Hurricanes 2018

There was a lot of press about the 2017 hurricane season. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage, killed thousands, and left untold more injured. By themselves, these three storms caused an estimated $265 billion in damage to the U.S. That figure is from January 8, 2018 and is likely to be even higher by now. Official records show 64 deaths in Puerto Rico, but analysis indicates this number is extremely low and the real number of fatalities lies between 1000 and 5000 people.

The question that was immediately asked was how much manmade global warming had to do with all of this. The deniers in government responded that 'this wasn't the time to talk about that.' Of course not. They didn't want to be held accountable for their actions. But, that didn't stop the conversation and the analysis. The conclusion? Yes, AGW most certainly made these storms worse. Attribution science shows global warming made the storms stronger, slower, and wetter. They are also growing in strength faster. Three independent studies last fall found that human activity made the damage from Hurricane Harvey more intense. The disastrous rainfall from Harvey was three times as likely as from a storm a hundred years ago and 15% more intense. The seven day rainfall was as much as 40% greater than from a similar storm even a few decades ago. The lead researcher on one study, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, stated,

This multimethod analysis, drawing upon both observed rainfall data and high-resolution climate models, confirms that heavy rainfall events are increasing substantially across the Gulf Coast region because of human interference with our climate system.

[Of course, much of the damage could've been avoided if not for the climate-change denying director for the Harris County Flood Control District, Mike Talbot, who insisted climate change was a hoax and allowed construction in known flood plains for many years. It would be wonderful if Talbot was arrested for his crimes, but it won't happen.]

The problem is that the average hurricane strength has remained pretty constant with the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) remaining relatively steady. But, while the ACE has remained constant, there has been an increase in storms in recent years of such incredible strength they are being referred to as category 6 storms, which would constitute a new level in the Saffir-Simpson index used to categorize cyclonic storms and would consist of storms with constant winds exceeding 175 or 180 mph.

The science is clear - global warming is resulting in cyclonic storms that develop faster, become stronger, move more slowly, and dump more rain. And, at the same time, the total energy of storms has remained fairly constant. How do you reconcile this contradictory information? One way is that small storms and large storms are both becoming more common. This results in the average remaining nearly the same. Another way is that very active years (2017) alternate with relatively quiet years.

This year, 2018, appears to be one of those slow years. The July forecasts are for below-average activity with eleven named storms and four hurricanes. Despite the fact that we've already had three full-strength hurricanes, it appears this should be a slow year. There are several factors leading to this conclusion.

Take a look at this plot of the sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly:

Source: CCI

This image is showing us three really important things.

First, note the red area in the North Atlantic. The sea surface is hotter than usual here. That is causing a high pressure system in the North Atlantic. This creates a clockwise cycle of wind which goes down past the Iberian Peninsula and westward across the mid-Atlantic. Take a look at this graphic illustrating the wind patterns:

Source: Earth

The result of this is to cool the sea surface. This is indicated by the blue, lower-than-normal temperature region in our SST figure above and is the second thing to note. That area is known as the Main Development Area for hurricanes.

Hurricanes need warm ocean water. The threshold temperature is typically regarded as at least 79 degrees Fahrenheit (about 26 degrees Celsius). The winds blowing across the mid-Atlantic are keeping the sea surface temperature down, which is bad for hurricane formation.

The third thing to note in the image above is the red area west of equatorial South America indicating hotter than usual SSTs. This is an El Nino possibly forming. The July ENSO Diagnostic Discussion estimates a 65% chance of an El Nino this fall and a 70% chance for this coming winter. Even if it doesn't turn into a full-scale El Nino, it has the effect of creating high-altitude wind shear across the Caribbean Sea. Hurricanes gain strength by forming a rising column of air in the eye, resulting in a low-pressure area and sucking in hot, moist air to replace it. This air rises, condenses, releases its energy and then cycles around to continue fueling the storm. High-altitude shear winds crossing over the top of this column will essentially chop it off, robbing the cyclone of its reinforcing wind pattern. This is also bad for hurricane formation.

So, two bad things for hurricane formation. But, there's a third. Take a look at this satellite image:

Source: NOAA/RAMMB, via Weather Underground

What you can see here is a big cloud of dust blowing off Northern Africa across the mid-Atlantic and into the Caribbean. This dust is contributing to the lower SST for the region by shading the sunlight.

So, we have cool SSTs caused by wind and dust, and high-altitude wind shears. This is a bad combination for the formation of tropical cyclones. So, despite having three hurricanes already, the estimate remains that it will be a slow hurricane season in the Atlantic.

The interesting thing is all of those factors are made worse by AGW. The high-SST area in the North Atlantic is the result of ocean warming, as is the El Nino. Manmade global warming makes both of these events more likely and more extreme. The dust blowing off Africa is due to more extreme drought conditions, again made worse by global warming.

So, does AGW make tropical hurricanes worse? Or, better? Apparently, depending on the year, it can be either.

"This multimethod analysis, drawing upon both observed rainfall data and high-resolution climate models, confirms that heavy rainfall events are increasing substantially across the Gulf Coast region because of human interference with our climate system."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-climate-harvey-rainfall-percent-intense.html#jCp

"This multimethod analysis, drawing upon both observed rainfall data and high-resolution climate models, confirms that heavy rainfall events are increasing substantially across the Gulf Coast region because of human interference with our climate system."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-climate-harvey-rainfall-percent-intense.html#jCp

"This multimethod analysis, drawing upon both observed rainfall data and high-resolution climate models, confirms that heavy rainfall events are increasing substantially across the Gulf Coast region because of human interference with our climate system."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-climate-harvey-rainfall-percent-intense.html#jCp

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.

Western U.S. Snowmelt Streamflow Has Already Occurred

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

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

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

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

Did the California Drought Just Get a Lot Worse?

A California appeals court has ruled a tiered-water rate in San Juan Capistrano, CA is unconstitutional. Like many communities, San Juan charged an increasing rate for users who used greater amounts of water. The residents passed a law saying the government can not charge more for a service than the cost of that service. Using that law as a basis, the residents claimed the tiered-rate system was arbitrary and unfair. The courts agreed.

Does this mean the end of tiered-rate practices in California? That would be a very bad thing. The idea behind a tiered-rate is to have affordable water for low-income families but to discourage the waste of water. As we all know, California cannot afford to waste water anymore. And, yet, that is exactly what some people are doing. Despite the drought, people are failing to conserve water. In other words, they are wasting water the community can't afford to waste simply because they can.

If this ruling sticks and spreads throughout the state, it will have a serious impact on an already serious situation.

Good luck, California.

Despite Drought, California Does Business As Usual

Sometimes you have to wonder what is going through people's heads. Then it comes to you. Oh, yeah. It's about the short-term money.

As we know, California is under a historically bad drought and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Some day, the rain and snow will return to California and people will say, 'See! It was just a cycle.' But, this is just the beginning. Droughts like this will be hitting California more often in the future. So, it would seem to make sense you would start to change your pattern of behavior. But, that would mean taking a short-term sacrifice for the long-term gain and we are not well-programmed for that.

California's agriculture is an example. Crops are going unplanted because of a lack of water. Farmers that do have water are not planting because they can make more money selling their water than they could off the crops. Orchards are dieing due to lack of water. Fisheries are drying up. The list goes on. So, what do they do? They are growing and exporting water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and almonds. And, they are sending them overseas. It would be bad enough if they were using the crops in-state, or maybe a nearby state. That would at least keep the water in the area. Instead, they are exporting these crops to China.

I understand the issue of jobs and economy. The farmers have to make a living and the state wants to keep the jobs. No problem. But, if an industry is going to die, doesn't it make sense to make the changes when you can instead of waiting until you are forced to change? And, if you make the changes when you can, you are more likely to have the money needed. But, if you wait, your financial resources will wilt away before you make the plunge. So, by acting this way, farmers are ensuring their future failure.

And, that is climate change denial in a nutshell. I guess I should say in an almond shell.

Amazing.

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.

California Snowpack

There has been a lot of news coverage of how California Governor Jerry Brown mandated water restrictions due to the record low snowpack. Many of the articles I've read have not done what I would consider an adequate report on the snowpack level. Most of them merely say the April snowpack is at 5% of the historic level. That is frightening enough, but there's more to the story than that. The 5% figure is for the entire range.

The April snowpack is historically the largest of the year. With a full season of snowfall behind it and the melt season not yet begun means the mountains are normally stoked with stored water this time of year. But, when the California Department of Water Resources took the April snowpack measurements they found the ground was bare below 6800 feet and there no snow at all. All total, that 5% figure translates to a mere 1.4 inches of water compared to the historic average of 28.3 inches (4.9%) for April 1. This was the lowest measurement ever made for April.

But, even this isn't the worst of it.

This is the fourth measurement the Department of Water Resources has done for the media this winter. The previous three were on December 30, January 29 and March 3. The snowpack as a percentage of the historic average on those dates was 50%, 25% and 19%, respectively. And now, 5%. This is a very bad trend.

Why the decline? After all, there were some big storms this winter. Well, not really. Northern California has recorded 76% of normal precipitation this precipitation year, which began on October 1, 2014. Central and Southern California have had 41% and 42% respectively. You don't break a drought with below average precipitation.

Also, it has been so warm the precipitation fell as rain instead of snow. Some of it was captured in reservoirs and they are much better than this time last year, but still far below historic averages (typically 60% to 75% of historic averages). Some soaked into the ground. But most was lost to runoff and evaporation. None of this bodes well for California this year. The state's wettest months of the year have already passed. There is no way the snowpack runoff can be replaced and the reservoirs and ground water are already stressed. I can't see this playing out well for anyone this year.

One of the false claims deniers keep making is that there are no climate change predictions that have come true. As I said, this is false and the record is full of things that have played out just as predicted. Unfortunately, California is now on that list. It has long been predicted that rising temperatures would result in a reduced snowpack as snow fell as rain and this would, in turn, lead to increased chances of drought. 

But, of course, if they were interested in the facts they would no longer be deniers.

Texas Water Wars

I live in Mason County, far in the western part of the Llano Uplift of the Edwards Plateau. Austin and San Antonio are two hours away. There are 2000 people in the town of Mason and 4000 in the entire county of about 1000 square miles, about 30 times the size of Manhattan Island. The skies are dark here and city people are astounded when they see the stars for the first time. We are more concerned with hitting deer with our cars than with city crime. It's a 60-year drive to Mason from the big cities.

Yesterday, March 13, I drove out to the Eckert James River Bat Cave, one of the largest bat nurseries in the world, and did some volunteer work. We were so far out in the wilderness it looked like a scene from a movie on Africa, including fording streams. There is no cell phone service out there.

Jame River, Mason County, TX

You would think a place this remote would be unconcerned with the events in the cities. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. When you talk about Texas one word always comes up when discussing the future - water. There isn't enough of it and there is a fight about it. As it it turns out, Mason has a very high quality aquifer - the Hickory. This water is superb for agriculture and vineyards are springing up all over the county. We are in the heart of the Texas wine country (a multi-billion dollar industry), but we rely on irrigation. Mason averages about 24 inches of rain a year, but I think 20 of those inches fall in three or four storms.

Now, Austin, two hours away, wants our water. Metropolitan Austin has in excess of 1 million people. Versus our 4000. The odds are not in our favor.

So, why the water wars? Two reasons - climbing population and drought.

Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the union. When I was born in 1957 there were about 4 million people in the state. Today, there are nearly 26 million. The farm we lived on is now a neighborhood of multi-million dollar homes surrounded by a large city. And, it keeps increasing.

More people, more demands for water.

At the same time, we have been experiencing drought for years. Depending on the region and the source of information, the drought has been going for anywhere from 5 to 15 years. I can personally attest to how rivers that used to flow with adequate water are now completely dry - and have been for several years.

On top of this is a cause so many people don't want to acknowledge - climate change. Drought in this region is simply something you learn to deal with. But, they are getting more frequent and more severe because of climate change. I find it interesting how people will get all riled up about the water wars and, at the same time, deny that climate change is making the situation worse. Here is a perfect example of a community not far from where I live:

The Southwestern Water Wars: How Drought Is Producing Tensions in Texas

 If you want to solve the problem, you have to first understand what the cause is. It's an uphill fight.

More Evidence California Drought Is Manmade

Researchers at Stanford University published a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluding warming caused by humans is responsible for the conditions responsible the California drought. They put only naturally occurring variations into climate models and were unable to get the exiting conditions. It was only when manmade global warming was included that they were able to get the drought. Manmade emissions have resulted in both periods of warming as well as decreased rainfall. The simultaneous occurrance of these conditions is what is responsible for the condition California is experiencing today. They also found that any future dry period is likely to be accompanied by warm temperatures, meaning this will all likely play out again with greater frequency.

And still, people will insist it is all natural.

Here is an abstract from their paper:

A comparison of historical climate data from California with different climate models has shown the influence of human-driven climate change. Noah Diffenbaugh, Daniel Swain, and Danielle Touma of Stanford University examined the state's records of temperature, rainfall, and drought conditions and evaluated the severity of different periods of warming and drought using the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index and the Palmer Drought Severity Index. They then compared those periods with a range of global climate models. The models that included only naturally occurring variations did not accurately depict California's warm periods, but the models that included anthropogenic warming did. The researchers believe that anthropogenic warming has increased the simultaneous occurrence of periods of both warming and decreased rainfall, which has resulted in an increase in the frequency and severity of droughts across the state.

Weak El Nino Conditions Exist

The National Weather Service has announced weak El Nino conditions now exist and there is a 50-60% chance it will continue through the Northern Hemisphere summer of 2015.

I have been following the El Nino - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions closely since last spring when it began to look as though the ENSO conditions might come to pass. There are some areas in the equatorial Pacific that are monitored closely - Area 1+2 - located near South America; Area 3- located a little further out; Area 4- located even further west; and Area 3.4, which overlaps areas 3 and 4. It is 3.4, essentially in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, they pay most attention to and is specifically mentioned in the NWS announcement.

At least twice in the last year I thought the ENSO had begun, once in the late spring and once in the fall. In addition to the borderline conditions there were also weak weather patterns consistent with it occurring. Each of those times the conditions came apart, though. My guess is the mechanisms responsible for causing this event (and it is very complicated) were getting close to coming together, but not quite.

So, what does this mean for worldwide weather and the climate? My guess right now (a fool's errand) is that it won't have a very large impact. It looks as though it is a weak system and any impact will be small.

Significantly, it is not likely this system will do much for the California drought. Instead, the data indicate the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains is dangerously low, meaning California will have another terrible summer. Statewide, the snowpack is measured at just 19 percent of the long term average. A weak El Nino will not change that.

According to the NWS, some areas of the planet may see some light affects from this El Nino, but worldwide effects are not expected. How all of this ties together is something for scientists to study and figure out. While I follow it, I am not involved in any kind of research on ENSO so I can't state what this on-again/off-again cycle means. Hopefully, though, it is one more piece of the puzzle to help us figure out this very important system in our climate.

Climate Change and the California Drought

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

These are the facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Isn't Being Said About the Megadrought

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Drought

As we (hopefully!) know, California has been suffering through a record-breaking drought these last few years. Recent studies have indicated that this has been the worst California drought in as much as 1200 years. Now, there is some relief coming. California has been hit with some rain in recent weeks and is now getting more. In fact, there is an atmospheric river in place that promises to bring quite a bit of precipitation. Rain would be great, snow would be even better.

If you are not familiar with the term, an atmospheric river (AR) is a narrow band of atmospheric moisture and they are responsible for the majority of moisture movement outside of the tropics. They form in the lower atmosphere and can move with wind currents for thousands of miles, lasting many days. When they strike obstacles, such as mountain ranges, the uplift causes the moisture to condense and precipitate out. That is why they cause so much precipitation in California - they travel in from the Pacific and strike the Sierra Nevada mountains. Take a look at this graphic showing the amount of precipitable water in the atmosphere and you can clearly see the atmospheric river heading into California.

Source: CCI Reanalyzer

Note how the AR passes over Hawaii, hence the nickname "Pineapple Express." Also, notice how much more moisture there is in the tropics. You can also see how the AR ends on the West Coast and doesn't move inland very much. West of the mountains will get rain, but the areas east of the mountains will remain dry. While some rain is good, ARs are capable of bringing catastrophic amounts. An AR in 1861-2 brought 43 straight days of rain to the West Coast and turned the interior valleys into lakes, causing massive amounts of damage and killing thousands.

Is this the end of the drought? We can hope so, but we'll have to wait and see to be sure. Hopefully, we won't see anything like the AR of 1861.

So, now the question is, is the drought a naturally-occurring event or because of climate change? The answer, as is typically the case, a mixture of both. California has had droughts in the past and will continue to have them in the future. This drought may have been a naturally occurring event. There are reports going both ways. But, the one thing that is consistent is that global warming certainly made this drought much worse than ones in the past. What studies have shown is that there have been droughts in the past that had even less rain than this current one, but they were all much cooler. This current drought has been a 'hot drought' and California has experienced record high temperatures (remember that the next time someone tells you East Coast temperatures mean the planet is cooling) at the same time the rain failed.

In short, the drought was caused by what has become known as the 'ridiculously resilient ridge.' This ridge caused the wind currents to go north, parallel to the West Coast, preventing moisture from reaching the coastal regions. The currents went up into Alaska and Canada before turning south and plunging into Mid-America, leading to our cooler than average winters in the east these last couple of years. There is debate if this ridge was natural or caused by climate change. But, drought was exacerbated by the high temperatures and the higher temperatures were most certainly caused by global warming.

What that means is that we can expect the naturally occurring drought cycle going forward, but they will look more and more like this last one. Even if this AR brings relief, California needs to make plans because this is going to happen again.

Climate March and the Economy

Much to the dismay of the fossil fuel industry and the professional deniers, the People's Climate March held in New York City was an enormous success. Organizers had predicted 100,000 people would show up, while police said they expected 30,000. The reality is that more than 400,000 people participated in the march in New York, with thousands of related marches in cities all over the world. I noted that Fox News has their coverage of the event buried way back in their climate section without a word of it on the front page. I had to do a search to find the article. Meanwhile, I found front page coverage of the event on CNN, Yahoo! News, Google News, CBS News, and CNN Money, just to name a few after a quick search.

The denier industry is working on spin control on this one. Already, what they are saying is that its unimportant and people aren't concerned with climate change.  Their evidence is to point to a recent Gallup Poll that showed 41% of respondents listing economic issues as the most important issue facing the country, while only 1% listed climate change/environment as the most important issue. (You can apparently make more than one selection, so the total percentage is 141%.) So, is this proof that people aren't concerned with climate change? No, this is actually just the latest example of how the denier industry is in the business of lying and deceiving.

Keep in mind this poll asked about what is the "most important problem", and didn't ask about what you might find to be the second most important problem, or the third. A Gallup poll from last spring showed that 39% described themselves as "Concerned Believers." Only 25% described themselves as "Cool Skeptics." Obviously, more than 1% of the population is concerned about climate change. That, by itself, puts the lie to the deniers.

But, that isn't the end of the story. Keep in mind, 41% said they thought economic issues were the most important. So, what does that have to do with climate change? Well, everything. Climate change is all about economic issues. Remember, it is the economy that led to global warming and it is the economy that is suffering because of it.

While contrarians made comments on this blog or sent me emails about how there was a big cold front across the Eastern U.S., with snow in the upper-Midwest, in early September, they ignored (very typical behavior) what was going on in the rest of the world, such as California. The West Coast, at the same time as the cool front in the east, was suffering a record heat wave and had to issue heat alerts as the temperature soared to record levels and was over 100 degrees in some areas. The Los Angeles interim health director cautioned people about the heat and stated, "it can be dangerous and even deadly," something we know about here in Texas, but the people in LA are not use to this kind of heat and many are unprepared. As a result, many will suffer and many will crank up the air conditioner, which will put a strain on the overstretched California power grid and drive up people's utility bills. Money they could have been spending on other things will now go to the utilities. Where do you make cuts in the household budget to pay extra utility expenses when the budget is already tight?

This is just the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg for California. Of course, the big news is the drought. Over 82% of the state is listed as being in "extreme" or "exceptional" drought. The National Weather Service is considering adding a new category to more properly classify the situation in California. Towns are going without water and over 17,000 jobs have been lost in the agriculture business. Estimates are that California will lose over $800 million worth of agriculture business because of the drought, part of the $2.2 billion in losses and added expenses the California agriculture sector will suffer this year. And, if you don't think you will pay for that loss I suggest you take a look at the prices at your local grocery store.

So many farmers are pumping ground water for irrigation that the ground is sinking and has already caused $1.3 billion in damage to roads, bridges and pipelines. An emergency $7.5 billion water bond is on the November ballot to expand the size of the reservoirs. Just looking at those last two items adds up to $8.8 billion to the 38 million people of California - over $230 per person, or nearly $1000 for a family of four. Keep in mind, that is the cost of just those two issues and doesn't include things like those lost ag jobs and lost ag business - and wildfires.

The drought has made the wildfire situation worse in California by drying out the landscape. One wildfire recently tripled in size and extended itself by more than 10 miles over night, a record growth, and forced the evacuation of over 3000 people while threatening 12,000 homes. Another fire destroyed 150 buildings in a northern California town. Again, someone will have to pay for all of this and I'm sure you can guess who it will be. Governments, businesses and insurance agencies will all pass the losses on to the consumer.

But, what about other areas?

Here is a news article about how the warming oceans are leading to changes in the range of fish. This will lead to overfishing of some species and loss of habitat for others - neither scenario being good for us. Expect to see the cost of seafood go up. And, if you are in the fishing industry, you are probably concerned about your future.

When it comes to insurance expect bad things. There were over $35 billion in U.S. private insured property losses in 2012 alone, $11 billion more than the average over the previous decade. That is about $115 per person across the U.S. for just 2012. Insurance companies are completely convinced that climate change is responsible. Their response? Raise rates, deny coverage or even drop existing coverage. One way or the other, they will get their $35 billion back.

So, we see there are lost jobs, increased costs, higher utility bills, destroyed homes and businesses, increased taxes, higher insurance rates, lowered standard of living - and all because of climate change.

Yes, we really should have economic issues as our number one concern. 

Water Supply In the Colorado River Basin

Many of the people objecting to my challenge say it should be about why we need to worry about global warming, or even about what to do. They clearly have not paid attention to what the challenge is all about.

But, they are correct in one thing, we need to discuss the effects of global warming more. Is global warming good for us? Bad for us? Or, does it even make a difference? I will be spending more time addressing this issue in the future once I am done with the challenge (come on July 31st!).

In that vein, here is a NASA news release about a study of water in the Colorado River Basin. It paints a pretty bleak picture about what is going on with water in the Southwestern U.S. Using data from the GRACE satellite, scientist have been able to identify the amount of mass the basin area has lost since 2004 and determined it has lost about 53 million acre-feet of water. That is almost twice the total volume of Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the U.S. What is really scary is that 41 million acre-feet of that amount came from ground water. Imagine you lost 75% of your income and you then started depleting your savings to maintain the same standard of living. Eventually, your savings are going to run out and you will be faced with a bad situation. That is where the Southwest is today in regards to water. The area has lost its water supply and has been relying on ground water to keep things going the same way instead of changing the way they do business. But, as they say in the new release, we don't know how much ground water there is, so we have no idea how long it will last. If it starts to run out, then there will be a very bad situation in the Southwest.

So, what does this have to do with global warming? Well, there is growing evidence the on-going drought is the result of global warming, and there is growing evidence that the effects of droughts are made worse by global warming. Basically, rainy areas will see more rain while dry areas will see less. Additionally, precipitation that falls as snow on the mountains melts slowly over time and provides water into the summer. As the temperature goes up, it gets too warm for snow and the precipitation falls as rain, which runs off and is no longer available when the dry months of summer come along. To make it worse, the higher temperatures mean there is more evaporation and the area loses even more water. None of these scenarios are good for the future of anyone depending on the water of the Colorado River Basin.

Read this article on the effects of global warming on the area. Richard Seager, a climate scientist who studies water issues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in New York does not believe the drought is caused by global warming, but he goes on to point out that the Southwest has suffered drought conditions in some form for 15 years, and warmer climates have resulted in winter precipitation tending to fall as rain rather than snow. With less snow melting during the spring there is a lack of water during the hot summer months.

"It all adds up across the Southwest to an increasingly stressed water system," he said. "That’s what they might as well get ready for."

So, even someone who doesn't believe the drought is caused by global warming believes it has been made worse by global warming. He also believes this is the new normal for the area.

This is not good news. 

In regards to the debate on if global warming is good or bad for us, I think we can put a very firm check mark in the "Bad for us" column on this one.

El Nino 2014

Update: You can read a nice NSF article on El Nino here.

There are many natural climate oscillations, but one of the most important is the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO).  El Nino is the ocean oscillation where Pacific waters get warmer than usual off the coast of Peru. NOAA defines El Nino as being when the Peruvian waters are at least half of a degree Celsius warmer than average for at least three months. The Southern Oscillation is the atmospheric oscillation that roughly accompanies the ocean component.

ENSO affects the weather virtually everywhere on the planet. It has caused droughts resulting in massive famines as well as widespread floods. The 1997-1998 El Nino caused the worldwide average temperature to rise more than 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit), making 1998 the hottest year ever recorded at the time. It is still the fourth hottest year on record and was so out of line with the rising temperature trend that global warming deniers continue to cherry pick it as the starting point for trend lines to claim there is no global warming. You can clearly see the isolated peak from 1998 in this graph of global surface temperatures.

Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

So, it is small wonder that we keep a close eye on the formation of El Nino. The National Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center has a very detailed website with weekly updates on the ENSO conditions, and it is looking more and more likely that 2014 will be an El Nino year. I wrote the other day that El Nino is back. I am a little more lax in my definition of El Nino and jumped the gun in comparison to the official agencies. In fact, forecast centers around the world are saying El Nino, if it occurs, won't occur until later this summer or sometime in the fall. The consensus seems to be about 65% chance of it forming this summer and as much as 80% chance for it this fall. Forecasters are also saying it will be a mild to moderate event and nothing near as strong as some of the large events of the past. I have been reviewing the data and I agree with that assessment. There is a definite warming trend that has been going on this spring. The amount of warming that is being observed in the upper-level of the Pacific Ocean (upper-300 meters) is greater than the weak events of the past, but less than the strongest ones. That is not to say that something couldn't happen that would tip it to being either stronger or weaker. Such an event is certainly possible. But, based on past behavior, this event is proceeding in much the same way that past moderate events have.

What is still unknown is what effect global warming is having on ENSO. That will take some time to figure out.

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.

What about that expanded harvest?

So, to recap, deniers first said there was no global warming. Then, they said any warming was so small that we didn't need to worry about it. Then, they said it was all just a natural cycle. Now, they are saying it is actually good for us. Do you see a trend here?

One of the things they are now claiming is that global warming will increase the zone where we can grow crops and increase the length of the growing season. In this way, it is actually  good for us. So, how is this turning out?

I have always been very skeptical of this claim, mainly because I grew up in agricultural areas and have always followed agriculture. I do some work in the local vineyards with some friends in this area. Growing a crop is about a lot more than planting seeds and then kicking back until harvest time. You have to worry about weeds, disease, insects, watering and weather - just to name a few things.

Droughts and heat waves have a devastating effect on crops. Just take a look at what is happening to the farms in California right now. They are having to plow their crops under because they don't have enough water. On the other hand, too much water can be just as bad. A flooding rain can wash a whole farm out in a matter of a few hours. The evidence shows that overall, droughts and floods have been about the same so far, but dry areas are getting drier and wet areas are getting wetter. So, areas with droughts are getting worse and areas with floods are also getting worse.

Another weather event that farmers fear is the hail storm. A severe hail storm can pound a crop into the dirt in just minutes.

Of course, the obvious point is it doesn't matter how long the growing season is if you don't have a crop.

And, a warmer climate will also result in better conditions for insects and diseases that destroy crops.

None of this takes into account the fact that grain crops such as corn and wheat are very sensitive to heat. The yield goes down once the temperature gets higher than a certain point.

I had all of this in mind when I read an article in the May 13 issue of Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.  Climate change, water rights, and agriculture: A case study in Idaho reports on an investigation into the effects of climate change on agriculture. Their findings?

"They found that if climate change increases the volatility of the temperature and the water supply, irrigated agriculture in the region could face significant damages. In fact, crop revenue losses could be up to 32%."

This is just one study for one particular region, but the point is pretty clear. Just because more land is available for growing crops and the length of the growing season is longer, it doesn't mean there will be a larger harvest. Climate change will make certain things better for crops, but it will also make a lot of things worse at the same time.

Again, we see that all of us at the bottom will have to foot the bill for all of this. This time, in the form of higher food prices.