Senator James Inhofe is one of the biggest disgraces of the United States. This is a leading member of the U.S. Senate and he uses that platform to repeatedly demonstrate just how ignorant he is. I shudder to think what the rest of the world thinks of the U.S. education system every time this man opens his mouth.
If you aren't familiar with him, he's the man that claims "manmade global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public." He's the guy that says climate science is a conspiracy by Barbara Streisand and the Weather Channel. "It's all about money. I mean, what would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings if people weren't scared anymore?"
What's funny about that statement is Inhofe has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry, making him one of the top recipients of oil money. Hmmm. Do you think there's a link between all the money he gets from the fossil fuel industry and his fight to protect their interests at the expense of his constituents?
Inhofe is also famous for coming out every time there's a cold day in the winter (when its supposed to be cold) and make some statement about how it proves climate change isn't real. Then, he disappears on those winter days when the temperature hits a new record high. I'm sure he thinks he's being clever. The rest of the world knows he's an idiot.
Now, he's done it again. He brought a snowball into the Senate and claimed it was proof climate change isn't real. But, it backfired. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse took him to task about it. Whitehouse cited numerous authoritative sources saying climate change is real and then repeatedly asks, who are you going to believe, these excellent sources? Or, "the Senator with the snowball." Watch the video.
There's nothing we can do about Inhofe. We're stuck with him. But, we can be thankful to Senator Whitehouse for the new catch phrase for all of the people that reject science and think they're clever: they are another Senator with a snowball.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
CO2 Heat Trapping Observed
The good news is the bad news for deniers just keeps rolling in. It's been a bad few days for the deniers.
First, one of their darlings was exposed as being a liar and fraud when records were released showing how Willie Soon was paid millions of dollars to produce anti-science papers, referred to as 'deliverables.' No one that is familiar with Soon is surprised by the news, I'm sure. But, it was really nice to see the confirmation of what everyone already knew. It was a real blow to the denier industry.
Now, there is a new report that, I hope, will be equally as damaging to the anti-science crowd. A team of scientists are reporting in the journal Nature that they have directly measured CO2 caused heat trapping. What they did was to use a decade of measurements looking straight up through the atmosphere. These instruments took measurements of both the CO2 level and the amount of radiative trapping. Plotting the two showed a definite connection between the two, exactly as 150 years of physics predicted.
As was reported,
First, one of their darlings was exposed as being a liar and fraud when records were released showing how Willie Soon was paid millions of dollars to produce anti-science papers, referred to as 'deliverables.' No one that is familiar with Soon is surprised by the news, I'm sure. But, it was really nice to see the confirmation of what everyone already knew. It was a real blow to the denier industry.
Now, there is a new report that, I hope, will be equally as damaging to the anti-science crowd. A team of scientists are reporting in the journal Nature that they have directly measured CO2 caused heat trapping. What they did was to use a decade of measurements looking straight up through the atmosphere. These instruments took measurements of both the CO2 level and the amount of radiative trapping. Plotting the two showed a definite connection between the two, exactly as 150 years of physics predicted.
As was reported,
Of course, the deniers will try to put some kind of spin on this, but the facts are there - increasing levels of CO2 cause trapping of heat in the atmosphere. The science is settled and it is conclusive.In doing so, the data show clouds, water vapor or changes in sun's radiation are not responsible for warming the air, as some who doubt mainstream climate science claim, Feldman said. Nor could it be temperature data being tampered with, as some contrarians insist, Feldman said."The data say what the data say," Feldman said. "They are very clear that the rising carbon dioxide is actually contributing to an increased greenhouse effect at those sites."
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Judith Curry - Climate Change Denier
A reader brought my attention an article written by Judith Curry. She has become the darling of the AGW denier community due to her credentials. Ms Curry is a climate scientist and is the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography. She earned her Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.
Her credentials are real. She also accepts funds from the fossil fuel industry.
In regards to accepting funds from the fossil fuel industry, she stated:
We have heard a very similar statement from Willie Soon:I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.
No amount of money can influence what I say or do or research or write.Now, of course, we all know that, in fact, Mr. Soon really is influenced by the amount of money and who it is coming from. So, we have to wonder about Ms. Curry as well. Why has Ms. Curry become the darling of the Wall Street Journal (a leader in the anti-science effort)? See her article The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown: Mountingevidence suggests that basic assumptions about climate change are mistaken: Thenumbers don’t add up. Why has she become the darling of Congressional Republicans who work so hard to block any legislation addressing climate change?
Too bad she has chosen to reject the very science she has worked on for so long.
Officially, Ms. Curry states she supports the scientific opinion on climate change. Then, she spends all of her time undermining climate science. This article is a perfect example. Let's look at a few of her claims.
A big part of her complaint is how the AR4 in 2007 had a 90% certainty that human emissions are responsible for climate change and then it became 95% certainty in the AR5 in 2013. What I find interesting is that it has already been reported the reason AR4 stated 'only' 90% certainty is because China and India refused to sign the report if it went any higher. The scientific consensus was there to go higher, it was the politics that prevented it. The change was not because of new science, it was due to a breakthrough in politics (small as it is). And, Ms. Curry was in a position to know this!
Why didn't she report on the reality? What was her agenda?
She then lists a number of reasons she is opposed to the idea of the increase in certainty:
- Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
- Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
- Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
- Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
The problem with this list is that every one of them is a false objection and she, as a climate scientist and chair of the department, was in a position to know better. So, why did she make these false statements?
The issue of lack of warming is both a false statement and a false argument. Warming has not only occurred, but the only way you can get this statement is to cherry pick the data and falsify your results. And, she knows this! Take a look here. This is, literally, only one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples showing warming has not stopped. And, of course, Ms. Curry is doing nothing more than repeating the often quoted false argument that surface warming equates to global warming while leaving out the 93% of the warming going on in the oceans.
Please explain to me why someone with the education, training and experience of Ms. Curry would do that?
Well, how about decreased sensitivity to CO2? Read this here and tell me what you think. I think it doesn't look good for Ms. Curry's credibility.
She then says her proof is the sea-level rise during a 30-year period early in the century is the same as a 20-year period late in the century. That argument is pretty ridiculous all by itself. To say the sea level is rising as much in 20 years as it used to rise in 30 years is pretty conclusive. But, there's more. Reports show current sea level rise is actually twice as much as it was early in the 20th century.
Looking worse for Ms. Curry's credibility.
Continuing. Increasing Antarctica sea ice extent. Again, one of the favorite false arguments of the denier crowd, so why is she using it?
The sea ice around Antarctica really is growing in extent. But, there is so much more to the story you have to wonder why someone in Ms. Curry's position didn't include it in her statement. Why didn't she mention how Antarctica is losing land ice at an alarming rate? In fact, it is now thought so much ice is melting on the continent the fresh water has diluted the surrounding sea water to the point it is easier for it to freeze. Why didn't she include any of that in her statement?
We can already conclude Ms. Curry is intentionally working to deceive. If she doesn't like me saying that about her she knows where to find me. I'm not worried.
So, what we see about Ms. Curry is a definite pattern of deceit that works to support the claims of deniers. And, she did this after accepting money from the fossil fuel industry.
In summary, we can see Ms. Curry is accepting money and using her position of authority to mislead and deceive the public. Her claims and statements have been thoroughly debunked and refuted. She should have been well aware of all of this and I am certain she is.
And, yet, she continues to make these statements anyways.
I guess she can respond to her employers about having made the appropriate 'deliverables' now.
Monday, February 23, 2015
The PETM and Climate Change Today
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is a period in Earth's history that occurred about 55.5 million years ago. The thing that attracts interest to it is how it was a period of global warming. The more scientists study it, the more we are learning about what is happening today. There is good news along with the bad from a recent study. The good news was that the environment adjusted and eventually returned to normal after the global warming episode. While it is good to hear of the adjustment, it is also important to understand the environment took about 200,000 years to fully recover. Left to itself, things will get bad but it won't end the world, But, we may be stuck with this situation for a while.
The PETM is very interesting because of the similarities to today. What has been found is the emission levels were in the ballpark of today's manmade emission levels. The thinking is what happened back then might be a good model for what we can expect to see today. The problem is that it was already much warmer back then when the big emissions came along. In fact, it was so warm there were no ice caps. So it isn't a perfect analogy.
What was seen is the temperature rose by 5 to 8 degrees C (9 to 15 F). That isn't enough to destroy the world, but it sure would cause a lot of devastation. Analysis of sediment cores has indicated there were two pulses of carbon release. It is thought the second one occurred in response to the rising temperature caused by the first. Does that mean we can expect to see something like that today? As the temperature increases due to manmade emissions, can we expect the natural environment to become a CO2 source instead of sink? That would be doubly bad because nature currently removes roughly half of all manmade emissions. If it became a source, it would not only be adding CO2 itself, but would no longer be removing that half of our emissions.
What they have been able to piece together about the PETM is there was a changing climate where some areas became drier and others became stormier. Continent-scale mass migrations have been identified, probably as a result of the changing climate. Some extinctions occurred, but not enough to be a mass-extinction event. The oceans became more acidic.
In other words, pretty much what we are already seeing today. History really does repeat itself for those that don't learn its lesson.
The PETM is very interesting because of the similarities to today. What has been found is the emission levels were in the ballpark of today's manmade emission levels. The thinking is what happened back then might be a good model for what we can expect to see today. The problem is that it was already much warmer back then when the big emissions came along. In fact, it was so warm there were no ice caps. So it isn't a perfect analogy.
What was seen is the temperature rose by 5 to 8 degrees C (9 to 15 F). That isn't enough to destroy the world, but it sure would cause a lot of devastation. Analysis of sediment cores has indicated there were two pulses of carbon release. It is thought the second one occurred in response to the rising temperature caused by the first. Does that mean we can expect to see something like that today? As the temperature increases due to manmade emissions, can we expect the natural environment to become a CO2 source instead of sink? That would be doubly bad because nature currently removes roughly half of all manmade emissions. If it became a source, it would not only be adding CO2 itself, but would no longer be removing that half of our emissions.
What they have been able to piece together about the PETM is there was a changing climate where some areas became drier and others became stormier. Continent-scale mass migrations have been identified, probably as a result of the changing climate. Some extinctions occurred, but not enough to be a mass-extinction event. The oceans became more acidic.
In other words, pretty much what we are already seeing today. History really does repeat itself for those that don't learn its lesson.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Denier Willie Soon Facing Investigation
It isn't often I get to pass on good news on the climate change front, but this is one of those times. Well-known professional denier Willie Soon is facing investigation for failure to report financial conflicts when submitting papers for publication.
Mr. Soon is normally advertised as an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, but is actually an aerospace engineer, not a physicist and certainly not a climate scientist.
Mr. Soon is well known in the denier community as a champion and is frequently cited as a 'scientist' that rejects AGW in an attempt to give credibility to claims AGW isn't real. One of his claims is that any climate change we may be experiencing is due to solar variability. His scientific claims are routinely debunked.
He is also well known in the scientific community as someone that has rejected science and is closely associated with the Heartland Institute. Heartland is funded by the fossil fuel industry and is engaged in the effort to "confuse" the issue on climate change, providing funds to individuals to undermine climate science. Anyone associated with Heartland is suspect and certainly anyone associated with them has sacrificed any scientific credibility they may have ever had. Soon is a shining example of that.
Mr. Soon was also part of a team that made a submission to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. I rejected their 'proof' on the basis that they only claimed they didn't like future forecasts of damage due to climate change. Somehow, they thought this proved AGW isn't real.
When asked about his funding sources, Mr. Soon has stated no amount of money would affect his research. Well, if that is the case, why has he been so reluctant to reveal his funding source? Now, we know why.
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Greenpeace has obtained documents showing Mr. Soon has received at least $1.2 million in funding from the fossil fuel industry. In his documents, he has described his anti-climate science papers as 'deliverables.' This, it turns out, is an ethics violation. He, and anyone else, is free to obtain their funding from where ever they can get it, but they have to reveal that when there is a potential conflict of interest when submitting scientific papers. Mr. Soon failed to do that.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center has launched an investigation into Mr. Soon's actions.
This is just the latest example of how the deniers work. We have already heard this same story with Richard Lindzen, another scientist (this time with MIT) that denied ever receiving fossil fuel money, but was eventually caught lying about it.
Why do we see this pattern? If AGW isn't real, why do deniers have to align with organizations that are well-known for falsifying research? Why are they continually lying about their funding? Why are they always providing false arguments and false statements as 'evidence'? Why, if the science is valid, are they not providing valid science?
Maybe because there is no valid science to support their claims?
Mr. Soon is normally advertised as an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, but is actually an aerospace engineer, not a physicist and certainly not a climate scientist.
Mr. Soon is well known in the denier community as a champion and is frequently cited as a 'scientist' that rejects AGW in an attempt to give credibility to claims AGW isn't real. One of his claims is that any climate change we may be experiencing is due to solar variability. His scientific claims are routinely debunked.
He is also well known in the scientific community as someone that has rejected science and is closely associated with the Heartland Institute. Heartland is funded by the fossil fuel industry and is engaged in the effort to "confuse" the issue on climate change, providing funds to individuals to undermine climate science. Anyone associated with Heartland is suspect and certainly anyone associated with them has sacrificed any scientific credibility they may have ever had. Soon is a shining example of that.
Mr. Soon was also part of a team that made a submission to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. I rejected their 'proof' on the basis that they only claimed they didn't like future forecasts of damage due to climate change. Somehow, they thought this proved AGW isn't real.
When asked about his funding sources, Mr. Soon has stated no amount of money would affect his research. Well, if that is the case, why has he been so reluctant to reveal his funding source? Now, we know why.
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Greenpeace has obtained documents showing Mr. Soon has received at least $1.2 million in funding from the fossil fuel industry. In his documents, he has described his anti-climate science papers as 'deliverables.' This, it turns out, is an ethics violation. He, and anyone else, is free to obtain their funding from where ever they can get it, but they have to reveal that when there is a potential conflict of interest when submitting scientific papers. Mr. Soon failed to do that.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center has launched an investigation into Mr. Soon's actions.
This is just the latest example of how the deniers work. We have already heard this same story with Richard Lindzen, another scientist (this time with MIT) that denied ever receiving fossil fuel money, but was eventually caught lying about it.
Why do we see this pattern? If AGW isn't real, why do deniers have to align with organizations that are well-known for falsifying research? Why are they continually lying about their funding? Why are they always providing false arguments and false statements as 'evidence'? Why, if the science is valid, are they not providing valid science?
Maybe because there is no valid science to support their claims?
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Global Warming and Crops
Global warming denialists frequently state rising CO2 levels are good for crops because plants use CO2 to make food. This is one of those classic examples of how they omit anything that goes counter to their claim. It is true plants use CO2 during photosynthesis to make carbohydrates. But, increasing CO2 levels do not automatically translate into higher and better crop yields. What is being left out of that statement is how rising temperatures lead to other things, such as reduced crop quality, droughts, floods, storms, insects and disease and all of those things are becoming worse with global warming.
This issue was discussed this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). I found a particular statement to be rather frightening.
The fact is, global warming is not good for crops and we will be paying the price. Just look at the drought in California these last few years and the effect it has had on agriculture in that state.
Here are some other examples of the effects of global warming on crops:
Rising CO2 levels result in lower than expected yield increases.
Other studies indicate rising CO2 levels will result in a 2% yield reduction per decade.
Rising CO2 levels are harmful to rice, resulting in reduced crop yield.
Worldwide yields are already dropping.
Even if the yield goes up, the nutritional value will go down.
And, the forecast for American farmers is not good.
In the 50 years starting with 2000 we need to produce as much food as in the previous 500 years, and things aren't looking good.
This issue was discussed this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). I found a particular statement to be rather frightening.
"If you look at production from 2000 to 2050, we basically have to produce the same amount of food as we produced in the last 500 years"
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-hampering-world-food-production.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-hampering-world-food-production.html#jCp
"If you look at production from 2000 to 2050 we basically have to produce the same amount of food as we produced in the last 500 years."The article also pointed out how we could solve this problem if we have enough time, maybe 1000 years. But we have only 10 to 20 years.
The fact is, global warming is not good for crops and we will be paying the price. Just look at the drought in California these last few years and the effect it has had on agriculture in that state.
Here are some other examples of the effects of global warming on crops:
Rising CO2 levels result in lower than expected yield increases.
Other studies indicate rising CO2 levels will result in a 2% yield reduction per decade.
Rising CO2 levels are harmful to rice, resulting in reduced crop yield.
Worldwide yields are already dropping.
Even if the yield goes up, the nutritional value will go down.
And, the forecast for American farmers is not good.
In the 50 years starting with 2000 we need to produce as much food as in the previous 500 years, and things aren't looking good.
"If you look at production from 2000 to 2050, we basically have to produce the same amount of food as we produced in the last 500 years"
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-hampering-world-food-production.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-hampering-world-food-production.html#jCp
Friday, February 20, 2015
Measles Outbreak-What It Means When Your Neighbors Don't Vaccinate
Outbreak in Preventable Childhood Diseases On the Rise in the United States
The measles outbreak in the nation has been on the rise for the past two years, but is nearly at epidemic proportions now. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html There are 141 cases of measles in 17 states so far in 2015. This chart from the CDC shows the states which have the most outbreaks of measles.
Measles, is a preventable childhood disease for which an immunization (a shot) is usually given to a child when the child reaches nineteen to thirty-five months of age. Measles causes red spots, fever, and in some cases can result in death. This article reviews changes in childhood immunization patterns, which were reported for all fifty states in Unraveling U.S. Healthcare-A Personal Guide, published in 2013. Information is drawn from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is inclusive of 2013 calendar year data. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6334a1.htm?s_cid=mm6334a1_e#Tab1
In 2011, the national immunization rate for children between the ages of nineteen and thirty-five months was 83.34% for all recommended childhood vaccinations. In 2013, the immunization rates for the same age-group of children and the same vaccines had dropped to 83.07%.
Here are the states with the lowest rate of immunization for these diseases as of the end of the reporting year for 2013, as compared to the national average. As you can see, the western states do poorly for immunization compliance, as reported in my 2013 health scorecards. The one bright spot is Utah, which matches the national average for the top three vaccines. The outlier in the group is Vermont, which has achieved the dubious designation as the state with the lowest rate of childhood immunizations. And though much of the country seems to ignore the District of Columbia, seat of our nation's capitol, it has a better vaccination rate than the national average, at 86.7% penetration versus 83.07%. Here is information from the table, showing the worst states for immunizing their children:
The measles outbreak in the nation has been on the rise for the past two years, but is nearly at epidemic proportions now. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html There are 141 cases of measles in 17 states so far in 2015. This chart from the CDC shows the states which have the most outbreaks of measles.
Measles, is a preventable childhood disease for which an immunization (a shot) is usually given to a child when the child reaches nineteen to thirty-five months of age. Measles causes red spots, fever, and in some cases can result in death. This article reviews changes in childhood immunization patterns, which were reported for all fifty states in Unraveling U.S. Healthcare-A Personal Guide, published in 2013. Information is drawn from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is inclusive of 2013 calendar year data. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6334a1.htm?s_cid=mm6334a1_e#Tab1
In 2011, the national immunization rate for children between the ages of nineteen and thirty-five months was 83.34% for all recommended childhood vaccinations. In 2013, the immunization rates for the same age-group of children and the same vaccines had dropped to 83.07%.
Here are the states with the lowest rate of immunization for these diseases as of the end of the reporting year for 2013, as compared to the national average. As you can see, the western states do poorly for immunization compliance, as reported in my 2013 health scorecards. The one bright spot is Utah, which matches the national average for the top three vaccines. The outlier in the group is Vermont, which has achieved the dubious designation as the state with the lowest rate of childhood immunizations. And though much of the country seems to ignore the District of Columbia, seat of our nation's capitol, it has a better vaccination rate than the national average, at 86.7% penetration versus 83.07%. Here is information from the table, showing the worst states for immunizing their children:
| Children's Health Scorecard-2013 | National Average | Oregon | Montana | Wyoming | New Mexico | California | Colorado | Alaska | Vermont | |||
| Ranking | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | ||||
| DTaP | 83.10 | 83.80 | 79.00 | 80.90 | 79.80 | 83.10 | 81.20 | 75.50 | 85.80 | |||
| Hep B | 74.20 | 66.80 | 73.90 | 67.00 | 67.50 | 70.30 | 60.20 | 59.40 | 44.80 | |||
| MMR | 91.90 | 89.40 | 87.30 | 89.00 | 89.10 | 80.70 | 86.00 | 90.50 | 91.20 | |||
| Average Rate | 83.07 | 80.00 | 80.07 | 78.97 | 78.80 | 78.03 | 75.80 | 75.13 | 73.93 | |||
| Variance | -3.07 | -3.00 | -4.10 | -4.27 | -5.03 | -7.27 | -7.93 | -9.13 | ||||
| Notes: Negative number means performance is worse than the national average. | ||||||||||||
| Immunization rate is for Heb B only. | ||||||||||||
| Immunization rates are from the Centers for Disease Control for 2013 year In short, this is the reason there are large outbreaks of childhood diseases now. An immunization is a preventive dose to activate the body's immune system to the disease vector. In order to have adequate protection for a population, which means a community, a school, a state, the majority of the population has to become immunized. In the United States, especially on the west coast, we are in danger of losing our herd immunity, which is a scientific term that means the actions of a significant minority can imperil the entire population. The standards for public health in the United States and all developed nations are based on scientific data, using gold-standard studies and analysis, not spurious opinions of the uniformed in social media. The recommended immunizations for children in the above age-group are as follows:
In 2003, a population-based case-control study in Italy, published results which found that childhood exposure to two infections significantly increased the likelihood of a child contracting Type I Diabetes. Infections which were reviewed in the study included; pertussis (whooping cough), varicella (chicken pox), rubella, parotitis, and morbilli.[1]Here are the findings of the study: 1. The statistically significant finding with no confounding variables, showed that children in the Abruzzo region of Italy who were exposed to two of the childhood viruses listed, had a higher incidence of Type I Diabetes compared to the population who had been exposed to a single childhood infection. 2. Children who had been exposed to only one of the listed childhood infections did not show an increased incidence of contracting Type I Diabetes. 3. Childhood immunizations were also analyzed as risk factors for contracting Type I Diabetes and there was no statistical increase shown in the incidence of juvenile diabetes for the immunized children. 4. However, for children who had received the pertussis (whooping cough) and MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccinations, a significant decrease was found in the contraction of childhood Diabetes. My brother, Russell was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes when he was three years old, three months after his exposure to chicken pox. He had also been exposed to mumps within the year, by his school-age siblings (including moi). Unfortunately, this event was due to the fact immunizations were typically provided through the school at the time of enrollment, so children younger than school age were at risk. Russell died at 42 years of age, following multiple organ transplants, and amputations all related to Type 1 Diabetes. To all parents who think they are "boosting their child's immune system" by avoiding immunizations, do take the long term view and consider all adverse consequences. This article of course, is written for those whom do base their decisions on scientific evidence. Considering the low-level of science readiness in our national population, as compared to other countries, perhaps this issue will ultimately be decided through tort action in the courts. The CDC clearly states these immunizations prevent 722,000 deaths over a lifetime, so the parents whom are abdicating these preventive measures must be assuming some other child or relative will be in that statistic and not their own. Truly it is just a question of time before the actions of one parent bring irreparable illness to the lives of others, which is similar to driving a vehicle without auto insurance. Considering that many of those eschewing immunizations are patrons of the well heeled in private schools, this population is an easy target for social responsibility through the courts. And this is the healthpolicymaven signing off, encouraging all to share this article virally, just as childhood diseases are spreading through our population. Roberta Winter is the author of http://www.amazon.com/Unraveling-U-S-Health-Care-Personal/dp/1442222972# Roberta E. Winter is a graduate of the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine and the Evans School of Public Affairs. She has spent the past 12 years advocating for consumer issues in health care. | ||||||||||||
Grizzly Bears Didn't Get the Memo
Remember the claim that there is no global warming? Remember how deniers keep saying it's stopped? Apparently, the grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park weren't listening. They're waking up a full month early. While the east has been hammered with blizzards, the west is experiencing record high temperatures. As a result, at least one bear is up and has been observed eating. The sighting occurred on February 9th. The first sightings in the past have occurred in the first half of March.
The fact that it was observed eating is an important detail because bears will sometimes come out of their dens during the winter and then go back. But, once they start eating it means they are up for good. There may have been only one bear sighted so far, but as the article states, if there is one there are probably more. And, certainly, we can expect more to come out early.
The bears wake up in response to temperature. So, if it isn't getting warmer, why are the bears waking up early?
The fact that it was observed eating is an important detail because bears will sometimes come out of their dens during the winter and then go back. But, once they start eating it means they are up for good. There may have been only one bear sighted so far, but as the article states, if there is one there are probably more. And, certainly, we can expect more to come out early.
The bears wake up in response to temperature. So, if it isn't getting warmer, why are the bears waking up early?
Thursday, February 19, 2015
January 2015 Continues 2014 Trend
The bad news on the climate front keeps coming in. The National Climatic Data Center released its Global Analysis for January 2015 this morning. Among the highlights (lowlights?) was the statement that January 2015 was the second hottest January on record for combined land and ocean temperature. Only 2007 was hotter. Checking the records shows January last year was the fourth hottest on record, so we are already hotter this year than at the same time last year.
The report also said the ocean temperature was the third highest on record. This was particularly bad because the only two years that were warmer were January 1998 and January 2010, both of which had El Ninos in progress. We are in a neutral ENSO condition right now. The difference in temperature between today and the record set in 1998 is only .06 degrees F (.03 C), which means the normal temperatures of today are nearly the same as the exceptional temperatures of past years.
Let's start the grim count for 2015:
January was the second hottest January on record.
So far, 2015 has one second hottest month ever recorded.
But, let's also take a look at the last 12 months.
For the last 12 months, the tally is:
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;
February 2014 was the 21st hottest February ever recorded.
So, let's see what the final score was for the last 12 months: one 21st hottest month, one 7th hottest month, two 4th hottest months, one 2nd hottest month and seven hottest months ever.
Additionally, we had the hottest overall year ever recorded in 2014.
This is not a good start to the year.
The report also said the ocean temperature was the third highest on record. This was particularly bad because the only two years that were warmer were January 1998 and January 2010, both of which had El Ninos in progress. We are in a neutral ENSO condition right now. The difference in temperature between today and the record set in 1998 is only .06 degrees F (.03 C), which means the normal temperatures of today are nearly the same as the exceptional temperatures of past years.
Let's start the grim count for 2015:
January was the second hottest January on record.
So far, 2015 has one second hottest month ever recorded.
But, let's also take a look at the last 12 months.
For the last 12 months, the tally is:
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;
February 2014 was the 21st hottest February ever recorded.
So, let's see what the final score was for the last 12 months: one 21st hottest month, one 7th hottest month, two 4th hottest months, one 2nd hottest month and seven hottest months ever.
Additionally, we had the hottest overall year ever recorded in 2014.
This is not a good start to the year.
Winter Storms and a Simple Math Exercise
I love hearing someone make the same lame jokes about winter storms and global warming. They think they're being cute, but the reality is they are simply showing they don't understand what is going on. They ignore the fact that we will still have winter even with global warming. This is because winter is caused by the way Earth is tilted on its axis.
Every year, on about September 21, the North Pole experiences its one and only sunset of the year. Gradually, over the next three months, the part of the Arctic region experiencing 24-hour nighttime will increase until, on about December 21, everything north of the Arctic Circle has a 24-hour nighttime. Then, that amount will gradually decrease until the North Pole experiences its one and only sunrise on about March 21. What this means is by January and February, there are parts of the Arctic region that have been sitting in dark for 2-4 months. That is going to make those areas cold. Take a look at this current temperature graphic:
It is no-kidding cold up there. So, it is no wonder we still have winter storms. If that mass of air moves down into our area we are going to feel it, even with global warming. But, it takes energy to move that mass. Lot's of energy.
So, let's do a simple exercise to see for ourselves.
First, take a look at this graphic showing the cold air mass moving into the the eastern U.S. today:
I'm sure I don't need to tell the people under that purple area that it is no-kidding cold there, too. That mass of air moved down from the Arctic and is now moving across the country. But, it didn't just happen by itself. It took energy to get there. Let's do a back of the envelope calculation and get an idea of how much.
We want the mass of that blob. To do that, we can find the surface area under the purple region and multiply the area by the pressure (weight per area) and then convert from weight to mass. If we approximate the cold air region as a circle we can calculate the area as pi*r^2. We can estimate the purple blob is about 1000 miles across. A mile has 5280 feet, so it is about 5.3 x 10^6 feet across. Dividing our diameter by two, we get the area is:
Area = pi*([5.3 x 10^6]/2 feet)^2 = about 2.2 x 10^13 square feet
A square foot has 144 square inches, so our area, in square inches, is
2.2 x 10^13 square feet x 144 square inches/square feet = about 3.15 x 10^15 square inches.
Atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving us a total weight of
3.15 x 10^15 square inches x 14.7 pounds per square inch = about 4.6 x 10^16 pounds.
That is the approximate weight of that big purple air mass over the eastern U.S., but we want mass, preferably in the metric system. There are 2.2 pounds to a kilogram (on the surface of Earth), so the mass of this air, in kilograms, is about:
4.6 x 10^16 pounds x 1 kilogram/2.2 pounds = about 2.1 x 10^16 kilograms.
The amount of energy this mass has can be found by calculating its kinetic energy, the energy of movement. That means we need a speed. I have read winds speeds of up to hurricane strength, but we won't go that high. We can estimate an average speed of about 44 miles per hour and that equates to 20 meters per second. Using that speed, we can estimate the amount of energy as:
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * m * v^2
= .5 * 2.1 x 10^16 kilograms * (20 meters per second)^2 = about 4.2 x 10^18 joules.
How much energy is that? In comparison, the entire planet generates about 6 x 10^17 joules of energy per year. In other words, by our simple exercise, we can see it would take the entire planet about ten years to generate the amount of energy consumed in moving this one single air mass. And, our calculation is actually very low. We did not include friction, interior fluid dynamics, the work required to move the air in front of our air mass out of the way, the work required to move air in behind the air mass, the expansion and compression of gases, etc. There is, in fact, a whole lot more work involved than just getting the mass up to speed.
So, where did that huge amount of energy come from? Well, obviously, it came from the atmosphere. But, where did the atmosphere get it? Simple. It came from the greenhouse effect. If there was no greenhouse effect, energy coming in as sunlight would be reradiated and reflected back out to space and there wouldn't be anything left over to do any work. Some of it must be stored in the atmosphere to be used later on. Most of that is being done through the natural greenhouse effect that has always been there. But, has that greenhouse effect been enhanced by manmade emissions? We can check the frequency of storms to see. If the number of winter storms has been increasing, we can conclude the energy is coming from some other source than naturally stored energy, i.e., AGW.
NSIDC lists the top 57 storms to hit the U.S. These figures show 20 of those storms occurred since 2010 (inclusive). That is an average of 3.33 storms per year. Nine storms occurred in 2000 - 2009, an average of .9 storms per year. Five storms occurred in the 1990s, an average of .5 storms per year. Five storms also occurred in the 1980s, an average of .5 storms per year. Four storms occurred in the 1970s, an average of .4 storms per year. Eleven storms occurred in the 1960s, 1.1 storms per year. There were three storms listed for the 1950s (.3 storms per year) but it doesn't indicate if that means there were only three storms or they didn't list them for years prior to 1956, so we'll leave that figure out of our discussion.
Listing them in order, from the 1960s to the 2010s, we see the average number of severe winter storms per year went from 1.1, .4, .5, .5, .9 and 3.33. After the 60s, there is a definite trend of an increasing number of severe storms per year. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the amount of energy in the atmosphere was increasing. And, we would expect to see the amount of energy in the atmosphere to be increasing if AGW was real.
So, this simple math exercise and this data supports the conclusion that AGW is real and is changing our climate. Is this conclusive? No. There are two significant omissions in this calculation that are important. The storm activity I listed was for severe storms only. What about non-severe storms? How do they factor in? Also, this activity was for the U.S. only. What about the rest of the world? What was going on there?
I could not find data listing all winter storms, so I will leave the focus on severe storms only and I think that is adequate for the question we want to answer - are the number of storms increasing, decreasing or staying about the same.
Wikipedia has a list of windstorms to hit Europe. Going through and picking only the storms to hit in the winter months, I get five storms hit in the 1960s, four in the 1970s, six in the 1980s, ten in the 1990s, 16 in the 2000s and 17 in the 2010s (through Feb 2015). The yearly averages come out to: .5, .4, .6, 1.0, 1.6 and 3.6. The data for Europe is very consistent with what we saw for the U.S. and we see the number of storms for Europe have also been increasing in recent decades at an accelerating rate.
So, our simple exercise shows why we have winter storms, even with global warming. And, it also happens to provide additional evidence AGW is real and getting worse.
So, yes, winter storms really can be the result of global warming.
Every year, on about September 21, the North Pole experiences its one and only sunset of the year. Gradually, over the next three months, the part of the Arctic region experiencing 24-hour nighttime will increase until, on about December 21, everything north of the Arctic Circle has a 24-hour nighttime. Then, that amount will gradually decrease until the North Pole experiences its one and only sunrise on about March 21. What this means is by January and February, there are parts of the Arctic region that have been sitting in dark for 2-4 months. That is going to make those areas cold. Take a look at this current temperature graphic:
 |
| Source: Polar Portal |
So, let's do a simple exercise to see for ourselves.
First, take a look at this graphic showing the cold air mass moving into the the eastern U.S. today:
 |
| Source: Climate Reanalyzer |
We want the mass of that blob. To do that, we can find the surface area under the purple region and multiply the area by the pressure (weight per area) and then convert from weight to mass. If we approximate the cold air region as a circle we can calculate the area as pi*r^2. We can estimate the purple blob is about 1000 miles across. A mile has 5280 feet, so it is about 5.3 x 10^6 feet across. Dividing our diameter by two, we get the area is:
Area = pi*([5.3 x 10^6]/2 feet)^2 = about 2.2 x 10^13 square feet
A square foot has 144 square inches, so our area, in square inches, is
2.2 x 10^13 square feet x 144 square inches/square feet = about 3.15 x 10^15 square inches.
Atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving us a total weight of
3.15 x 10^15 square inches x 14.7 pounds per square inch = about 4.6 x 10^16 pounds.
That is the approximate weight of that big purple air mass over the eastern U.S., but we want mass, preferably in the metric system. There are 2.2 pounds to a kilogram (on the surface of Earth), so the mass of this air, in kilograms, is about:
4.6 x 10^16 pounds x 1 kilogram/2.2 pounds = about 2.1 x 10^16 kilograms.
The amount of energy this mass has can be found by calculating its kinetic energy, the energy of movement. That means we need a speed. I have read winds speeds of up to hurricane strength, but we won't go that high. We can estimate an average speed of about 44 miles per hour and that equates to 20 meters per second. Using that speed, we can estimate the amount of energy as:
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * m * v^2
= .5 * 2.1 x 10^16 kilograms * (20 meters per second)^2 = about 4.2 x 10^18 joules.
How much energy is that? In comparison, the entire planet generates about 6 x 10^17 joules of energy per year. In other words, by our simple exercise, we can see it would take the entire planet about ten years to generate the amount of energy consumed in moving this one single air mass. And, our calculation is actually very low. We did not include friction, interior fluid dynamics, the work required to move the air in front of our air mass out of the way, the work required to move air in behind the air mass, the expansion and compression of gases, etc. There is, in fact, a whole lot more work involved than just getting the mass up to speed.
So, where did that huge amount of energy come from? Well, obviously, it came from the atmosphere. But, where did the atmosphere get it? Simple. It came from the greenhouse effect. If there was no greenhouse effect, energy coming in as sunlight would be reradiated and reflected back out to space and there wouldn't be anything left over to do any work. Some of it must be stored in the atmosphere to be used later on. Most of that is being done through the natural greenhouse effect that has always been there. But, has that greenhouse effect been enhanced by manmade emissions? We can check the frequency of storms to see. If the number of winter storms has been increasing, we can conclude the energy is coming from some other source than naturally stored energy, i.e., AGW.
NSIDC lists the top 57 storms to hit the U.S. These figures show 20 of those storms occurred since 2010 (inclusive). That is an average of 3.33 storms per year. Nine storms occurred in 2000 - 2009, an average of .9 storms per year. Five storms occurred in the 1990s, an average of .5 storms per year. Five storms also occurred in the 1980s, an average of .5 storms per year. Four storms occurred in the 1970s, an average of .4 storms per year. Eleven storms occurred in the 1960s, 1.1 storms per year. There were three storms listed for the 1950s (.3 storms per year) but it doesn't indicate if that means there were only three storms or they didn't list them for years prior to 1956, so we'll leave that figure out of our discussion.
Listing them in order, from the 1960s to the 2010s, we see the average number of severe winter storms per year went from 1.1, .4, .5, .5, .9 and 3.33. After the 60s, there is a definite trend of an increasing number of severe storms per year. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the amount of energy in the atmosphere was increasing. And, we would expect to see the amount of energy in the atmosphere to be increasing if AGW was real.
So, this simple math exercise and this data supports the conclusion that AGW is real and is changing our climate. Is this conclusive? No. There are two significant omissions in this calculation that are important. The storm activity I listed was for severe storms only. What about non-severe storms? How do they factor in? Also, this activity was for the U.S. only. What about the rest of the world? What was going on there?
I could not find data listing all winter storms, so I will leave the focus on severe storms only and I think that is adequate for the question we want to answer - are the number of storms increasing, decreasing or staying about the same.
Wikipedia has a list of windstorms to hit Europe. Going through and picking only the storms to hit in the winter months, I get five storms hit in the 1960s, four in the 1970s, six in the 1980s, ten in the 1990s, 16 in the 2000s and 17 in the 2010s (through Feb 2015). The yearly averages come out to: .5, .4, .6, 1.0, 1.6 and 3.6. The data for Europe is very consistent with what we saw for the U.S. and we see the number of storms for Europe have also been increasing in recent decades at an accelerating rate.
So, our simple exercise shows why we have winter storms, even with global warming. And, it also happens to provide additional evidence AGW is real and getting worse.
So, yes, winter storms really can be the result of global warming.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Cost of Blizzards
In case you missed it, there was an article today reporting the New England blizzards have cost the country between $1 and $2 billion so far this year. That is in addition to the $15-16 billion from last year. The winter weather in 2014 was responsible for lowering the U.S. GDP to -2.1% for the first quarter last year.
Climate change is leading to more severe weather, including more severe winter weather. It is interesting how we keep getting 100-year blizzards multiple times a year now when we didn't even a few decades ago. Clearly, something has changed. And, that change in regards to winter weather has cost the country over $16 billion in a little more than one year. That comes out to about $53 per person.
The cost of climate change just keeps piling up. There is more costs being revealed nearly every single day. And, there are those people who still want to pay instead of doing something about the problem.
Amazing.
Climate change is leading to more severe weather, including more severe winter weather. It is interesting how we keep getting 100-year blizzards multiple times a year now when we didn't even a few decades ago. Clearly, something has changed. And, that change in regards to winter weather has cost the country over $16 billion in a little more than one year. That comes out to about $53 per person.
The cost of climate change just keeps piling up. There is more costs being revealed nearly every single day. And, there are those people who still want to pay instead of doing something about the problem.
Amazing.
Monday, February 16, 2015
What Isn't Being Said About the Megadrought
You have probably seen the announcements concerning research by NASA scientists indicating the U.S. is probably headed for a megadrought later this century. A megadrought is defined as one that persists for 30 years, or more. The probability of it happening is heavily dependent on how we go about dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, the probability of such a drought occurring is estimated at 12%. If greenhouse gas emissions level off in the middle of the century the probability increases to 60%. If we continue to increase greenhouse emissions the way we are ('business as usual' scenario) the probability increases to about 85%. The Southwest and the mid-America regions will be the most effected and the droughts will likely be worse than anything seen in the last 1000 years.
The report has gotten a lot of press. For example, see the article here, here, here, or here. Just for starters. It has certainly been getting a lot of attention.
But, there is something important that I have not seen reported in any of these articles. Take a look at this NASA video that shows the progression of the drought. In particular, look closely at the depiction starting about 1:35 into the video. This shows how the drought will progress and intensify over the years. Sure enough, the Southwest and mid-America regions get hit pretty hard. But, that isn't all. Take a look to the south. See what is going to happen to Mexico and Central America. It is even worse than what is projected to happen to the U.S. They are going to get clobbered!
You might be saying, 'I'm really sorry to hear that. I feel for those poor people but we will obviously be having our own problems to deal with.' If you do, then you're really missing the point - their problems are our problems.
The population of Central America is about 42 million. The population of Mexico is another 122 million. That means there would be somewhere around 165 million desperate people on our southern border, not including population growth. There will be large numbers of people interested in coming to the U.S.. Widespread desperation will also lead to a rise of radical extremists promising solutions to all of the problems of anyone willing to follow them in a campaign of violence and revolution. In addition to the social problems, it would also mean economic disruption. We get nearly all of our bananas and much of our coffee from this region. In exchange, we sell them over $1 billion per year in food products alone.
The drought in California cost consumers over $2 billion last year. The probable megadrought will cost us much more than that, but would also result in a flood of humanity coming here, violence at our borders and even more economic losses.
One more time, tell me how climate change is good for us?
The report has gotten a lot of press. For example, see the article here, here, here, or here. Just for starters. It has certainly been getting a lot of attention.
But, there is something important that I have not seen reported in any of these articles. Take a look at this NASA video that shows the progression of the drought. In particular, look closely at the depiction starting about 1:35 into the video. This shows how the drought will progress and intensify over the years. Sure enough, the Southwest and mid-America regions get hit pretty hard. But, that isn't all. Take a look to the south. See what is going to happen to Mexico and Central America. It is even worse than what is projected to happen to the U.S. They are going to get clobbered!
You might be saying, 'I'm really sorry to hear that. I feel for those poor people but we will obviously be having our own problems to deal with.' If you do, then you're really missing the point - their problems are our problems.
The population of Central America is about 42 million. The population of Mexico is another 122 million. That means there would be somewhere around 165 million desperate people on our southern border, not including population growth. There will be large numbers of people interested in coming to the U.S.. Widespread desperation will also lead to a rise of radical extremists promising solutions to all of the problems of anyone willing to follow them in a campaign of violence and revolution. In addition to the social problems, it would also mean economic disruption. We get nearly all of our bananas and much of our coffee from this region. In exchange, we sell them over $1 billion per year in food products alone.
The drought in California cost consumers over $2 billion last year. The probable megadrought will cost us much more than that, but would also result in a flood of humanity coming here, violence at our borders and even more economic losses.
One more time, tell me how climate change is good for us?
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Minds Cannot Be Changed
I have had discussions with some people in the climate science business and there have been mixed feelings about my global warming skeptic challenge. Some have been enthusiastic supporters and think it was great. Some are of the opinion that it was a bad idea because it only makes deniers dig in their heels that much harder. I actually agree with this in part.
There is no doubt it made deniers dig in their heels, but I contend it doesn't matter because there is no possible way to prove to deniers that AGW is real. No amount of science or data or logic will ever make them change their minds. People will frequently try to get me in a 'debate' over global warming, which I just refuse to do. I ask them one simple question, 'Is there anything I can do or say that will convince you global warming is real?' If they say 'no', I then suggest we save ourselves the time and trouble and move on to something else. I have never had any one say 'yes' to that question. Pretty amazing, when you think about it. To say I shouldn't have done the challenge because it causes deniers to dig in their heels is irrelevant. They will dig in their heels no matter what.
I have always said the purpose of the challenge was not to change the minds of people that have already decided. The purpose was to reach out to people that have not yet made up their minds on the issue. There is no saving someone that rejects science, but maybe we can save someone that hasn't yet done so.
On that note, I found it interesting when I came across an article today in Scientific American today on this very topic. The article initially discussed how people are refusing to vaccinate their children because of a paper linking autism to vaccinations. These people still believe in that claim, even though the lead researcher, Andrew Wakefield, was found guilty of fraud and dozens of other charges. Apparently, he had a financial stake in the findings. The paper was retracted and declared to be "utterly false." Wakefield was eventually disbarred from practicing medicine. And, yet, people still believe in his claim and put their children (and other people's children) at risk by refusing to have them vaccinated.
The article sites a study reported in the New York Times and states,
Again, the article states,
She may be right on that, but that seems like an incredibly difficult, even impossible, solution. Think about it, she is suggesting we solve the problem of science rejection by somehow convincing deniers of any form to have a different view of themselves. How do you go about doing that? And, do we really want some mechanism that can cause millions of people to alter their self-image? That sounds way too much like mind-control to me. If not initially, something like that would eventually be misused (think political elections and marketing strategies).
I wish I could come up with something better, but I can't. I don't even try to change their minds. Like I said above, the only hope I see is to reach people before they reject the science. If you have a better suggestion I would love to hear it.
There is no doubt it made deniers dig in their heels, but I contend it doesn't matter because there is no possible way to prove to deniers that AGW is real. No amount of science or data or logic will ever make them change their minds. People will frequently try to get me in a 'debate' over global warming, which I just refuse to do. I ask them one simple question, 'Is there anything I can do or say that will convince you global warming is real?' If they say 'no', I then suggest we save ourselves the time and trouble and move on to something else. I have never had any one say 'yes' to that question. Pretty amazing, when you think about it. To say I shouldn't have done the challenge because it causes deniers to dig in their heels is irrelevant. They will dig in their heels no matter what.
I have always said the purpose of the challenge was not to change the minds of people that have already decided. The purpose was to reach out to people that have not yet made up their minds on the issue. There is no saving someone that rejects science, but maybe we can save someone that hasn't yet done so.
On that note, I found it interesting when I came across an article today in Scientific American today on this very topic. The article initially discussed how people are refusing to vaccinate their children because of a paper linking autism to vaccinations. These people still believe in that claim, even though the lead researcher, Andrew Wakefield, was found guilty of fraud and dozens of other charges. Apparently, he had a financial stake in the findings. The paper was retracted and declared to be "utterly false." Wakefield was eventually disbarred from practicing medicine. And, yet, people still believe in his claim and put their children (and other people's children) at risk by refusing to have them vaccinated.
The article sites a study reported in the New York Times and states,
Nearly 2000 parents were shown one of four pro-vaccination campaigns, each adopting a different persuasive strategy (facts, science, emotions or stories) plus one control group, to see which was most effective in changing minds. The punchline: none of the above. Nothing changed people’s minds, and in fact, the strategies often backfired.And, that is the point. If someone has decided to reject science, there is no scientific argument that will get them to change their minds. It is not possible, in my experience. I have never had anyone come to me and say, "You know, I didn't believe in that but you changed my mind." It doesn't happen. I hope other people have had better success than I have.
Again, the article states,
Now we know this can backfire: presenting hardline denialists with the facts just makes them dig their heels in deeper.But, as the article states, people really do change their minds on things. It happens all the time. How does that happen? The author suggests it is because opinions are connected to a person's self-identity. If you can change that self-identity, you change their opinions. People's self-identity changes all through life, so their opinions do too. If we can change their self-identity, we can change their opinions.
She may be right on that, but that seems like an incredibly difficult, even impossible, solution. Think about it, she is suggesting we solve the problem of science rejection by somehow convincing deniers of any form to have a different view of themselves. How do you go about doing that? And, do we really want some mechanism that can cause millions of people to alter their self-image? That sounds way too much like mind-control to me. If not initially, something like that would eventually be misused (think political elections and marketing strategies).
I wish I could come up with something better, but I can't. I don't even try to change their minds. Like I said above, the only hope I see is to reach people before they reject the science. If you have a better suggestion I would love to hear it.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Stormy Arctic
I read an excerpt from a new book on storms in the Arctic and the all of the associated effects. It was an interesting read and really made some excellent points. The Arctic is warming and it is warming faster than any other region of the planet. The author, Edward Struzik, states
The results of that warming are not good. Animal species, plants, wet lands and coastline are disappearing. Communities are falling into the ocean. And, storms are getting worse.
Reductions in sea ice are making Arctic storms more frequent and more severe. This is happening a number of ways. Sea ice traps humidity but as the ice melts the open water fills the atmosphere with moisture and is doing so earlier every year. This moisture then fuels storms that normally wouldn't occur before the fall but are now happening during the summer months. Also, the ice cover keeps storm waves from getting too intense. Now, waves and storm surges are getting bigger as the ice disappears. Rising sea levels are causing storm surges to travel ever further inland. And, ultimately, ice would pile up on the coast and protect it from the storm action, but that protection is now disappearing and the results are grim.
Struzik tells of towns disappearing in the Arctic region as the coastline erodes away - slowly, initially but at increasing rates. Coastlines that were loosing fewer than 7 meters per year in the 1950 - 1979 time period are loosing more than 25 meters per year today.
In case you are thinking, 'so what?', let me tell you the estimated engineering costs associated with all of this will be in the several hundreds of billions of dollars in just Alaska. That estimate comes from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is only the cost of mitigation for about 60 coastal communities at risk of falling into the sea. Do you think the fossil fuel companies are going to pony up that money? Do you think the Koch brothers will donate any of their fortune? Don't count on it. The money for all of this will come from tax payer dollars. In other words, the American taxpayer will be paying for this.
Let's see. $100 billion dollars comes out to about $300 for every person in the country (bad news for a family of four!). And, the estimate is there will be 'several' billions of dollars of engineering costs. Where are those deniers that keep telling us global warming is good for us?
Canada does not come out very well in his account. Prime Minister Stephan Harper is a devoted anti-science advocate and has nearly shut down all science research in the country while actively trying to remove environmental regulations. Government scientists are prohibited from discussing their research with media. Government agents are sent to science conferences to monitor what Canadian scientists are saying.
Arctic research is being slashed, but the country then spent $300 million on a gravel road to a tiny village on the Arctic coast that will see only about $4.2 million in benefits from it. The people that will see the most benefit? Is there any surprise it is the fossil fuel industry that wants to build a natural gas pipeline through the area?
So, the Canadian government is shutting down research and instituting a Joe McCarthy policy, while spending hundreds of millions on a single road for the mega-wealthy fossil fuel companies. Too bad they didn't decide to spend that $300 million on research and let the fossil fuel companies build their own road.
Like I said, it is an interesting read. Not pleasant, but interesting.
Between 1951 and 2012, for example, temperatures in the region exceeded the freezing point an average of 110 days. In 2010 and 2011, they did so 127 times. In 2012, the warmest year on record in the Arctic, it happened 134 times.
Over the past two decades, the number of ice-free days averaged 80 per year. In 2012, there were 96 ice-free days that significantly accelerated the erosion that is already taking place.
The results of that warming are not good. Animal species, plants, wet lands and coastline are disappearing. Communities are falling into the ocean. And, storms are getting worse.
Reductions in sea ice are making Arctic storms more frequent and more severe. This is happening a number of ways. Sea ice traps humidity but as the ice melts the open water fills the atmosphere with moisture and is doing so earlier every year. This moisture then fuels storms that normally wouldn't occur before the fall but are now happening during the summer months. Also, the ice cover keeps storm waves from getting too intense. Now, waves and storm surges are getting bigger as the ice disappears. Rising sea levels are causing storm surges to travel ever further inland. And, ultimately, ice would pile up on the coast and protect it from the storm action, but that protection is now disappearing and the results are grim.
Struzik tells of towns disappearing in the Arctic region as the coastline erodes away - slowly, initially but at increasing rates. Coastlines that were loosing fewer than 7 meters per year in the 1950 - 1979 time period are loosing more than 25 meters per year today.
In case you are thinking, 'so what?', let me tell you the estimated engineering costs associated with all of this will be in the several hundreds of billions of dollars in just Alaska. That estimate comes from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is only the cost of mitigation for about 60 coastal communities at risk of falling into the sea. Do you think the fossil fuel companies are going to pony up that money? Do you think the Koch brothers will donate any of their fortune? Don't count on it. The money for all of this will come from tax payer dollars. In other words, the American taxpayer will be paying for this.
Let's see. $100 billion dollars comes out to about $300 for every person in the country (bad news for a family of four!). And, the estimate is there will be 'several' billions of dollars of engineering costs. Where are those deniers that keep telling us global warming is good for us?
Canada does not come out very well in his account. Prime Minister Stephan Harper is a devoted anti-science advocate and has nearly shut down all science research in the country while actively trying to remove environmental regulations. Government scientists are prohibited from discussing their research with media. Government agents are sent to science conferences to monitor what Canadian scientists are saying.
Arctic research is being slashed, but the country then spent $300 million on a gravel road to a tiny village on the Arctic coast that will see only about $4.2 million in benefits from it. The people that will see the most benefit? Is there any surprise it is the fossil fuel industry that wants to build a natural gas pipeline through the area?
So, the Canadian government is shutting down research and instituting a Joe McCarthy policy, while spending hundreds of millions on a single road for the mega-wealthy fossil fuel companies. Too bad they didn't decide to spend that $300 million on research and let the fossil fuel companies build their own road.
Like I said, it is an interesting read. Not pleasant, but interesting.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Hurricanes and New England
A study conducted by a team at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute revealed new information about the history of hurricanes striking the New England coast of North America. Using cores of sedimentary deposits, they studied the layers and were able to identify massive hurricane events hitting the area between the years of 250 and 1150 AD.
Hurricanes deposit a layer of sediment in inland areas that get buried and can remain undisturbed for thousands of years. By taking core samples it is possible to identify storms, date them and even determine how strong they were. In this way, the researchers were able to identify 23 events during that time span, each more powerful than anything that has occurred in recorded history. That is an average of one major storm every 40 years. These storms would all be classified as category 3 or 4 hurricanes today. To put that in perspective, there have been only three category 2 hurricanes in that area since the 1600s. The last was Hurricane Bob in 1991. There have been no storms stronger than category 2 to strike New England in that time period.
What has changed? Ocean temperature. Hurricanes require warm water to provide the massive amounts of energy they consume. Ocean temperature in this region of the Atlantic has been cooler for the last 850 years, but not anymore. Today, ocean temperatures are warmer than they were between 250 and 1150. Take a look at this plot:
The Atlantic, from the Caribbean Sea up past New England is much warmer than the baseline average. In fact, the North Atlantic is .51 degrees C warmer than average (numbers on bottom of image). The authors of the paper state today's ocean temperature is higher than during the study period.
Does this mean New England can expect a category 3 or 4 hurricane every 40 years on average? No, not by itself. There are many factors involved with the development of hurricanes and their paths. Without more detailed data we cannot reach an absolute conclusion that New England will get hit by big storms. But, it certainly means the risk is greater than we thought.
Hurricanes deposit a layer of sediment in inland areas that get buried and can remain undisturbed for thousands of years. By taking core samples it is possible to identify storms, date them and even determine how strong they were. In this way, the researchers were able to identify 23 events during that time span, each more powerful than anything that has occurred in recorded history. That is an average of one major storm every 40 years. These storms would all be classified as category 3 or 4 hurricanes today. To put that in perspective, there have been only three category 2 hurricanes in that area since the 1600s. The last was Hurricane Bob in 1991. There have been no storms stronger than category 2 to strike New England in that time period.
What has changed? Ocean temperature. Hurricanes require warm water to provide the massive amounts of energy they consume. Ocean temperature in this region of the Atlantic has been cooler for the last 850 years, but not anymore. Today, ocean temperatures are warmer than they were between 250 and 1150. Take a look at this plot:
 |
| Source: Climate Reanalyzer |
Does this mean New England can expect a category 3 or 4 hurricane every 40 years on average? No, not by itself. There are many factors involved with the development of hurricanes and their paths. Without more detailed data we cannot reach an absolute conclusion that New England will get hit by big storms. But, it certainly means the risk is greater than we thought.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Why the Fight?
I recently had a disagreement with some friends because I had no opinion on an issue that was important to them. The particular issue isn't important. What is important was how they were very upset with me because I did not have an opinion one way or the other. I did not have an opposing opinion to them, I just did not have an opinion at all. They were very incredulous and I feel they treated me very badly, even worse than if I had actually held an opposing viewpoint.
When they asked me how it was possible for me to have no opinion, I told them you can't have an opinion on everything. I have not done the research on the issue in question and I have friends and family on both sides. My life will not change because of this particular issue, either way it goes. It isn't my fight.
But, I reminded them there is an issue that is important to me and that I am informed about. They all know my stance on climate change. I also know there are those of my friends that agree with me, those that disagree with me and there are even those that have no opinion on the matter at all. I don't hold that against them. I respect their viewpoint and try my best to not get on my soap box about climate change when we are together.
This is my fight. I wish it was theirs also, but I am not going to force the issue on them.
This is the single most important issue of our day. It is more important than Islamic terrorism. It is more important than AIDS and Ebola. It is more important than Russia in Ukraine. It is more important than anything else you can think of. And, the reason is simple. This is the only issue that will affect every single human being on the planet. It will affect every single living organism on the planet. It will affect the very planet itself. There is nothing that measures up to that standard. Additionally, it will affect almost every other issue you can name, mostly in a negative manner.
Why get involved with the fight? That is easy and has been said better than I can ever say it. In addition to science, I enjoy reading about history and I am reminded of a speech I read many years ago given by Theodore Roosevelt in Paris, 1910. It is formally known as "Citizenship in a Republic," but is more commonly known as the Man in the Arena speech. I think it says everything that needs to be said. Here are some excerpts:
Wow! What a line. "The men who quell the storm and ride the thunder."
And, that is why I fight. So, where are you? Will you be the critic that doesn't count? Or the man in the arena? After all, it's only the most important issue humanity has ever faced.
When they asked me how it was possible for me to have no opinion, I told them you can't have an opinion on everything. I have not done the research on the issue in question and I have friends and family on both sides. My life will not change because of this particular issue, either way it goes. It isn't my fight.
But, I reminded them there is an issue that is important to me and that I am informed about. They all know my stance on climate change. I also know there are those of my friends that agree with me, those that disagree with me and there are even those that have no opinion on the matter at all. I don't hold that against them. I respect their viewpoint and try my best to not get on my soap box about climate change when we are together.
This is my fight. I wish it was theirs also, but I am not going to force the issue on them.
This is the single most important issue of our day. It is more important than Islamic terrorism. It is more important than AIDS and Ebola. It is more important than Russia in Ukraine. It is more important than anything else you can think of. And, the reason is simple. This is the only issue that will affect every single human being on the planet. It will affect every single living organism on the planet. It will affect the very planet itself. There is nothing that measures up to that standard. Additionally, it will affect almost every other issue you can name, mostly in a negative manner.
Why get involved with the fight? That is easy and has been said better than I can ever say it. In addition to science, I enjoy reading about history and I am reminded of a speech I read many years ago given by Theodore Roosevelt in Paris, 1910. It is formally known as "Citizenship in a Republic," but is more commonly known as the Man in the Arena speech. I think it says everything that needs to be said. Here are some excerpts:
The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twisted pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticize work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The role is easy; there is none easier, save only the role of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder.Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."
Wow! What a line. "The men who quell the storm and ride the thunder."
And, that is why I fight. So, where are you? Will you be the critic that doesn't count? Or the man in the arena? After all, it's only the most important issue humanity has ever faced.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Midwest Floods Becoming More Frequent
I have noticed over recent years how often a storm is described as being a "100-year" or "500-year" or even a "1000-year" event. If something is supposed to happen only once in centuries, how come we're getting them every few years. For instance, there have been record floods in the Midwest U.S. in 1993, 2008, 2011, 2013 and again in 2014. Maybe we need to redefine what it means to be a 100-year flood.
Or, maybe the definition of a 100-year flood isn't wrong at all - at least under previous conditions. Maybe the problem is the conditions have changed.
Researchers at the University of Iowa used river gauge data from the U.S. Geological Survey to determine the flood rate in the Midwest U.S. to examine that very question. What they found is that 34% of the stations they examined recorded an increased amount of flooding, while only 9% recorded a decrease.
The researchers just reported the findings without attempting to link them to climate change. However, these findings are exactly what we would expect, and have been predicted, as a result of climate change. As the air gets warmer it can hold more moisture. Then, when it gives it up, this will result in more severe precipitation events - flooding.
By the way, the economic cost of these floods runs into the billions of dollars. For those claiming climate change is good for us, would you mind explaining this, please?
Or, maybe the definition of a 100-year flood isn't wrong at all - at least under previous conditions. Maybe the problem is the conditions have changed.
Researchers at the University of Iowa used river gauge data from the U.S. Geological Survey to determine the flood rate in the Midwest U.S. to examine that very question. What they found is that 34% of the stations they examined recorded an increased amount of flooding, while only 9% recorded a decrease.
The researchers just reported the findings without attempting to link them to climate change. However, these findings are exactly what we would expect, and have been predicted, as a result of climate change. As the air gets warmer it can hold more moisture. Then, when it gives it up, this will result in more severe precipitation events - flooding.
By the way, the economic cost of these floods runs into the billions of dollars. For those claiming climate change is good for us, would you mind explaining this, please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)