J.C. Moore Online

Current events from a science perspective.

Global warming may not have much effect on those in the U.S. Midwest, but others may find it very difficult to “Just adjust”.

Redbud that thinks it's Spring.

Pears that have not seen frost by Thanksgiving.

These are not great pictures, but I was not planning to write an article when I took them the day before Thanksgiving this year. But, they have a message. One shows our redbud tree that budded into green leaves as if it were Spring after going dormant for the year. The pear tree still had pears and green leaves not yet bitten by frost. They reminded me of my family’s Thanksgiving photo taken in front of my dad’s apple tree in1998. We were all in shirtsleeves and the apple tree still had green leaves, as it had not yet frosted that year. My father, then 88, said that never in his memory had a frost been so late. It turned out that 1998 was one of the hottest years on record but this year may set a new record. It is interesting that two of the latest frosts in our area in almost a century have occurred after Thanksgiving – and in the past 12 years.

Other subtle changes have taken place in my lifetime. We used to be in gardening zone six but we are now in zone seven. That means we are now having warmer winters, later frosts, and earlier warm-ups in the spring. Several times our fruit trees bloomed during a false spring in February only to have the blossoms nipped by a later freeze. We have a longer growing season which sounds good. That also means a longer season for insects and pests and they have shown up in greater abundance. Our gardening is a hobby so it is not a serious matter if we lose a crop to early freezes or pests. We recently have had record rainfall in the spring and three years ago the ground was wet for so long it drowned some of our fruit trees. But, we are now experiencing dryer weather in late summer and early fall – and the redbud tree in the picture had its leaves turn brown by September from dry weather. Scientists cannot predict the weather but only that the warming Earth will cause weather to become more extreme – and we seem to be observing that.

The signs of a warming Earth are sometimes subtle and it is rather hard to tell if that is the cause of changes we see. Biologists are telling us that some species are extending their range to the North. We now have fire ants and armadillos which were not around when I was growing up. I recently found some Kudzu growing over at the lake and some along a fence near my house. Kudzu is an invasive plant that chokes out other vegetation and kills trees; it thrives in higher CO2 levels and warmer temperatures. I certainly hope it doesn’t get started here. And sadly, the quail which were plentiful during my childhood have disappeared from the hills and fields in this area. Some say foraging armadillos are responsible by destroying their nests, but no one really knows for sure. I’m not sure the quail’s disappearance had anything to do with global warming but they have come to symbolize for me that subtle changes are taking place. It’s sad that good things may change and my grandchildren may never be aware of the things that are gone.

There is sound scientific evidence that the Earth is warming and those who long denied the evidence have now shifted their message, saying we should “just adjust”. I’m not sure what that means, but those of us who live in the Midwestern United States will probably be able to do so. It may be more difficult for other people in the world. The people of Kashmir are concerned that the glaciers that feed their streams in the summer are receding – making less water available. The Sherpa of Tibet are worried that their villages may be flooded by lakes that now form each summer from melting glaciers . The lakes are held back by ice dams and, if a dam breaks, it will be a catastrophe for their villages. The Inuit in the Arctic are having to move their coastal villages to keep them from being eroded away by wave action of open seas which were year round ice before. Their inland villages are threatened as well as the permafrost upon which some were built now becomes a quagmire in the summer. Telling the people whose lives will be changed forever by global warming to “just adjust” seems a little hollow.

(C) 2010 J.C. moore

v  Share this.

The Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling that occur about every 100,000 years. The present global warming we are experiencing is not part of those cycles. Is the cause natural or is it man’s activities?

The Earth is getting warmer. NASA has compiled the Earth’s annual mean temperatures since 1880 by using ships logs, weather station, and satellite data. Their data shows that the trend in the Earth’s temperature has been mostly upward and that the Earth is now about 1.3 °F warmer than it was a century ago. Scientists point to an increase in greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use as the major cause, but skeptics claim the warming observed is natural. The Sun, clouds, particulates, volcanoes, and greenhouse gases all affect the Earth’s temperature. The question is “What part does each play in global warming and what part does man play?”

Energy balance: The Earth has a solar energy balance. Of all the Sun’s energy coming to Earth, 30% is reflected immediately back into space by the surface, particles, and clouds. About 20% is absorbed into the atmosphere where it runs the weather cycle.The remaining 50% heats the land and oceans. All the absorbed heat is eventually radiated back into space as infrared radiation. It’s a balanced energy budget with 100% of the incoming energy eventually going back into space. Anything that reflects sunlight into space, such as an increase in particulate matter in the air, would cause the Earth to cool. Anything that increases the amount of sunlight received or delays the energy’s trip back to space such as greenhouse gases do, would cause the Earth to warm. What factors influence the energy balance?

The Sun: Solar radiation from the Sun seems to have varied little over the last million years. The Sun has Sunspot cycles where its output varies slightly and causes the amount of solar radiation to vary in approximately 11-year cycles. Increased sunspot activity causes the Earth to warm. However, the effect of Sunspots is so small that they do not show up above the other small variations in NASA’s temperature record. Long term variations in the Sun’s intensity does not seem responsible for the current warming. Satellite measurements of solar radiation show that the solar radiation reaching Earth has declined slightly over the last 30 years – yet the Earth still warmed. Also, this graph of solar irradiance from 1880 to the present as measured from the earth and later by satellite shows that the Sun’s intensity increased slightly from 1880 to 1960 and then has declined slightly since 1960.

Milankovitch Cycles: Small wobbles in the Earth’s orbit such as variations in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit affect the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives. Both scientists and skeptics seem to agree that these cycles are responsible for the Earth’s change from warmer to cooler periods and for ice ages that occur in roughly 100,000-year cycles. In the part of the cycle where the Earth receives more solar radiation, the oceans slowly warm and release CO2. The CO2 further amplifies the warming by the greenhouse effect. As the Earth moves into the part of the cycle where it receives less solar radiation, the oceans slowly cool, the CO2 dissolves back into the oceans and another ice age starts. The patterns of wobble in the Earth’s orbit are predictable and the model predicts that a minor cooling trend, which began some 6,000 years ago, will continue for the next 23,000 years. The current warming trend is too rapid and in the wrong direction to be a part of the Milankovitch Cycles.

Clouds: Clouds have a dual role. They cool the Earth in the daytime by reflecting solar radiation back into space but they also warm the Earth by their greenhouse effect. First frosts are more likely to occur on cold clear nights. The average cloud cover over the entire Earth remains relatively constant from year to year but cloud cover may increase as a feedback to the warming oceans. Clouds could be considered to be a cause of the current warming trend only if the average cloud cover could be shown to have increased over the years.

One unusual theory tries to do just that. It claims that the number of cosmic rays from the stars that strike the Earth is increasing. That would lead to more clouds since cosmic rays produce charged particles in the atmosphere that seed clouds. It’s an interesting theory, but there is no data showing that the number of cosmic rays are actually increasing cloud cover. Also, there are plenty of particulates in the air to seed clouds and any effect from cosmic rays would be small in comparison.

Greenhouse gases: If the Earth had no atmosphere, its average temperature would be much colder. Most of the Sun’s energy comes to Earth as light in the visible and ultraviolet region of the spectrum but it leaves as heat energy in the infrared region. The atmosphere’s clouds, water vapor, and CO2 traps some of the infrared radiation headed into space and directs it back to Earth, helping to warm the Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect, as it is similar to the effect that keeps greenhouses warm on cold nights. Recent research shows that about 75% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds and the rest is due mostly to CO2.

Water vapor is removed from the air whenever it rains so the average amount of water vapor in the air remains somewhat constant from year to year. However, the amount of CO2 in the air has been observed to be increasing. Measurements of the concentration of CO2 in the air have shown that it has increased from 280 ppm to 385 ppm in the last century. The physicist G. N. Plass determined the effect of the increase of CO2 on the Earth’s temperature. In 1956, he calculated that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the air would cause a 3 to 4 °C increase in the Earth’s temperature. A number of more recent studies have confirmed his results but the most important thing is that the rise in temperature he predicted 50 years ago in consistent with the increase in temperature we have observed. Certainly, the increasing amount of CO2 is a main factor global warming. But, is the increase in CO2 natural or man-made?

Volcanoes: Although impressive, the amount of heat released by volcanoes has a minuscule effect on the Earth’s temperature compared to that of the particulates and greenhouse gases they release. Particulates reflect sunlight back into space and cause the Earth to cool while the greenhouse gases released cause the Earth to warm. Particulates from large eruptions, such as Mt. Pinaturbo, cause a very quick decline in the Earth’s temperature. However, the particulates settle out or are removed by rain in a few years after the eruption stops. The CO2 released by the eruption causes greenhouse warming for a long time as it persists in the air for many decades. Volcanoes, however, play a small role in the current global warming compared to man. Man’s activities currently emit about seven times the particulates and 150 times the CO2 as all the world’s volcanoes together.

Fossil fuels: Since the 1800′s, scientists have been concerned with whether our use of fossil fuels might affect the temperature of the Earth. Burning carbon fuels releases large amounts of CO2, and there was speculation about whether an increase of CO2 in the air might actually change the energy balance of the Earth. Recent research has shown that CO2 plays a very important role in global warming and one scientist even labeled CO2 the “control knob” for the temperature of the Earth. The amount of CO2 man releases into the air is no longer minuscule as our emissions amount to 30 billion tons of CO2 each year. The concentration of CO2 in the air has increased from about 280 ppm to 385 ppm and the Earth’s temperature has increased by 1.3 °F. Clearly, CO2 is the main factor in global warming and our use of fossil fuels is the main cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

It’s not natural: Climate scientists agree. In 2004, a survey of 928 climate papers published in Science found that none of the authors argued for a natural explanation of global warming. So there we have it. Global warming is not caused by volcanoes, clouds, sunspots, changes in solar output, or cosmic rays from the stars – and it is not part of the natural cycles of nature. As much as we may dislike the idea, the major cause is man.

(C) 2010 J.C. Moore

Share This

The term climate change and global warming are often used interchangeably as they refer to the same environmental problem. Some people prefer to use climate change as climate is more evident to us and climate change is not as controversial as global warming. It is probably okay to use either term, but for those who like precision in language, we will take a tour through climate science to sort out the difference.

Climate and Weather: It is said that no one can predict the weather and that is true as no one can predict very far in advance whether it will rain or storm or how cold or hot it will be. However, if we observe the weather of a region over a long period of time, a pattern emerges. That pattern is the climate and, though we cannot predict the weather accurately, we have a much better chance of predicting climate. If we observe such things as the high and low temperatures, the amount of rain, when the first frost and the last freeze usually occurs, a pattern emerges. The climate is quite important to us as it determines the crops we grow, the types of house we build, and the clothing we wear. Climate determines the plants, animals, and insects that live in our region and even the types of health problems and diseases. The factors that determine climate have been observed to vary slowly with time and we expect the climate in a region to remain relatively stable over long periods.

Climate Change: In the last century, and particularly in the last three decades, we have noticed that climates in many regions of the Earth are changing. The daytime high temperatures are higher, the nighttime lows are warmer, the patterns of drought and rainfall have changed, and storms seemed to have become stronger. Frost occurs later in the year and the last freeze occurs earlier, which has caused gardening zones to move. The ranges of many species of plants, animals, insects and bacteria have shifted, and there has been invasions of non-native, sometimes invasive, species into new areas. Our observations have shown that the climate is definitely changing, and those changes are sure to have consequences for us.

Global Warming: Since the early 1800′s, scientists have been concerned with whether our use of fossil fuels has affected the temperature of the Earth. With an increasing understanding of the role greenhouse gases play in stabilizing the temperature of the Earth, scientist wondered whether burning fossil fuels might affect the energy balance of the Earth. Burning carbon fuels releases carbon dioxide, CO2, which they knew to be an important greenhouse gas and there was speculation about whether an increase of CO2 in the air could actually cause the Earth to warm. Critics of the idea argued that water was a much more important, that the relatively small amount of CO2 in the air would not make a difference, and that the amount of CO2 man produced was minuscule compared to what was already there.

The Role of CO2: With a better understanding of the atmosphere and the advent of computers, G. N. Plass in 1956 was able to calculate the climate sensitivity of the Earth to CO2. He found that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the air would cause a 3 to 4 °C increase in the Earth’s temperature. A number of more recent studies have confirmed his work and have shown that, though the concentration of CO2 in the air is small, it accounts for about 25% of the greenhouse effect. Certainly, increasing the amount of CO2 in the air should cause the Earth to warm. In the last century, our emission of CO2 has increased from a minuscule amount to over 50 billion tons annually and the concentration of CO2 in the air has risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 385 ppm. But, has that caused global warming?

The Temperature Scorecard: The temperatures over the Earth vary widely from place to place with the weather and the season. However, the temperature of a particular place measured over a long period of time has a pattern and we can use the pattern as a scorecard. There are temperature records that go back to about 1850 and these have given us a way to keep track of whether the Earth is warming. By using ships logs, weather stations, and satellite measurements, NASA has compiled the Earth’s annual mean temperature from 1880 to the present. Though it varies widely from year to year, the Earth’s annual mean temperature shows an upward trend and the Earth is definitely getting warmer.The scorecard shows that over the last century the Earth has warmed about 1.3°F, which does not sound like much. However, since that is the average over the whole Earth, it represents a tremendous amount of energy and it is the energy in the atmosphere that drives our weather and determines our climate.

So there we have it, a cause and effect relationship. Climate change is caused by global warming, which in turn is caused by the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and the CO2 is increasing because of our use of fossil fuels. Though it is probably irrelevant whether we call it climate change or global warming, it is very relevant that we understand the relationships and think about our role. The way we use fossil fuels has consequences for us and for the rest of the species on the planet.

(c) 2010 J.C. Moore

This  guest article is a letter by a small businessman sent to the Wall Street Journal:

The Wall Street Journal has published many articles on climate change. Most all claimed the science was unreliable and discredited the scientist, whose emails were stolen. However three investigations have cleared the scientist. I have both a major in Journalism & Business and I am ashamed of the yellow journalism the Wall Street journal has discredited itself with in this area. Is it that  Rupert Murdock’s News Corporation* backs the skeptics; is it his desire for sensationalistic headlines;  or, is it the paper has incompetent or biased writers and editors in the area of climate science?

I fear the one paper I buy almost daily at the newsstand and depend on for business information has lost its credibility. How can I make reasonable business decisions without undistorted facts.  I have been a businessman for 30 years in the oilfield through boom and bust.  How can I depend on the world’s top business paper if it does not investigate and check its facts. Now, the question is “Can I depend on your paper to give me the facts I need for my small oilfield drilling service to survive?”

At this juncture, I wonder if I can count on the Wall Street Journal to make your grievous errors right?  At age 57, I hope so for my children’s and my grandchildren’s  sake. I want them to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink at a cost of 4/10 of 1 percent of their income  in the future, as I do now.

Guest author: David Moore

*Editors note:  Rupert Murdoch also owns Fox News and the NY Post.

A Winning Flip: I can remember when Republicans liked Cap-and-trade. (1) For instance, John McCain cosponsored cap-and-trade bills in the Senate in 2003, 2005, and 2007 and, during his 2008 presidential campaign, proposed a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and reasonableness. As he said then,

“A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices.”

And he was right. Having to pay the true cost of fossil fuel use is fair and would create incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Cap-and-trade was once considered to be the market solution to reducing carbon emissions. While popular, a number of key Republicans, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went on record as endorsing the policy. Even Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), only two years ago, while supporting a version of a cap-and-trade bill in the Massachusetts legislature said:

”Reducing carbon dioxide emission in Massachusetts has long been a priority of mine. Passing this legislation is an important step … towards improving our environment.”

But somewhere amid lobbying, big donations from power companies, and criticisms from so called conservatives who don’t really want to conserve much, the Republicans are now calling it cap-and-tax, essentially making fun of what was once their own idea.

The Sticker Shock Distortion Flop: In an effort to kill the bill, Republicans such as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) are now claiming cap-and-trade would cost each U.S. households about $3,100 a year, a cost that has considerable sticker shock. However, that number was fabricated by doing some misleading  additional math on a MIT study. Dr. John Reilly, the economist who authored the study, has criticized Republicans for distorting his work. In his words,

“It’s just wrong, It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.” Not only is it wrong, but he said he told the House Republicans it was wrong when they asked him. “That’s just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal”, Reilly said. “The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices.” Moreover, he said, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form. (2)

What Is the Uninflated Cost? The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the entity responsible for providing Congress with nonpartisan analyses of economic and budget issues, estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or an average of about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change. Households in the lowest income bracket would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020 while those in the highest bracket would see a net cost of $245. Overall, net costs would average 0.2 percent of households’ after-tax income. (3) That doesn’t seem so bad, particularly as the CBO experts also estimate the climate and energy bill now stalled in the Senate would reduce the federal deficit by about $19 billion over the next decade. (4)

The High Cost of Doing Nothing: The cost of doing nothing may be unacceptably high in the long run because of resource scarcity, environmental damage, and the risk of reachng catastrophic tipping points. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences details the high economic costs of reduced streamflow, rainfall, and crop yields (5). Estimates by the World’s top economists such as Britain’s Nicholas Stern (6) or the US’s Paul Krugman (7) are that right now it would cost about 2% of the worlds GDP to mitigate environmental damage – but if delayed, that amount could rise to 20% or more of the world’s GDP and put us at risk of an environmental catastrophe.

A Flip is Needed: What is it worth to have clean air, clean water, a more sustainable economy, and a less risky future? Can we risk doing nothing? We need a flip by our Republican leaders.

(1) http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-29-remember-when-republicans-liked-cap-and-trade/

(2) http://flavcountry.blogspot.com/2009/05/mit-economist-john-reilly-calls.html

(3) http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300

(4) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38130006/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

(5) http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15536630

(6)   http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/226271-1170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

(7)  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html

Complaints about  “scientific secrecy” are disingenuous: There is very little secrecy in science. Scientific papers are presented and openly debated at meetings where anyone can attend. The peer reviewed papers include the data, the results, and the reasoning and are available at public libraries and many are now online. Also:

Researchers are required to keep records of their research so that any other scientist with comparable training and skills could reproduce the research. The “reproducibility” of the research is an important factor in the reviewer’s evaluation of the research. The public has a right to information produced by publicly funded research and that may be requested through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Usually a “Gatekeeper”, such as the project’s director, is designated to handle FOIA requests. That Gatekeeper has a responsibility to see not only that the public’s rights are upheld, but also to see that the FOIA process is not abused and that the scientists are protected. (1)

Only a few things are kept confidential to preserve the integrity of the peer review process.  The main barriers preventing a better understanding of science by the public is not “secrecy”, but poor science education, the lack of responsible and informative reporting by the media, and an ongoing campaign to spread misinformation by those who find the conclusions of science inconvenient to their ideological or financial interests.