Sunday, October 19, 2014

Oceans Are Even Hotter Than We Thought

We know the oceans are heating at an alarming rate. Take a look at this plot of ocean temperature anomalies for today:
Source: Climate Reanalyzer
This not only shows the sea surface temperature anomaly graphically (Wow! That's a lot of red!), but the numbers at the bottom show the anomalies for different regions of the planet. These numbers represent the anomaly for the listed region between today's measured temperature and the long-term average.

As we can see, there is a lot of excess heat being stored in the upper-layer of the ocean. But, a new report indicates it is actually worse than we thought. A paper published in Nature Climate Change says researchers, using data from Argo floating ocean buoys, have found the temperature rise is actually higher than what has been thought - and by a significant amount. The error is attributed to poor data collection in the southern hemisphere. Now, Argo data indicates the sea surface temperature has been rising between 24% and 55% faster since 1970 than previously thought.

That is highly significant.

If you are not familiar with the Argo buoy network, it consists of thousands of free-floating buoys throughout the world. The buoys are designed to float at depth and take direct measurements of the ocean depths down to 2000 meters (surface temperatures can be recorded daily by satellite sensors). After about 10 days, the buoy will inflate a bladder that will make it float to the surface where it will make satellite contact and transmit its data. The buoy will then deflate the bladder and sink again. The battery operated buoys last about four years. The network has been in operation since 2000 and now has about 3500 buoys floating all over the world. This is an obvious upgrade to the old method of collecting data by lowering instruments over the side of research ships. The amount and currency of data is vastly improved and that data is made available to the public via the program website.

One of the consequences of this is the realization of what it means for us here on the land. Eventually, a much warmer ocean will mean a much warmer atmosphere, along with all of the consequences of that warming such as higher utility bills, more expensive food, increased insurance rates and more severe weather.

I'm sorry, I think I just heard another politician say he isn't a scientists but we shouldn't do anything about climate change. I might have been mistaken. It is possible it was the sound of another billionaire counting the money he is making because we still aren't addressing climate change. Its hard to tell because they sound the same.



Friday, October 17, 2014

The Reason Fossil Fuel Companies Deny Global Warming

If you realize that manmade global warming is real, the next logical conclusion is to do something about it. So, if you can keep the debate focused on the reality of AGW, then you don't have to worry about doing something about it. Now, you might ask, why would someone be interested in preventing us from acting on AGW? Take a look at this article here.

This article discusses the actions taken in Nordic countries to deal with carbon emissions, something they have been very successful at. In fact, they have been so successful they are actually lowering the cost of energy. The alternative sources of power they are now using are actually cheaper than the coal fired power plants they are replacing.

And, that is what the fossil fuel industry really fears.

For instance:
Fossil power plants in Finland and Denmark act as swing-producers, helping to meet demand when hydropower production in Norway and Sweden falls due to dry weather.

The arrival of wind power on a large scale has made this role less relevant and has pushed electricity prices down, eroding profitability of fossil power stations.
And, I love this statement,
"Demand for coal condensing power in the Nordic power market has decreased as a result of the economic recession and the drop in the wholesale price for electricity," state-controlled Finnish utility Fortum said
 Or, this statement,
"This will, in our view, result in mothballing of 2,000 MW of coal condensing capacity in Denmark and Finland towards 2030,"

The evidence is clear - the fossil fuel industry is lying to us when they say renewable energy sources will increase our utility bills and lower the standard of living. What we really see is the exact opposite, the standard of living is going down due to global warming and renewable energy will improve the situation. Today, we are already paying for higher utility bills, more expensive food, higher insurance costs, loss of jobs, and economic damage due to weather extremes. Who is telling you not to worry about all of that? The same people that are making billions of dollars off of it - the same people that stand to lose billions of dollars if we do something about it.

But, we won't do anything about it as long was we argue about the reality of it.

And, that is why the fossil fuel industry fears letting people realize AGW is real.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Heat Continuing Through September

NASA released it's report for September global temperatures and it wasn't good - September 2014 was the hottest September ever recorded. In fact, according to NASA, 2014 is on track to be the hottest year ever recorded. The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) will release it's State of the Climate reports for the nation and the globe later this week and we'll see what it has to say. In the meantime, find someone that says there hasn't been any warming since 1998 and show them this graphic:

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Another Denier Lie Exposed

One of the new statements making the rounds among deniers is that no one is saying man made global warming doesn't exist. In fact, I get statements saying that no one has ever said that. I am not kidding. Then, they get upset when I call them deniers.

Well, let's put the record straight. Here is one denier that says it straight up. Unfortunately, he is also in Congress. Please note how the fossil fuel industry is his biggest contributor. Do you think there is a link?

Where are all of the people making that claim now? Any comments from the contrarians, deniers or denier industry?

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Seasonal CO2 Minimum May Have Passed

In addition to a steady, long-term climb, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere varies by season - dropping in summer and climbing in winter. It looks like we have passed the seasonal minimum and the level is climbing again. The Keeling Curve, the plot of measurements taken at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, normally turns upwards around the beginning of October and is now doing so. The latest daily measurement was 395.58 ppm on October 5. Here is a plot of the measurements for the last two years:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.png
Source: SIO





You can see how the curve has turned upwards as well as the year-to-year increase. What is disturbing about this plot is how much it is climbing. Last year, it made news when the level topped 400 ppm. This year, that level was passed for three months in a row. This coming year will see it passed for at least five months. I believe it will be only another three years before we reach the point when the minimum will not drop below 400 ppm. By the end of 2017, we will never again see the level drop below 400 ppm.

Here is the plot of the long-term data:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png
Source: SIO


The 395 ppm level was first touched just three years ago. That means prior to 2011 the CO2 level had not reached 395 ppm at anytime in at least the last 800,000 years. Now, it doesn't drop below that level.

In mean time, contrarians and the denial industry will tell you we don't need to do anything.

Monday, October 6, 2014

It is Time to Change the Way We Think

We cannot solve the problems that we have created with the same thinking that created them.

Albert Einstein
I am sure Einstein was not talking about climate change when he made this comment, but it certainly applies. I guess that is a demonstration of his true genius - it transcends the ages and issues. We cannot expect to solve the problems we face today with climate change by using the same thinking we used to get in this situation. We MUST change the way we think.

I recently received a comment from someone that read my book and told me he gave me a review on Amazon.com. He said something very interesting (and, unfortunately, very accurate):
Although I found his evidence for global warming overwhelming, he failed to fully convince me that the solutions suggested would be very effective in reducing it.

Stephen Challis
And, I agree with him. I did not do a convincing job of addressing the issue of what we do about climate change. The simple reason is that I was stuck in using the same thinking we used to get us here. I did not change the way I thought.

There is an interesting article in Scientific American that addresses how to go about this problem. The writer does a pretty good job of covering all of the pit falls with addressing the problem. I think it is a start, but that is all.

Really, the issue is this, fossil fuels are cheap, but are poisoning the environment for everyone. So, what do we do about it? If we don't address the problem, everyone, even the billionaires making obscene profits, are stuck with a poisoned environment. If we do address it we make energy more expensive for everyone. Those billionaires can afford higher energy bills, but most of us can't. We will have to make choices. And, what about all of the people in the world that can't afford energy at the current rates? What do you do about them at even higher rates? They don't even have the luxury of making choices.

The sad truth is that we are all in this together - every single one of us from the very desperately poor to the most incredibly rich. Climate change reduces the quality of life for all of us, even those that deny it is happening. None of us gets to sit in the stands and say they aren't playing.

So, what do we do? I am looking for new, different ideas. The old, tired ones aren't working. Can you come up with something new?




Ocean Depths Not Getting Warmer

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

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

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

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

Thursday, October 2, 2014

13 Misconception About Global Warming

Veritasium posted a very nice, six and half minute video addressing 13 common misconceptions about global warming. He does a very nice job of it, but I do have one complaint. I have encountered all of these misconceptions and I believe I addressed every single one of them during the global warming challenge. No amount of scientific evidence was enough to change the minds of people that deny climate change. Even after two months, I still have some of them coming back and insisting they won the challenge. Talking about living in denial. So, I don't believe Veritasium will succeed in just 6 1/2 minutes.

But, I hope so.

More Evidence Climate Change is Bad For Us

For years the denier industry worked as hard as it could to convince people that global warming wasn't happening. Then, when it became indisputable, they tried to convince people that it is just a natural cycle. Now that its clear it is due to manmade emissions, their tactic is to tell people that it is actually good for us. That is as much a lie as everything else they say and the evidence is turning into a mountain. Here are a few examples.

The White House budget director, Shaun Donovan, recently gave a speech at the Center for American Progress and detailed the economic costs associated with global warming, stating,
"From where I sit, climate action is a must do; climate inaction is a can’t do; and climate denial scores – and I don’t mean scoring points on the board. I mean that it scores in the budget. Climate denial will cost us billions of dollars."
Here are some of the costs associated with global warming:
  • Reducing GDP by roughly $150 billion a year if warming reaches 3° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, instead of an international target of 2°. Global output could suffer by roughly 0.9 percent. As Donovan said, as we all learned during the Great Recession, "even a small reduction in real GDP growth can dramatically reduce Federal revenue, drive up our deficits, and impact the government’s ability to serve the public."
  • It is estimated that damages due to changes in hurricane activity will result in an annual increase of $7 billion in damages to the East and Gulf Coasts, bringing the annual price tag up to $35 billion per year. 
  • Wildfires expenses has tripled since 1999 and is now averaging over $3.5 billion per year. 
  • The 2012 drought cost the country $30 billion. The current drought in California will cost that state an estimated $2.2 billion and 17,000 jobs. 
  • Crop insurance, paid for with tax payer dollars, is three times higher than previously estimated, about $2.6 billion this year. That figure was more than $17 billion after the drought in 2012. 

That totals up to more than $15 billion per year, without counting the future loss of GDP. That comes out to over $50 per per person, or $200 per family of four. If you include the GDP loss that comes out to about $2200 for a family of four. Every year. Make that annual check out to your favorite billionaire.

Keep that checkbook handy. This is only one example.

The Norwegian Refugee Council report on people displaced by disasters stated that 22 million people were displaced in 119 countries by natural disasters in 2013, almost three times as many as were displaced by conflict and violence.These disasters included events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, but weather related events accounted for over 94% of the displacements, including 218,500 displaced in Oklahoma due to tornadoes. Droughts are a major cause of displacement and reports indicate there is a displacement underway in California due to the drought there.

The risk of displacement has more than doubled since the 1970s. This is due to many factors. The world population has nearly doubled since the 1970s and urban population is nearly 200% higher. That last figure is over 300% for developing countries. This means there are more people at risk. Better preparation means more of the people affected by disasters survive, leaving them to be displaced. Data collection has improved. But, the report also says climate change is a factor in the increase and is expected to cause more frequent extreme weather events in the future.

I'm not sure how you would figure out how much each of us will have to pay because of the increase in people displaced due to climate change. Maybe some of those people in Oklahoma or California can let us know how much its has cost them and we can figure it out. Then, we can all write a check to our favorite billionaire.

And, here is a list of eight major companies that ClimateProgress reports have included risks due to climate change in their annual reports to shareholders: Chipotle, Keurig Green Mountain, Michael Foods Group, Heinz, Big Heart Pet Brands, Omega Protein, Coca-Cola, and Marine Harvest ASA.

The risks mentioned vary from small to significant. But, they all add up to the potential for increased expenses that will be passed down to the consumer.

Make that check out to your favorite billionaire. You know the one, the one financing the denier organizations that are working as hard as possible to block any action to stop climate change while telling you that global warming is good for you.

Send a thank-you note with that check.

Monday, September 29, 2014

African Agriculture Vulnerable to Climate Change

The Africa Agriculture Status Report 2014 was released on September 2. One of the things it stated was that malnourishment in Africa could jump 40% by 2050 due to climate change. African farms are generally small, one-family affairs and the study finds they are more vulnerable to climate change.
As is made clear by the contributing authors of this publication, one of the key sectors that is already and will increasingly be affected by climate change is agriculture. This is particularly true for agriculture in developing countries, and especially for countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Rapid and uncertain changes in rainfall patterns and temperature regimes threaten food production, increase the vulnerability of African smallholder farmers, and can result in food price shocks and increased rural poverty. As noted elsewhere in this publication, agriculture – even the low-input smallholder agriculture of sub-Saharan Africa – is both a ‘victim and a culprit’ relative to climate change.

Although developing countries, especially those in Africa, are likely to bear the brunt of climate change, none of us will be immune to its impacts. It is time we acted together and be reminded that, when it comes to the devastating effects if climate change, we all swim – or sink – together. This is not the time to play the blame game.
AASR 2014 - Forward


Question: Where are all of the contrarians that keep saying climate change will be good for farm crops?

This is just one of many instances we have seen recently detailing how the poorer you are, the more you will suffer from climate change. And, at the same time, we see that the richer people are, the harder they work to prevent anyone from doing anything about it.

It isn't surprising that this is what is going on. After all, that is just the way the world works. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

No, what I find surprising - and disappointing - is how many people allow themselves to think these rich people are taking care of them and blindly follow along with what they are told. Why is it the rich fossil fuel people are providing the bulk of the funding used by the denier industry?

And, why do you believe them?

Thursday, September 25, 2014

The Dirty Little Truth Fox News Doesn't Want You To Know About Climate Change

A quick quiz: How can you tell a climate change denier is lying? Answer: His lips are moving.

The recent incarnation of this is Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger in his article carried by Fox News this week. He wants to claim that there are these 'truths' that Obama doesn't want you to know about climate change. Well, I don't know what Obama does, or doesn't, want you to know and I really don't care. Obama is near the very bottom of my list of people that I like. But, climate change, obviously, is way up there on the list of things I care about. So, let's take a look at the list of 'truths' he claims Obama doesn't want us to know.


1. Temperature records
Bolstering this barrage of alarmism is last week’s finding from the federal government’s National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that the global average surface temperature for August 2014 was the highest ever recorded for the month.

But the anomalous warmth in August still fell short of the all-time record for all months. That record was set nearly 200 months ago in February 1998. And that’s the real news. In this era of human-caused global warming, what is taking so long to set a new global temperature record?
So, let's be clear on what Mr. Knappenberger is saying, and wants everyone to buy. Record temperature after record temperature is being set and continues to be set, but manmade global warming isn't real because the one record monthly high temperature was set in 1998 and hasn't been broken yet. And, that month occurred during the period of global warming? Is that right?

In short, Mr. Knappenberger wants to ignore the entire database and make a judgement based on a single datum point. Thousands of data points to the contrary be damned. And, be sure to read what he said, not that the hottest monthly average ever recorded happened in 1998, but the hottest anomalous month occurred then. This is the month with the greatest discrepancy relative to the long-term average.

So, Mr. Knappenberger, why didn't you focus on the month with the hottest average ever recorded? Or, why didn't you discuss the year with the hottest average ever recorded? Or, the second? Or, the third? Or the decade with the hottest average ever recorded? Or, the second hottest?

The answer to these questions is that they have all occurred since 2000. That would not sit well with his denier claims.

And, that is a truth he doesn't want you to know about.


2. Temperature Anomalies

The rise in the Earth’s average surface temperature basically stopped, “global warming” morphed into “climate change,” and it has been 16.5 years since the last all-time all-month record monthly temperature anomaly was set.
What is the significance of this statement? This statement is so silly I didn't even bother researching to find out if his claim is correct, or not. The claim itself is the lie.

Mr. Knappenberger, the concern is "global warming", not "global record temperature anomaly". We need to look at one question, "Is the planet getting warmer?" The answer is, "Yes, it is". The 1980s were the hottest decade ever recorded at the time. Every year in the 1990s was hotter than the average of the 1980s, making the 1990s the hottest decade ever record at the time. Every year of the 2000s was hotter than the average of the 1990s, making the 2000s the hottest decade every recorded at the time. Every year of the 2010s has been hotter than the average of the 2000s, making the 2010s the hottest decade ever recorded. At least, at the time. Just wait for the 2020s. And, the 2030s. And,....

And, that is a truth Mr. Knappenberger doesn't want you to know.


3. Professional Deniers
Just-published research from University of Guelph’s Ross McKitrick pegs the length of the hiatus, or “pause”—the period of no statistically significant rise in the earth’s average temperature—at about 19 years. 
Funny. Ross McKitrick is a economist and takes money from the fossil-fuel industry. His work has been shown to be fraudulent. If his claims are so valid, why does he need to turn to someone like this for information? Why not use the scientific literature?

And, that is a truth Mr. Knappenberger doesn't want you to know.  


4. Not Matching Forecasts
Looking back even further, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that since the mid-20th century, observed global warming has been less than expected.
Mr. Knappenberger's claim here is that the globe didn't warm as much as some forecasts had predicted, therefore it isn't real. In other words, global warming isn't real because global warming is real, but not as bad as someone predicted it would be.

One more truth Mr. Knappenberger doesn't want you to know.


5. Computer Models
In short, all those computerized climate models that predicted large, accelerating, and generally uninterrupted warming were wrong. And it has the believers in those models scratching their heads.
Global warming is not proceeding as planned.  The climate appears less sensitive to our emissions of greenhouse gases than expected. The urgency to grant the government the authority to limit energy choice is not justified.
To be clear, the models have actually been pretty good, certainly much better than deniers claim. This is just one more denier lie that is making the Internet airways. I reviewed all of these claims about models and wrote a posting about it, which you can read here.

One more truth Mr. Knappenberger doesn't want you to know.


6. Mr. Knappenberger Has Ties to the Fossil Fuel Industry

According to his article, Mr. Knappenberger is the Assistant Director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute was founded and is funded by the Koch Brothers.

First, we learned he was lying. Now, we know why.

And, that is a truth Mr. Knappenberger doesn't want you to know.


Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Jon Stewart Takes Down Republican Deniers

Jon Steward covered the Climate March and did a very funny take down of some depressingly stupid congressmen. Watch it here.

Thanks to lebronjeremy for the heads up on this.

Well Written Review of Books

One of the things I missed over the Summer of the Challenge is a review of books on climate change, with an emphasis on Antarctica. Well, I finally caught up to it today and found it to be a well-written and interesting review and commentary. I recommend it for anyone that would like to learn more about the current situation.

Monday, September 22, 2014

NASA/NSIDC Statement On Sea Ice Minimum

NASA and NSIDC have confirmed that this year's Arctic sea ice minimum was the sixth lowest on record. Read the statement here.




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. 







Friday, September 19, 2014

List of Challenge Submissions

During the height of the activity with the Global Warming Challenge I made a page that listed all of the submissions and updated it as I received new ones. This allowed people that made submissions to follow my progress. I recently went through all of the submissions - my personal waking version of a recurring nightmare - and added a synopsis to the listing for each submission describing what it was about. This made it a handy reference for anyone doing research on contrarian claims. Some of them were much less than credible, but some of them were typically representative of contrarian claims.

If you are looking for information on these kinds of claims (and the science), then I hope this can serve as a resource. Let me know if I can do anything to make it more useful. Happy hunting.


Arctic Sea Ice Minimum - The State of the Ice Fall 2014


It appears the Arctic sea ice has reached its minimum extant for this year. According to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), as of September 17, the sea ice extent was 5.016 million square kilometers and has begun to increase as autumn sets in. Last year's minimum was 5.101 million square kilometers, so there was a drop of about 85,000 square kilometers (about 33,000 square miles) this year from last year. That puts 2014 as the sixth lowest sea ice extent measured to date. Here is a plot showing the sea ice minimum extent for the last eight years, including 2014 (the incomplete line near the middle). The black line to the top is the long-term average.:

Source: NSIDC

As a function of trends, this year continues the observed 35-year trend of reducing sea ice. Here is the trend line for September through the end of 2013 (the last complete September on record):

Source: NSIDC
Using the 1981-2010 mean listed on the graph, I calculate this year's minimum was 22.8% below the long-term average (6.5 million - 5.016 million/6.5 million x 100%). That puts this year's minimum close to the trend line. So much for claims (and hopes) the ice was recovering.

Unfortunately, there is much more to the story about ice than just the Arctic sea ice extent. Sticking with the north, for now, let's look at a couple of other things.

In addition to the amount of area covered by the Arctic sea ice, we are also concerned with the volume of the ice. As ice gets older, it gets thicker from being jammed up by waves, winds and currents. Older ice is typically thicker ice. This is important because it means it takes more to melt it during the melt season. Young ice is thinner and melts more easily. So, what is the trend for the ice volume?:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
Source: PIOMAS


This shows the ice volume trends for both the end of the melt season (red line on bottom) and the end of the freeze season (blue line on top). Note how both trend lines show a significant decrease in volume. But, also, note there has been a short-term increase in volume since 2012 (the great collapse of Arctic sea ice). This illustrates both why 2012 was such a bad year and why we have seen a rebound since then. But, even with the 2013-14 rebound, the trend is unmistakeable - ice volume is decreasing.

The sea ice is not the only melting ice in the north, the Greenland Ice Sheet is also melting at an alarming rate. Here is a plot showing how much mass the ice sheet is losing due to melting (the vertical dashed-line marks June 2006):

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_curve_La_EN_20140100.png
Source: Polar Portal

The ups and downs in the graph are due to seasonal changes, but the overall trend is unmistakeably down. This shows the ice sheet has lost about 2000 billion tons of ice since 2006, an average of more than 140 billion tons per year. If there is no global warming, where is the heat coming from to melt all of this ice?

But, this is only half of the story and contrarians love to point at the Antarctic sea ice. So, let's leave the north and go south. In this regard, the contrarians are correct, the Antarctic winter sea ice extent has been increasing. But, as is usually the case, they don't want to tell the whole story.

First, the sea ice:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
Source: NSIDC
This plot shows the maximum sea ice extent (the seasons are reversed in the southern hemisphere). Again, there is a clear trend of increasing sea ice. But, there is a huge difference between Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice. The Arctic is an open ocean surrounded by land. The Antarctic is an ocean surrounding a continent of ice. The Antarctic sea ice nearly all melts during the melt season. But, the real question is, what is happening to the Antarctic Ice Sheet? Take a look:

Source: Velicogna Research Group

This graphic, from a research paper on the topic, shows both the mass loss for Greenland (left) and Antarctica (right) as measured using data from the GRACE satellite. This is what the contrarians don't want to discuss. Yes, the sea ice extent is increasing in the south during the winter, but it is melting during the summer and the land ice is melting at a large rate - about 70 billion tons per year.

A recent paper indicates this might be a factor in the increasing amount of sea ice. The melt water is not mixing well due to the circumpolar currents that isolate Antarctica. As a result, the top layer of ocean water is less salty and would freeze more easily.

In any event, we know the amount of ice is decreasing and the situation is not good for us. The changing polar environments are having an effect on the rest of the planet. The California drought has been linked to the loss of sea ice, and there was a forecast about that made ten years in advance. And, sea ice loss may have contributed to the formation and path of Superstorm Sandy. And, of course, all of that melt water running off Greenland and Antarctica is rising the sea level. These are just a couple of examples.

The record shows melting poles are changing things to our detriment.


Thursday, September 18, 2014

August State of the Climate Continues Trend

NOAA released its August 2014 State of the Global Climate report this morning and the bad news continues. Here are some of the highlights:
  • The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.
  • The global land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), the second highest on record for August, behind 1998.
  • For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).
  • The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June–August period was also record high for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), beating the previous record set in 1998.
  • The June–August worldwide land surface temperature was 0.91°C (1.64°F) above the 20th century average, the fifth highest on record for this period. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average, the highest on record for June–August. This beats the previous record set in 2009 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).
  • The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for January–August (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.3°F), the third highest for this eight-month period on record.

This report continues the trend we have been seeing all year. See my previous postings on the state of the climate for June and July.

This is really grim. But, you know what the worst part is? Deniers will point at last weekend's cold snap and say that there is no global warming.

Let's update the tally for the year:

August was the hottest August ever recorded;

July was the fourth hottest July ever recorded;

June 2014 was the hottest June ever recorded;

May was the hottest May ever recorded;

April tied 2010 as the hottest April ever recorded;

March was the fourth hottest March ever recorded;

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

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

So, let's see what the score is so far for 2014: one 21st hottest month, three 4th hottest months, and four hottest months ever.

And, overall, 2014 is on track to be the third hottest year ever recorded.

But, the deniers will continue to claim the warming has stopped. That only works to make bad news even worse.







Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Is Fighting Climate Change Bad For the Economy?

One of the many false claims - and there really are a lot of false claims - made by the denier industry is that it would be bad for the economy if we did anything about global warming. Stop and think about that for a moment. That is like saying it is bad for the economy to put out house fires. If the house burns to the ground, the house and all of its contents will have to be replaced, thus creating jobs. If people get killed, so much the better because that will open up some jobs somewhere for someone else. So, every time the fire department puts out a house fire they are putting lots of people out of work.

You might think I'm being over the top in making that comparison to the denier industry and you would be right. The denier industry is much worse than what I just alluded to. The fact is, the world economy is suffering hundreds of billions of dollars, even trillions of dollars, in damages worldwide and it is estimated that as many as 400,000 people are dieing each year due to climate change. This is not some figure that is estimated for 100 years from now. This is what is going on right now, every year. And, that casualty figure does not include the number of people that become ill or injured, just the ones that die.

If you find that line of reasoning offensive, all I can say is that you should. And, you should find it offensive that the denier industry is saying global warming is good for us and everyone that listens to them is buying into it and repeating it. But, that's the point here. They are saying it and people (contrarians) are believing it. It makes me wonder what kind of horrible sickness do they have? Some kind of Ebola virus of the logical thought process, but it doesn't kill your body, just your ability to think logically - Ebola Denier.

All you have to do to see just how ridiculous the denier industry is on this issue is to look at who profits and who loses with global warming:

Winners: The Koch Brothers, Saudi Arabia, the coal industry, ExxonMobil, Venezuela, Iran, Islamic terrorists

Losers: Anyone having to pay for groceries, anyone having to pay for insurance, anyone having utilities they have to pay for, anyone that is concerned about getting a job, anyone living in a low-elevation area, farmers, ranchers, anyone that can get sick from diseases, anyone vulnerable to wildfires, anyone that is subject to the weather

Which one of those groups do you fall in? Then, if you are a contrarian, ask yourself - Why do you cling to your disproved beliefs? You are one of the losers, and you still want to believe what the billionaires are telling you? Apparently, they don't have enough money and you have too much. Take out your checkbook and write them a check.

The fact is, we can fight climate change and grow the economy at the same time. Again, stop and think about it. If we are spending money and doing work to fight global warming, where is that money going and who is doing the work? Is it really that hard? If we are spending a lot of money to fight global warming, the money has to go somewhere, it has to be spent on something. The purchase of products and services to fight global warming means someone has to make those products or provide those services. And, every time we talk about hard work to fight this problem, someone has to be doing the hard work. In both cases, we are creating jobs.

But, the denier industry will tell you that people will lose their jobs. And, this time they aren't lying to you. There are people that will lose their jobs if we fight global warming: The Koch Brothers, coal industry executives, oil industry executives, Islamic terrorists, government officials in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iran. 

Now, I think, we can all see why so much money and effort is being put into preventing anyone from doing anything about global warming.

Here is an interesting report on the effects on the economy from fighting global warming.

Monday, September 15, 2014

2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extant Now Sixth Lowest Ever

According to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Arctic sea ice extent has now reached a low of 5.082 million square kilometers and is still declining. That is now less than the minimum extent of 5.101 million square kilometers recorded in 2013. In addition to 2013, the 2014 level is also lower than than the 2009 level. The only years with less ice than what we are seeing right now are 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and the disastrous year of 2012. It would take a major event for the 2014 level to fall to the level of any of those years, so it looks like 2014 will go down as having the sixth lowest Arctic sea ice level ever recorded. The minimum should be reached within the week (last year's minimum occurred on September 14th) and we will know for sure.

This is bad news all around. It was certainly hoped that the big rebound that occurred last year might be the start of a trend, but the data doesn't support that. While the hope might have been there, no one studying the Arctic sea ice thought a new trend would occur. The science and the history both indicated last year's extent was nothing more than a fluctuation in the weather and not a recovery.

This, of course, is also bad news for all of the deniers and contrarians out there that have been making claims that global warming isn't real because the sea ice has recovered to the highest level in 35 years/1980 levels/full level/record level, take your pick of the false claim (I have heard all of these and even more).

No, the sea ice extent is not recovering and claims to the contrary are not supported by science. But, isn't that typical for the contrarians? Never let good science get in the way of your claims.

I will be making a more detailed posting on this year's ice (including Antarctica and Greenland) after we hit the minimum extent in the Arctic.


Thursday, September 11, 2014

Dispelling The "No Consensus" Myth

Skeptical Science invited 97 climate scientists to comment on the contrarian myth that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. One comment will be published every hour for 97 hours. You can read about the effort on the AGU Blogosphere, or you can read the comments here.

This is a noteworthy effort and I hope it will convince some of the people that are on the fence about what they believe. As for the contrarians, as I keep saying, there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever get them to change their minds. They are, quite literally, out of touch with reality. Too bad.

Tropical Storms in the Southwest

The remnants of Hurricane Norbert hit the Southwestern U.S. this week and caused havoc. Record rainfall in the region caused flooding, closed roads and led to at least two deaths. To really add injury to injury, the flooding is not likely to help with the drought. The system missed the areas hardest hit by the drought and didn't help at all. Even in areas that got rain, the rain came so hard and fast that it ran off rather than soak in. Some, of course, will be caught in the reservoirs and will provide some help, but most will lost.

A tropical storm system hitting this region is very unusual. Just look at the fact that it was not only the single day record rain, but it really shattered the old record. Norbert dumped 3.29 inches on Phoenix on Monday. The old single day record was 2.91 inches and was 81-years old. The new record is more than 13% higher than the old one. (There was also a 4.98 inch rainfall in 1911 that occurred over two days, but within a 24-hour period, making it the 24-hour record holder.) What isn't revealed in that statistic is that the 3.29 inches fell in just seven hours. You don't see this kind of record history very often in places that get tropical storms on a regular basis.

According to Wikipedia, there have been four tropical storms that have hit the Southwester U.S. with gale force winds since 1900. Norbert was not the fifth. Storm organization had degraded quickly when the storm hit Mexico and wind speeds dropped precipitously.

So, why do so few storms hit this region? After all, there are lots of Pacific storms that form in this region and tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere tend to hook towards the Northeast. You would think this would create a situation conducive for West Coast storm strikes.

The answer lies in the ocean temperature. The California Current along the West Coast originates in the north and moves southwards along the continental margin.  Take a look at this plot from Climate Reanalyzer showing the ocean temperature for September 11, 2014:


Source: Climate Reanalyzer
The light blue band along the coast line clearly shows how the waters in this region are cooler than ocean waters farther out to sea (to the left, or west). There are two things that are needed for tropical cyclone development: warm ocean water and a lack of high-altitude wind shear. As it turns out, the California Current not only cools the water, it also leads to high-altitude wind shear. Storms that form and move into this region run right into a hurricane killer. The U.S. West Coast has it very own hurricane-barrier.

But, what is going to happen as the ocean gets warmer as a result of climate change? We don't need to speculate, we can look at the record and we can see what is already happening.


While Norbert didn't bring gale force winds, it did fall in the category of tropical storm remnant affecting the Southwest. Again, according to Wikipedia (not a research quality source, but adequate for our purpose here), there have been 67 storms (not including Norbert) that are recorded to have had an impact on California.
Number of recorded storms impacting California
Period Number of storms
Pre-1930
11
1930s
7
1940s
3
1950s
5
1960s
3
1970s
7
1980s
9
1990s
7
2000s
10
2010s
5
Adding Norbert, this list indicates that there have been 39 of the 68 storms since the beginning of the 1970s, over 57% of all of the storms on this list. Why did I use that time span? Take a look at this graph for the answer:


Global Ocean Heat Content 1955-present 0-700 m
Source: NOAA

This graph shows the ocean temperature started a significant increase in the late-1960s. Remember, tropical storms need warm water. We would expect, if all things remain equal (a bad assumption, but a good starting point) that the California hurricane barrier would start to break down and that is what the data seems to be indicating.

Take a look at this plot, also from Climate Reanalyzer:

Source: Climate Reanalyzer

This plot shows the temperature anomaly for September 11, 2014, the same day as the other ocean temperature plot. The difference between the two is the first plot showed the actual water temperature and this one shows the difference between the actual temperature and the average temperature. Just as the above plot clearly showed the California Current to provide cooler waters along the West Coast, this one shows, equally clearly, that the waters along the West Coast are getting warmer. Quite a bit so, in fact.

Does this mean California and the Southwest can expect more tropical storm remnants? I believe the data shows that is already happening. Does this mean there is a possible relief for the long-term drought? Again, I believe the data already shows this is not the case. Droughts are relieved, and caused, by long-term changes in the precipitation pattern. Flash floods with large amounts of runoff are not going to provide the relief needed. That will take long, soaking rains and heavy snowfall in the mountains. In fact, there is evidence the warming oceans is what is actually causing the drought.

The conclusion I reach from this is that this region is already experiencing severe effects from global warming and will continue to see them into the future.



Thursday, September 4, 2014

Precipitation Data Available Online

One of the common false arguments contrarians make is that climate change data is not available to anyone but climate scientists and they could prove the scientists wrong if they just had access to the data. This, of course, is false in multiple ways. The first being they are not going to prove climate scientists wrong, no matter how much data they have. The second being, the data is freely available to anyone with a Internet connection.

The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has all available climate data online for anyone to access. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has ice and snow data. And, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) has satellite data. These are just a sample of the data available. So, anyone that claims they are denied the data clearly has not done their homework.

Now, this amount of data has just been increased. NASA and JAXA have made the data from the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite available to the public. This mission is a joint mission between NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), with contributions from other countries, was launched this past February 27 and measures worldwide precipitation.

If you would like to access the data you can find it here.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Inviting Guest Submissions

I am opening up the discussion to guest submissions. There are, of course, a few rules:

1. This is a blog about global warming and climate change. If you want to discuss something else, there are plenty of venues for that. Please, stay on topic;

2. Keep the language family-friendly;

3. Please avoid personal attacks;

4. You own the copyright to any submissions, but I have the right to reproduce it, in whole or part, as I wish;

5. You may post anonymously, if you wish. Just ask;

6. All postings are open for comments and rebuttals;

7. I have the right to refuse to publish any submission and, once published, I have the right to remove any and all submissions;

Pretty simple.

I feel the topic is broad enough that I don't need to expand it. Anything relating to climate change and global warming will qualify. Obviously, I follow the science and am a supporter of anthropogenic climate change. That is not a requirement for a submission. You may make a submission that is contrarian, if that is what you wish (see rule number 6 above). I would appreciate it if you included a title for your submission. Otherwise, I will give it a title I feel is most representative of the posting. All guest submissions will be annotated as such.

If you wish to submit a guest posting, simply write it up and send it to the email at the top of my blog:

DOGW.email@gmail.com


Monday, September 1, 2014

Climate Articles From Over the Summer

You may have already seen these, but I was so wrapped up with the challenge that I missed a lot of things over the summer. Recently, I've been working on doing all of those things I didn't do - like mowing the lawn - that I am just now catching up. Here are a couple of articles I found interesting and didn't have a chance to comment on previously.

The GlobalChange.gov, using data from the National Climatic Assessment report released in May, showed changing weather patterns across the U.S. and discussed changes that have occurred and projected changes that will occur for temperature, frost and precipitation. One of the changes noted was the way precipitation patterns are changing and highlights one of the issues of climate change - not all regions will see the same thing. The observed changes in U.S. precipitation is, basically, the haves will have more and the have nots will have even less. If you get lots of rain you will be getting even more, and if you get only a little rain you will be getting even less. You could probably take the total amount of rainfall for the entire U.S. and say the average is about the same, but that would be misleading. If you are experiencing more frequent and more severe flooding, do you really care what the national average is? If you are experiencing more frequent and more severe droughts, do you really care that some other region is getting lots of rain? Climate change is highlighted by regional changes. Here is a map showing the changes in very heavy precipitation for the country. Bad news for most of us. Really bad news for the Northeast and the West Coast.:

PHOTO: A map of rain from the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment (2014)
Source: ABC News



Then there is the issue of temperature. I have had many people say to me that global warming is false because we are having the coolest year on record. This statement is full of all sorts of errors and false arguments, but people believe it any way.So, let's take a look at this statement.

The first problem is that this has not been the coolest year on record (or, ever recorded, or in the last 50 years - depending on who you are talking to). According to the National Climatic Data Center, July 2014 State of the Climate Report,
The contiguous U.S. average temperature for the first seven months of 2014 was 51.3°F, near the 20th century average but also the coldest first seven months of any year since 1993.
It always important to make sure you keep your facts straight and not let what you want govern what is real. The contiguous U.S. is having the coldest year since 1993, that is 21 years. But, there is more to the story than that. The U.S. makes up less than 2% of the planet surface, so what goes on here is only a sample. When we talk about 'global warming' we mean the globe, not the U.S. The global temperature average continues to rise.

But, there is even the issue of talking about the contiguous U.S. this way, because this cool weather has been limited to the eastern half of the country. The western part is experiencing record heat. California has been experiencing a long-term trend of increasing temperature, but this year has been incredible. The temperature didn't just set a record, it smashed the old one.

Source: National Climatic Data Center
Source: Bloomberg.com


This illustrates the point that you cannot take a single datum point, or even a small data set, and expect to make a valid point and this is true for both sides of the aisle. We need to examine the larger picture in order to figure out what is going on. And, keep in mind, our stated goal should always be to figure out what is truly going on. It shouldn't be about which political party, or which celebrity, is right or wrong. It seems too many times people are trying to turn this into a sporting event and are rooting for their 'side', no matter the issue.

So, let's all try to focus on the issue and stick to the science, not the politics.







Wednesday, August 27, 2014

The Challenge Is All Done!

I have been scrubbing through the comments sections and I believe I have addressed all of the submissions. If you feel I missed your submission, you are welcome to bring it to my attention and I will fix the problem.

All total, I think there were 85 submissions that I addressed. I will make it official and say that none came even close to proving man made global warming (AGW) is not real. Some were quite interesting, but that didn't make them valid. Some were bad, some were very bad and then there were those that were just plain awful.

There were many things that became apparent during the challenge that I would like to mention:

- It is surprising how many people think that being rude and offensive towards me somehow made their submissions valid. I don't care for bullies and they quickly learned they picked a fight with the wrong person.

- It is also surprising how many people jumped to the conclusions about me and the challenge they wanted to. I found this to be a pretty common trait - these people would patiently wait until they had 10% of the information before jumping to the wrong conclusion, and that conclusion never gave me the benefit of the doubt.

- It is surprising how badly people act when they can hide behind a computer. I wonder if they would want their children/spouse/mother/father/brother/sister/boss to know how they acted on this blog. I am willing to bet right here and now that not a single one of them will come back and apologize for their behavior.

- I have said that the only way to reject AGW is to reject science. I am truly disappointed in how many people proved me right. I even had several people say that if science disagreed with them then the science had to be thrown out. Amazing!

- It was no surprise at all to see how many people rejected my response, no matter how much evidence I provided to support it. I have always said that it is not possible to change someone's mind once they reject global warming. No amount of scientific evidence or logic will change their minds. Now, they have proved it.

- It was also no surprise to see how many people that reject global warming wanted to change the terms of my challenge or to weasel out of the challenge by making ridiculous claims, such as "You can't prove a negative," or, "You didn't define what global warming is." These, and others like them, are completely false statements. If they go around saying they can prove AGW isn't real, then they should have been able to do so here. If they aren't making that statement then this challenge wasn't directed at them. Either way, trying to redefine the challenge or by making silly statements like that is nothing more than an admission that they cannot produce any science to support their claims.

- In summary, this was an honest challenge and I would have paid if anyone could have produced an scientifically sound proof. It wasn't that no one was in the ball park, it was the fact that no one could even see the ball park from where they were standing.


Now, the claim that is being made is that I reneged on the challenge because there were some that should have won. OK, once again, there are people making a statement without any evidence and I am going to put the burden on them to prove it. I am challenging these people to point out which submission should have won and why. They are making the claim, now put up or shut up. And, please don't come back with something along the lines of, "You have to throw out any science that disagrees with me."

I'll wait, but I know it will be a long one. 


The Electric Field


The main problem is your assumption that we are dealing with large amounts of typical matter, but we are dealing with large amounts of plasma that has a unique nature and behavior. Plasma does not behave like any of the other three states of matter. It is highly energetic and dynamic, constantly changing and redistributing charge based on variations in its energy input. In more energetic states it self-organizes creating glows, toruses, filaments and complex discharge patterns with electromagnetism as the acting primal force. I know that plasma physics is a scientific discipline. I just believe that the role of plasma is not well understood and its significance highly underestimated at the least.

The electrical nature of plasma cannot be ignored. Plasma is a collection of charged particles that responds collectively to an electromagnetic force. It is conductive and if you apply a voltage, an electric current will be induced in it causing charge separation into anode and cathode field-aligned current sheaths or double layers. Given increased energy these layers can transform into spiral tubes or vortexes of conducting charged particles (Birkeland currents), creating magnetic fields around the current paths.

The electric current excites the ions and electrons in the plasma making them move rapidly toward the opposite charged sheath. The frenzied particle movement produces collisional energy photons that cause the plasma to glow in the visible range. As the input electric energy increases, the plasma goes from dark glow mode to glow mode to arc or spark discharge mode, as in the cases of the solar wind, the polar auroras and lightning, respectively. Input energy variability can effect an instability in the sheaths causing their magnetic fields to pinch down toward each other and discharge energy at the “Z-pinch”. This is what is defined as a star in the electric universe theory.

In this theory our star, the sun, is a plasma discharge phenomenon that is connected electrically to all the planets and other stars in our galaxy. Given we can now detect and observe electrical tornadoes impinging at earth’s poles originating from the sun, then electric currents and accompanying magnetic fields flow between the earth and the sun. Larger currents flow between the sun and the galaxy.

Why this matters is because this electromagnetic link between the sun and the earth is highly energetic and variable. The earth reacts to the sun’s electromagnetic variations with changes in its electromagnetic environment that influence temperature, weather, lightning and climate. Sure, certain gases like carbon dioxide and methane have heating effects on earth’s atmosphere and surface, but one significant solar event can accelerate or reverse these effects.

This is not about those that believe in anthropogenic climate change versus the deniers. This is about seeking and knowing the truth, the primary function and goal of science. Let the evidence lead you to the truth wherever it may take you, not based on consensus, but on observational facts.

And I believe I can prove that your stated position is wrong, because it is based on incorrect assumptions about the nature of the earth’s atmosphere, temperature, weather and climate, and what drives and influences them: the sun.

Some recent evidence (about an hour total):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...





Response:

I will start out by confessing I lost this submission and it took me awhile to refind it. My apologies to the submitter. It was not done on purpose or with any kind of malice.

Plasma is the most common form of (normal) matter in the universe. All stars are made of plasma, as is the majority of matter between stars and galaxies. Plasma is normal matter that consists of electrically charged atoms, molecules and electrons, but the net charge is neutral, meaning there are equal parts positively and negatively charged particles. As a result, plasma reacts to electric and magnetic fields. However, plasma is very rarefied (opposite of dense). We do not find plasma in our atmosphere, except with rare and specific exceptions such as lightning and certain kinds of flames. The reason is because plasma is dependent on the charged particles not running into each other and connecting to form a neutral particle (plasma can exist in very dense stars due to the extreme temperatures that keep ripping the neutral particles apart again). For that reason, even though plasma dominates space, it is insignificant within the dense atmosphere where we live. You need to go about 100 miles up before the space between particles gets large enough for plasma to exist for any length of time. Even there, plasma is only a small percentage of the atmosphere and it is still mostly neutral.

You are correct, in a very simplified version, about how currents form in the plasma and create, among other things, the Birkeland currents. These occur very high in the atmosphere. And, yes, this is also the cause of the aurorae and other currents within the upper-atmosphere.

You are also correct when you say the Sun (and any other star) is emitting plasma. This emitted plasma is called the solar wind and consists mainly of protons (hydrogen nuclei) and electrons. Yes, we are connected to the Sun via magnetic field lines which channel plasma into our atmosphere (which is what causes the aurorae). Are the magnetic field lines coming from the Sun connected to field lines of the galaxy? We don't know, but we believe it is possible.

But, the amount of energy contained in the solar wind is very, very tiny compared to the amount of energy contained in sunlight. Solar wind can have a very dramatic effect on the power grid, satellites and electronic components by essentially slamming them with a sudden burst of electricity (moving charged particles), which can lead to damage and even power outages in the grid and catastrophic failure in the satellites. The largest known such event occurred in 1859 and is known as the Carrington Event, named for the scientist that was making observations of the Sun when the eruption on the Sun's surface responsible for the event occurred. Aurorae were observed almost all the way to the equator. Electrical sparks would fly from telegraph equipment and set buildings on fire. If such an event were to happen today it could very possibly lead to an enormous power failure among nations in the high latitudes (the southern and norther aurorae - aurora borealis and aurora australias - mirror each other).

So, you have the basic facts correct, but there are two major problems. The issue is intensity. As I said above, the amount of energy contained in the solar wind is very miniscule compared to other sources of energy reaching Earth from the Sun. Even great storms like the Carrington Event don't put as much energy into the atmosphere as sunlight does. But, this energy is still included in our calculations and incorporated into climate models. I did my graduate research in this area and have continued to do some research. It is a very important, and complicated, subject and is studied in great detail.

But, another problem is the fact the solar activity is actually decreasing slightly over recent decades (and continuing to do so). The decrease isn't anything to worry about, but it would cause a slight drop in temperature if that is all there was. So, if your hypothesis was correct, we would be experiencing global cooling, not warming. So, we can safely conclude that warming is not due to plasma reaching Earth from the Sun.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real.


Monday, August 25, 2014

Thought Experiment

  1. Alright bro, you want me to prove via the scientific method that man-made global climate change is not occurring? As you wish.

    First, the scientific method. Not everyone agrees exactly on the steps, but I will go with the commonly agreed upon steps in the hopes that this is sufficient.
    1) Observe a situation.
    2) Form a hypothesis regarding a question related to what has been observed.
    3) Test the hypothesis via experiment.
    4) Analyze the results of the experiment to determine whether or not it can be determined whether or not the hypothesis is correct, and if it can, then also whether or not the hypothesis is correct.

    The first step, of course, is something we have all been doing our entire lives. We experience climate change. We experience human activity.

    The second step is to form a hypothesis. In this case, that hypothesis is that man-made global climate change is not occuring.

    The third step is to test the hypothesis via experiment. In this case, I am going to test my hypothesis via thought experiment.

    First, consider what it means for a process (such as global climate change) to be 'man-made'. Everything in this Universe is connected to everything else in this Universe, be it directly or indirectly. For something to be 'made' or caused by something else, that cause has to be the direct cause or the root cause. The reason I specify both 'direct cause' and 'root cause' is because they are not always the same, while there are other in-between factors that are not themselves the cause but rather something related to the other factors. Consider, for example, a line of one hundred dominoes. The first one falling ultimately leads to the last one falling. The first domino falling is the root cause of the last domino falling. The ninety-ninth domino falling is the direct cause of the last domino falling. Of course dominos two through ninety-eight are all part of the process as well, but to say that any one of those is not simply a part of the process, but rather the cause itself, for the final domino falling, is absurd. We are talking about a single cause, not every step.

    Now, the question here is whether or not man-made global climate change is occuring. If man's effect on global climate change is neither the root cause (domino one) or the direct cause (domino ninety-nine), but rather a piece along the way (say, domino sixty-six), man is not the cause of global climate change, rather, global climate change is 'made' by either the root cause or the direct cause, depending on your interpretation.

    Now then, what is the root cause and what is the direct cause? Is man one of those, or is man, in fact, not the true culprit?

    First let's consider the direct cause. Climate is directly caused by factors such as heat (the amount of kinetic energy in the atmosphere), humidity (the amount of dihydrogen monoxide in the atmosphere), and other such factors. This is on a molecular, atomic, and subatomic levels. A change in climate is caused by a change in the factors that cause climate. For example, a change in the amount of kinetic energy in the air, or a change in the amount of dihydrogen monoxide in the air, will result in climate change. This is the direct cause; even if man is responsible for this, man is not the direct cause.

    It is clear, then, that man is not directly responsible for global climate change, but it was already determined that, depending on your interpretation, something could be considered 'man-made' if man is the root cause as opposed to the direct cause. What, then, is the direct cause for global climate change? Is it man? In this case, of course, the word 'man' means 'mankind', or the human species, as opposed to 'adult male'. Our question, then, is whether or not the human species is the root cause of climate change.

    4096-character limit for post, so this will be continued in a second and a third post.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Part 2/3

    For the human species to be the root cause of something, there must not be something else that cause the human species to be responsible, in the same way that domino two is not the root cause because domino one made domino two do its part. That leads us to question whether or not there is something that causes the human species to act in ways that lead to global climate change (given that the human species does act in ways that lead to global climate change, which I believe we can agree on). Many human activities are a piece of the domino chain leading to global climate change. For example, the production of oil, and the use of gasoline. But is there something else that causes us to produce oil and to use gasoline? What about to create factory farms, one of the biggest contributers to global climate change? Or to build and fly airplanes? Did we, humans, simply decide one day 'Hey, let's make gasoline and farms and cars and airplanes!'? If you put a baby in a confined environment, giving it only what it needs to live, would it make these things? Would it even contemplate making this things, desire to make these things, or even fathom the possibility that these things could exist? No. Rather, we, humans, made these things because of a cause. Multiple causes, actually. We created gasoline to power vehicles, we created vehicles for transportation. This is a result of our desire for transportation. Of course, our desires could be considered a part of us, but there is a root cause beyond our desire: The magnitude of the planet we live on. We develop vehicles for transportation because of our desire to travel, and we desire to travel because of the vast size of this planet, being too big to walk on foot to our destinations. Of course there are factors other than vehicles, but what about power plants? Humans build power plants so we can have electricity. Why do we want electricity? For heat, light, communication, among other things. Why do we want heat? Because of the climate where many of us live. It is and always has been too cold for humans to live comfortably without artifical heating in many areas of Earth. Why light? Because nowhere on Earth is always naturally lit by a star or any other source. Why communication? The same reason as travel, Earth is too vast for us to simply walk over to whoever we want to talk to. Simply put, every single thing that humans do that contributes to global climate change is caused by another factor, that factor being something about the nature of Earth. It might be Earth's size or Earth's climate or something else. Regardless, it is not humankind itself.

    The final step of the scientific method is to analyze the results of the experiment. Analysis: The root cause is the nature of this planet, and potentially other factors that influence us, our lives, and our decisions. The direct cause is molecular, atomic, and subatomic factors like kinetic energy and humidity. Does that analysis answer whether or not global climate change is man-made? Yes, it identified what global climate change is actually made by, that not being man, and therefore that global climate change is not man-made.


    4096-character limit for post, so this will be continued in a third and final post
    ReplyDelete
  3. Final post, pastebin of whole thing as one part rather than split into three posts is here: http://pastebin.com/6FZXHNZ9


    Of course some might find this insufficient so let me provide a second experiment. Back to step three. Another thought experiment of sorts.

    The question is whether or not man-made global climate change is occuring. The article 'is' refers to now. It is not future like 'will' or past like 'has'. Time is quantized. Therefore, 'is' refers to this exact Planck time. The question, then is whether or not man-made global climate change is occuring at a given Planck time when the question is to be answered. Of course it takes far more than a single Planck time to analyze and answer the question, but that is due to the limits of information processing; 'is' still refers to the present which is always, at any instant, that exact instant, that exact Planck time. Then is man-made global climate change occuring at the current instant, at a single Planck time? Global climate change is a process. A process is a change, an event. An event is subjective to time. It occurs over time. The quickest of events happen over the change from one Planck time to the next. Therefore, they are subjective to at least two Planck times, not a single Planck time. Therefore, at any given one Planck time, not a series of Planck times but at a single Planck time, no process is occuring or can be occuring. Because our question is whether or not man-made global climate change IS occuring, not will occur or has occured, it clearly cannot be because no event IS occuring at this present Planck time.

    Analysis: Global climate change, man-made or not, IS NOT occuring. Global climate change will occur, and has occured. But at a single Planck time it IS NOT occuring, and therefore man-made global climate change is not occuring.



    There, two proofs that man-made global climate change is not occuring. You might reject one but you can't reject both!

    Pls send over $9,000 to anon3140@hushmail.com, thank you very much and I will live you forever <3

    pls respond


    Response:

    This is a rather interesting thought experiment. But, there is a flaw in the logic. You state the first domino is the root cause, but you neglect to include whatever it was that caused the first domino to fall in the first place. The domino doesn't just spontaneously fall, something has to make it fall. So, by your line of logic, domino one cannot be the root cause.

    But, of course, something else made whatever it was that caused the first domino to fall, so that must be the root cause. And, then something else made that second whatever, and so on. By your line of logic, there is only one root cause for anything - the Big Bang. Nothing else can be a cause because it is in between the root cause and the direct cause.

    So, let's look at it again.

    Everything is a root cause and also a direct cause for something, somewhere. Simple cause and effect. We cannot state we are not responsible for out actions merely based on an argument that we are not the root cause. If someone steals a car, the law doesn't allow a defense where the thief claims it isn't their fault because someone in the past wanted to make transportation faster and invented cars. If cars had never been invented, then they could not have stolen one, so it is the inventor's fault. Even if someone else made the decision to put the car in the field of view of the thief, the thief still is responsible for the decision to steal it.

    In the same way, we cannot say we are not responsible for causing climate change because the world is big and necessitated we invent cars and power plants. We made the decision to do things to the environment we knew would change it and lead to global warming.

    Ultimately, the challenge is not to prove why we are causing global climate change, the challenge is to prove it isn't happening. Which you tried to address in your second thought experiment.

    You used the idea that 'is' means 'this particular Planck time,' which is about 10^-43 seconds in length. In fact, the global climate will be slightly different at the end of a Planck time than it will at the beginning. If there is any change at all (Hopefully, no one is thinking there is absolutely no change at all), then there has to be change in the period of a Planck period of time, even if it is a very small amount. If there was no change, then stacking countless Planck periods end-to-end would result in no change, no matter how many Planck periods we used. The fact that there is change over many Planck times means there is change over a single Planck time.

    Add to that the fact that you said yourself that we are causing man made global warming and I can say with confidence that you did not prove man made global warming is not real.

    It was an interesting attempt, though.