Identity and Denialism

One of the issues I spend the most time on is trying to understand just why people deny the findings of science and adhere to a falsifiable belief. Of course, I'm not the only one. This is a topic of widespread concern and study. The amazing thing is to see how far people will go to support their beliefs.

As a scientist, it's a slam-dunk to realize what is happening with climate change. Read the science and there is only one, inescapable conclusion - manmade emissions are changing the world's climate. Yes, the science is most definitely settled. So, why is it some people go to incredible lengths to deny this? If you think I'm exaggerating, take a look at the submissions to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. Some of them go beyond bizarre. Without paraphrasing, I had people tell me if the science disagreed with their conclusion then the science had to be thrown out. They were right and any science to the contrary had to be wrong. Wow!

Of course, climate change is not the only issue where people deny the science. Just take a look at this article here about the anti-vaxxers.  (I find it interesting how he describes bloodletting as something from the past. I have a genetic condition (hemochromatosis) that requires me to go in for bloodletting on occasion, except we call it phlebotomy nowadays.)

So, what makes someone think like that? If I knew the answer I would probably be in line for an award of some kind, a Nobel at the very least. Many people have, and are, working to solve this problem and it isn't likely to be me that finds it. But, that won't stop me from thinking about it and I think a book I read recently gives me a clue.

I read Ken Follet's book, Fall of Giants, this winter. I'm a fan of his writing and thought Pillars of the Earth and World Without End were magnificent. I've been waiting to read the first book in this new series until it was all out in print, which happened last fall. (I read a very good book twenty years ago that left me anxious for the rest of the series. I'm still waiting for the rest of the Game of Thrones series. Yes, twenty years. I just put new volumes on the shelf and will read them all once it's done.) If you're not familiar with Fall of Giants, it is a historical fiction set in Europe and the U.S. and concerns World War I. One of the amazing things about the Great War that others have discussed, and Follet brings out very well, is how the people followed the royalty almost without question. The empirical leaders of Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia made unbelievably bad decisions and they were implemented. Not just because followers were afraid to stand up to the royals (there was some of that), but also because they believed in their respective leaders so much they would do anything asked of them.

These people identified with their leaders so strongly their identities became those of their leaders. By following a great leader they themselves became great. In their minds, they became more privileged, more royal, because of who they identified with. They were better than those people over in that other country who followed some other royalty. When their leader made a great decision the followers were also great because that was their identity. Consequently, any criticism of their leaders became criticism of themselves. Thus, when the leaders made bad decisions, they were incapable of seeing that and blindly implemented the commands. Even joyfully. Let's all sing as we march off to war.

Now, we have a similar situation with science denialism. The fact we don't have battlefields covered with dead bodies doesn't mean the number of casualties and the overall cost will not be the same given enough time. It is odd and disturbing to see how people obediently follow entities such as the Heartland Institute, WUWT!, Roy Spencer, Christopher Monckton and all the rest. People still blindly follow them, even when it is shown that these entities are lying and are being paid to lie. It is the same blind loyalty seen with sports teams. "It is my team and I'm going to support them, no matter what!"

I remember having a conversation (all right, it was an argument) with a guy in 1987 about the dangers of cigarette smoking. I claimed science showed smoking was hazardous and the other guy claimed it was harmless. It was a short discussion because the guy got so angry with me I thought he was going to physically attack me. The interesting thing is he wasn't even a smoker. Of course, we know how the smoking issue turned out. I don't know what ever happened to that guy, but I wonder what his reaction was when it finally came out the tobacco companies knew all along and were lying to us.

So, where am I going with this thought?

I think many people have come to identify with the denier industry and will follow it, not because they think they are right, but because the identity of the industry has become their own. If the denier industry is wrong, then they are weak and vulnerable, at least in their own eyes. Likewise, if the industry is right, then they are strong and somehow superior. What could give someone a bigger feeling of superiority than to be able to say they can prove all of the scientists in the world wrong? Oh, and all of you people in that other group that doubt me are inferior. Sucks for you.

What that means is the only way to break the climate change gridlock is to discredit the industry. You have to make people believe that following the industry gives them a poor identity and following the science gives them a good identity.

Now, how do you go about doing that? Beats me.

Why Care About Global Warming? “No Man Is An Island”

Global warming has been proceeding for more than a century as the result of humanity's use of fossil fuels to provide the energy that powers our economy. The excessive, rapid warming we are currently experiencing produces harms and damages from extremes in weather and climate. These include heavy rainfall and flooding, heat waves and drought, rising sea levels, and secondary health problems.

Global climate models that successfully reproduce past climate patterns are used to project future behavior of Earth's climate. They show that without significant measures taken to abate further emissions of greenhouse gases warming will continue and indeed will even accelerate, bringing more intense and more extensive extreme events that have the potential to disrupt humanity's socioeconomic well-being.

In 1624 John Donne wrote a poetic meditation, “No Man Is An Island”:

“No man is an island entire of itself; every man

is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;

…..........................................

…... any man's death diminishes me,

because I am involved in mankind.

And therefore never send to know for whom

the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

John Donne's brief meditation encapsulates much of the moral force underlying our need to act against further warming of the planet. If I have engaged in an act that harms a neighbor whom I know, the moral force of that wrong is evident, since my neighbor's loss reflects directly back on my deed. If instead I carry out a deceit having a negative impact on society more generally (such as bribing an official for preferential treatment, to the disadvantage of others whom I do not know) the losses of my fellow citizens resulting from the bribe similarly“diminish[] me because I am involved in mankind”, in Donne's words.

The global warming problemnegatively affects humans generally. Although greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) are generated locally, once emitted into the atmosphere they mix with the air and contribute to warming of the atmosphere all around world. In this way my localized use of the energy derived from fossil fuels affects my fellow human beings the world over, because the excess CO₂ leads to harms and damages affecting everyone. In Donne's view, the harms to others whom I do not know, but for which I am responsible, diminishes me.

Speaking in general terms, we in the developed countries of the world have powered our growth using fossil fuels for more than a century, and have been emitting the waste gas, CO₂, over all that time. We continue to do so even now. Developing countries, on the other hand, are striving to attain the level of development that the developed world has already achieved; they are expanding their rates of emissions year by year. Between them, both groups of nations are responsible for most emissions released worldwide.

None of the world's peoples is immune from the harms inflicted by today's additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere; people in developed, developing and impoverished countries of the world, as well as in island nations, are all variously susceptible to harms from extremes of drought, flooding, or rising seas. Their losses diminish us all.

Global warming and its harms extend not only to our fellow human beings alive today, but to future generations as well. U.S. President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2014, stated a most profound and basic motivation for attacking the problem of global warming:

“Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”

This statement illuminates a basic human motivation for dealing with global warming, namely, the strong desire we all feel to pass on to our children and further progeny a secure world not threatened by the consequences of our present environmental actions.

A major fraction of the CO₂ emitted into the air remains there indefinitely. It persists in the atmosphere for several centuries or even longer, i.e., for many human generations. There are no natural processes that remove the excess CO₂from the atmosphere at the same rapid rate that we are adding it. Furthermore, to date no technology has been developed that could capture and store the excess CO₂ on the scale needed, preventing further accumulation. As a consequence the excess CO₂we emit each year is added to the amount already present, accumulating to higher and higher levels.

Climate modeling concludes that, to a very good approximation, the increase in global average temperature is directly related to (i.e. linearly dependent on) the total accumulated CO₂in the atmosphere. Since we can't remove CO₂from the air we can never return to the lower temperatures that prevailed at earlier times, say, 20 or 40 years ago. In fact, if we humans continue emitting CO₂and other greenhouse gases, temperatures are projected to continue increasing, bringing ever more pronounced weather and climate extremes with them. Only by bringing annual emission rates to near zero as early as practically possible can we minimize further accumulation of CO₂and stabilize it at a new, higher level whose increase will be kept as low as possible. Only in this way can we stabilize the extent of additional global warming at as low an increase as possible.

By continuing to produce emissions of CO₂and other long-lived greenhouse gases, we humans are determining not only our own climatic fate, but also that of our children whom we know and love, of our grandchildren whom we prize and adore, and most importantly of our distant progeny whom we can not know. Extending John Donne's evocative phrasing, the harms we are inflicting on future generations that are beyond our ability personally to know still “diminishes [us],/because [we are] involved in [future generations of] mankind”. The peoples of the world and their elected representatives must coalesce around comprehensive, effective policies to minimize further accumulation of greenhouse gases and control the worsening of extreme weather and climate. In the absence of success in this challenging endeavor we need not “send to know for whom/the bell tolls; it tolls for [us].”

© 2015 Henry Auer

Models and Climate Variability

One of the most common, and least credible, complaints I hear from deniers is that climate change is not real because the models all fail. This is both false and a false argument.

Let me address the false argument first. In fact, I have addressed this in some detail before, but it's worth repeating. A model is a mathematical representation of a real phenomenon. The real thing remains unchanged whether the model is accurate or not. If we get the model correct, the real world is the same. If we get it wrong, the real is still the same. The accuracy of models has no bearing at all on the reality of climate change.

And, climate models and climate science are not the same thing. Models are merely one tool among many we use. Besides models, there are satellites, thermometers, aircraft, ice cores, mud cores, coral cores, tree rings, buoys, radar and much more.

Besides that, the fact is, models are quite accurate and getting better every year. Here is just one discussion on the topic.

I came across a paper from last December that applied to this discussion: Evaluating Modes of Variability in Climate Models, Adam S. Phillips, Clara Deser and John Fasullo, Eos, Vol. 95, No. 49, 9 December 2014. This paper describes how the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has developed a Climate Variability Diagnostic Package (CVDP). This package uses metrics for climate variability and applies these metrics to model outputs to see how well they perform in an effort to evaluate internal variability of the models. You can go to the NCAR website and see some of the results. What they show is the models are doing pretty well. Here is an example:

Source: NCAR

This is an evaluation of 42 separate outputs for models evaluating the December-January-February sea surface temperature change for the period of 1900 - 2005. Red shows the areas where the models were the least accurate and blue the areas where they were most accurate.

As you can see, they did very well. There are numerous other examples on the website.

No, this will not get any denier to stop saying models aren't accurate, but it is one more clear example of how they simply ignore the reality.

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Maximum

It has been widely reported the Arctic sea ice extent this year was not only a record low for a maximum extent, but it also came very early. What does this mean? Truthfully, not all that much by itself. After all, some year has to have the minimum maximum and there is a lot fluctuation from one year to the next.

Just what does it mean to say, 'sea ice extent' anyway? The answer to that question reveals why it is so difficult to model the ice extent. The accepted standard for sea ice extent is the area of the ocean that has at least 15% ice cover. Let's do some math and you can see the problem.

Suppose we have, just for example, 1000 square kilometers of 100% ice coverage. If 25% of that ice melts, we now have 1000 square kilometers of 75% ice coverage. Under the 15% rule, they are the same. Now, let's suppose the wind and currents break this up and expands that ice into an area of 1500 square miles. This area will now have an average ice cover of 50%. Under the 15% rule, we have seen an increase in ice extent of 50% even though we have 25% less ice.

The reverse is also true. If we had started with the 1500 square kilometers of 50% coverage, wind and currents could compress this ice into an area of 1000 square kilometers and 75% coverage. This is a reduction in sea ice extent, even though we have the same amount of ice.

The bigger question is, how does this fit in the long-term trend and that is very revealing.

Here is the sea ice trend for March (through 2014), the normal month of maximum extent:

Source: NSIDC

Now we're talking about some issues. Very clearly, the maximum extent that occurs every year is trending down, even with the annual fluctuation. March 2015 will be even lower than the lowest point on this graph, well below the trend line.

Let's compare a few other graphics.

This is a plot of the winter Arctic sea ice extent (including the maximum extent) for the years of 1980 through 1989. The dark solid line in the middle is the 1981 - 2010 average. Almost every year was above the average line for the entire period plotted.:

Source: NSIDC

This is the same plot for the years of 1990 through 1999. Now we see several years plotting below the average line.:

Source: NSIDC

Now, compare to this plot showing the years of 2006 through 2015 (the incomplete line on the bottom). Now, the extent plots below the average for almost all points.:

Source: NSIDC

When you compare these three plots you can see that the extent is decreasing rapidly. Not only that, we can see there were places that routinely had ice cover in 1980 that have not seen ice for decades.


Now, that statement about this being the minimum maximum means something.

And, keep in mind this is what is happening in the dark of the winter. There can be no mistaken belief it is caused by some reduction in sunlight. There is only one possible explanation - the Arctic Region is getting warmer, even in the winter time. Some combination of warmer air and warmer seas is keeping the ice from forming the way it used to.

By the way, in the same vein, I read an article describing how the snow in Wyoming is melting earlier every year and is now melting 16 days earlier than it was in the 1970s.

Coincidence?

Beijing to Close All Coal-Fired Power Plants

Some times I see an article that makes me go 'Whoa!' This was one of them. Beijing, the capital of China, is closing the last four remaining coal-fired power plants by the end of next year. This move is a result of China acknowledging the air-pollution and climate change problems we are facing. This one move will leave over 9 million tons of coal in the ground every year. The larger goal for the country is to reduce coal consumption by 13 million tons per year by 2017.

I hope it hits the Koch Brothers right in the pocket book.

Future of California Water Looks Bleak

As you have probably heard, the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains this winter is running at merely 19% of the long-term average. Not good for a state that gets 30% of its water from snow runoff and is already in a prolonged drought. But stay tuned. This is just the beginning.

The future of the snowpack in the western U.S. was examined in the paper Extent of the rain-snow transition zone in thewestern U.S.under historic and projected climate, by P. Zion Klos, Timothy E. Link and John T. Abatzoglou, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060500, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 41, Issue 13, pages 4560–4568, 16 July 2014.  Their conclusion?

At broad scales, these projections indicate an average 30% decrease in areal extent of winter wet-day temperatures conducive to snowfall over the western United States. 

A 30% decrease? That leaves 70% of 19%, which comes out to be 13.3%! Yikes! That would translate into a loss of over 15% of their water from that one source alone. And, don't forget the other ramifications, such as the hit to the winter recreation industry. How many jobs does California have in that one industry? I couldn't find that specific number, but I found the numbers for the entire outdoor recreation industry for the whole country:

- 6.1 million American jobs

- $646 billion in outdoor recreation spending

each year

- $39.9 billion in federal tax revenue

- $39.7 billion in state/local tax revenue

The winter recreation industry for California will be only a part of that, but even a small part would be a lot of jobs and money.

And, let's not mention the hit the environment and ecology will take.

Sure, there will be years that see big snowfalls. But, the overall average does not look good.

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.

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.

February 2015 Was Second Warmest Ever Recorded

The warming trend continues. NOAA released it's State of the Climate report for February and announced February 2015 was the second warmest February ever recorded,

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2015 was the second highest for February in the 136-year period of record, at 0.82°C (1.48°F), above the 20^th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F). The warmest February occurred in 1998, which was 0.86°C (1.55°F) above average. Nine of the past 12 months have been either warmest or second warmest on record for their respective months (March and July 2014 were each fourth warmest, while November was seventh warmest).

Our 2015 count looks like this:

February was the second hottest February on record;

January was the second hottest January on record.

So far, 2015 has two second hottest months ever recorded.


For the last 12 months, the tally is:

February 2015 was the second hottest February ever recorded;

January 2015 was the second hottest January ever recorded;

December 2014 was the hottest December ever recorded;

November 2014 was the 7th hottest November ever recorded;

October 2014 was the hottest October ever recorded;

September 2014 was the hottest September ever recorded;

August 2014 was the hottest August ever recorded;

July 2014 was the fourth hottest July ever recorded;

June 2014 was the hottest June ever recorded;

May 2014 was the hottest May ever recorded;

April 2014 tied 2010 as the hottest April ever recorded;

March 2014 was the fourth hottest March ever recorded;


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


Nine of the last twelve months was either the hottest or second hottest ever recorded.

Florida Threatened by That Which Cannot Be Mentioned

Florida Governor Rick Scott is such a intense science-denier that he has instructed government employees they are not permitted to use the phrases 'climate change,' 'global warming,' and sea-level rise. One employee who failed to follow this rule was forced to take a leave of absence and was not permitted to return to work until he underwent a mental health evaluation to determine his 'fitness for duty.'

For the record, I contacted Governor Scott's office and asked for comments. They did not respond.

Unfortunately, the laws of physics don't really care what Rick Scott thinks - nature will do it's thing anyway. The sea level has risen about 6 inches since the 1960s and that is enough to swamp coastal areas during storms and even during high tide in some areas. The freshwater aquifers are experiencing sea water intrusion due to overuse and rising sea levels. Beaches are eroding and require expensive maintenance. Storms are becoming more frequent and more severe. Additionally, rising sea levels will make Florida more vulnerable. Climate change has come to Florida and is hitting it hard. That is what is going on right now, not what will be coming in the future. And, for some reason, Governor Scott would rather see his state and his constituents suffer from the effects of climate change than to even use the words.

Oh, and FEMA will not provide federal funds unless a state disaster preparedness plans address climate change. Oops. He may not be a scientists, but the money issue has been settled.

I'm wondering, is stupidity an impeachable offense?

He may not be a scientist, but that hasn't stopped him from proving he's a jackass. Now, Floridians are paying the price.  Which is kind of appropriate, since they're the ones who voted him into office.

Question to Deniers: Why Aren't You as Smart as a Six-Year Old?

Deniers love to use that ridiculous line - I'm not a scientist..., and then they proceed to demonstrate what a jackass they are by claiming to be smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined.

Well, here's a video by a six-year old on climate change. If he can figure it out, why can't you?

Shameless Self Plug - That Which Maddens and Torments

One of the many projects I have been involved with over the last nine months is my first fiction novel. I have published two nonfiction books, but this is my first work of fiction.

I am pleased to announce That Which Maddens and Torments is now available in hard copy form from Amazon for $17.99 and Barnes & Noble as an ebook for the Nook at $2.99. It should be available for the Kindle within a few days.

Readers of this blog might enjoy the fact the climate change denier industry is the villain in the story. Having said that, this is merely a book for entertainment and I'm not trying to send a message. I needed a villain and had an easy one right in front of me.

I am already working on my next fiction novel, as well as a nonfiction book on the global warming challenge. You can follow my books at chriskeatingauthor.com.

I hope you read my book and enjoy it. I would be interested in hearing what you think.

CO2 Level Hits Record High

The Scripps Institute of Oceanography at UC San Diego takes daily measurements of the atmospheric CO2 levels on Maua Loa, HI. This is the oldest continuous measurement of atmospheric CO2 and is known as the Keeling Curve after the Charles David Keeling who started the measurements back in the 1950s. On March 15, it measured the CO2 level to be 403.10 parts per million (ppm). This is the highest level ever recorded at Mauna Loa. But, don't worry too much, this record will be broken many times this year.

Guest Submission: Making A Scam Work

A Guest submission for Dialogues on Global Warming

RE: Making a scam work;

Considering the clever subterfuge being employed by man-made climate change deniers we need to consider the supposed legitimacy of those who deny man's culpability. And since we are apparently having more and more, intense, and extreme weather around the world, it is particularly interesting that Global Warming deniers have been ramping up their game in an effort to deny any significant dangers caused by the vast release of Co2 into our worldwide environment.

One article about a “peer-reviewed” study that was published in the 2-14-13 issue of Forbes claimed that a peer reviewed, (survey) determined that a majority of scientists remain skeptical about the proposition that global warming posses a huge threat to mankind, and, also that, valid research about this threat, fails to affirm a need for urgency regarding climate change. But interestingly, the study was done by the APEGA, or the Association of Professional Engineering and Geoscientists ofAlberta, and wouldn't you know—the professionals in that survey were heavily representative of Geologists, which are the least likely scientists to affirm the dangers of man's role in climate change. 

In scientific terms, a survey is really nothing more than a glorified poll lacking real controls and objective methodology. Furthermore a genuine Study, found that 97 percent of actively publishing earth scientists agreed that human activities are changing global temperatures. But apparently, since the study cited in Forbes was authored by Lianne M. Lefsrud at the University of Canada, and, Renate E. Meyer, a professor of economics from The University of economicsin Austria, who also studied at The Copenhagen Businesses School in Denmark, the Forbes study was heavily representative of Geologists working in the oil industry categorized as “economic geologists,” who study geology primarily to examine its role in commercial applications—you guessed it—this last group tends to be the most skeptical of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. So how objective is a survey that's conclusion highlights scientists who already doubt man's role in global warming? And how strange that scientists working for the advancement of oil interests in Canada, might be biased—Ya think?

The long study citing their opinions is also full of largely unintelligible ten dollar words, that are confusing to even the most intelligent among us. And the APEGA sponsored study itself, admitted that its methodology represented “a convenience, (non-probability) sample, of self-selected respondents, similar to the general APEGA membership.” Furthermore although the survey was sent to 40,000 members of the APEGA, only 1077 completed surveys were received—just 2.69% of the total!

Here is one paragraph from page nine of that lengthy (30 plus page) “study,” which illustrates the convoluted language and terminology used:

Data analysis

“From our research question, we developed theoretically informed coding categories based upon a review of the identity, framing, professional competency, and legitimation literatures to heuristically circumscribe the discursive construction of expertise. As we engaged with the data, these coding categories were further refined and applied using NVivo 8.0 in an iterative manner.”

Wikipedia's Online dictionary defines some of these words including;

1. Heuristically: A heuristic method such as one using a mathematical algorithm that solves a problem more quickly, but is not as certain to arrive at an optimal solution. 2.Discursive: (A) to digress from the main point; rambling. (B) A philosophy using reason and argument rather than intuition. 3.Iterative: Of a procedure that involves repetition of steps to achieve the desired outcome. In computing this may involve a mechanism such as a loop.

So, aside from the fact that conventional climate scientists, as well as all other kinds of scientists have (always) relied on reason and logic more than intuition, and that the words “legitimation,” and, “literatures,” are not really used very commonly—If we included the definitions of all of these questionable terms, including those of the more common words, “circumscribe,” and, “theoretically,” we might end up with a paragraph which reads something like this:

“From our research question, we develop coding based on categorical guesses, reviewing identity, framing, professional competency, (I.E. the ability of professionals to determine results based on accuracy and legitimate knowledge) and (literatures?) which legitimizes such research and then uses mathematical methods to arrive at a quick solution that is not certain to be the best answer. Our methodology which circles around in a rambling digression from the main point in order to establish the self proclaimed expertise used in our survey, is based on facts, not intuition. And, as we engaged with the data, these coding categories were further refined and applied using NVivo 8.0. in a procedure including repetitive steps to achieve the desired outcome by using a computing loop.”

If you ask me this is nothing but a pseudo-intellectual application of jargon to justify studies which are rife with vagueness and which lack real credibility due to institutional bias!

The fact remains that without giving undue credit to (fox guarding the hen house surveys), that commonly advance the special interests of big oil and other Co2 producing companies, 97% of actively publishing climate scientists remain convinced about man's primary role in global warming.

And, getting back to that article about this study in Forbes, posted by “James Taylor,” (a contributor), is it any wonder that Forbes includes a disclaimer written in extremely fine print, stating that: “Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own?”

Peter W. Johnson

Superior, WI

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.

Oceans Warming Faster Than Believed

Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming, by Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, Felix W. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor and published in Nature Climate Change (DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2389) reports on their research to investigate estimates of the ocean heat content (OHC). While there is a record of measurements for the northern hemisphere, there is a lack of measurements in the south. Historically, the few measurements that were actually made were supplemented by using the northern measurements and interpolating values. Durack, et al. found the data for the southern hemisphere was good since 2004, but the heat content before then was underestimated. This, they concluded, underestimated the actual value of the ocean heat content by about 25%. They stated the amount of heat involved was great:

These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 × 10²²J 35 yr⁻¹) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.

For our purposes here, what this means is the oceans are more sensitive to global warming than previously thought. It is also more evidence that there has been no warming 'pause,' as is frequently claimed. The amount of heat they cite is exceptional, even spread over 35 years. If we were to take the middle value of their range, that comes out to an average of .13 × 10²²J yr⁻¹. In comparison, all power plants in the world combined generate about 10¹⁸J yr⁻¹, meaning it would take all of our power plants about 1,000 years to generate the amount of energy being absorbed by the oceans every year.  That is significant.

Incidentally, this was done using real data, not models.

Here are some nice graphics showing the progression of ocean heating from 1955 - 2011.

No Need To Worry About Hydrates

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are vast amounts of methane (trillions of cubic feet of gas) locked up underground in the form of frozen hydrates. A recurring concern I hear is that climbing temperatures will result in these hydrates melting and releasing some portion of the methane into the atmosphere where it will provide a positive feedback to global warming and make it worse.

I've always been skeptical about this, not because I feel it isn't a threat but because I think that is closing the barn door after the cows have gone. Yes, rising temperatures will melt methane hydrates and cause global warming to be worse, but if we take care of the CO2 problem the methane problem will never materialize.

Now, a government scientist is saying the same thing. Ray Boswell, the technology manager for natural gas technologies at DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory said,

“CO2′s going to be your big problem. If it causes a methane problem, that’s like someone burning the rubble of your house after a hurricane already hit.”

Yes, methane is being released, but it always has been. It is possible the rate of release in increasing. However, the bottom line is still the same - take care of the CO2 problem and the other problems will take care of themselves.

Guest Submission: Fictitious Government Plot

Peter Johnson

The ways that deniers exploit any minor anomaly by using cherry picked data, is truly insidious, but I think we need to also give some attention to the bizarre scenarios and fictitious stories used to justify a supposed government plot.

Thanks for pointing out that the fact that so many scientists in different countries around the world all support the facts about human caused global warming. A conspiracy that vast would truly require suspending all reason to believe. And the fact that all major scientific organizations around the world concur with what is happening, truly places this issue in true perspective.

Even though, most of the climate projections from the 1970s have been proven to be quite accurate, if the people behind the plot back then were to be proven accurate, we can only assume that dumb luck has smiled on them by actually providing the weather extremes that we are now seeing throughout the world, and since most of the original climate scientists must now be of advanced ages, they bought into an enormous diabolical plot that would probably only benefit their grandchildren on the basis of making incredible lucky guesses. Unless they took a time machine to the post 2000 world, they would have had no way to verify that their supposedly false projections would come true--as many have.

The whole government conspiracy assumes that without government grants, most climate scientists would have no way of making money, but since when is it true that scientific research only examine one particular issue--even if it had long ago been proven that global warming was false, I'll wager that scientists would still have their hands full of various forms of climate research involving other aspects of climate, or would be doing research in entirely different fields. Besides how many times have we seen a research scientist in any walk of life, living a rich and opulent lifestyle? The plot would also, certainly not be a partisan one either, since many Republicans and even several Republican President have been in power since climate change became the subject of much research, so why would the GW Bush's administration for example, not try to work with researchers to change their story. GW is largely responsible for ignoring the Kyoto agreement, and as an oil rich millionaire has no reason to want to place a burden on big oil such as reducing their C02 emissions. Did you hear about any massive numbers of scientists taking Bush's 8 years as a opportunity to declare their freedom and renounce cruel liberal taskmasters--I didn't! But if this falsehood becomes important enough for them to deny, I'm sure that deniers will create some other fantastic spin to justify the existence of such an incredible plot.

What is the most perplexing thing of all, is why average Americans who are not very familiar with scientific knowledge of any kind, are so willing to take the words of laymen and political opportunists who are often employed by conservative think tanks and/or big oil? Everyone knows that if we want our kidney stones removed we should consult an accredited surgeon, but deniers have successfully circulated the idea that somehow those employed by big oil and those funded by organizations which benefit from denial, are more qualified to edify us, even if they have far more motives and special interest backing to justify their lies than any typical research scientist. The day this myth is shattered and really hits home, we may be on the way to a world in which average people are aware of the truth--hopefully sooner than later!

Send Inhofe a Snowball!

The organization Environmental action will be hand delivering a snowball to Senator Inhofe for every person that signs their pledge. I signed and I invite you to, also. Sign here, if you're interested.

Why Care about Global Warming? Droughts, Poor Harvests, and Social Upheaval

 

In both industrialized countries and developing countries there may be those who ask “why should we care about global warming?”  After all, many people may not feel that they are affected by warming, and may pay scant attention to reports showing the effects of extreme weather and climate events.  Also, political leaders, especially in developing countries, may place higher priorities on economic development than on greenhouse gas emissions.

Global warming has proceeded ever more rapidlyover the last century.  Warming occurs by virtue of the greenhouse effect due mostly to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-active gases added to the atmosphere by human activity.  Many recent accounts have catalogued the progressive warming and the resulting harms caused by extreme weather and climate events. 

Here we focus on new reports from the technical literature on severe droughts in various parts of the globe and on the harmful effects that they produce.

Drought is characterized by a net loss of moisture from soil.  This involves assessing the difference between precipitation, which adds moisture, and the combined effects of evaporation from the soil and loss of moisture by plant transpiration to the atmosphere.  In drought conditions more moisture leaves the soil than enters it.  It is frequently accompanied by untypically low precipitation and/or untypically high surface air temperature.

Droughts have led to important economic damages in many regions of the world and a geopolitical crisis in Syria.  This post considers four current reports of drought and its socioeconomic and geopolitical consequences.  The droughts are directly or indirectly associated in the reports with global warming brought about by humanity’s burning of fossil fuels for energy.  The reports are summarized here.  More extensive information on each is given in the Details section at the end of this post.

• Colin Kelley and coworkers report on the worst drought in recorded history in Syria and neighboring countries just prior to the “Arab Spring”.  The drought was serious enough that large numbers of farmers left their villages and migrated to Syria’s cities.  This caused major social and political turmoil and is considered to be a contributing factor to Syria’s civil war.  Human-derived greenhouse gases contributed to the drought.

 

• Moore and Lobell analyze changes in crop yields and climate change across Europe.  Large scale decreases in yields were found in many localized regions, which correlated with increased temperatures and decreased precipitation over the 20 year period studied.

 

• Diffenbaugh and coworkers examine the recent drought in California, likely the worst in 1000 years.  By simulating the region’s climate in model calculations the authors find that the extra amount of greenhouse gases added by human activity likely resulted in higher temperatures and reduced precipitation in the region.  This factor also contributes to a high risk of continued severe droughts.

 

• Cook and coworkers assess drought conditions in the American Southwest and Central Plains.  Assuming that unrestrained emission of greenhouse gases will continue, the risk of severe droughts in these regions is projected to be extremely high, by various measures between about 69% and 97% in the second half of this century.

 

Analysis

Why Should We Care About Global Warming?  Earlier predictions concerning the harms that global warming inflicts on regions of the earth are already coming true, causing damages that affect socioeconomic wellbeing and can lead to political upheaval.  Projections of future warming also include worsening harms, including in various regions extremes of heat and consequent droughts, or extremes of precipitation and consequent flooding, and secondary effects on human wellbeing and health.  All these effects impose significant monetary costs both in seeking to avoid them and in adapting to their impacts.

Droughts.  The journal articles summarized here focus our attention on the effects that droughts linked to global warming have already caused in various regions of the world.  Most singularly, the record drought in Syria and ensuing agricultural failures beginning in 2007-8 led to major internal migration of displaced farmers to cities.  This is considered to be an important factor contributing to that country’s social unrest after the Arab Spring.  The U. S. Department of Defense’s report “2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap” includes “[i]nstability within and among other nations” as a potential effect of climate change having military implications.  Indeed, the U. S. is now conducting military operations tangential to the Syrian civil war.

Global warming had negative impacts on agricultural productivity in Europe between 1989 and 2009.  Lower harvest yields have the potential to drive up commodity prices affecting the cost of food.  OXFAM GB published its briefing report “Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices” in 2012.  The report models projected world commodity price increases to 2030 in response to projected global warming, showing both long-term increases for staples, and the higher increases foreseen in cases of climate “shock” involving short-term responses to extreme climate events.  For wheat, maize and rice, increases between 107% and 177% are predicted by 2030, of which one-third to one-half is attributed to global warming.

Man-made global warming is contributing to record droughts in California, and in the America Southwest and Central Plains.  California alone provides about 11% of America’s farm produce.  The New York Times reported on Feb. 27, 2015 that as the state enters its fourth year of drought the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation can provide only 15% of the water requested by farmers this year.  Only one-fifth the normal amount of water is available, due to very low winter snowpack accumulations.  The drought has already cost California  $2.2 billion in lost agricultural revenue, as well as thousands of jobs.  The Central Plains produce about 40% of the world’s corn, and 10% of its wheat.  Prolonged drought would materially impact crop yields in this region.  Climate Central states “[f]ood supplies could be disrupted and price shocks could reverberate through global markets” in response to the unprecedented droughts foreseen by Cook and coworkers when modeled by unconstrained future emissions of greenhouse gases.

Conclusion

The reports presented here catalog major, even unprecedented, occurrences of drought brought on by humanity’s history of greenhouse gas emissions over the past century.  They further project even more severe drought conditions when assuming continued unrestrained emissions. 

The extent of global warming and its consequences are determined by the total accumulated level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  For carbon dioxide, this amount cannot be lowered by any currently available technology, so the world is already locked in to the extreme patterns we are currently experiencing.  In order to minimize further warming all nations of the world must come together to implement rapid, meaningful reductions in annual emission rates in order to keep the future accumulated greenhouse gas level as low as possible.

 

Details

 

Drought in Syria preceded the unrest that became the civil war.  Colin Kelley and coworkers examined “[c]limate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought” (Proc. Natl Acad. Sci., published online before print March 2, 2015).  The Fertile Crescent (roughly encompassing Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, and Iraq along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers) has undergone its most severe drought since recordkeeping began.  The winter of 2007-8 was the driest in recorded history and marked the beginning of a three year drought period marked by the lowest rainfall, high to highest annual mean temperatures, and low to lowest values of a standard drought index used by climate scientists.  The drought caused serious agricultural and social dislocations in Syria, with loss of livestock and serious decreases in crop yields.  The authors found statistically significant decreases in long term winter rainfall (-13%) and measurements of groundwater content, and an increase in annual surface temperature compared to the global average, especially in the last 20 years.

These dire conditions led as many as 1.5 million people to leave the land and migrate to cities.  The migrants added to Syria’s social burdens, since its population has swelled from about 4 million in 1950 to about 22 million now.  The expanding population increases the demand for water under the drought, made worse by the effects of an earlier drought in the 1990s.  Syria also absorbed 1.2 to 1.5 million refugees from the war in Iraq just before the drought period.  These factors produced significant social unrest, just prior to the rise of the Arab Spring in other Arab countries.   

The authors conclude that these climate disruptions exceed expectations from only natural long term variability, stating “the long-term …trends and the recent increase in the occurrence of multiyear droughts and in surface temperature is consistent with … [man-made greenhouse warming]”.  This conclusion is reinforced by modeling of rainfall, which showed with statistical significance that “natural variability [combined with carbon dioxide greenhouse warming] is 2 to 3 times more likely to produce the most severe 3-year droughts than natural variability alone”.

What started as nonviolent protests in Syria against unemployment, corruption and major inequality degenerated into repression and the outbreak of the civil war which still goes on.  The authors make clear that while it is not possible to establish a direct link between the drought and these events, they believe it likely was a contributing factor.  The authors cite recent scientific publications “establishing a link between climate and conflict”.

Reduced agricultural harvests in Europe.  Frances Moore and David Lobell analyzed “[t]he fingerprint of climate trends on European crop yields” (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 112 no. 9, pp. 2670–2675, 2015).  The “fingerprint” refers to mapping of geographic localization of changes in yields of important staple crops, together with changes in climate (generally, temperature increases and reduced rainfall amounts) in the same regions.  These are compared with expected temperature and precipitation trends evaluated using climate models for the same regions.

The authors found that, averaged over the entire expanse of the European continent, crops yields between 1989 and 2009 fell for wheat (2.5%) and barley (3.8%), while yields of sugar beets and maize (corn) increased very slightly, compared to yields expected from models omitting the changes in climate.  The authors point out, however, that these continent-wide averages don’t represent the fingerprints well; in many regions crop yields fell (as represented by color-coded regions on the maps) by 20% to 40%, 40% to 60%, or in a few regions by more than 60%.  These results are especially pronounced for wheat and maize, and occur mostly in regions of Portugal, Spain, Italy, France and Greece.  The robust statistical methods employed in this work permit strong correlation of the changes in staple yields to the increase in temperature during the growing season over the 20 year interval studied, as well as to decreases in precipitation.

Long term drought in California.  Noah Diffenbaugh and coworkers have studied how “[man-made] warming has increased drought risk in California” (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., published onlinebefore print March 2, 2015).  They observe that California has been suffering a long term drought from December 2012 to September 2014.  It is characterized by record low precipitation and has been accompanied by extremely high temperatures, which may be the most severe set of conditions in a millennium.  The high temperature contributes to drought conditions by altering the seasonal timing of mountain snowpack melting and increasing evaporation and transpiration.

Using an objective quantitative drought index the authors conclude that statistically significant drought conditions occurred twice as frequently during the recent two decades than over the century preceding.  They find that warmer temperatures are an important factor in the recent twenty years in which droughts occur.  Simultaneous occurrence of lower than normal precipitation, significant changes in standardized drought indices and warm temperatures has been more frequent in the last two decades than in the preceding century.

The authors compared regional climate model simulations that omitted man-made greenhouse gas contributions to warming with simulations that added the greenhouse gases, beginning about 1885.  The models show with high statistical significance that since 1976 inclusion of man-made greenhouse gases produces a warming trend considered alone, as well as simultaneous occurrence of  decreased precipitation and a warming trend.  These simulations “suggest[] that human [activity causing atmospheric warming] has caused the observed increase in probability that moderately dry precipitation years are also warm”, leading to drought conditions.

The authors extended the model simulations to project behavior up to 2070, assuming no significant measures to reduce emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.  They find with high significance that the probabilities for occurrence of years that are both very warm and very dry are exceptionally high, approaching 100%. 

The authors conclude by pointing out that focusing on low precipitation without considering warming “misses a critical contributor to drought risk….[T]he risk of severe drought in California has already increased due to extremely warm conditions induced by [man-made] global warming”.

Severe droughts are projected for the United States in this century.  Benjamin Cook and coworkers foresee “[u]nprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains” (Sci. Adv. 1, e1400082 (2015); published electronically 12 February 2015).  The authors studied measurements of climate in the United States based on tree ring variations going back to the year 1000 CE.  This permits characterization of periods of drought throughout this interval.   They also performed regional projections for drought through the 21^stcentury using an ensemble of climate models and the assumption that worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases will continue growing without significant constraints.  The models were calibrated by applying them to generate the drought characteristics for the historical record from 1931 to 1990.  Three characteristics were evaluated, a standardized index of drought, as well as evaluations of soil moisture content to depths of 30 cm (11.8 in) and 2 m (6.6 ft).  This calibration reproduced the historical tree ring record with a high level of statistical significance, giving confidence that the simulations would provide valid results when projected into the future.

The graphic below presents the authors’ results.

 

 

Historical tree ring record of climate from 1000 to the present (brown), smoothed with a 50-year window.  Modeled results for summer season moisture balance from 1850-2099 give the climate moisture index (red), and the 30 cm (pale green) and 2 m (dark green) simulations for soil moisture.  (Gray lines show excursion in the simulations from individual climate models.)

Source: Cook and coworkers, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082.

 

The results shown in the graphic are remarkable for the severity of the drought conditions projected through this century (although it should be noted that the projections have not been smoothed over a 50-year window as the historical record was).  Recalling that the models assumed no significant constraints on future greenhouse gas emissions, it is seen that both regions, the Southwest and the Central Plains, are forecast to have extreme and apparently unrelenting drought conditions after 2050, to extents not seen in the 1000 year historical record up to the present.  The drought in the Southwest is projected to be more severe than in the Central Plains. 

 

The risk of an 11-year drought in the 2050-2099 period is about 84 to 98% in the Central Plains, and about 92-97% in the Southwest.  The risk of a 35-year drought is about 69 to 88%, and 84-89% for the two regions, respectively.  The authors state that the severe drought conditions are “driven primarily by the [earth system’s energy] response to increased greenhouse gas concentrations …, rather than by any fundamental shift in ocean-atmosphere dynamics” (i.e., rather than by ongoing naturally occurring earth system processes).  The authors note that these projections are characterized by greater certainty than expressed in recent work by others.

 

In conclusion, the authors project “a remarkably drier future that falls far outside the contemporary experience of natural and human systems in Western North America, conditions that may present a substantial challenge to adaptation….[T]he loss of groundwater and higher temperatures will likely exacerbate the impacts of future droughts, presenting a major adaptation challenge….”

 

© 2015 Henry Auer