While everyone's attention has been focused on the tragedy from Hurricane Harvey (more on that in a future posting), there are some other weather extremes that have been taking place.
I was talking to a friend who lives in San Francisco and she told me the temperature there was over 100 degrees. I was floored! Sure enough, the recorded temperature on September 1 was 106 degrees F. We have a word for temperatures like that in Texas - heat wave! And, we're use to temperatures over 100 degrees. How does this compare to normal San Francisco temperatures? It's the all time high temperature ever recorded there. The average high for September 1 is 70 degrees - 36 degrees cooler.
At the same time, there are wildfires raging in the west. Fires have been burning all summer and, as of September, there are dozens still burning.
This is not some cherry-picking, either. While it is true the Northwest US is experiencing widespread record high temperatures, it actually is a worldwide thing. Worldwide 2016 temperature averages were the highest ever recorded and by a wide margin, breaking the previous record, set in 2015, by .2 degrees C (.36 F). That makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record high average temperature. (What was that? There hasn't been any warming since when?)
The thing I find interesting is how as soon as a snowflake falls, climate change deniers are out laughing and asking 'where is global warming.' And yet, when temperature records are smashed, they remain silent. The amusing thing is that their posturing actually supports the scientific evidence. When deniers come out and say something along the lines of, 'This particular date in this particular city was the coldest day recorded in 30 years,' what they're really saying is that temperatures that used to be the norm haven't been experienced in 30 years. Why would that be?
Meanwhile, Bangladesh is suffering from the worst flooding in 40 years. Bangladesh is a country prone to severe flooding, so that statement is highly significant. The death toll in Bangladesh from this one event is estimated at 142, as of September 3. Stunningly, over 1200 people have perished in flooding in Nepal, India and Bangladesh since June.
Even without Hurricane Harvey, we see severe weather is becoming worse and worse. And now, Hurricane Irma is on the way.
Showing posts with label Weather. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Weather. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Friday, October 23, 2015
The Road Not Taken In Climate Change
In The Road Not Taken, Robert Frost said,
Some people view this as a celebration - by taking the road less traveled he had good experiences that he might not have had otherwise. Others view it as a lament - this road led him to things he would prefer he hadn't experienced. Either way, the point is made. We all have that occasion to go right or go left and the decision makes 'all the difference.'
That time has long since passed when it comes to climate change. We came to the branch in the road decades ago and decided not to take the path of dealing with it. Now, we are in a time and place where manmade climate change is a reality we have to deal with. That is why I find it interesting to see articles about whether or not global warming is responsible for some weather event.
In recent months, we have seen massive heat waves that have left thousands dead in India and Pakistan, huge flash floods in the Southwest that swept away homes and cars; incredible drought in California resulting in record amounts of wildfires and eventual mudslides; super-typhoons in the Pacific; and a '1000-year' flood in South Carolina, to name just a few. For all of these events (and many more), the question is always raised - is this the result of global warming? The problem is this question makes no sense.
Asking this question supposes we know of some alternative time-line without manmade climate change, one where we can check the weather on a given date and compare it to our own timeline to see how they compare. If we hadn't changed the climate, would California still have a drought? Would South Caroline still have a '1000-year' flood? Would thousands still be dead from heat in India and Pakistan? How do we know and how could we possibly know? The best we can do is make an effort at calculating the probabilities of such events. And, of course, how can you tell if this particular event is the result of AGW or not?
The answer is, they are all the result of AGW - every single one of them. In fact, all weather is the result of AGW. We are responsible for every single weather event, no matter how mild or severe. The reason is weather doesn't just pop-up out of nothingness and climate change isn't some switch you can flip on or off. Significant AGW has been ongoing for over 40 years. That means any climate system today is the end product of a 40-year climate system that has been changed by our emissions.
There is the claim in chaos theory that a butterfly flapping its wings in the Rocky Mountains can cause a storm in Miami three days later. I don't subscribe to this belief, but the point is important. If weather is so sensitive that a butterfly flapping its wings can change it, then what will be the effect of 40 years of AGW? Wouldn't everything be different as a result?
There is no alternative timeline to which we can compare our weather. All weather today is the result of manmade climate change caused by human emissions. There is no other possible conclusion. And, we made the decision decades ago to do nothing about that. We chose our path in the woods and that has made all the difference.
I shall be telling this with a sighSomewhere ages and ages hence:Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference.
Some people view this as a celebration - by taking the road less traveled he had good experiences that he might not have had otherwise. Others view it as a lament - this road led him to things he would prefer he hadn't experienced. Either way, the point is made. We all have that occasion to go right or go left and the decision makes 'all the difference.'
That time has long since passed when it comes to climate change. We came to the branch in the road decades ago and decided not to take the path of dealing with it. Now, we are in a time and place where manmade climate change is a reality we have to deal with. That is why I find it interesting to see articles about whether or not global warming is responsible for some weather event.
In recent months, we have seen massive heat waves that have left thousands dead in India and Pakistan, huge flash floods in the Southwest that swept away homes and cars; incredible drought in California resulting in record amounts of wildfires and eventual mudslides; super-typhoons in the Pacific; and a '1000-year' flood in South Carolina, to name just a few. For all of these events (and many more), the question is always raised - is this the result of global warming? The problem is this question makes no sense.
Asking this question supposes we know of some alternative time-line without manmade climate change, one where we can check the weather on a given date and compare it to our own timeline to see how they compare. If we hadn't changed the climate, would California still have a drought? Would South Caroline still have a '1000-year' flood? Would thousands still be dead from heat in India and Pakistan? How do we know and how could we possibly know? The best we can do is make an effort at calculating the probabilities of such events. And, of course, how can you tell if this particular event is the result of AGW or not?
The answer is, they are all the result of AGW - every single one of them. In fact, all weather is the result of AGW. We are responsible for every single weather event, no matter how mild or severe. The reason is weather doesn't just pop-up out of nothingness and climate change isn't some switch you can flip on or off. Significant AGW has been ongoing for over 40 years. That means any climate system today is the end product of a 40-year climate system that has been changed by our emissions.
There is the claim in chaos theory that a butterfly flapping its wings in the Rocky Mountains can cause a storm in Miami three days later. I don't subscribe to this belief, but the point is important. If weather is so sensitive that a butterfly flapping its wings can change it, then what will be the effect of 40 years of AGW? Wouldn't everything be different as a result?
There is no alternative timeline to which we can compare our weather. All weather today is the result of manmade climate change caused by human emissions. There is no other possible conclusion. And, we made the decision decades ago to do nothing about that. We chose our path in the woods and that has made all the difference.
Friday, August 21, 2015
War On Science
I was reading a blog post by meteorologist Dan Satterfield about the forecasts made concerning Superstorm Sandy in 2012. At the time, the European forecast model (ECMWF) had Sandy hitting New Jersey while the American model (GFS) had it going out to sea. As we all know, the Europeans were right.
Turns out, there is more to the story than just two different forecasting models. The real problem is that the Americans did not have current computers. The European computers were faster and were able to make more detailed forecasts. It turns out, when the GFS is given the same detailed information the ECMWF had it produces similar results.
This means the problem wasn't the model. The problem was the funding. Given proper funding, the American's would have had the ability to make an accurate forecast in advance the same way the Europeans did. You now have to wonder how much damage and how many deaths were caused because of the disconnect between the two. If both ECMWF and GFS had provided a forecast showing Sandy striking New Jersey what would have been done differently?
Satterfield, states it well,
Turns out, there is more to the story than just two different forecasting models. The real problem is that the Americans did not have current computers. The European computers were faster and were able to make more detailed forecasts. It turns out, when the GFS is given the same detailed information the ECMWF had it produces similar results.
This means the problem wasn't the model. The problem was the funding. Given proper funding, the American's would have had the ability to make an accurate forecast in advance the same way the Europeans did. You now have to wonder how much damage and how many deaths were caused because of the disconnect between the two. If both ECMWF and GFS had provided a forecast showing Sandy striking New Jersey what would have been done differently?
Satterfield, states it well,
The anti-science posture of many of our so-called political leaders is actually having an impact on many aspects of how science is done in this country. The effects are widespread, and run from NASA, to weather prediction, to a serious deficiency in weather satellites. While NOAA now has new computers going online, we’re going to have a tough time catching up, because Europe,China and Japan are not sitting still. More so, they aren’t sitting around arguing over stickers in Biology books saying that natural selection is just a theory, or fighting over teaching accurate climate science to high school students. The result is that they have better weather models, faster computers and much more sophisticated weather satellites that can feed data into those models.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
What if Climate Change is Real?
This video is a lecture given by a climate scientist at Texas Tech University. It is the kind of thing people like Tom Harris and Russell Cook would never watch because it shows, graphically, just how wrong they are. Everyone else should watch it. It is about 18 minutes long and worth it. I did not post this because it talks about Texas, but it didn't hurt, either.
What if Climate Change is Real?
What if Climate Change is Real?
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Sunday, May 3, 2015
More Severe Atlantic Hurricanes in Store
We know the oceans are getting warmer. There has been a lot of debate about what this will do in regards to hurricanes, though. The principle reason for this dispute is a lack of data. But, a new study of sediment layers from a Massachusetts salt pond resulted in a record of hurricanes over the years that can be compared to the sea surface temperature record. By analyzing the sedimentary layers they were able to identify severe storms and compiled a record going back 2000 years. They were able to identify 35 severe storms over that period.
So, when the sea surface temperature was low, there were .28 severe storms per century. When the sea surface temperature was high, there were 2.3 and 3.6 storms per century. Take a look at the sea surface temperature anomaly and draw your own conclusion:
At Salt Pond, three coarse grained event beds deposited in the historical interval are consistent with severe hurricanes in 1991 (Bob), 1675, and 1635 C.E., and provide modern analogs for 32 other prehistoric event beds. Two intervals of heightened frequency of event bed deposition between 1400 and 1675 C.E. (10 events) and 150 and 1150 C.E. (23 events), represent the local expression of coherent regional patterns in intense-hurricane–induced event beds. Our synthesis indicates that much of the western North Atlantic appears to have been active between 250 and 1150 C.E., with high levels of activity persisting in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico until 1400 C.E. This interval was one with relatively warm sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the main development region (MDR). A shift in activity to the North American east coast occurred ca. 1400 C.E., with more frequent severe hurricane strikes recorded from The Bahamas to New England between 1400 and 1675 C.E. A warm SST anomaly along the western North Atlantic, rather than within the MDR, likely contributed to the later active interval being restricted to the east coast.Doing a straight average gives you an average of 1.75 severe storms per century. But, the record shows the storms were not evenly distributed. There were an average of 3.6 severe storms per century from 1400 to 1675 and an average of 2.3 severe storms per century between 150 and 1150. These just happened to be warm periods. In comparison, the remaining 750 years in the record had an average of .28 severe storms per century.
So, when the sea surface temperature was low, there were .28 severe storms per century. When the sea surface temperature was high, there were 2.3 and 3.6 storms per century. Take a look at the sea surface temperature anomaly and draw your own conclusion:
 |
| Source: Climate Reanalyzer |
Monday, March 23, 2015
Donner Pass
I thought I would pass this on to anyone that might be interested. It's a picture of Donner Pass, taken on January 31, 2015. Donner Pass is infamous for the plight of the Donner Party, a group of pioneers moving west. They got stuck in the mountains due to the heavy snowfall and had to spend the winter in the mountains. They ran out of supplies and, at least some of them, resorted to eating the party members that had already died.
This winter, Donner Pass, the same one that trapped those people with heavy snow, is completely snow free. In the linked image above you can see the snow line on the mountains in the distance.The latest report by the California Department of Water Resources from March 3 found the snowpack to be only 19% of the long-term average.
The first time I went through Donner Pass was the winter of 1982 and I barely made it. There was a lot of snow on the ground and more was falling. The Interstate was closed within a few hours of my passing through. Not any more.
This winter, Donner Pass, the same one that trapped those people with heavy snow, is completely snow free. In the linked image above you can see the snow line on the mountains in the distance.The latest report by the California Department of Water Resources from March 3 found the snowpack to be only 19% of the long-term average.
The first time I went through Donner Pass was the winter of 1982 and I barely made it. There was a lot of snow on the ground and more was falling. The Interstate was closed within a few hours of my passing through. Not any more.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Disappearing Fog Another Factor in California
As we all know, California is having a epic drought while also experiencing historically high temperatures. The high temperatures are compounding the drought by increasing the rate of evaporation. One of the factors involved that is often overlooked is the rate of fog. Fog works to cool the surface by providing shade until it is burned off. Less fog means the sunlight reaches the ground more, resulting in more heating. As it turns out, the amount of fog in California is decreasing.
It has already been noted how California's famous Tule fog is becoming increasingly rare. This is the thick, winter fog that can blanket the central region so thickly it actually waters the plants. But, fog in general is decreasing across the state. Over the course of the 20th century, coastal summertime fog worldwide was reported to decrease by 33%. California, in particular, has experienced a century-long decline in coastal fog.
What is the long-term outlook? That is not clear (foggy? Sorry). Warm ocean surface temperatures lead to a decrease in fog. But it is not certain the coastal waters will get warmer, even when the ocean overall is getting warmer, due to upwelling. It is possible the medium-term amount of fog will stay constant, or decrease slightly. But, the long-term outlook has to be bleak, even with upwelling. The depths are getting warmer and eventually the upwelling water will be too warm to lead to fog.
So, as the crops suffer the loss of the cooling fog (the grapes for one love fog), the rest of the state will also suffer due to the reduction in the shading, leading to higher surface temperatures, leading to greater evaporation, leading to even higher temperatures.
But, at least there will be fewer fog delays at the airports.
It has already been noted how California's famous Tule fog is becoming increasingly rare. This is the thick, winter fog that can blanket the central region so thickly it actually waters the plants. But, fog in general is decreasing across the state. Over the course of the 20th century, coastal summertime fog worldwide was reported to decrease by 33%. California, in particular, has experienced a century-long decline in coastal fog.
What is the long-term outlook? That is not clear (foggy? Sorry). Warm ocean surface temperatures lead to a decrease in fog. But it is not certain the coastal waters will get warmer, even when the ocean overall is getting warmer, due to upwelling. It is possible the medium-term amount of fog will stay constant, or decrease slightly. But, the long-term outlook has to be bleak, even with upwelling. The depths are getting warmer and eventually the upwelling water will be too warm to lead to fog.
So, as the crops suffer the loss of the cooling fog (the grapes for one love fog), the rest of the state will also suffer due to the reduction in the shading, leading to higher surface temperatures, leading to greater evaporation, leading to even higher temperatures.
But, at least there will be fewer fog delays at the airports.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Temperature Record This Winter
I was on a field trip yesterday to the Gault Site, one of the most important archeological sites in the Americas. It was a great trip and our host was extremely knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the work done there. I learned a lot during the five hour tour. Then, we topped it off with dinner and wine at the The Vineyard at Florence. They had good food and even better wine. All in all, it was a really nice day, even if the weather was on the chilly side. But, there was one incident I took exception to.
The archeologist giving us the tour brought up the subject of climate change and dismissed the idea of manmade climate change by stating the 'climate always changes.' Normally, I let statements like this go by without comment. People have the right to reject the science, if that is what they want to do, and I am not on some campaign to challenge everyone on their opinions. However, this was a man of science and it was irresponsible for him to make a statement like that. Not only was his statement a false argument, but by using his venue as a recognized expert in his field of study, he was lending credibility to something he was not knowledgeable about. So, I took him to task about it.
When I pointed out how erroneous his statement was and how the science of AGW was absolutely conclusive, someone made the comment, "Tell that to the people in Boston." Well, I have and I do. In fact, the severe winter they are having in the northeast is due to global warming and it is pretty easy to prove it. We know the cold air comes from the Arctic region. So, tell me, where does the energy needed to move that mass of air come from? When you answer that question, you have all the proof any reasonable person needs.
The other significant point about Boston is that we are not discussing Boston warming, we're discussing global warming. So, how is the rest of the world doing while Boston is digging out of all of that snow?
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been 15,000 record highs so far this winter (2014-2015). Yes, you read that correctly - 15,000 record high temperatures. At the same time, there have been 10,000 record lows. In fact, no state had an average temperature in the bottom ten lowest on record. Let that sink in. Despite all of the talk about the amount of snow and the bone-chilling cold, not even a single state had a top ten record cold winter. Not one.
Even I was a bit surprised by this. I have been following the cold air masses closely and they have been cold and frequent. I thought, surely, some of the states were seeing a significantly cold winter. But, no. The reason is pretty simple, it has gotten so warm and winters have become so mild they seem to be so much worse than they really are - at least when you compare them to the way winters used to be. When you consider the cold winters the Eastern U.S. used to have, this current winter turns out to be not so bad.
So, to answer the gentleman's objection from yesterday, I really will tell the people in Boston man made global warming is real.
The archeologist giving us the tour brought up the subject of climate change and dismissed the idea of manmade climate change by stating the 'climate always changes.' Normally, I let statements like this go by without comment. People have the right to reject the science, if that is what they want to do, and I am not on some campaign to challenge everyone on their opinions. However, this was a man of science and it was irresponsible for him to make a statement like that. Not only was his statement a false argument, but by using his venue as a recognized expert in his field of study, he was lending credibility to something he was not knowledgeable about. So, I took him to task about it.
When I pointed out how erroneous his statement was and how the science of AGW was absolutely conclusive, someone made the comment, "Tell that to the people in Boston." Well, I have and I do. In fact, the severe winter they are having in the northeast is due to global warming and it is pretty easy to prove it. We know the cold air comes from the Arctic region. So, tell me, where does the energy needed to move that mass of air come from? When you answer that question, you have all the proof any reasonable person needs.
The other significant point about Boston is that we are not discussing Boston warming, we're discussing global warming. So, how is the rest of the world doing while Boston is digging out of all of that snow?
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been 15,000 record highs so far this winter (2014-2015). Yes, you read that correctly - 15,000 record high temperatures. At the same time, there have been 10,000 record lows. In fact, no state had an average temperature in the bottom ten lowest on record. Let that sink in. Despite all of the talk about the amount of snow and the bone-chilling cold, not even a single state had a top ten record cold winter. Not one.
Even I was a bit surprised by this. I have been following the cold air masses closely and they have been cold and frequent. I thought, surely, some of the states were seeing a significantly cold winter. But, no. The reason is pretty simple, it has gotten so warm and winters have become so mild they seem to be so much worse than they really are - at least when you compare them to the way winters used to be. When you consider the cold winters the Eastern U.S. used to have, this current winter turns out to be not so bad.
So, to answer the gentleman's objection from yesterday, I really will tell the people in Boston man made global warming is real.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
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.
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.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Winter Storms and a Simple Math Exercise
I love hearing someone make the same lame jokes about winter storms and global warming. They think they're being cute, but the reality is they are simply showing they don't understand what is going on. They ignore the fact that we will still have winter even with global warming. This is because winter is caused by the way Earth is tilted on its axis.
Every year, on about September 21, the North Pole experiences its one and only sunset of the year. Gradually, over the next three months, the part of the Arctic region experiencing 24-hour nighttime will increase until, on about December 21, everything north of the Arctic Circle has a 24-hour nighttime. Then, that amount will gradually decrease until the North Pole experiences its one and only sunrise on about March 21. What this means is by January and February, there are parts of the Arctic region that have been sitting in dark for 2-4 months. That is going to make those areas cold. Take a look at this current temperature graphic:
It is no-kidding cold up there. So, it is no wonder we still have winter storms. If that mass of air moves down into our area we are going to feel it, even with global warming. But, it takes energy to move that mass. Lot's of energy.
So, let's do a simple exercise to see for ourselves.
First, take a look at this graphic showing the cold air mass moving into the the eastern U.S. today:
I'm sure I don't need to tell the people under that purple area that it is no-kidding cold there, too. That mass of air moved down from the Arctic and is now moving across the country. But, it didn't just happen by itself. It took energy to get there. Let's do a back of the envelope calculation and get an idea of how much.
We want the mass of that blob. To do that, we can find the surface area under the purple region and multiply the area by the pressure (weight per area) and then convert from weight to mass. If we approximate the cold air region as a circle we can calculate the area as pi*r^2. We can estimate the purple blob is about 1000 miles across. A mile has 5280 feet, so it is about 5.3 x 10^6 feet across. Dividing our diameter by two, we get the area is:
Area = pi*([5.3 x 10^6]/2 feet)^2 = about 2.2 x 10^13 square feet
A square foot has 144 square inches, so our area, in square inches, is
2.2 x 10^13 square feet x 144 square inches/square feet = about 3.15 x 10^15 square inches.
Atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving us a total weight of
3.15 x 10^15 square inches x 14.7 pounds per square inch = about 4.6 x 10^16 pounds.
That is the approximate weight of that big purple air mass over the eastern U.S., but we want mass, preferably in the metric system. There are 2.2 pounds to a kilogram (on the surface of Earth), so the mass of this air, in kilograms, is about:
4.6 x 10^16 pounds x 1 kilogram/2.2 pounds = about 2.1 x 10^16 kilograms.
The amount of energy this mass has can be found by calculating its kinetic energy, the energy of movement. That means we need a speed. I have read winds speeds of up to hurricane strength, but we won't go that high. We can estimate an average speed of about 44 miles per hour and that equates to 20 meters per second. Using that speed, we can estimate the amount of energy as:
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * m * v^2
= .5 * 2.1 x 10^16 kilograms * (20 meters per second)^2 = about 4.2 x 10^18 joules.
How much energy is that? In comparison, the entire planet generates about 6 x 10^20 joules of energy per year. In other words, by our simple exercise, we can see it would take the entire planet about 2.3 days to generate the amount of energy consumed in moving this one single air mass. And, our calculation is actually very low. We did not include friction, interior fluid dynamics, the work required to move the air in front of our air mass out of the way, the work required to move air in behind the air mass, the expansion and compression of gases, etc. There is, in fact, a whole lot more work involved than just getting the mass up to speed.
So, where did that huge amount of energy come from? Well, obviously, it came from the atmosphere. But, where did the atmosphere get it? Simple. It came from the greenhouse effect. If there was no greenhouse effect, energy coming in as sunlight would be reradiated and reflected back out to space and there wouldn't be anything left over to do any work. Some of it must be stored in the atmosphere to be used later on. Most of that is being done through the natural greenhouse effect that has always been there. But, has that greenhouse effect been enhanced by manmade emissions? We can check the frequency of storms to see. If the number of winter storms has been increasing, we can conclude the energy is coming from some other source than naturally stored energy, i.e., AGW.
NSIDC lists the top 57 storms to hit the U.S. These figures show 20 of those storms occurred since 2010 (inclusive). That is an average of 3.33 storms per year. Nine storms occurred in 2000 - 2009, an average of .9 storms per year. Five storms occurred in the 1990s, an average of .5 storms per year. Five storms also occurred in the 1980s, an average of .5 storms per year. Four storms occurred in the 1970s, an average of .4 storms per year. Eleven storms occurred in the 1960s, 1.1 storms per year. There were three storms listed for the 1950s (.3 storms per year) but it doesn't indicate if that means there were only three storms or they didn't list them for years prior to 1956, so we'll leave that figure out of our discussion.
Listing them in order, from the 1960s to the 2010s, we see the average number of severe winter storms per year went from 1.1, .4, .5, .5, .9 and 3.33. After the 60s, there is a definite trend of an increasing number of severe storms per year. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the amount of energy in the atmosphere was increasing. And, we would expect to see the amount of energy in the atmosphere to be increasing if AGW was real.
So, this simple math exercise and this data supports the conclusion that AGW is real and is changing our climate. Is this conclusive? No. There are two significant omissions in this calculation that are important. The storm activity I listed was for severe storms only. What about non-severe storms? How do they factor in? Also, this activity was for the U.S. only. What about the rest of the world? What was going on there?
I could not find data listing all winter storms, so I will leave the focus on severe storms only and I think that is adequate for the question we want to answer - are the number of storms increasing, decreasing or staying about the same.
Wikipedia has a list of windstorms to hit Europe. Going through and picking only the storms to hit in the winter months, I get five storms hit in the 1960s, four in the 1970s, six in the 1980s, ten in the 1990s, 16 in the 2000s and 17 in the 2010s (through Feb 2015). The yearly averages come out to: .5, .4, .6, 1.0, 1.6 and 3.6. The data for Europe is very consistent with what we saw for the U.S. and we see the number of storms for Europe have also been increasing in recent decades at an accelerating rate.
So, our simple exercise shows why we have winter storms, even with global warming. And, it also happens to provide additional evidence AGW is real and getting worse.
So, yes, winter storms really can be the result of global warming.
Every year, on about September 21, the North Pole experiences its one and only sunset of the year. Gradually, over the next three months, the part of the Arctic region experiencing 24-hour nighttime will increase until, on about December 21, everything north of the Arctic Circle has a 24-hour nighttime. Then, that amount will gradually decrease until the North Pole experiences its one and only sunrise on about March 21. What this means is by January and February, there are parts of the Arctic region that have been sitting in dark for 2-4 months. That is going to make those areas cold. Take a look at this current temperature graphic:
 |
| Source: Polar Portal |
So, let's do a simple exercise to see for ourselves.
First, take a look at this graphic showing the cold air mass moving into the the eastern U.S. today:
 |
| Source: Climate Reanalyzer |
We want the mass of that blob. To do that, we can find the surface area under the purple region and multiply the area by the pressure (weight per area) and then convert from weight to mass. If we approximate the cold air region as a circle we can calculate the area as pi*r^2. We can estimate the purple blob is about 1000 miles across. A mile has 5280 feet, so it is about 5.3 x 10^6 feet across. Dividing our diameter by two, we get the area is:
Area = pi*([5.3 x 10^6]/2 feet)^2 = about 2.2 x 10^13 square feet
A square foot has 144 square inches, so our area, in square inches, is
2.2 x 10^13 square feet x 144 square inches/square feet = about 3.15 x 10^15 square inches.
Atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving us a total weight of
3.15 x 10^15 square inches x 14.7 pounds per square inch = about 4.6 x 10^16 pounds.
That is the approximate weight of that big purple air mass over the eastern U.S., but we want mass, preferably in the metric system. There are 2.2 pounds to a kilogram (on the surface of Earth), so the mass of this air, in kilograms, is about:
4.6 x 10^16 pounds x 1 kilogram/2.2 pounds = about 2.1 x 10^16 kilograms.
The amount of energy this mass has can be found by calculating its kinetic energy, the energy of movement. That means we need a speed. I have read winds speeds of up to hurricane strength, but we won't go that high. We can estimate an average speed of about 44 miles per hour and that equates to 20 meters per second. Using that speed, we can estimate the amount of energy as:
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * m * v^2
= .5 * 2.1 x 10^16 kilograms * (20 meters per second)^2 = about 4.2 x 10^18 joules.
How much energy is that? In comparison, the entire planet generates about 6 x 10^20 joules of energy per year. In other words, by our simple exercise, we can see it would take the entire planet about 2.3 days to generate the amount of energy consumed in moving this one single air mass. And, our calculation is actually very low. We did not include friction, interior fluid dynamics, the work required to move the air in front of our air mass out of the way, the work required to move air in behind the air mass, the expansion and compression of gases, etc. There is, in fact, a whole lot more work involved than just getting the mass up to speed.
So, where did that huge amount of energy come from? Well, obviously, it came from the atmosphere. But, where did the atmosphere get it? Simple. It came from the greenhouse effect. If there was no greenhouse effect, energy coming in as sunlight would be reradiated and reflected back out to space and there wouldn't be anything left over to do any work. Some of it must be stored in the atmosphere to be used later on. Most of that is being done through the natural greenhouse effect that has always been there. But, has that greenhouse effect been enhanced by manmade emissions? We can check the frequency of storms to see. If the number of winter storms has been increasing, we can conclude the energy is coming from some other source than naturally stored energy, i.e., AGW.
NSIDC lists the top 57 storms to hit the U.S. These figures show 20 of those storms occurred since 2010 (inclusive). That is an average of 3.33 storms per year. Nine storms occurred in 2000 - 2009, an average of .9 storms per year. Five storms occurred in the 1990s, an average of .5 storms per year. Five storms also occurred in the 1980s, an average of .5 storms per year. Four storms occurred in the 1970s, an average of .4 storms per year. Eleven storms occurred in the 1960s, 1.1 storms per year. There were three storms listed for the 1950s (.3 storms per year) but it doesn't indicate if that means there were only three storms or they didn't list them for years prior to 1956, so we'll leave that figure out of our discussion.
Listing them in order, from the 1960s to the 2010s, we see the average number of severe winter storms per year went from 1.1, .4, .5, .5, .9 and 3.33. After the 60s, there is a definite trend of an increasing number of severe storms per year. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the amount of energy in the atmosphere was increasing. And, we would expect to see the amount of energy in the atmosphere to be increasing if AGW was real.
So, this simple math exercise and this data supports the conclusion that AGW is real and is changing our climate. Is this conclusive? No. There are two significant omissions in this calculation that are important. The storm activity I listed was for severe storms only. What about non-severe storms? How do they factor in? Also, this activity was for the U.S. only. What about the rest of the world? What was going on there?
I could not find data listing all winter storms, so I will leave the focus on severe storms only and I think that is adequate for the question we want to answer - are the number of storms increasing, decreasing or staying about the same.
Wikipedia has a list of windstorms to hit Europe. Going through and picking only the storms to hit in the winter months, I get five storms hit in the 1960s, four in the 1970s, six in the 1980s, ten in the 1990s, 16 in the 2000s and 17 in the 2010s (through Feb 2015). The yearly averages come out to: .5, .4, .6, 1.0, 1.6 and 3.6. The data for Europe is very consistent with what we saw for the U.S. and we see the number of storms for Europe have also been increasing in recent decades at an accelerating rate.
So, our simple exercise shows why we have winter storms, even with global warming. And, it also happens to provide additional evidence AGW is real and getting worse.
So, yes, winter storms really can be the result of global warming.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Cost of Blizzards
In case you missed it, there was an article today reporting the New England blizzards have cost the country between $1 and $2 billion so far this year. That is in addition to the $15-16 billion from last year. The winter weather in 2014 was responsible for lowering the U.S. GDP to -2.1% for the first quarter last year.
Climate change is leading to more severe weather, including more severe winter weather. It is interesting how we keep getting 100-year blizzards multiple times a year now when we didn't even a few decades ago. Clearly, something has changed. And, that change in regards to winter weather has cost the country over $16 billion in a little more than one year. That comes out to about $53 per person.
The cost of climate change just keeps piling up. There is more costs being revealed nearly every single day. And, there are those people who still want to pay instead of doing something about the problem.
Amazing.
Climate change is leading to more severe weather, including more severe winter weather. It is interesting how we keep getting 100-year blizzards multiple times a year now when we didn't even a few decades ago. Clearly, something has changed. And, that change in regards to winter weather has cost the country over $16 billion in a little more than one year. That comes out to about $53 per person.
The cost of climate change just keeps piling up. There is more costs being revealed nearly every single day. And, there are those people who still want to pay instead of doing something about the problem.
Amazing.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Stormy Arctic
I read an excerpt from a new book on storms in the Arctic and the all of the associated effects. It was an interesting read and really made some excellent points. The Arctic is warming and it is warming faster than any other region of the planet. The author, Edward Struzik, states
The results of that warming are not good. Animal species, plants, wet lands and coastline are disappearing. Communities are falling into the ocean. And, storms are getting worse.
Reductions in sea ice are making Arctic storms more frequent and more severe. This is happening a number of ways. Sea ice traps humidity but as the ice melts the open water fills the atmosphere with moisture and is doing so earlier every year. This moisture then fuels storms that normally wouldn't occur before the fall but are now happening during the summer months. Also, the ice cover keeps storm waves from getting too intense. Now, waves and storm surges are getting bigger as the ice disappears. Rising sea levels are causing storm surges to travel ever further inland. And, ultimately, ice would pile up on the coast and protect it from the storm action, but that protection is now disappearing and the results are grim.
Struzik tells of towns disappearing in the Arctic region as the coastline erodes away - slowly, initially but at increasing rates. Coastlines that were loosing fewer than 7 meters per year in the 1950 - 1979 time period are loosing more than 25 meters per year today.
In case you are thinking, 'so what?', let me tell you the estimated engineering costs associated with all of this will be in the several hundreds of billions of dollars in just Alaska. That estimate comes from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is only the cost of mitigation for about 60 coastal communities at risk of falling into the sea. Do you think the fossil fuel companies are going to pony up that money? Do you think the Koch brothers will donate any of their fortune? Don't count on it. The money for all of this will come from tax payer dollars. In other words, the American taxpayer will be paying for this.
Let's see. $100 billion dollars comes out to about $300 for every person in the country (bad news for a family of four!). And, the estimate is there will be 'several' billions of dollars of engineering costs. Where are those deniers that keep telling us global warming is good for us?
Canada does not come out very well in his account. Prime Minister Stephan Harper is a devoted anti-science advocate and has nearly shut down all science research in the country while actively trying to remove environmental regulations. Government scientists are prohibited from discussing their research with media. Government agents are sent to science conferences to monitor what Canadian scientists are saying.
Arctic research is being slashed, but the country then spent $300 million on a gravel road to a tiny village on the Arctic coast that will see only about $4.2 million in benefits from it. The people that will see the most benefit? Is there any surprise it is the fossil fuel industry that wants to build a natural gas pipeline through the area?
So, the Canadian government is shutting down research and instituting a Joe McCarthy policy, while spending hundreds of millions on a single road for the mega-wealthy fossil fuel companies. Too bad they didn't decide to spend that $300 million on research and let the fossil fuel companies build their own road.
Like I said, it is an interesting read. Not pleasant, but interesting.
Between 1951 and 2012, for example, temperatures in the region exceeded the freezing point an average of 110 days. In 2010 and 2011, they did so 127 times. In 2012, the warmest year on record in the Arctic, it happened 134 times.
Over the past two decades, the number of ice-free days averaged 80 per year. In 2012, there were 96 ice-free days that significantly accelerated the erosion that is already taking place.
The results of that warming are not good. Animal species, plants, wet lands and coastline are disappearing. Communities are falling into the ocean. And, storms are getting worse.
Reductions in sea ice are making Arctic storms more frequent and more severe. This is happening a number of ways. Sea ice traps humidity but as the ice melts the open water fills the atmosphere with moisture and is doing so earlier every year. This moisture then fuels storms that normally wouldn't occur before the fall but are now happening during the summer months. Also, the ice cover keeps storm waves from getting too intense. Now, waves and storm surges are getting bigger as the ice disappears. Rising sea levels are causing storm surges to travel ever further inland. And, ultimately, ice would pile up on the coast and protect it from the storm action, but that protection is now disappearing and the results are grim.
Struzik tells of towns disappearing in the Arctic region as the coastline erodes away - slowly, initially but at increasing rates. Coastlines that were loosing fewer than 7 meters per year in the 1950 - 1979 time period are loosing more than 25 meters per year today.
In case you are thinking, 'so what?', let me tell you the estimated engineering costs associated with all of this will be in the several hundreds of billions of dollars in just Alaska. That estimate comes from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is only the cost of mitigation for about 60 coastal communities at risk of falling into the sea. Do you think the fossil fuel companies are going to pony up that money? Do you think the Koch brothers will donate any of their fortune? Don't count on it. The money for all of this will come from tax payer dollars. In other words, the American taxpayer will be paying for this.
Let's see. $100 billion dollars comes out to about $300 for every person in the country (bad news for a family of four!). And, the estimate is there will be 'several' billions of dollars of engineering costs. Where are those deniers that keep telling us global warming is good for us?
Canada does not come out very well in his account. Prime Minister Stephan Harper is a devoted anti-science advocate and has nearly shut down all science research in the country while actively trying to remove environmental regulations. Government scientists are prohibited from discussing their research with media. Government agents are sent to science conferences to monitor what Canadian scientists are saying.
Arctic research is being slashed, but the country then spent $300 million on a gravel road to a tiny village on the Arctic coast that will see only about $4.2 million in benefits from it. The people that will see the most benefit? Is there any surprise it is the fossil fuel industry that wants to build a natural gas pipeline through the area?
So, the Canadian government is shutting down research and instituting a Joe McCarthy policy, while spending hundreds of millions on a single road for the mega-wealthy fossil fuel companies. Too bad they didn't decide to spend that $300 million on research and let the fossil fuel companies build their own road.
Like I said, it is an interesting read. Not pleasant, but interesting.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Hurricanes and New England
A study conducted by a team at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute revealed new information about the history of hurricanes striking the New England coast of North America. Using cores of sedimentary deposits, they studied the layers and were able to identify massive hurricane events hitting the area between the years of 250 and 1150 AD.
Hurricanes deposit a layer of sediment in inland areas that get buried and can remain undisturbed for thousands of years. By taking core samples it is possible to identify storms, date them and even determine how strong they were. In this way, the researchers were able to identify 23 events during that time span, each more powerful than anything that has occurred in recorded history. That is an average of one major storm every 40 years. These storms would all be classified as category 3 or 4 hurricanes today. To put that in perspective, there have been only three category 2 hurricanes in that area since the 1600s. The last was Hurricane Bob in 1991. There have been no storms stronger than category 2 to strike New England in that time period.
What has changed? Ocean temperature. Hurricanes require warm water to provide the massive amounts of energy they consume. Ocean temperature in this region of the Atlantic has been cooler for the last 850 years, but not anymore. Today, ocean temperatures are warmer than they were between 250 and 1150. Take a look at this plot:
The Atlantic, from the Caribbean Sea up past New England is much warmer than the baseline average. In fact, the North Atlantic is .51 degrees C warmer than average (numbers on bottom of image). The authors of the paper state today's ocean temperature is higher than during the study period.
Does this mean New England can expect a category 3 or 4 hurricane every 40 years on average? No, not by itself. There are many factors involved with the development of hurricanes and their paths. Without more detailed data we cannot reach an absolute conclusion that New England will get hit by big storms. But, it certainly means the risk is greater than we thought.
Hurricanes deposit a layer of sediment in inland areas that get buried and can remain undisturbed for thousands of years. By taking core samples it is possible to identify storms, date them and even determine how strong they were. In this way, the researchers were able to identify 23 events during that time span, each more powerful than anything that has occurred in recorded history. That is an average of one major storm every 40 years. These storms would all be classified as category 3 or 4 hurricanes today. To put that in perspective, there have been only three category 2 hurricanes in that area since the 1600s. The last was Hurricane Bob in 1991. There have been no storms stronger than category 2 to strike New England in that time period.
What has changed? Ocean temperature. Hurricanes require warm water to provide the massive amounts of energy they consume. Ocean temperature in this region of the Atlantic has been cooler for the last 850 years, but not anymore. Today, ocean temperatures are warmer than they were between 250 and 1150. Take a look at this plot:
 |
| Source: Climate Reanalyzer |
Does this mean New England can expect a category 3 or 4 hurricane every 40 years on average? No, not by itself. There are many factors involved with the development of hurricanes and their paths. Without more detailed data we cannot reach an absolute conclusion that New England will get hit by big storms. But, it certainly means the risk is greater than we thought.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
State Leaders Hiding Climate Change Science
A number of state elected officials have come out as deniers. That is fine and is their right. But, what some of them are doing is to work on hiding any climate science that shows it is real. This is not only wrong, but I find it very interesting after reading statements from them, such as this one from Georgia congressman Rick Allen:
In Nebraska, state Senator Beau McCoy amended an authorization for a state-funded study to determine the effects of climate change on the state. His amendment would only allow scientists to report on naturally occurring climate change and prohibited any reporting of manmade climate change. In response, scientists refused to use the money and found independent funds. Their report was released last fall and was pretty grim. They found manmade climate change would result in severe storms, floods, warmer nights, scorching summers and drought for the state. Not good news for a state that depends so strongly on agriculture. You would think the state leaders would want to know this kind of information so they could plan for the future.
All of this raises a question, why would Beau McCoy, and everyone that voted for his amendment, want to hide this information? Why would they be willing to sacrifice the best interests of their constituents by hiding climate science?
But, he isn't the only one. Take a look at what happened in South Carolina. That state funded a similar report and it was finished on 2011. It wasn't released until 2013 after it sat on the shelf for about a year and a half. It wasn't released until a newspaper requested to see a copy. The problem with the report is that, like the one in Nebraska, it showed the state would suffer from the effects of manmade climate change. Once again, why would state leaders sacrifice the well being of their constituents?
North Carolina leads the charge into ignorance, though. This is the home of the NC-20 political action group that claims it is representing the best interests of the 20 counties along the Atlantic coast. They are climate change deniers of the highest order and actually brag about getting a bill passed that prohibits the state from taking action on sea level rise using any data except historical data. In other words, these people have prevented the state from taking any action to prepare for any sea level rise that results from manmade climate change. They call this a 'huge win' and list it on their 'Successes' page.
Think about that. They are bragging about how they guaranteed the coastal counties will be unprepared for sea level rise while claiming they are there to represent the best interests of those counties. Why would they do that? What would they have to lose by being aware of what climate scientists have to say?
One last question. If climate change is so good for us, as the deniers claim, why are so many state elected officials working so hard to hide it?
“Limiting debate to one side is not the same as being conclusive.”If limiting debate to one side is wrong, then why are so many deniers doing just that? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (the source of that quote) interviewed a dozen state leaders and reported the results in a front-page article. It was bad news. In particular were the politicians that used the "I'm not a scientist, but...," line. What they are really saying anytime someone uses that line is, "I'm not a scientist, but I'll go ahead and demonstrate what a jackass I am anyway." While it was nice the paper reported on this problem, they still contributed to it with the way they wrote the article, apparently giving credence to the claims of deniers in order to appear 'balanced.' Including ignorance and science denial is not being balanced. It only helps to energize elected officials that would rather see their constituents hurt than to take a look at the science.
In Nebraska, state Senator Beau McCoy amended an authorization for a state-funded study to determine the effects of climate change on the state. His amendment would only allow scientists to report on naturally occurring climate change and prohibited any reporting of manmade climate change. In response, scientists refused to use the money and found independent funds. Their report was released last fall and was pretty grim. They found manmade climate change would result in severe storms, floods, warmer nights, scorching summers and drought for the state. Not good news for a state that depends so strongly on agriculture. You would think the state leaders would want to know this kind of information so they could plan for the future.
All of this raises a question, why would Beau McCoy, and everyone that voted for his amendment, want to hide this information? Why would they be willing to sacrifice the best interests of their constituents by hiding climate science?
But, he isn't the only one. Take a look at what happened in South Carolina. That state funded a similar report and it was finished on 2011. It wasn't released until 2013 after it sat on the shelf for about a year and a half. It wasn't released until a newspaper requested to see a copy. The problem with the report is that, like the one in Nebraska, it showed the state would suffer from the effects of manmade climate change. Once again, why would state leaders sacrifice the well being of their constituents?
North Carolina leads the charge into ignorance, though. This is the home of the NC-20 political action group that claims it is representing the best interests of the 20 counties along the Atlantic coast. They are climate change deniers of the highest order and actually brag about getting a bill passed that prohibits the state from taking action on sea level rise using any data except historical data. In other words, these people have prevented the state from taking any action to prepare for any sea level rise that results from manmade climate change. They call this a 'huge win' and list it on their 'Successes' page.
Think about that. They are bragging about how they guaranteed the coastal counties will be unprepared for sea level rise while claiming they are there to represent the best interests of those counties. Why would they do that? What would they have to lose by being aware of what climate scientists have to say?
One last question. If climate change is so good for us, as the deniers claim, why are so many state elected officials working so hard to hide it?
Friday, January 9, 2015
Climate Refugees
A term that has been surfacing in recent years is 'climate refugees.' This term describes people that have been forced to move due to the effects of climatic actions and it can be the result of naturally occurring events or manmade ones. Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes can cause climate refugees. So does global warming. In fact, climate causes between 3 and 10 times as many refugees as war. The number of climate refugees in 2013 was 22 million. There were about 10 million climate refugees in the early 1970s. As the world population increases, the number of people that are vulnerable to extreme climate events also increases, and this number is aggravated by the increasing number of extreme events. Disruptions of food and water supplies also causes climate refugees.
The Pentagon considers this issue, and other issues related to climate change, to be a national security issue. Governments are being encouraged to plan for an increasing levels of climate refugees as the climate continues to change. There was an Indy film in 2012 on the subject, Climate Refugees.
This makes me wonder. If the deniers are right and climate change is good for us, why do we see so many climate refugees and why is it a threat to national security? If climate change is so good for us, as they claim, it stands to reason the world would actually be getting more stable with climate change, not more unstable.
If someone can explain that to me I would be interested in hearing it.
The Pentagon considers this issue, and other issues related to climate change, to be a national security issue. Governments are being encouraged to plan for an increasing levels of climate refugees as the climate continues to change. There was an Indy film in 2012 on the subject, Climate Refugees.
This makes me wonder. If the deniers are right and climate change is good for us, why do we see so many climate refugees and why is it a threat to national security? If climate change is so good for us, as they claim, it stands to reason the world would actually be getting more stable with climate change, not more unstable.
If someone can explain that to me I would be interested in hearing it.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Carbon Dioxide Portrait
In case you haven't seen it, NASA researchers have developed an amazing high-resolution global portrait of carbon dioxide, showing how it travels around the planet over the time span of one year (January 1 - December 30, 2006). It is very fascinating and if you watch it multiple times certain things should stand out. The amount of CO2 decreases tremendously in the summer months and builds up in the winter months, no surprise there. But, the way it builds is stunning. And, to see most of the increase is in the Arctic region is very interesting. This correlates well with the observed disparity where we see the Arctic region warming faster than the rest of world. This brings up all sorts of thoughts, such as the effect this will have on weather in the future. One of the principle drivers in weather is a difference in temperature between one area and another. CO2 is not distributing evenly, meaning the planet is not heating evenly, and that means greater temperature differences. That can only mean we will see an increase in severe weather. And, of course, we already are. Can you say 'Buffalo, NY'?
Monday, November 24, 2014
One Datum Point Does Not Make a Globe
A reader made this comment yesterday:
This is a temperature plot from last week as that cold air mass was moving in - the purple area. But, while you're at it, take a look at the West Coast - it is warmer than average. Then, take a look at Alaska and the Arctic Ocean. That massive bright red blob is where this cold air mass came from (it had to come from somewhere). Take a look at Greenland, Europe and North Africa. All of those regions are warmer than average. Then, take a look at the numbers on the bottom of the image. Those numbers are the average temperatures for the listed regions compared to the long range average. Every single region listed is experiencing above average temperatures.
That is just the land surface temperature. What is happening with the oceans? Well, take a look:
Yikes! Not good. And, again, take a look at the numbers on the bottom. Every ocean region listed is hotter than average.
Now, take a look at the hot water region off the west coast of North America. That is what is causing the drought in the west and the cool weather in the east in the U.S. This warm water is causing a high pressure ridge that has caused the jet stream to fold. This is directing precipitation systems to move northward before reaching the coast and is causing cool air to move southward through the middle of the continent.
And, what about those record lows? To keep our data straight, the National Climatic Data Center said October in the United States was three degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average and was the fourth warmest October on record.
Based on that, you could conclude that global warming is real, but we don't want to judge the whole planet on just one datum point.
Where I live last winter and this summer we had record lows. This fall we are having record lows. Same thing for friends south of me oh, also family and friends north of me. Hell even my family on the east coast says the same.Comments like these, in fact, this kind of thinking, is an example of the false logic deniers employ all too frequently. The problem here is that they want to take their one perception and expand it to cover the entire planet. Yes, Buffalo received lots of snow, but so what? What has been going on in the rest of the world? The United States makes up less than 2% of the surface area of the planet. And, while the eastern part of the country is having a mild summer and autumn, other parts are having record heat. When we say 'global warming,' we mean the entire globe. Take a look here:
 |
| Source: Climate Reanalyzer |
That is just the land surface temperature. What is happening with the oceans? Well, take a look:
 |
| Source: Climate Reanalyzer |
Yikes! Not good. And, again, take a look at the numbers on the bottom. Every ocean region listed is hotter than average.
Now, take a look at the hot water region off the west coast of North America. That is what is causing the drought in the west and the cool weather in the east in the U.S. This warm water is causing a high pressure ridge that has caused the jet stream to fold. This is directing precipitation systems to move northward before reaching the coast and is causing cool air to move southward through the middle of the continent.
And, what about those record lows? To keep our data straight, the National Climatic Data Center said October in the United States was three degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average and was the fourth warmest October on record.
Based on that, you could conclude that global warming is real, but we don't want to judge the whole planet on just one datum point.
Monday, September 22, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)