years ago. The thing that attracts interest to it is how it was a period of global warming. The more scientists study it, the more we are learning about what is happening today. There is good news along with the bad from a recent study. The good news was that the environment adjusted and eventually returned to normal after the global warming episode. While it is good to hear of the adjustment, it is also important to understand the environment took about 200,000 years to fully recover. Left to itself, things will get bad but it won't end the world, But, we may be stuck with this situation for a while.

The PETM is very interesting because of the similarities to today. What has been found is the emission levels were in the ballpark of today's manmade emission levels. The thinking is what happened back then might be a good model for what we can expect to see today. The problem is that it was already much warmer back then when the big emissions came along. In fact, it was so warm there were no ice caps. So it isn't a perfect analogy.

What was seen is the temperature rose by 5 to 8 degrees C (9 to 15 F). That isn't enough to destroy the world, but it sure would cause a lot of devastation. Analysis of sediment cores has indicated there were two pulses of carbon release. It is thought the second one occurred in response to the rising temperature caused by the first. Does that mean we can expect to see something like that today? As the temperature increases due to manmade emissions, can we expect the natural environment to become a CO2 source instead of sink? That would be doubly bad because nature currently removes roughly half of all manmade emissions. If it became a source, it would not only be adding CO2 itself, but would no longer be removing that half of our emissions.

What they have been able to piece together about the PETM is there was a changing climate where some areas became drier and others became stormier. Continent-scale mass migrations have been identified, probably as a result of the changing climate. Some extinctions occurred, but not enough to be a mass-extinction event. The oceans became more acidic.

In other words, pretty much what we are already seeing today. History really does repeat itself for those that don't learn its lesson.

Greenland is Melting Differently

I was reading a report about a presentation at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco last week. Lora Koenig, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) led a group that found the way ice is melting on the Greenland Ice Sheet changed during the 1990s. The principle means of melting used to be glaciers calving off into the sea. What Koenig's group found is that, while the glacial flow continues, melt ponds have now become the dominant means of mass loss. The ice will melt during the summer and forms bodies of water that range from small ponds to large lakes. This water finds ways to get through the ice and rivers of melt water form. Some of these ponds are even staying liquid through the winter with a layer of insulating snow on top. This provides a jump start on the next melt season. Additionally, the conditions have changed to allow even more melt water to run off. The top layer of snow used to absorb a lot of melt water, but it has now absorbed so much in some places that it is saturated and freezes solid. Since the snow can no longer absorb the melt water, the water flows over the surface and eventually goes into the sea.

So, if the climate isn't changing, as the denier industry wants us to believe, then why is the means of melting changing on something as large as the Greenland Ice Sheet?

Ocean Depths Not Getting Warmer

Scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have found that the deep oceans below 2000 meters have warmed little, if any, since 2005. This was a very neat study using in situ measurements as well as satellite data. What they did was to measure the increase in total ocean heat content and then subtract what has been measured in the top 2000 meters. What was left over was the amount of warming occurring in the oceans below 2000 meters and they found that it was small, if any.

I am not at all surprised by this result. I know that many people have been saying heat is being stored in the lower levels of the ocean, but my review of the literature did not lead me to that conclusion. There are many reasons, but the fact is that the majority of the deep ocean water originates in the polar areas. As sea water freezes it extrudes the salt, creating a briny soup which is heavier than the surrounding sea water and sinks. Nearly all deep ocean currents originate in the vicinity of Antarctica. For this reason alone, I would have been surprised that the deep ocean was warming. The ocean water around Antarctica is warming, but the briny water will still be nearly freezing because it originates from freezing water. Of course, it is much more complicated than that and there are many other factors involved, but this is the starting point. I just don't see any mechanism to transport heat from the upper-levels to the lower. It all has led me to the conclusion that I was not expecting to find much deep ocean heating.

Now, I know many contrarians are going to point at this study and claim that the oceans are not warming and that is NOT what this study says. What they found is that the DEEP ocean is not warming a perceptible amount. But, note that the only way you can get that result is by finding the upper levels are warming. The way they measured the lower heating is by taking the total heating and subtracting the known amount of upper-level heating. So, this result is only possible with the existence of that upper-level heating.

So, this is a very neat and important study. It does nothing to contradict anything we know about anthropogenic climate change, but it does illustrate we still have lots to learn - and that is not really news.

Can We Trust Climate Scientists?

One of the claims deniers are now making is that we can't trust the climate scientist that are involved with global warming research. Their line of reasoning is that their grants and positions depend on finding evidence of global warming and they risk losing either, or both, if they ever find anything else. This, of course, is so ridiculous as to be funny, except there are people that believe this. So, let's examine this and see if there is any truth to the claim.

The basis, and motivation, for the claim comes from the fact that deniers are paid by the fossil fuel industry to discredit climate research. The funding is dependent on finding the results the fossil fuel industry wants. In other words, it is directed funding. This funding source greatly damages the credibility of the deniers, much to their chagrin. They can't get funding from any other source and are stuck with it. So, they respond by trying to paint authentic climate researchers with the same brush. If they are getting funding to find evidence of global warming, then we can't trust them, either. The irony of this argument is that they are themselves saying they can't be trusted. By making the claim that directed funding discredits you, they are admitting their own directed funding must discredit them. But, this posting is about the credibility of climate scientists, not the lack of credibility of the deniers.

The claim of the deniers depends on one thing - are the climate scientists being directed in their research? Do they receive funding to find evidence of global warming? Or, are they simply receiving funding to do research and let the chips fall where they may?  If this claim they are being directed is not true then we should be able to find research results that do not support climate change. This is actually pretty easy to do. Climate and weather are very complicated and not everything is going to lead to global warming.

A recent announcement from the National Science Foundation (NSF)  illustrates this. A researcher at the University of Michigan studied the effects of pollen on the climate and found something interesting. It had been thought pollen had little effect because it was such a large particle it would settle out. But, Dr. Allison Steiner and her team found that pollen particles actually break apart and become many small particles. These small particles lift water vapor up into the atmosphere where they assist in cloud formation. It this way, pollen actually works against global warming by providing a cooling effect.

By the way, Dr. Steiner gets her funding from the NSF. So much for being paid to find only proof of global warming.

Another example is some work done by scientists at Princeton University, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and the Australian University. They studied the way droughts are measured and they state there is an issue with the way droughts are measured. One of the beliefs about global warming is that the amount and severity of droughts worldwide will increase as the climate warms. The most common measure of drought, the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), has shown that this is actually happening. However, this team of scientists studied the PDSI and their conclusion (released in November 2012) is that this measure is in error because it was dependent on climatic conditions off the past. When they adjusted the measure to account for climatic changes due to global warming they found little change in the amount of drought over the last 60 years.

Again, credible scientists at reputable institutions finding results that do not support global warming.

This is the way science works. Researchers do the work and discover what the science says. If the science does not support what they believe, then they will change what they believe. The science is irrefutable.

The deniers fail in this manner. When the science does not support what they want to sell the public, they simply discard it and find a new false argument to try and persuade people to believe in what they want them to believe.

The claim that climate scientists are getting paid to prove global warming doesn't pass the credibility test. Climate scientists are paid to do climate research. There will be a climate with, or without, global warming. Their jobs do not depend on global warming and anyone thinking about this for even a few seconds will see that is true. If nothing else, we need a much more robust understanding of climate science for weather forecasting. That, by itself, is enough to justify all of the climate research being done and that would be true even if there were no such thing as global warming. The issue of global warming simply makes it that much more important.

Scientists are not motivated to find a specified result. They are motivated to find the correct result and to find it first. Honors go to the first, not the second. They do not give the Nobel Prize to runners-up. But, at the same time, by the scientific method, any scientific finding must be repeatable by anyone else. Scientists are not magicians and do not have special powers. They have special training and experience, but anyone with similar training and experience must be able to replicate their results. If only one person can do it, it isn't valid. If some scientist was to announce some kind of result and it couldn't be validated by other scientists the damage to that person's career can be devastating. Consider what happened to Pons and Fleishmann after their cold fusion announcement.

Finally, consider this. Much of the research on climate change was done during the administration of George W. Bush between 2001 and 2009. The Bush administration was openly hostile to climate change research and worked to suppress it. The irony is that, contrary to claims by the deniers, climate scientist were actually risking their careers by finding evidence of global warming, not the other way around.

What can we conclude? Can we trust climate scientists? The answer is that we can trust climate scientists to do valid scientific research in climate change and the science they produce is not directed by the funding source.

If only the deniers could make the same claim.

El Nino is back. What does it mean?

El Nino is the name given to the natural cycle that involves the eastern Pacific getting warmer in the area close to the equator. (La Nina is the name for the alternative cycle when the waters there are cooler. The two together are known as the El Nino Southern Oscillation - ENSO.) This is one of the most significant natural cycles and occurs every few years. It has the potential to change weather around the world. Take a look at this graphic showing the sea surface temperature anomaly. The darker the red, the warmer it is relative to the long-term average.

Source: Climate Reanalyzer

You can clearly see how the water temperature off western South America is warmer than usual, which is the classic definition of El Nino. The name comes from how local fishermen noticed the change  in the water and how it seemed to always arrive in the late fall - about Christmas time. El Nino means 'the boy' and refers to the Christ child of Christmas. The name has stuck.

But, the important thing is to notice how the warm water stretches all the way across the Pacific Ocean. The significance of this lies in the fact that warm water creates atmospheric low-pressure areas which results in thunderstorms. There is now a Pacific Ocean-wide corridor of low pressure which will allow thunderstorms to develop and travel all the way from Asia to South America. One of the things this leads to is a change in the Hadley Cells.

Hadley Cells are circulation patterns in the atmosphere. Warm air near the equator rises and then travels towards the poles at high altitude. When the air reaches the mid-latitudes it sinks back to the surface and travels back towards the equator. This circulates heat and causes the trade winds. A stronger El Nino results in stronger Hadley Cells. Live Science has a nice graphic here showing how this all works.

You can probably see where this is going. More heat is being circulated through-out the world as a result of El Nino. Changes in the heat and water vapor input in a given region will result in changes to the weather in that region. How much of a change and what kind can be expected? That is a big variable. Some regions will experience greater rainfall. Others will experience droughts. Depending on the strength of the El Nino event, the effect could be anywhere from very mild to catastrophic.

Some of the most dramatic example of El Nino effects is a series of famines that have occurred in what is modern-day India, including the Great Famine of 1876-1878 (5.5 estimated dead) and the Bengal Famine of 1770 (10 million estimated dead). These famines occurred when the monsoons did not occur and the crops failed. The famines were greatly aggravated by British mismanagement.

What has been found is that severe droughts in India always occur during El Ninos, but not every El Nino leads to droughts in India. The apparent link seems to be where the Pacific is warmest. When it is warmer in the Central Pacific, India has droughts. When it is warmest in the Eastern Pacific, India is spared. Take a look at the plot of surface temperatures, similar to the plot above.

Source: Climate Reanalyzer

The figure above showed the difference from the average. This plot shows the actual average temperature. The way I interpret this data is that it is warmer in the Central Pacific region than in the Eastern Pacific region off of South America. This could be bad news for India. The good news is that Britain is not handling the management any more.

But, El Ninos are not bad news for everyone. Actually, for us in the U.S. it will be a good thing. A typical El Nino brings mild temperatures and more rainfall for the southern half of the country. This would be particularly welcome in the mid-Plains and the Southwest where drought has been raging for many years. In fact, several states out here are at risk of running out of water.  More rain would be good.

So, let's talk about the White Elephant sitting in the middle of the room. Is global warming affecting the ENSO cycle? Quite simply, we don't know yet. There are some that believe a connection exists, but more data is needed. What is known for sure though, is the El Nino affects the short-term accuracy of our computer models. The models are highly accurate when predictable conditions exist. But, unpredictable events like ENSO and volcanic eruptions disrupt them. The good news is that when the events occur and are included in the models, the models once again become highly accurate - in excess of 95% accurate and getting better. I have not heard what the models are forecasting with the this current El Nino included, but I will keep a look out for any news.

The effect of water vapor on global warming

One of the false arguments global warming deniers make is that CO2 measurements are unimportant because water vapor is much more effective greenhouse gas. This is one of those statements that has just enough truth behind it to obscure the lie.Yes, water vapor is a very potent greenhouse gas, much more so than CO2, but what the deniers don't want to admit is that the reason there is water vapor in the atmosphere is because something else warmed it up in the first place.

This process makes water vapor a positive feedback agent with the potential to approximately double the amount of warming due to other sources. As the atmosphere gets warmer the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere also increases. The increased level of water vapor will then trap more heat, resulting in warmer temperatures and even more water vapor. But, the water vapor cannot do it alone. There must be some agent to start the process and that agent in our current situation is CO2. By dumping billions of tons of CO2 in our atmosphere every year, we trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise radiate into space and this leads to warmer atmosphere. This warmer atmosphere then leads to more water vapor.

Since water vapor is so important in the process we need to know just how much effect it has on the climate. A team of scientists used measurements from instruments onboard the Aqua spacecraft to make direct measurements of this effect. According to their work, water vapor amplifies global warming by 2.2 watts per square meter per degree Celsius (plus or minus .4 watts per square meter per degree Celsius). In comparison, the solar index (the amount of energy reaching Earth from the Sun) is about 1360 watts per square meter. For every one degree Celsius change in temperature, water vapor increases the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere by about .16%. It may not sound like much, but you keep doing that every day for a long period of time and it will add up to a very large amount of energy stored in the atmosphere that we would not otherwise have.

The scientists point out that this is only a short-term measurement because the amount of data is small. This figure is subject to short-term changes in the weather and climate fluctuations. They used these figures in models to try and determine a long-term value and the models suggested it is between 1.9 and 2.8 watts per square meter per degree Celsius. As more data is collected this figure will be refined to a more accurate value.

Forest Fires and Arctic Melting

The summer melt season of 2012 was very dramatic. Take a look at this plot from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

The dark, solid line is the 1989-2010 average Arctic sea ice extent. The dotted line is the 2012 sea ice extent. The light gray line on the left is the 2014 sea ice extent. We can see from this plot that the 2012 extent was pretty average for what has been observed this century all the way up to early-June. At that point, it took a severe turn for the worse and the extent simply collapsed, reaching the all time record low in September.

Something similar was observed in Greenland at the same time. Normally, the ice on top of the ice sheet doesn't melt, or melts very little. It is over 2 miles high in places and the highest elevations remain below freezing, even during the summer. But, in the summer of 2012, 97% of the ice sheet was melting at one time. This was the most extensive melting event since 1889.

A new study done by researchers at Dartmouth College found evidence that this extensive melting on Greenland was not due solely because of global warming, but by a combination of warming and soot from wildfires. In particular, extreme forest fires in Siberia sent soot and particulate matter high in the atmosphere and some of that matter settled on the Greenland ice sheet. By making the ice slightly darker (known as lowering the albedo), the soot increased the amount of sunlight absorbed by the ice and increased the melting. There is evidence something similar may have occurred in 1889, as well.

The question I now have is, did this also happen to the sea ice? The fires of 2012 may have been responsible for the Greenland melting, but wouldn't explain the sea ice melting. The fires didn't start until July, so the smoke could not have been on the sea ice at the beginning of June. The smoke was blowing across the Pacific by early-July, so it is possible it fell on Greenland in time for the big ice melt.

However, there were also massive forest fires in Siberia two years earlier, in the summer of 2010. If the smoke from those fires was lofted high in the atmosphere it might have taken over a year to fall in the Arctic region. We would need to get some ice cores that included that time frame and see if there are traces of soot in the ice. Then, we would need to check the composition of that soot to try and identify where it came from.

This doesn't mean climate change is off the hook. Even with the soot, global warming is responsible because it made the Arctic region warmer (allowing the ice to melt) and it is also responsible for the events in Siberia that led to the wildfires (putting the soot in the air).

This year might be a test of the hypotheses. If it took 1-1/2 to 2 years for the 2010 smoke to get to the Arctic ice, then that would be a good starting guess for how long it took the smoke from the 2012 fires to get there. If so, this might be a very bad year for Arctic sea ice melting.

Severe Weather in the United States

There was a very interesting article in the May 6th issues of Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. The article, Severe Weather in United States Under a Changing Climate, takes a thorough look at the way various aspects of severe weather have changed since the 1950s and the message is pretty definitive. There is a nice graphic (figure 1 in the article) that shows the frequency of different kinds of severe weather in each decade since the 1950s. It takes a little bit of reading because there is so much information in the figure, but certain things really stand out right away. Below is a summery of some of the information in this paper.

Damages due to billion dollar events
The NOAA/NCDC Billion Dollar Weather website lists 151 weather/climate disasters resulting in at least $1 billion in damages that have occurred since 1980. The damages for these events have all been adjusted to reflect constant dollar values (2013 dollars). The total amount of damages exceeds $1 trillion. That comes out to about $3000 for every person in the U.S., or roughly $100 per year on average. The total for 2011 was for about $200 for every person ($60 billion total) and $360 per person in 2012 ($110 billion total). These costs are only as a result of the billion dollar-plus events and include such events as major heat waves, severe storms, tornadoes, droughts, floods, hurricanes and wildfire. The list does not include expenses such as increased expenses for utilities, food and increased insurance that are the result of daily climate change conditions.

Temperature extremes
The article states the average temperature has increased by 1.5 degrees F since 1895 with most of the warming occurring since 1970, "culminating with the warmest year on record in the United States in 2012." They found there has been a significant increase in the number of record high temperatures the last two decades. There has been a significant drop in the number of record low temperatures over the same period. Heat waves have become more frequent across the U.S.

Precipitation extremes
Over the last three decades the heaviest rainfall events in rainy areas have become more frequent and the amount of rain in heavy rain storms has been significantly above average. Other areas have seen significant decreases. The total number of extreme snowstorms has been substantially higher the last three decades.

Floods and droughts
There has been no nation-wide trend detected for droughts, but regional trends have been detected. In particular, the on-going drought in the western U.S. has resulted in the driest the region has been in 800 years. Floods have followed the same pattern. We don't know enough yet to detect a nationwide trend, but regional trends have been detected. In other words, it appears the regions that tend towards the dry end are getting drier and regions that tend toward the wet end are getting wetter.

Hurricanes and severe storms
There has been an increase in the intensity, frequency, and duration of category 4 and 5 (the strongest) storms in the Atlantic. The number of category 3, 4 and 5 storms in the North Atlantic since the year 2000 is the greatest since the 1950s. This increase in activity is linked to higher sea surface temperatures. The number of strong tornadoes and East Coast winter storms have not been seen to have changed over the last 60 years.



As we all know, weather forecasting is complicated and difficult. So, too, is the climate. But, what we see is a very clear picture that severe weather in the U.S. is becoming ever more severe. We may not have all of the details worked out just yet, but there can be no doubt that the weather is changing in response to a changing climate. And, once again, we see the end user is the one that gets stuck paying the bills. Everyone always passes increased costs on to their customers. The people at the end have no customers to pass it on, so they get stuck.

So, when you decide to deny climate change and resist efforts to do something about it, be sure to pull out you checkbook and make out a check to the rich and powerful.

West Antarctic Ice Sheet Has Passed the Point of No Return

Researchers with NASA and the University of California - Irvine have released the results of their study of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) have found the ice sheet can no longer be prevented from melting into the sea. They studied how the speed of the ice has increased over recent decades, the slope of the land that it is traveling over and how much of the ice sheet is floating on sea water.

A key part of their research is the finding that the grounding line is retreating for all of the glaciers studied. The grounding line is the last location where the glacier is supported by land. Seaward of that line the ice is floating in sea water. This sea water is warmer than the ice and melts it. Over recent decades, the grounding line has been retreating as the glaciers get lighter and float higher. At the same time, the water has been getting warmer, melting the ice at a faster rate.

This information, combined with the finding that there is no landform under most of the glaciers to slow them down and they they reach the conclusion the melting will continue. But, much of the land the ice is located on is actually below sea level, so as the glaciers retreat, the sea water will follow and continue to melt the ice. All of these findings lead to the conclusion that it is now inevitable the ice sheet will completely melt.

How long will it take to melt all of the ice sheet? Probably centuries before it is all gone. But, there will be substantial effects to the world's sea level starting even today and getting worse over time. By itself, the WAIS will increase the world sea level by about four feet.

So what? If it isn't going to happen for centuries then we really don't have to worry about it now. Let the people centuries from now worry about it. They will probably have better technology to deal with the problem that anything we have today. That is the position of the climate change deniers and, just like everything else they say, it is wrong.

It may take some centuries for the sea level to rise by the total four feet, but we will be seeing increases of inches within the coming decades and that is enough to lead to substantial coastal flooding and loss of land. What this means is that we are going to incur the cost of this sea level rise today. Not centuries from now. Today.

So, once again, take out your checkbook and made out a check to the climate change deniers. They keep telling us there is nothing to worry about and we keep believing them.

Charles Krauthammer and Global Warming Science

The Washington Post published a column by Charles Krauthammer where he questions climate change science. Let's be very honest here. The column is well thought out and is not inflammatory. But, it is also wrong on the basic implied assumption.

What he says is that science is an ongoing process and we cannot come out and say that some scientific issue is closed to debate. This is an accurate assessment of the scientific process. Science never ends. However, the implied part of his column is patently wrong. To suggest that the climate change deniers might have credibility simply because the scientific method requires continuous debate and review is, to put it bluntly, just flat out wrong. What makes it even worse is how he himself produces an example to show just how wrong he is.

He cites the case of mammograms.

It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less) or be subject to termination.

Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.

This is a true statement, but actually makes exactly the opposite point that he wants. What we have in this case is a situation where a rigorous, scientific study revealed new information. Climate change deniers are not engaged in any kind of scientifically valid study that disputes the current climate science. And, that is the problem.

Based on Krauthammer's logic, we should allow anyone with any kind of contrary viewpoint equal time with the scientists. I agree that contrary scientific evidence should be allowed and considered, and it is. But, climate change deniers are not producing this science. Claims that climate change violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not scientifically valid (there is no 2nd law violation). Claiming that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist is not scientifically valid (the greenhouse effect has been rigorously proven). Claiming climate is changing due to natural cycles is not scientifically valid (there are natural cycles but it has been shown what we are experiencing is not one of them). All of these claims, and many, many more, have all been shown to have no basis in the scientific facts.

So, why should they be considered in any scientific debate? Simply, if you are not going to perform as a scientist, don't be surprised when you are dismissed by the scientific community. And, most importantly, NEVER suggest that deniers are being ignored because climate scientists want to pursue some agenda. There is NO agenda and climate scientists will be the first to tell you they would love to find out climate change is not real. The scientists are the ones most familiar with the effects of climate change and what we are seeing is not pretty. I would be very happy if someone could show that we really don't have anything to worry about.

Krauthammer is wrong. The science is as settled as it can be at this time. The amount of evidence is massively overwhelming. The deniers really are flat earthers and should be ignored until they can produce something that is scientifically valid.

But, there is more to the story.  Now, it turns out, there is a movement to censor Krauthammer for what he said. I am as strongly opposed to this as I am to giving any credence to the deniers. Freedom of speech is a cherished freedom in this country and we don't have to look very hard to find countries where they cannot enjoy that freedom. If Krauthammer, who is not a scientist, wishes to express his opinion then he is free to do so. But, so are we. And, if I want to point out that Krauthammer is wrong and misguided, then it is my right to do so.

So, Mr. Krauthammer, I respectfully wish to tell you that you are completely wrong and misguided in your statement.

Thin Ice Climate Movie

There is a movie, released late last year, that discusses the scientists involved in climate change research. It is called Thin Ice. You can see the trailer and rent the movie ($8 for seven days of access) at the website, http://thiniceclimate.org/. You can also download it or purchase it outright. It is about 73 minutes long.

The premise of the movie is that, for the first time in the life time of producer Simon Lamb, scientists are under attack. Global change deniers are making all sorts of accusations about the climate change science and the people involved  in the research. So, Lamb, a geologist himself, decided to make this movie where he goes around the world and meets the scientists themselves to address the question, are they committing some kind of fraud?

It is a well-done movie and allows the scientists to speak for themselves. I am sure the deniers will still be deniers, but this is one more piece of evidence that they are wrong. This movie shows very clearly that the scientists are not committing any kind of fraud.

Some of the scenes are so good I wish I could use them in the classroom. For instance, they give a very nice demonstration of how effectively CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. They train a telescope on the Sun and measure the light spectrum collected. Then, they do the measurement again, except they blow CO2 in front of the telescope as they are taking the measurements. There graphs show a very significant decline in infrared radiation getting through to be measured.

There is a another part where they discuss the physics of greenhouse gases that is one of the most clear and precise explanations I have ever heard. I was very impressed at how well the scientists were able to communicate the complex science in a way any one could understand.

His conclusion? There was no hoax. The scientists were meticulous in their efforts to collect data without contamination and were open-minded about their conclusions. This, he said, was science at its best.

I find that to be very comforting.

Senate told oceans are warming

Dr. James McCarthy testified at a Senate hearing on Wednesday that the temperature deep in the ocean is increasing. This is very important. Water is very difficult to warm up and the amount of water in the world's oceans is very large. So, it would take a very great deal of energy to noticeably warm the oceans. But, that is just what is happening.

Dr. McCarthy's testimony (as well as the rest of the day's hearing) can be seen here.

I wonder how the global warming deniers will try to spin this one.

Himalayan glaciers really are melting

Climate change deniers like to jump on the smallest discrepancy in the scientific evidence as proof that the science is wrong. One of their favorite topics concerns melting of the glaciers in the Himalaya Mountains. There was an error in the last IPCC report and they repeatedly pull this out as proof of their claims, even though the error was minor. But, as a result of this they have been claiming the glaciers are not melting at all. Well, the science doesn't support them.

A new study released in Nature Climate Change where the authors report

Here we report on the glacier status over the past 30 years by investigating the glacial retreat of 82 glaciers, area reduction of 7,090 glaciers and mass-balance change of 15 glaciers. Systematic differences in glacier status are apparent from region to region, with the most intensive shrinkage in the Himalayas (excluding the Karakorum) characterized by the greatest reduction in glacial length and area and the most negative mass balance. 

This is pretty damning evidence for the people that claim there is no melting of the glaciers. Melting of glaciers requires warming. And, of course, the deniers want to deny there is any warming. Unfortunately, the evidence keeps piling up to show they are wrong and are just busy misleading the public.

Also unfortunately, while we are busy arguing about this the people that depend on these glaciers for their lives will be suffering.

Once again, the only way you can deny global climate change is to deny science.

Climate change blamed for severe weather

You cannot point at a single weather event and say that climate change is responsible for it. Weather has always happened, even before there was manmade climate change. But, a pattern of events can be used to paint a picture. That is what we are now seeing.

Weather in the U.S. has been very extreme the last few years. A notable example of this is the severe drought that was experienced in Texas. It may have been the most severe drought every recorded in Texas and covered almost the entire state. This, deniers will say, was the result of naturally occurring weather patterns. Texas has had droughts before and will have them in the future. While this statement is true, it is not complete. What we are seeing is the number and severity of Texas droughts are both increasing. These increases correlate with the rise in global temperatures.

Texas and the U.S. are not the only places to experience severe weather the last few years. It has been a worldwide phenomenon. Some of this is natural. Some of the disasters are actually manmade without global climate change. By changing water drainage humans caused the extensive flooding in Thailand last year in what would have been an otherwise relatively normal event.

But some of the extreme weather can be attributed to global warming.

The basic lesson is that the world's weather system is a heat engine. At a fundamental level, it takes in energy and produces weather. Add more energy and you get more weather. Add lots more energy and you get lots more weather. Crank up the energy and you crank up the engine.

Now, this year, the Midwest U.S. is having a drought.  It is so severe that it is affecting the crops, which is sure to have an impact on food prices later on. Now, farmers in Nebraska using surface water are told to stop irrigating. That isn't going to help.

As global temperatures continue to rise we will see weather that is more severe and we will see it more often.

Tree ring data is bad news for denialists

Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Germany and his collaborators were able to assembled a record of tree rings that is unprecedented in its continuity and consistency. These data came from the trunks of young and long-dead Scots pines at 17 sites in northern Finland and Sweden.  Examining this database in a new way allowed them to identify the effects of small variations in Earth's orbit about the Sun on the climate. These small variations are the result of Earth's gravitational interactions with Jupiter and Saturn and are believed to be responsible for the ice ages. But, the researchers believe these small variations are also responsible for a cooling period of the last 2000 years. The data show that Scandinavia cooled from about 138 BC to about AD 1900 before it began warming again.

Of course, climate change deniers are jumping on this as proof that the current changes in our climate are not manmade. They want to claim that the current changes are just naturally occurring variations and that this tree ring data supports that conclusion. (Let's ignore how the denialists like to claim there is no change in the climate. Why are they trying to explain the changes if they think there are no changes?)

This is actually bad news for the denialists' claims and is another example of the only way you can reject manmade global climate change is to reject science. This research shows supports other work showing we are in a naturally occurring cooling cycle. The denialists, when they admit there is global climate change, say that the climate goes through naturally occurring cycles. This is correct. What is not correct is the belief we are in a naturally occurring warming cycle. The fact is, we are in a naturally occurring cooling cycle.

Just imagine how much worse off we are going to be when we really do enter a naturally occurring warming cycle.

Reality bites NC-20

NC-20, named for the 20 coastal counties of North Carolina, is an extremist anti-global warming organization. They don't like being called 'anti-science,' but the facts speak for themselves. One of the objectives of NC-20 is to pass legislation in North Carolina to control how climate research is conducted or considered by the state. Their interest in this is that a forecasted 39-inch sea level rise would inundate much of their counties. This, obviously, is not in the best business interest of the coastal counties, so they will just try and get global warming outlawed.

Well, nature doesn't really care what NC-20 wants. Ironically, it turns out North Carolina is an excellent place to show the sea level rise research is valid. Stefan Rahmstorf, a German climatologist, has used the North Carolina marshes to identify sea level rise for the last 2000 years. By using sediment cores, he was able to show sea level rise closely correlates with rising temperature.

NC-20 can huff and puff and blow all they want. They can try to get all the legislation they want passed. But, it won't matter. The global average temperature continues to rise and the sea level will continue to rise with it. What are going to do when this comes to pass? I imagine they will try to sue nature or have it arrested because it violated the law. Why not? Taking measures to be prepared probably isn't anything they would consider.

Rocky Mountains snow pack is declining

One of the great services mountains provide is the snowpack, the great mass of seasonal snow that collects on the mountains every year. Water is stored in the snowpack during the winter and gradually melts during the spring and summer, providing water during the dry months.  A declining snowpack is therefore something of great consequence. And, that is exactly what has been happening in the Rocky Mountains. Since the 1980s the amount of snow falling on the Rockies in the winter time has been dropping, reducing the amount of water flowing out of the mountains in the summer months. There could be two main reasons for this. The amount of precipitation is declining; or the amount of precipitation falling as snow is declining while the total precipitation remains about constant.

New research using tree ring data has now shown the cause is the latter reason. The amount of precipitation isn't changing that much, but the amount of snow is declining. The researchers state they believe manmade global warming is responsible for 30-60% of the decline because the amount of decline is greater than what could have occurred as a result of natural reasons.

This only makes sense and is no surprise to me. In fact, I have stated for many years this would be a result of global warming. Precipitation that would normally be near the freezing point has now been warmed up enough to fall as rain instead of snow. A great deal of snow still falls in the Rockies, but not as much as it did just 30 years ago. A big question I have now is, how does this compare to other mountain ranges?

This study here shows the snowpack in the Cascades has declined, despite an increase in precipitation. This does not bode well.

So, if you live somewhere that relies on snowpack melt for its summer water supply, you might want to start consider what measures you are going to take.

Mars climate shifts

Climate change deniers cite Mars as an example that climate change is being caused by events outside of Earth's environment and not by manmade emissions. This, of course, belies their claim that global warming isn't occurring, but we'll ignore that point. What is important is that climate change on Mars does not have anything to do with what is happening on Earth. Recent images from the European Space Agency mission Mars Express illustrate this point.

Deniers point at images of the martian polar regions over a period of years as proof that manmade emissions are not causing global warming. What we see is that the carbon dioxide polar caps freeze in the martian winter, melt in the spring and then freeze again the following winter. However, comparison of some of these images shows that subsequent freezing does not reach the same amount as it did in the past. The carbon dioxide polar cap appears to be getting smaller each year. Since the CO2 polar cap needs really cold temperatures, the conclusion by some is that the polar regions on Mars are getting warmer. Since there are no manmade emissions on Mars, this warming must be due to other things, such as a warming Sun, and these same causes are responsible for global warming on Earth, not manmade emissions.

There are a lot of problems with this claim. The first is that there is no evidence to support it. The second is there is a mountain of evidence to deny it. But, let's not let reality get in the way.

The fact is that the climate changes on both Mars and Earth through natural cycles. These are well-known and are called Milankovitch cycles on Earth. The great part about these cycles in that deniers use the Milankovitch cycles as explanations for the current change in Earth's climate, but then ignore them on Mars. The natural cycles on Mars are much more extreme because it does not have a very large moon, like Earth does. The climate on Mars changes much more rapidly as a result.

Now, the ESA Mars Express images show a deep martian crater and the layers of sediments can be seen. A nearby crater that is not as deep does not show these deeper layers, meaning the layers are in the rock and were not subsequently formed in the larger crater. While we cannot be sure without actually going there and doing tests on the layers, it is believed these layers are caused by cycles in the martian climate, just as expected with the natural cycles.

And, what about those cycles on Earth? The scientist claiming the martian changes are evidence for natural causes here on Earth is Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia. He said, in 2007, that the Sun entered a period where it is dimmer, beginning in the 1990s, and that we would see a steep cooling of the climate as a result, 'within 15 to 20 years.' Well, it has been five years since he made that claim and what we have actually seen is that global warming has continued with the warmest years ever recorded occurring since then.

The evidence and track record don't seem to be supporting the deniers. 

Sea ice approaching record low

Measurements of arctic sea ice this spring shows that many areas normally covered with ice at this time of the year are free of ice. Overall, the level of sea ice in the arctic region is below the baseline average. This is an indicator that the amount of sea ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean will reach a very low minimum this year. It is not conclusive at this point and things could change, but it is a disturbing warning. What is particularly disturbing is how so much area is ice free before we even get to the summer solstice. This is when the Sun is at its highest point in the sky and shines 24 hours a day above the Arctic Circle. Ice free areas of water are darker than ice covered areas and absorb a greater percentage of light shining down. A greater ice free area and more intense sunlight means the Arctic Ocean will be storing a great deal of heat. That heat will then be re-emitted later in the year as autumn begins. This will melt more ice and will cause changes in the weather patterns.

Will we see a record low amount of sea ice cover this year? It is very likely, but not a sure thing at this point. But, I think we should all be getting ready for another winter of extreme weather. The big question we need to be asking at this point is whether it will be extremely cold and snowy, or will it be extremely warm and dry? We have seen both of those in the last several years. This news about the sea ice makes me believe we will see it again this year.