Arctic Sea Ice Video

This is a video showing the Arctic sea ice from 1987 through 2014. Someone said it looked like the ocean is vomiting ice and it does resemble that rather graphic description. You decide for yourself if the sea ice has recovered.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FDRnH48LvhQ

Emotions Rule Climate Debate?

I saw an article today, Emotions, not science, rule U.S. climate change debate: study.
If you're at all familiar with the ongoing debate you probably don't need to read any further than that. Yes, it is all about emotions. Science has most certainly taken a back seat on this issue. Hell, science is on the side of the road trying to hitch a ride. Rejecting science is the rule of the day.

You know how you can tell this is true? Just ask someone what they think of Al Gore. WARNING: Don't stand too close when you do. Al Gore is not a scientist and his stand on climate change is irrelevant. What is important is what the science says. But, try convincing a denier. It is amazing to see how quickly they will froth at the mouth (sometimes literally and I'm not exaggerating) at the mere mention of the man.

Why is that? Really. Why do deniers go crazy when you mention Al Gore? Why do they hate him so much? Is it because of his movie? Is it because he won the Nobel Prize? I don't think so. That doesn't make sense. In fact, the whole thing doesn't make sense. Like I said, Gore is not a scientist and he is irrelevant to the question about AGW being real or not. But, I don't think there is a single topic that gets a stronger reaction than Al Gore. I wish I could tell you how many people have told me AGW isn't real because Al Gore ...... (fill in your sin/crime of choice). The fact is, there have been so many I can't tell you how many there have been. The worst part? These people really do think it proves AGW isn't real. Al Gore has become the focus of everything they want to vent about when it comes to climate change.

So, how do we get past this and address the problem? I don't really know and I don't think the authors of the paper do either. Here is what they say:

"Strategies for building support for (climate) mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public's understanding of science," Ana-Maria Bliuc, a professor at Australia's Monash University who co-wrote the study, said in a statement.

So, the science isn't the issue. I'll agree with that. The science is conclusive and anyone that believes AGW isn't real is simply rejecting science. There is nothing you can do to convince them the science is real. Read some of the submissions to my global warming challenge. I had people state any science that disagrees with them must be rejected. No amount of science will convince those people they are wrong. Consequently, you have to find another way to get through to them. What could that way be?

Then, they say,

Instead, scientists who want action on global warming should try to change the relationship between believers and deniers, said Bliuc, a social and political psychologist.

This sounds a little simplistic. Yes, the relationship needs to change. Any suggestions? Unfortunately, they also say,

Both groups generally agree that climate change is real, according to the study based on an Internet survey of U.S. residents. But the two camps differ on whether human activity is causing warming.

I can say from my own personal experience, this is not a true statement. I have met few deniers that say global warming and climate change are real. In fact, most of the deniers I have met insist it is not happening and any statement about 'the climate has always changed' is meant to divert the conversation. It is their way of avoiding the question. The truth is, based on my experience, most people saying that do not believe the climate is changing, naturally or otherwise.

But, the authors do say something that of merit,

In the United States, the two camps are divided largely along political party lines. More than 70 percent of Democrats say the earth is warming mainly because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, according to polling data released by the Pew Research Center in January.

In contrast, among Republicans just 27 percent hold this view; more than 40 percent say there is no solid evidence that the planet is getting hotter, and 30 percent say climate change is due mostly to natural environmental patterns.

Ah, there we go. No, we do not need to convince the public, we need to convince the Republicans. That is what it all boils down to. We need to get the Republican leaders on board if we want to address this problem (Disclaimer: I am a devoted, life-long independent and do not belong to any political party). There is some indication of progress on this front. However, I do not believe the problem is going away anytime soon. Republican leaders are ensconced in the the position that AGW is not real and they will not do anything to address it.

In conclusion, I do not agree with the authors of the paper. I do not see how it is possible to convince the deniers to take action and I do not see any way the relationship can be changed. As long as they are attacking climate scientists and engaging in character assassination, there will be no civil discourse. The best I can hope for is to educate anyone that has not made up their minds, yet.

Not a very hopeful assessment, but I think it is realistic. I would be interested in hearing any suggestions, though.

Sea Ice Variability and Cherry Picking

I read a report the other day that made several statements I found interesting. In fact, statements I think the data disputes.

Erratic as normal: Arctic sea ice loss expected to be bumpy in the short term states, "Arctic sea ice extent plunged precipitously from 2001 to 2007, then barely budged between 2007 and 2013."

Let's look at the data. Here is a plot of the Arctic sea ice extent as measured in September every year.

Source: NSIDC

What you can easily see is the downward trend in the extent, represented by the dashed line. Now, take a look at the two periods in question. First, the 2001 to 2007 data shows it went from about -10% to -35%. Then, the 2007 to 2013 period shows it went from -35% to -15%. Apparently, the data supports the conclusion of the paper's authors.

But, I contend this is what is known as cherry picking - picking your data points to give the results you are looking for. I have frequently criticized deniers for doing this and it is only fair to criticize scientists for doing it, as well. How do I justify calling it cherry picking? Well, let's take a look at some other starting and ending points.

If we examine the period 2001 to 2009, we get the ice extent went from about -10% to -15%. Now, if we examine the period of 2009 to 2012, we get the ice extent went from -15% to -45%. That is a completely different result! Using these data points, I can say the ice extent was fairly steady from 2001 to 2009 but dropped at an alarming rate from 2009 to 2012, opposite of the claims made in that paper. Again, it is all about picking your starting and ending points.

Since I have just accused the authors of cherry-picking, I find it very interesting when they state,

"To understand how climate change is affecting the Arctic, you cannot cherry pick short stretches of time," Kay said. "Seven years is too short."

In this regard, they are very correct and I am in agreement with them, but I still maintain they cherry picked the data to get the results they wanted. Using slightly different starting and ending points produces exactly opposite results.

That is why we must use long-term data and determine what the trend is. There is going to be a great deal of variability from year to year, not just in sea ice but in any kind of climate data we get. The climate is extremely complex, possibly the single most complex science of all. There is not just one thing at work, there is essentially every single field of physics at play. Everything from quantum mechanics and particle physics to space science and astronomy with everything in between is involved with climate science.It only stands to reason we should see variability in the short term and we need to focus our attention on the long term

As for any claim the Arctic sea ice is making a 'recovery,' take a look at this plot of the current sea ice:

Source: NSIDC

The dark line is the long term Arctic sea ice average extent. The khaki-colored line shows the data for 2014. The blue line is the data for 2015. The dark band is plus or minus two standard deviations from the long term average. You can see the current year is roughly the same as last year and both years were near the near the minus-two sigma border. 

There is no 'recovery' underway. The sea ice is disappearing and, even with yearly variability included, it continues to do so.

Groundhog Day

Today, Groundhog Day is just another reason to have a party. No complaints about that from me, I was at one last night and we had a pretty good time. But, in antiquity, the equivalent of our modern-day ritual was serious business.

Before there were supermarkets with food supplies, people had to make careful plans on how to get through the winter. A mistake could prove fatal and often did. It was vitally important to know about the change of seasons.

This is how astronomy got started because the seasons are a result of the planet's tilt on its axis and rotation around the Sun. They didn't know about those things in ancient times, but they knew the stars, Sun and Moon changed in the sky on a regular basis. By observing over a period of time, virtually every ancient culture throughout the world figured out the two solstices and two equinoxes and how the seasons changed relative to those four days. We find ancient observatories everywhere devoted to identifying these days. In addition, the four days between, the cross-quarter days, also became important. People with knowledge of these eight days were powerful and respected. They were the ones who told everyone when to plant, when to harvest, when to do just about everything according to the seasons. This is probably how ancient priesthoods got started.

The winter and summer solstices (about December 21 and June 21) as well as the vernal and fall equinoxes (about March 21 and September 21) are well known today, with some small variation in the exact day. The cross-quarter days are not as well known, but are still mostly observed under many different names. The best known one is probably Halloween, midway between the fall equinox and the winter solstice. The cross-quarter day between the summer solstice and the fall equinox occurs in the first week of August and was referred to as first harvest. There are still some cultures that observe this day, but not many. In olden times, villagers would tithe a portion of their crop to the village to help everyone get through winter. The cross-quarter day between the spring equinox and the summer solstice occurs at the beginning of May, is known as May Day in modern times and is observed as a celebration of spring and fertility. That leaves the cross-quarter day between the winter solstice and the spring equinox - now known as Groundhog Day.

When we track the winter months we find the coldest days occur around the end of January and the beginning of February - right at the cross-quarter day. As a result, some cultures said spring started on the cross-quarter day (known as Imbolc in Germanic countries). Other cultures said it started on the equinox in March. To resolve this, the cultures in Norther Europe began a system of weather prognostication involving badgers or bears. If the day was cloudy and a shadow was not seen on Imbolc, spring had arrived. Otherwise, spring wouldn't start until the equinox. This, of course, was very serious business for these people. If they ran out of food before spring they were in real trouble. Starvation and famine were not unusual.

When the Germans immigrated to United States, they brought the tradition with them, but began using groundhogs instead of badgers. Now, with modern supply systems in place, it is just another way to have fun.

But, there is something amiss - spring is coming earlier.

As we have seen, there are many ways to define 'spring.' One way is when the dormant plants come back to life. This is particularly convenient because the active/dormant cycle with plants results in an up and down pattern to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This allows us to measure onset of plant active and dormant phases by examining the rise and fall of CO2.

For the period of 1955 - 2002 we see the spring decrease of CO2 level is occurring earlier and this indicates spring plant activity is starting earlier and earlier. The observed rate of change is about -1.2 days per decade earlier for first leaf date, -1.0 days per decade earlier for first bloom, -1.4 days per decade for the last day below 5 degrees C and -1.5 days per decade for last spring freeze date. Consistently, we are seeing spring moving backwards by between 1.0 and 1.5 days earlier ever decade. For the six decades since 1955 this translates into an earlier spring onset of between 6 and 9 days. This is known as 'season creep.'


You might be tempted to say, 'Less winter! Wonderful news.' But, that would be a mistake. For instance, we need winter snowpack to get us through the dry seasons in summer. Less winter means less snowpack and that translates into problems with water supply. Also, the population of many pests are not being knocked down by winter temperatures the way the used to be.

Also, not all plants and animals adjust to the change equally. This is a real problem when two different species depend on each other. If plants depend on certain birds to cross-pollinate them, and the birds depend on the nectar of the flowers, they need to be together when the plants are flowering. If the plants start flowering earlier and the birds don't adjust their migration pattern, the flowers may be dying off by the time the birds get there. This, obviously, would be bad for both plants and birds - and anything that depends on those plants and birds later on.

In fact, we see this is actually happening.

Once again, climate change rears its head to remind us, even when we engaging in a relic ritual, that things are changing. The good news is Groundhog Day is based on astronomy and not climate, so we don't have to ever worry about it getting earlier.

Insurance Mandate Tax Tips and Report Card on Performance

One Year Out From the Inaugural Insurance Exchange Launch
Now that the nation has passed its second enrollment in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Insurance Exchanges, it is time to do a bit of a scorecard and though the second enrollment went well, let's look as the predictions versus the actual participation.
Original Whitehouse Projections Versus Actual Enrollment

Number expected to gain insurance coverage because of either the employer or individual insurance mandates under the ACA-32,000,000
Since the employer mandate is just starting this year and the phase-in penalty for firms without compliant medical plans only applies to firms with 100 or more eligible employees, it is not possible to discern the total reduction in the uninsured yet. But here is the rate of the uninsured as a proportion of the national population.
Uninsured rate prior to ACA- 18% After ACA-12.9%
Number Health & Human Services projected for the 2015 Insurance Exchange Enrollment-9,100,000


Number of the uninsured who obtained coverage through Medicaid or an Exchange product-9,500,000, which exceeded their projection by 4%. This information  may be found at: http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/

Number enrolled in the federal insurance exchange-7,100,000
Number enrolled in private insurance exchanges-2,400,000

Percentage of  Actual Enrollment compared to the Eligible Enrollees
I reviewed the Kaiser Family Foundation's report on the insurance exchange enrollment by state and it was no surprise there was a lot of variation, with a low enrollment in the states with robust economies, such as North Dakota (13%) and Massachusetts (8%). Whereas, 87% of the population deemed eligible to enroll in the insurance exchange in Vermont actually did. For more information go to the Kaiser Foundation web site at: http://kff.org/interactive/mapping-marketplace-enrollment/

Income Tax Tips for Insurance Exchange Participants
For my followers, I have been tweeting tax tips regarding the reconciliation of the government tax credits for those who purchased insurance through the exchanges. To assist those who are filing income taxes, here is a step-by-step guide to the insurance mandate and tax credit posting:

1. If you purchased medical insurance through an insurance exchange, either federal or state, you may have received an advance from the federal government, to pay for part of your insurance premiums. If you enrolled in Medicaid through an exchange you did not have to pay any premiums and this does not apply to you..
2. The government advance, which went directly to the insurance company, was an estimate of your tax credit eligibility based on the income and family information you provided at enrollment in the previous year. If your status changed, there may be a difference in the amount the government advanced and what you should have received. 
3. Your insurance exchange should have distributed form 1095-A by January 31st, assuming they have your current contact information. You will need this form to complete your income tax.
4. Form 1095-A has a monthly break-down of your insurance premiums for the 2014 year, both the amount you paid, the amount of the tax credits, which is what the government contributed to the cost of the insurance (thank you Uncle Sam), and the total premium.
5. If you are using an electronic tax preparation tool, which I highly recommend, it will have an insurance page or folder, which will walk you through the form. But just in case you are still old school and use paper returns, the federal tax credits which were used to pay for your insurance will be entered into the Premium Tax Credit form 8962 of your 1040 Personal Income Tax Return. 
6. Enter your total premiums paid, total premiums credited from the government and wait until you complete your return. After you have entered all of the other information to complete your income tax return you will you have a final result in terms of what your tax credits should have been and what they actually were. If the government estimated too high, then you might owe some money. If the government estimated too low, then you will have a refund coming.
7. For example-Total insurance premiums were $7,032 for a single individual (yikes) and you paid $348, with the government contributing the rest. The government paid $4,716, but it turns out you were only eligible for $4,368 in credits. This means you owe the difference between the two or roughly $348. This government advance will be deducted from your tax refund or theoretically, you will get a statement saying you owe income taxes.
8. Bottom line, the federal tax credits were an estimate of what you were eligible for, based on information you provided, and not a guarantee, so expect some variation in the actual result. If the government gave you $4,716 and you only had to give back $600, that is still awesome.

Hopefully this helps some of you with your income tax filing for the 2014 year. This information is not meant to give tax or legal advice (CYA-disclaimer) but is a journalist's view on publicly available information. Feel free to share this with everyone, with appropriate attribution of course.
And this is the healthpolicymaven signing off. Viva Le France!

healthpolicymaven is a trademark which has been in continuous use sine 2007 and is the property of Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA, President of Praevalere Inc.

 

Chinese Coal Production Down - Why It Matters

Chinese coal production in 2014 was down slightly from 2013. China dug up 3.7 billion metric tons in 2013 and 3.5 billion metric tons in 2014, a drop of about 5.4%. Imports were also down by 10%. Hopefully, this is the start of a trend and not just a one-year blip. This may be the result of China's declared program to reduce air pollution or it may be due to economic issues. Either way, less coal burning is a good thing, and for a number of reasons.

Obviously, reducing CO2 emissions is going to be helpful in the fight to prevent climate change. Less of the stunning air pollution that Chinese cities experience is also certainly good. But, there is a less obvious benefit - world stability.

The Department of Defense has stated climate change is an issue of national security and presents an "immediate risk" to the country. This risk comes from things such as food, water and energy insecurity. The issue of climate refugees will also cause international tensions.

Just how bad can this get? Take a look at an extreme scenario - a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Such a war is not far fetched at all. In fact, they have already come frighteningly close. Past clashes between the two nations have not been the result of the effects of climate change, they have happened simply because the two nations don't like each other. But, since they can get that close without complications we can easily conclude additional stressors have the potential to push them over the brink.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan, even if limited to just their region, would truly devastate the planet. The total death toll would number in the billions of people. A recent study estimated a regional nuclear war between these two countries would put approximately 5 terragrams of soot into the atmosphere and affect the Chinese climate for at least 10 years. After one year, grain production in China (the world's largest grain producer) would be down 35%. Even after four years, production would still be down 25%. It is estimated the effect on European and American farm production would also be severe. They conclude this would put a billion people at risk of famine.

Now, I am not saying climate change is going to be the final straw in a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, although I would really prefer to not take that risk. What I am saying is this is an example, albeit an extreme example, of how climate change is a cost we just cannot afford to pay. Even if it doesn't lead to nuclear war, if climate change leads to a regional conventional war it would not be to our benefit. Have we benefited by regional wars in parts of the planet far from our country? Isn't it in our best interest to try and prevent these conflicts? The effects of climate change is one more reason for people to start fighting, possibly even the final straw. Therefore, it stands to reason it is on our best interest to remove these complicating effects and help reduce international tension before it even begins.

Hopefully, the drop in Chinese coal use is a sign we are making progress in the battle to do something about it.

The Cost of Climate Change Keeps Going Up

Let’s discuss the cost of climate change. The fossil fuel industry and its lackeys keep telling us climate change is good for us – the more the better. Literally, that is what they are saying. For example, take this quote from The Spectator:

Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.

By the way, his "expert" for all of this information is Richard Tol, an economist and well-known denier with a reputation for getting his facts wrong. In one of the big "Oops" moments in denier history, he analyzed the 97% consensus statement in an attempt to disprove it and - surprise! - proved it was correct. He has no scientific background that I am aware of.

I thought we could take a look for ourselves and see just how much global warming and climate change are costing us now and likely to cost us in the future.

One of the ways to look at the cost of climate change is to examine the economic cost. This is known as the social cost of carbon (SCC). Right now, the government puts the social cost at $37 for every ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted. We are currently emitting about 40 billion tons of CO2 per year, so that comes out to about $1.5 trillion per year. Yes, that was trillion, with a 't.' And, that expense is not only incurred every year, but is also increasing as emission amounts increase.

That is horrible news, but it gets even worse. Researchers at Stanford University examined this figure and have estimated it is more likely $220 per ton. That comes out to a staggering $8.8 trillion per year! Every year! And, climbing!



Why the big difference? The Stanford group included the effects current damage does to future growth.

“If climate change affects not only a country's economic output, but also its growth, then that has a permanent effect that accumulates over time,” Frances Moore, co-author and environmental scientist, said.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, they are on the high side with their calculation. It is possible, but it is widely believed the government figure is way too low. Just for the sake of argument we'll say the value is at the midpoint between their value and the government's value. The economic cost at that rate is then about $5.2 trillion per year. That amount is larger than the GDP of every country in the world except the U.S. and China.

By the way, the poorer you are, the more you'll be affected. Poor countries will fare worse than rich ones.

Keep that figure in mind when someone tells you climate change is good for you.

Then, there is sea level rise. A study found the sea level numbers for 1901 - 1990 were overstated and, as a result, the data shows the rate of sea level rise since 1990 is 25% higher than previously thought and accelerating.

If you live anywhere near a coast (as the majority of the human population does), you might want to think about how much damage you will incur as a result of rising sea levels and the cost of protecting yourself.  Factor that in when calculating how much climate change will cost you.

How about drought? The current drought in California is likely to a more common story in the future and will result in a series of ripple effects, such as increased wildfire, loss of timber, floods, erosion and degraded water quality, just to name a few. The drought is estimated to be causing California billions of dollars per year in economic damage, mostly to farmers and agriculture workers. Those are the people least able to afford the damage.


Then, I saw these little tidbits in Scientific American (August 2014, vol 311, no 2, pg 22-23):

Five National Landmarks Threatened by Climate Change:

• Statue of Liberty - After Superstorm Sandy, the National Park Service began work on flood-proofing Liberty Island. Cost: Unspecified.
• Faneuil Hall, Boston - The city is planning building renovations that may include flood-protection walls. Cost: Unknown.
• Cape Hatteras Light, NC - In 1999 the National Park Service moved the lighthouse 2,900 feet to protect it against shoreline erosion and rising sea levels. Cost: $11.8 million.
• NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston - Installed new roofs to protect withstand more severe hurricanes. Repairs from 2008's Hurricane Ike cost about $80 million.
• Mesa Verde Nation Park, Colorado - The National Park Service is performing prescribed burns and treating the cliffs to protect against flooding and erosion. Cost: Unspecified.

The American taxpayers will be footing the bill for all of those expenses.

Still not convinced? How about the study that showed as temperature goes up, economic productivity goes down? A team at the Bureau of Economic Research found that every day life gets more expensive as the temperature goes up. They found a country's economic activity decreased by about 1% for every degree over 59 degrees F. The damage comes from increased costs associated with higher temperature. For example, if you have to pay more for electricity because you are running the air conditioner longer, you have less money to spend on other things. Notice that the people who benefit from that situation are the same ones responsible for creating it in the first place and are so eager to convince you it isn't a problem. As the temperature goes up, the total damage to economies around the world will amount to many billions of dollars.

Not enough? Take a look at this article in Eos that shows how climate change is causing cholera to spread. More epidemics around the world. Expenses for those epidemics will be in the billions of dollars.

I also saw this quote in Physics Today:

As the average global temperature rises, mountainous areas across western North America are experiencing significantly less ice and snow. A hundred years ago, Glacier National Park included some 150 ice sheets, but today it has only 25. The implications are vast for the surrounding areas. Rising air and water temperatures are affecting local ecosystems, fish, and wildlife. And because at least 80% of the water supply in the US West comes from its mountains, the loss of the natural reservoir that glaciers provide is also being felt by cities, farms, and industry all across the region. Although manmade global warming has a significant impact on the ice retreat, it is not the only cause. And the shrinking glaciers are only the first symptom of larger changes to come, says Daniel Fagre at the US Geological Survey.

To bring it home, take a look at this list I saw of seven ways climate change can kill you:

• 1. Bug bites that kill
• 2. Breathing problems, including asthma
• 3. Less nutritious food
• 4. An allergy season that goes on forever
• 5. Heat waves
• 6. Too much or too little water
• 7. Sunny days that make you dreary

And, the fishery industry is expected to lose between $17 and $41 billion between now and 2050 due to climate change.  Also, don't forget that ocean acidification results in a declining shellfish population.

There is plenty more and I don't need to go through it all, but I thought I would mention one last piece of news. That blizzard that hit New York City this past week cost the city $200 million in lost economic activity. Severe weather events like this are already becoming the norm. Tell me, how many 'storms of the century' have there been in the last few years?

So, I think we can see from just a very small sampling that we can definitely say global warming and climate change are not good for us. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

But, you know who will make money off of climate change? The same people that are hell bent for everyone to believe its good for us.