J.C. Moore Online
Current events from a science perspective.

The 1956 Republican Party Platform vs. Todays

     Posted on Sun ,02/11/2014 by

The chart at the right compares the 1956 Republican platform when Eisenhower ran with what the party’s platform seems to be today. Some things aagop platformevolve, and some things devolve. The modern Republican Party is an example of the latter. Trying to hold power, rather than govern well, the party has molded itself to satisfy the religious right, the anti-science anti-intellectuals, the false conservatives, and the very wealthy. Unable to progress as the world changes, without offending those, the party leaders have taken the path of obstructionism.

It is a rather vicious cycle for Republicans. As moderates and progressives move away from the party, the extremist are more in control. That influence is seen most in the primaries where the extremist and money interests can insert more influence to elect their candidates. It is tough to be an Eisenhower Republican these days.

The 2014 platform is very similar to that developed by the Republican Party in 2012. Republican leaders  used a push poll to develop the 2012 Republican presidential platform. Here  is an analysis of that poll.  The poll was an affront to intelligent Republicans as it was not really to solicit their opinions but instead an effort to spread propaganda and to raise money. It signaled the big money interests and extremists that if they gave generously, the Party would reward them. And it did. Here is an analysis of the 2012 Republican Party platform that Romney ran on. Can any Republican actually be proud of that platform? It is no wonder Romney lost.

Which platform in the chart do you prefer? It will never be 1956 again, but think where we might be today if the Republican Party had remained progressive. It is time for the Grand Old Party to become Grand again.

The League of Conservation Voters: Do We Need These Policies to Benefit Big Oil

     Posted on Sun ,02/11/2014 by

Oil has helped us develop our civilization and our economy and we will need it far into the future as a fuel and as a raw material. Four generations of my family have worked in the all business, and Big Oil does not represent the small independent oil companies we helped develop in Oklahoma.  Nor aaoildoes Big Oil represent the average American citizen very well. They represent the large international oil companies who have little loyalty to the United States, but who have enough money to influence our politics to pass laws and provide subsidies in their favor.

Big Oil has opposed regulations designed to protect people’s health and the environment. There is nothing conservative about that. The Canadian XL pipeline will allow a foreign country to take American property by eminent domain, will greatly increase the risk of damage from oil spills, and will provide oil to be shipped overseas to increase the profit of the international oil companies.

It is important that we preserve our national wildlife areas and the natural resources under them for the future, yet Big Oil is trying to remove the protections provided on our parks and federal lands. It is fiscally irresponsible to give large subsidies and tax breaks to Big Oil, made up of very profitable and well-established companies – when our country is trying to cut our national spending. And while Big Oil is promoting free market principles for itself, it is promoting anti-competitive principles and laws to reduce competition from renewable energy sources.

Recently one of big oil’s lobbyists, Richard Berman, was secretly taped as he solicited $3 million from oil and gas executives to finance an advertising public relations campaign to discredit environmentalists and celebrities that support them. He told the executives they must be willing to exploit emotions like fear, greed, and anger and turn it against environmental groups. And major corporations secretly financing such a campaign should not worry about offending the general public. he said, because “you can either win ugly or lose pretty”.

The League of Conservation Voters wishes to remind us that Big Oil is spending millions of dollars to promote candidates who will further their interests. And while some of their interests are in our national interest, many are not – and it is important that we elect candidates who will distinguish between the two. Although in the past, many conservative Republicans were champions for the environment, that has changed .  Many Republican candidates now are ranked at less than 10% by the LCV, while the national average is 43% for Representatives and 57% for Senators.   The League of Conservation Voters rates the candidates based upon their past voting records, and you may find out which candidates represent you and the environment at the LCV website.

The Economic Recovery in the Past Five Years: Then and Now

     Posted on Sun ,02/11/2014 by

We have heard so much bad economic news that most people believe it, even though it is not true.The economy has recovered to the point that theRecovery economic stimulus is being ended. That would normally be good news. It is strange that it has not been widely disseminated and many people may be unaware of it. You may read a little piece here and there in the paper about it, but it hasn’t seemed to enter the public’s mind. Actually, since it would help the Democrats, great efforts have been made by some money interests and obstructionists to downplay the recovery.

The chart at the right summarizes the recovery in the last five years. Though it was put together by the Occupy Democrats, the numbers seem to be accurate and can be checked. Normally the President would get credit for the recovery, but not so much in this case as it would likely help the Democrats in the next election. The news could probably have been even better except for the missed opportunities caused by obstructionists in Congress. I hope some of them will join the jobless after the next election.

More on ALEC: Beware the influence of ALEC in Oklahoma

     Posted on Sun ,03/08/2014 by

This article by the author  was first posted in the Oklahoma Policy Institute’s blog.  

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has a great influence on our Oklahoma state politics, but many Oklahomans ALEC2have heard little about the organization. On the surface,  ALEC is an organization made up of corporations and state-level elected officials which meets three times a year to write “model legislation” for states. Officials can then take the model legislation back to their state for consideration. That sounds like a good process, except that what goes on under the surface of ALEC is kept secret.

In May of 2013, ALEC met in Oklahoma City. While corporate representatives from ALEC met with our legislators, a group of citizens protested across the street. The protesters, as well as members of the press, had been barred from attending by security guards. The agenda of the meeting was secret and an elaborate drop box system was created to avoid FOIA requests. Now, over a year later, there is still little known about the meeting or its influence on our legislators.

Rep. Gary Banz, who organized the 2013 event, described it as “a giant coaches clinic for legislators” and said that, though ALEC has been criticized for its secrecy, “The bottom line is if it’s not on our website, it’s not an issue or area that we have embraced.” That’s not quite right.  While ALEC’s website lists some of its policies and model laws, a part of the website is off limits for non-members. The public, journalists, and small business owners are excluded from ALEC membership by steep fees and by a screening process which insures new members are in harmony with ALEC’s mission. ALEC’s membership and funding sources are kept secret .

Much of what is known about ALEC has been discovered by leaked documents and by citizen’s watchdog groups, such as SourceWatch.  ALEC is a 501(c)(3) organization which is not required to reveal its donors or its funding. It has 300 corporate and 1,800 legislative members, but it will not release its membership lists. Rep. Banz said 70 Oklahoma legislators are members, but  SourceWatch lists only 38, leaving 32 members’ identities secret.

Because of the secrecy, it is hard to know what legislation comes from ALEC. Legislators can copy the bills, change them to disguise their source, and present them as their own. Most voters, the press, and even legislative colleagues often do not realize that the legislation came from ALEC. Sponsoring ALEC legislation ensures politicians they will receive support for their re-election campaigns. ALEC’s legislation is often supported by one-sided research, talking points, and op-ed articles designed to convince voters that the politicians are really looking after their best interests.

Many of ALEC’s model laws claim to promote freedom, fairness, and reform, but the end result is often that average citizens lose out in the process.  Citizen’s watchdog groups, such as Common Cause and SourceWatch, are critical of ALEC, saying its bills undercut health care reform, undermine environmental regulations, promote school and prison privatization, limit workers’ rights, restrain legislatures’ abilities to raise revenue through taxes, and mandate strict election laws that disenfranchise some voters, among many other issues.

As Bill Moyers argues in his documentary, United States of ALEC, ALEC is undermining our system of democracy. The strength of the United States is its unity, but some corporations are working through ALEC to undermine that unity at the state level so they can escape regulation and avoid taxes. ALEC is designed to give more power to corporations, claiming that businesses making decisions in their self-interest will lead to the most good for everyone, but the reality is that it does the most good for the already wealthy. We live in a state with enough resources to ensure that every citizen has food, shelter, medical care, education, and an opportunity to contribute back to society. That won’t happen if our state legislature is unduly influenced by ALEC.

What to do about ALEC is the hard question. ALEC hides its members and its funding sources, and it operates as an educational organization to escape lobbying restrictions. There are apparently 32 ALEC members in our state legislature who have not been identified. My plan is to give ALEC as much publicity as possible and to make it a campaign issue by asking candidates to pledge they will not join any organization which will keep them from representing the best interests of Oklahoma citizens.

J.C. Moore is a retired science teacher, a member of the the American Geophysical Union, and co-founder of OKcitizensfirst.org.

Bits and Pieces: Blogging Tips from an Amateur

     Posted on Wed ,25/06/2014 by

I sometimes get requests about website design, platforms, and for tips about blogging. I put my replies together in a short article in hopes it will help others get started.

Before getting started, you must choose a web host, which charges a small fee to host your blog. There are a number of platforms you can choose, but Free WordPress is a good platform, and it is a great way to get started. The paid upgrades aren’t that expensive and have more features. It is important to have an uncluttered website which goes along with the theme of your posts. I think it is a good idea to choose a theme and stick with it so that people who visit your site will recognize it immediately and be able to navigate it easily.

 Here is some advice I gave a friend of mine:

> Have a son who designs web sites. :>) He solves most of my problems.

> Have patience. If you have a quality site with good information, your readership will grow and people will return.

> Do not allow trolls to post comments on your site. Delete personal attacks and obviously false assertions.

> Use all of WordPresses’ Spam Filters. At first I was delighted to get comments, even with a web address attached. I edited each. Then I started getting dozens a day and was overwhelmed so I installed Askimet, Bad behavior, and Captcha – they are available as free Plugins. Send a little payment to the plugin sites you use. They deserve it and make your site much better.

>Be sure to use strong passwords and get a security program for your site – I use Better WP security. Install it before you post much. It once locked me out of my site and I would have lost all my work had my son not saved me.

> Think about posting a few articles on Ezinearticles.com. They give you some exposure and let you link to your own site.

> Put a copyright notice on your articles. That keeps others from legally copying your articles and using them without your permission. (C) 2014 Your Name – is adequate.

> Check into a translator such as at the top of my site. There is a Plugin that does it. I get many more hits from other countries now – but I cringe a bit at the idea of how things may be translated. Machines are not as good as people at translating but the main ideas get through.

>As to ideas, I usually read something that sparks my interest and I write a title and a few short paragraphs to start. My articles are usually based on research so I then begin collecting articles and references on the topic and write short descriptions of them. When I get enough information to be clear on the topic, it is just a matter of arranging the data and adding the background and a narrative to keep the reader interested.

> Write, write, write – but be sure to pay attention to your family. My wife does a lot of art on her computer, so she is understanding – yet sometimes she claims my computer has stolen me away, and refers to it as “that redhead”.

Best wishes and good luck.
J.C.

Oklahoma SB 1456: It’s Not Really a Sun Tax

     Posted on Sun ,15/06/2014 by

asolar Oklahoma just passed and signed into law SB 1456, meant to allow power companies to assess an extra fee on  distributed generation (DG) customers who install renewable energy systems and hook to the power grid for backup. It is not really a tax as the extra fee will go to the power company instead of the state. The law was designed to discourage the investment in renewable energy by private individuals, but it may have unintended consequences for the power companies pushing the law.

Fairness:  The rationale for SB 1456 is based upon fairness arguments which have two very erroneous assumptions. It assumes it is not fair (1) that DG customers are being subsidized by other customers and (2) that DG customers cause an extra burden on the power grid. Research shows that states which encourage DG customers have found they provide a small positive benefit both to other customers and to the power grid.  Research (see below) indicates that distributive energy generation may require fewer upgrades to the power grid, benefiting all customers. Customers who use the grid for backup are required to have a net energy metering (NEM) contract with the power company. Under those agreements, they still pay a customer fee, which defrays the cost of infrastructure, and they are usually not reimbursed for any extra power they produce, essentially providing free energy for the other customers. The power companies agree that we should encourage people to use less energy as AEP/PSO’s states its mission is to “help customers use less energy and spend less for it”. Is it fair then that customers who cut their energy use in half by installing extra insulation are appreciated while those who cut their energy use in half by installing solar energy are charged an infrastructure fee? To be fair, DG customers should be charged as any other customer for the electricity they use and they should be compensated fairly for the excess energy they provide. 

ALEC: Since the author the law is AJ Griffin, my State Senator, I contacted her about the rationale for the law. She provided me with a document called Facts and Fiction, which was very similar to the rationale developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to discourage the development of renewable energy. At their Chicago meeting last year, ALEC adopted discouraging the spread of renewable energy as one of its goals. Their plan to do this was by weakening renewable portfolio standards (RPS), by claiming that it would make electric rates go up, and by promoting the idea that those who install their own solar panels were “free riders” who did not pay their fair share of infrastructure costs.

When I asked Senator Griffin if she was a member of ALEC, she said that it she had attended one of their events, which turned out to be a trip to Alberta, but she did not know if she was a member or not. ALEC is apparently a very secretive organization. She denied that ALEC had anything to do with the bill, and I believe her, as she is apparently unaware of the connection.  Sen. Griffin told me the Facts and Fiction rationale, which was distributed to the legislators in support of the bill, was prepared by a group of people who represent the electric cooperative and the investor owned power companies. It is no wonder that it was very biased toward the position of the power companies.

Senator Griffin told me she had help writing SB 1456 from Kenny Sparks at the Oklahoma Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives. When I contacted him, he said that the idea of the bill had grown out of discussions with a consortium of power producers in Oklahoma which included representatives from investor owned companies. He said electric companies were worried that distributive generation might eventually increase their costs. One of the investor owned companies was AEP/ PSO, which is a member of ALEC, and the impetus and the rationale for SB 1456 likely came from them. Mr. Sparks told me that neither the consortium, nor the group which developed the Fact and Fiction rationale for SB1456, had a representative from any renewable energy group. It also apparently did it  consider the research which shows that private investors in renewable energy provide a net benefit to the other customers.

Research: There has been credible research which establishes that there is a net benefit to all electric customers in states where net energy metering has been encouraged. A study by Crossborder Energy in 2014 found NEM allows utilities to avoid costs of generation and fuel, maintenance and upgrade of transmission and distribution infrastructure, transmission losses (which account to 7% of losses), capacity purchases, and compliance with renewable energy standards. The study concluded,” The cost which utilities avoid when they accept NEM power exported to their grid shows that NEM does not produce a cost to nonparticipating ratepayers; instead it creates a small net benefit on average across the residential markets.” While it does cause power companies to have to adjust their loads accordingly, NEM reduces peak loads, transmission losses, and the need for new power plants.  In California, the study found NEM “delivers more than $92 million in annual benefits to non-solar customers”.

Another important study  was performed at the request of the Vermont legislature and carried out by the Vermont Department of Public Service. They were charged with determining if there is a cross-subsidization with net metering and other retail customers and to examine any benefits or cost of net metering systems to the distribution and transmission system.  The report addressed the specific ratepayer benefit as well as the statewide, societal benefit of solar net as: “Avoided energy costs, including costs of line loses, capacity costs, and avoided internalized greenhouse gas emission costs.; Avoided regional transmission costs.; Avoided in-state transmission and distribution costs.; Solar coincided with times of peak demand and market price suppression.; And an additional benefit explicitly not covered in the study is the economic multiplier associated with the local investment and job creation created from the local manufacturing and installation of net metering systems. “ Even considering subsidies, the report found that solar net metering was a net-positive for the state of Vermont.

It appears from these studies that net energy metering provides a benefit to the states which encourage the installation of solar and wind generation by private individuals. That benefit even extends to other customers.

Unintended Consequences: Though SB 1456 was an anticompetitive bill designed to discourage private investment in renewable energy, it may not turn out that way. Upon signing the bill Gov. Fallin attached a letter requiring “the Corporation commission to conduct a transparent evaluation of distributed generation consistent with the Oklahoma First Energy Plan. It also said, ” This evaluation mandates inclusion of all stakeholders including representatives of the solar distributed wind energy industries and utilities.” and “A proper and required examination of these other rate reforms will ensure an appropriate implementation of the Oklahoma first energy plan while protecting future distributed generation customers.”

The Oklahoma First Energy Policy encourages development of wind and solar energy, but it relies heavily on the increasing development of our natural gas resources. However, fracking and the associated disposal wells may be related to the increased incidences of earthquakes in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is now in the process of replacing some of its coal-fired power plants with natural gas plants. It would be prudent to encourage a greater development of renewable resources in case a definite link was established between fracking activities and earthquakes, which might greatly curtail Oklahoma’s production of natural gas.

Some electric co-ops , such as Oklahoma’s Indian Electric Cooperative, apparently recognize the value of net energy metering. The company allows net metering customers to accumulate credit for excess power and pays them at the end of the year for any excess credit at the wholesale rate, essentially treating them as any other power provider. If the Oklahoma Corporation Commission would adopt a similar model and require that NEM customers be compensated for the excess power they produce, it would greatly encourage private investments in renewable energy installation. It seems it would be in Oklahoma’s best long-term interest to encourage private investment in renewable energy, and SB 1456 may be the vehicle for that to happen.

(C) 2014 J.C. Moore

Bits and Pieces: ALEC at Work in the Oklahoma Legislature

     Posted on Mon ,02/06/2014 by

In a Readers Forum article in the Tulsa World, “Responsible, conservative reforms working”, Brian Bingman, president pro tem of the Oklahoma Senate, states how proud he is of what the legislature has been able to accomplish. Mr. Bingman is rather quick to pat himself and the legislature on the back, as the reforms he cites were more to the benefit of corporations than of the average citizen. The tax reform and tax cut leaves the state badly underfunded. The balanced budget, achieved by cutting needed services, does not meet the needs of the state. The Capitol building repair was funded by bonds, rather than taxes, which has further indebted the state in the future. The education system is badly underfunded and the tax cuts have only made the situation worse in the future.

The workers compensation reform limits an injured workers right to full compensation for his injuries. Tort reform makes it harder for the average citizen to seek redress in court and limits the liability of corporations. The reform to the state’s public employee pension system, by privatizing the future pension system, destabilizes the existing program, and is a boon to private fund managers. The failure to expand Medicaid will cost the state billions of dollars in Federal funds, that we pay as taxes, and has left 144,000 Oklahomans without adequate healthcare. The hastily passed changes and extensions to corporate oil and gas subsidies, demanded by Oklahoma’s three largest oil and gas companies,  were unnecessary and will make the state’s budget problems worse in future  - and were likely unconstitutional.

Next to the Governor, Mr. Bingman is the highest ranking member of ALEC in our state and his achievements are  high on the list of ALEC’s model legislation. Many of those “accomplishments” benefit  ALEC’s corporate members, but in the end they will hurt Oklahoma and its citizens.  The Governor and 70 of our 149 legislators are members of ALEC, so what chance does an average citizen have?

flag

If you would like to end the influence of ALEC on politics in Oklahoma, please go to http://okcitizensfirst.org/2014/04/24/alec/ and ask your candidates for office to pledge that they will put the needs of Oklahoma citizens first. Let’s vote out anyone who won’t.

Note: The related Credo Petition to Governor Fallin about Medicaid expansion is at:  https://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/governor-fallin-release-the-31-e-mails-about-medicaid-expansion

Bits and Pieces: Oklahoma Must Increase the State Renewable Energy Standards

     Posted on Sun ,01/06/2014 by

The fifth IPCC report says that the most important thing we can do to mitigate global warming is to switch to renewable energy as windmill4quickly as possible. Investing in clean energy helps fight climate change, reduces death and disease from air pollution and creates good, local jobs. Most states have adopted a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which requires that a certain percentage of the electricity generated in the state be from renewable resources.

Across the country, 30 states and the District of Columbia have renewable electricity standards in place that require a certain percentage, some as high as 33%, of all electricity to be generated from clean and renewable sources of energy. Oklahoma requires only 15% . It is 11.25% in actuality, because the legislature allows the utilities to meet a quarter of the renewable requirement by conservation. Oklahoma has the potential to be a leader in renewable energy but it is falling behind because the state is not being proactive in encouraging investment in renewable energy.

It is time for that to change. With the increased phase out of coal fired plants and the uncertainty in natural gas prices and supplies, Oklahoma must act to insure a supply of electricity for the future. We have a good supply of natural gas, but that could change if fracking and disposal wells are linked to water pollution and earthquakes.

Every state should adopt a Renewable Portfolio Standard, and states which already have them should increase the percentage of electricity produced by renewables. It’s time for the Oklahoma legislature to pass a renewable electricity standard that requires utilities to invest more in clean sources of energy. Click here and sign a Credo petition to the Oklahoma Legislature if you agree. You do not need to be a citizen of Oklahoma, as air pollution affects us all.

 

Bits and Pieces: Two Misguided Attacks on Wind Turbines and Electric Cars

     Posted on Sun ,25/05/2014 by

There were two op-ed pieces in the May 25, 2014 Tulsa World which were misguided attacks on renewable energy and electric cars.

The first was titled “The Killing Fields”, with the subheading “Perverse federal energy incentive is a threat to birds, bats.” The article was written by Dr. George Fenwick who is the president of the American Bird Conservancy. The article was illustrated by an Associated Press photo which shows cattle standing in front of a windfarm in a drought prone area of Texas. It well illustrated flaws in Dr. Fenwick’s reasoning, he is more concerned about the wind turbines than about a much greater threat to bird populations.

While Dr. Fenwick had some good points in the article about the value of birds and our need to conserve them, the sensationalized article missed the greatest threat to birds. He complained about the federal production tax credit which encourages the development of wind energy, about allowing exception to the Endangered Species Act, and about siting of wind farms in sensitive areas. Wind developers are already avoiding sensitive areas and they have changed the design of wind turbines so they would be less of a threat to birds. He should have been more concerned about the bigger threats to bird populations, which are severe weather and the destruction of habitat, both made worse by global warming. Delaying the construction of wind turbines will certainly lead to more carbon emissions, making global warming more of a problem

Research shows that wind turbines are not among the top 10 human causes of bird mortality – and windfarms are likely saving HPIM2053amany more birds than they are killing. A comprehensive study of bird mortality in Canada found most human-related bird deaths (about 99%) are caused by feral and domestic cats, collisions with buildings and vehicles, and electricity transmission and distribution lines.  A related peer reviewed Canadian study of bird mortality found that less than 0.2% of the population of any bird species is currently affected by mortality or displacement by wind turbine development. They concluded that even though the number of windmills are projected to grow ten times over the next two decades, “population level impacts on bird populations are unlikely, provided that highly sensitive or rare habitats, as well as concentration areas for species at risk, are avoided.”

The fifth IPCC report says that the most important thing we can do to mitigate global warming is to switch to renewable energy as quickly as possible. If Dr. Fenwick’s sensationalized articles about “The Killing Fields” keeps us from developing renewable energy as quickly as possible, then he is working against the birds, and his own, best interest.

The second article, “Driving greener cars won’t save the Earth” by Megan McArdle essentially says efforts are futile to reduce our carbon emissions. She belittles her friend for buying an electric car and goes on that Americans are likely to do nothing significant to reduce our carbon emissions. She well documents all the ways that we waste energy and claims we are unlikely to change. She also points out that getting other countries, particularly China, to to reduce their carbon emissions is also futile. She concluded that if we want to get serious about reducing our carbon emissions then we need to find cheap renewable resources to replace our energy needs, to find a way to take greenhouse gases out of the air, or to keep the planet from warming because of those gasses that we have already put their .

Her last two suggestions show she does not have a good grasp of the scientific issues, but she is certainly right that we need cheap renewable resources. We have already found those in wind and solar, but they are not yet cheaper than fossil fuels because fossil fuels do not pay their external costs. The external costs for fossil fuels do not include health and environmental damage from particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, chromium, mercury, arsenic, and carbon emissions. An EU funded research study, Externalities of Energys ,  found that including externalities would increase the cost of producing electricity from fossil fuels by a factor of 30% for natural gas to about 90% for coal –  if costs to the environment and to human health were included. If we include those  costs, then sustainable energy sources have a big cost advantage. If we wish to be serious, then we need to remove subsidies to fossil fuels, require fossil fuels to pay their external costs, and to  subsidize renewable energy sources at the same level for several decades.

This falls into a long list of defeatist articles, such as that by Robert Bryce, which says that we are not going to be able to do anything about global warming, so why try. Yes, driving greener cars alone won’t save the Earth, but conserving energy, developing renewable energy sources, changing the energy sources we subsidize, and having fossil fuels pay their external costs, will certainly help more than writing articles discouraging us from trying.

  (c) 2014  J.C. Moore

Evidence Linking Global Warming and Extreme Weather

     Posted on Thu ,08/05/2014 by

 ”All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be….  ”  - Trenberth

 

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, explains that asking for proof that global warming causes severe weather, is asking the wrong question. “All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be. The main way climate change is perceived is through changes in extremes because those are outside the bounds of previous weather. The average anthropogenic climate change effect is not negligible, but nor is it large, although a small shift in the mean can lead to very large percentage changes in extremes. Anthropogenic global warming inherently has decadal time scales and can be readily masked by natural variability on short time scales.”

Scientists  have been very cautious about linking severe weather events to global warming, but the link is getting stronger each year. The Earth has warmed an average of 0.82 over the last century, which doesn’t sound like much, but it means that some places have warmed much more than in the past. Since the amount of moisture the air can hold depends on the temperature, the air can now hold about 6% more moisture. Before 2010, scientists would cautiously point out that higher temperatures lead to the likelihood of drought, and that more energy and moisture in the atmosphere was a recipe for severe weather. But how is it possible to establish that weather events were becoming more extreme?

There are many reports like the interim report by the Climate Council in Australia which found that, in the period between 1971 and 2008,  heatwaves in Australia were becoming more frequent, increasing in intensity and are lasting longer. The report said climate change was  having a key influence on a trend that has seen the number of hot days in Australia double and the duration and frequency of heatwaves increase. Reports like that were not good enough for the skeptics. By 2011 a good case was established that global warming was causing heat waves and droughts in the U.S., but the case was not strong enough to overcome the Skeptics objection, even when in 2012, a definite probability link  was established for  extreme temperatures and droughts. 

To understand whether a weather event is extreme, it must be compared to the norm. This can most easily be done for temperatures, as we have over a century of temperature records from almost all parts of the world.

Example of a Normal Distribution

Example of a Normal Distribution – Click to Enlarge

There is enough temperature data that normal distributions can be graphed, which allows us to quantify  the probability of a temperature event. In the example at the right, the maximum in the curve is the mean of the data. The probability of the occurrence of an event can be measured by the number of standard deviations, sigma(σ), a particular value is from the mean. The values within 2σ of the mean, blue, are considered to be in a mostly normal range. Those from 2 to 3σ, yellow, are considered to be exceptional events, and those beyond 3σ, red, are considered to be extreme. Those yearly events that fall in the yellow range are considered to be 100 year events while those that fall in the red are 1000 year event.

As an example, the normal distribution graph to the right is for the temperatures in Moscow since 1950.  The maximum in the curve is the average temperature, which is set to zero, and the temperature for other other year is described as a temperature anomaly, i.e., how far it is above or below the average value.Moscowjulytempanomaly2010 The curve approximates a normal distribution so the standard deviation of the temperature anomalies can be used to decide whether an event is extreme. The temperatures for 1972  and 2001 fall in the hundred year event range, while  that for 2010 would only be likely to occur only once in every hundred thousand years, unlikely, but still possible.

The Skeptics would still not be convinced, claiming that the link to global warming climate change causes severe weather was not proven, but proof is not necessary when probabilities for a large number of events are involved. For instance, you have only a 50% chance of calling a coin toss correctly, but you can likely guess the number of heads on 1000 flips with less than 1% error. Small differences in probabilities lead to big outcomes. The rules of blackjack give the house a 50.5% to 49.5% advantage, and though some players may win thousands on a lucky streak, considering all the bets placed, the house will make millions from that small difference in probability. And, probabilities are useful for predictions. A 0.270 hitter may get the game winning hit at his next bat while a 0.300 pinch hitter may strike out, but with the game on the line, the coach will likely pinch hit. If trying to predict the future, it is better to go with the probabilities. Though  it is not possible to prove that any one weather event is caused by global warming , scientists have observed a change in probabilities of severe weather events over long periods of time. With the thousands of weather events that occur on the Earth each year,  a small change in probability can cause an definite change in the number of severe weather events.  

SummerDist

An even more convincing argument can be made that global warming causes severe temperatures if the normal distribution is examined as a function of time. Research by James Hansen has established the link by showing that the normal distribution has changed since 1951. The curves show that beginning in about 1970, the mean begins to move to the right and the the curves flatten, showing that the probability of extreme temperatures increase greatly from 1950 to 2011.  His work shows that the probability of extreme temperatures is 10 times as great as for the 198o to 2010 years.

It should also be noted that the left side of the graph flattens, but that the probability of extremely cold temperatures is not zero. There is still a significant likelihood of cold temperatures -and a cold winter now and then does not disprove global warming.

The Skeptics are still claiming that is not proof enough, and that the data says nothing about droughts and wildfires.  There are still some Skeptics who argue that this does not mean  heat waves necessarily related to droughts or that the droughts are causing the increase in wildfires we have experienced, but their arguments seem to be improbable. It should be clear by now that no amount of evidence will convince Skeptics who wish to ignore probabilities.

(C) 2014  J.C. Moore