J.C. Moore Online

Current events from a science perspective.

“We know who the culprit is, we just can’t prove it – yet.”  Detective Dick Tracy

The Case. That statement could have been uttered by climate scientists. They know global warming is the cause of the more extreme weather events we are experiencing, but it is hard to prove it.  Global warming has increased the energy and moisture in the atmosphere, and that combination makes conditions ripe for severe storms and floods. Certainly, hurricanes occur and intensify over low-pressure areas fed by moisture and warmer oceans. To be accurate, however, climate scientists could only say, “When weather events occur, global warming is likely to make them more extreme.”  However, the case against global warming is growing stronger. A number of recent research papers have shown global warming is the cause of extreme weather events, and the business community, particularly insurers, are beginning to take notice. (1)

The Link. The vapor pressure of water is one of the most important factors in determining weather. Water will evaporate from the surface until the air above it reaches its saturated vapor pressure. The saturated vapor pressure depends only on the temperature, which makes temperature the determining factor controlling the amount of moisture that the air can hold. (2) If a mass of air saturated with moisture moves to higher altitudes or encounters a cold front and is cooled, the air becomes supersaturated, which leads to precipitation. Over the last century, the Earth’s average temperature has increased by about 0.8°C, which translates into an increase in the saturated vapor pressure of water of about 7%. When precipitation occurs, on the average, 7% more moisture is available. It is a reasonable conclusion that when it rains, it will rain more and when it snows, it will snow more. So strangely enough, global warming could actually lead to greater snowfall. However, it has been very difficult to prove, and certainly even more difficult to convince skeptics that that might be the case.

Floods. Two recent research papers have established a link between global warming, increased rainfall, and flooding. A recent paper in Nature (3) reported that the observed increase in rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere in the past 50 years and climate change are linked. The researchers analyzed the rainfall data in areas prone to flood and found that the rainfall has increased due to the warmer temperatures of the Earth. Their results “were based on a comparison of observed and multi-model simulated changes in extreme precipitation over the latter half of the twentieth century analyzed with an optimal fingerprinting technique.” They also found that the models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming temperatures. Extreme precipitation in the future may be even more severe than now predicted.

The second paper, also published in Nature (4), has linked the increasing floods in England and Wales and global warming. The researchers generated several thousand climate model simulations of the autumn 2000 weather by using actual conditions and also by assuming conditions as they would have been had no greenhouse gas emissions or global warming occurred. They concluded that “the precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.

Rivers in the Sky. Normally, when an air mass saturated with water moves ashore and is forced upward, it  cools and precipitation falls until the clouds are no longer over-saturated. However, that is not the case for “rivers in the sky, weather patterns that carry a stream of air saturated with water into coastal regions  continually for days. These  “rivers in the sky”,  cause flooding rains in coastal and inland mountains causing untold costs in property damage and human lives. One such river produced more than 40 inches of rainfall in the mountains of southern California in only four days in early January 2005. It caused widespread flooding and massive mudslides such as the one in La Conchita, California, which took 10 lives. The researchers say these “rivers in the sky” will become more common as global temperatures rise since warmer air means that the atmosphere can hold more water vapor. That is, unless global warming changes the weather patterns that produce them. (5)

Droughts. The link between global warming and droughts has not been yet established by research. Areas that receive little moisture from the oceans would not benefit from the fact that the air can hold more water. Though higher temperatures mean that more water evaporates into the air, it also means that the air can hold more moisture before becoming saturated. Areas that normally experience droughts are much more likely to have less rainfall in the future. This past year has seen droughts in Russia, China, and South America that have limited the production of grain and increased the chances that some species may become extinct. The heat waves in Europe in 2003 and 2010, that caused widespread crop failure and wildfires, may have been the worst in 500 years. Certainly, more frequent and extensive droughts may occur in a warming world. (6)

The Smart Money. The widespread damage caused by weather events related to global warming has caught the attention of the business community, particularly those who pay out insurance claims or invest large sums of money. Insurance companies ranked 2010 among worst years ever for climate disasters. Climate change is the culprit in many of the catastrophic natural disasters in 2010, according to insurance company Munich Re, one of the largest global insurance carriers. It added that trends are pointing to more frequent and riskier events in the future. (7) Recently, a group of International investors, responsible for more than $15 trillion in assets, issued a global warming warning. (8) They called for the world’s nations, particularly the United States, to move decisively to combat climate change or face the possibility of economic disruptions even worse than the global recession of the last two years. They also pointed out that “The economic opportunities are enormous for nations with the foresight to seize them while the risks of inaction are potentially catastrophic.”

(1) http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/studies-prove-link-between-human-activity-and-extreme-weather-events/4835/

(2)  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/relhum.html#c3

(3) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

(4) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html

(5)  http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2529.htm

(6) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110318091141.htm

(7) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=insurance-ranks-2010-worst-for-climate-disasters&page=2

(8)  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-climate-financiers-20101117,0,6204171.story

(C) 2011 J.C. Moore

V   Share This.

The EPA has been charged with reducing the pollutants released into the environment, but they are meeting opposition from power companies, politicians, and people who want cheap energy, though other people  and the environment may suffer the consequences.

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking a 95 percent reduction in emissions at three of Oklahoma’s coal-fired power plants. This has brought howls from the utility companies and from Oklahoma’s politicians. Utility companies claim that installing scrubbers or converting to natural gas will cost them billions of dollars and drive the rates for electricity up by 10 to 12%. The utility companies have defined the costs for the plant conversions or upgrades in the worst possible terms, without considering the long-term savings.  Conversion to natural gas would eliminate the problem of  coal combustion products such as acidic gases, mercury vapor, fly ash, and bottom ash. Although coal is cheaper than other fuels, it delivers less energy per unit of CO2 produced. Coal  produces 314 kJ/mole while natural gas produces 890 kJ/mole, almost 3 times that of coal. Considering Oklahoma’s abundant supplies of natural gas, it would make sense for Oklahoma to begin switching power plants to natural gas.

The power companies and the politicians have tried to define the problem as the cost of the  “elimination of haze”, as if there were no other environmental damage done by burning coal. That is because the elimination of haze under the Clean Air Act is all the EPA is presently empowered to do. Coal is 65 to 95 % carbon. What about the rest? Coal contains small amounts of mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur, particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Man burns 6 billion tons of coal each year, releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaving several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. Oklahoma has adopted limits on fish consumption because of high levels of mercury. For comparison, mercury is 100 times as toxic as cyanide, arsenic is 20 times as toxic, and chromium(VI) is 4 times as toxic. These three are also are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The small town of Bokoshe, Oklahoma is located near an unregulated fly ash disposal site. The incidence of cancer among the residents of the town is extraordinarily high, though the power company claims there is no link between that and their fly ash.

The sulfur and nitrogen oxides released by coal combustion harm plants and produce acid rain. A recent article headlined “Pecan growers say coal-fired plant killing trees” described the plight of orchards downwind from a power plant with inadequate pollution controls. One farmer said his pecan crop dropped over the years from 200,000 to 8,000 pounds. The combustion of coal  also releases 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Because  CO2 in 3water is an acidic, the oceans have become over 20% more acidic in the last century. That has led to the destruction of coral reefs and endangered crustaceans and the phytoplankton that convert CO2 to oxygen. Without phytoplankton, life in the oceans would be impossible. The concentration of CO2 in the air has increased 38% as well.  As a potent greenhouse gas, it is causing the Earth to warm, glaciers and polar ice to melt, and the climate to change in ways we will not always like. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ordered the EPA to make a determination as to whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The EPA has found, based on the best scientific evidence, that CO2 is an endangerment to public health and has moved forward to regulate it.

Oklahoma’s politicians, such as Sen. Jim Inhofe and  Congressman Dan Boren, are working on a solution- for the power companies benefit. They want to strip the  EPA of  its power to regulate pollution.  They also claim it is a states rights issue, and that the EPA has no business regulating Oklahoma industries. However, the pollution generated by Oklahoma’s power plants does not stay within its borders, nor is all the pollution in Oklahoma from Oklahoma sources. Much of it blows up from Texas, the state with the highest number of power plants out of compliance. Acidic gases released by coal combustion, and even mercury vapor, can travel for thousands of miles before being brought to Earth by precipitation, and much of the CO2 will stay in the air for centuries. Regulation of carbon emissions needs to be done on a national and even international level. It is a bad idea to focus on short term economic costs while ignoring the environmental costs, such as polluting the Earth and letting rural Oklahoma become a dumping ground for the power companies’ waste.

(C) 2011 J.C. Moore

V   Share this.

This year the contest was carried out on three websites and the results were combined.  Your votes have been tabulated to determine  the person who has most affected the environment through word or deed.

The 2010 Environmental Hall of Fame winner is RealClimate.org. As Physicist Retired said in his nomination, “This consortium of climate scientists has developed a comprehensive collection of data and analysis open to the public, with materials and discussions at basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of understanding. It is one of the most effective tools we currently have to combat – with real facts – the ongoing claims made by deniers.” The site will receive the Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science, a heartfelt thank you, and a recommendation from the sites where this will be posted. Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Kerry  were tied for second place, and should receive, as Dowser put it, “Thanks, for standing firm. May God bless you!”

The Environmental Hall of Shame recipients are the Koch Brothers. They could use the publicity as they have been secretly funding candidates who oppose environmental regulations through their Americans for Prosperity Organization. They also clandestinely fund a number of think tanks that produce white papers, written by scientists with compromised ethics, that dispute the scientific research on climate change. They will receive the “Ignoble Prize in Environmental Science” and in the spirit of Oz, we will petition the Wizard to give them a social conscience.

Second place goes to Jane Lubchenco. As one blogger put it, ” I nominate her as a key player in the cover up of the death and destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, and in the vilification of those Marine Scientists who have concluded that there is a huge amount of oil left in the Gulf.”  Her nominators were certainly the most creative in proposing prizes, and their names have been omitted, just in case. The proposed awards included: “The golden Tar Ball award . Yes , a big trophy cup over flowing with tar balls.”  ”A picture of ten moon’s hanging over the side of an oil stained shrimp boat , with a For Sale sign on the shrimp boat.” “The old oil from every thing you will change the oil in this coming year. Cars, boats, motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles whatever sits in your garage or drive way. Think of it as a new form of recycling. Mail it to her.” Finally, someone wished to combine Jane’s award with Tony Hayward’s: “An all expense paid yacht trip for the two across the Gulf at the height of the spill, with an eternal flame lighting the bow.”

Hall of Fame Nominations and Percentage of Votes :

RealClimate.org – For providing facts to counter the propaganda by climate change deniers. (45%)

Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger – For helping defeat Proposition 23, an effort to gut California’s environmental laws and heavily funded by Texas oilmen. (27%)

Senator John Kerry – For his efforts to usher a Cap-and -Trade bill through the .S. Senate. (27%)

China – For making real efforts to develop alternate energy sources. (0%)

Hall of Shame Nominations and Percentage of Votes :

The Koch Brothers, owners of Koch Oil – For slowing progress on a sound energy policy by funding climate change deniers. (46%)

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Head of NOAA – For her role in the Gulf oil spill, being too friendly toward the oil companies she was to regulate, and damage to the fishing industry. (38%)

Tony Hayward, ex-chairman of BP – For decisions leading up to the oil spill and for saying, “I want my life back.” (8%)

China – For surpassing the U.S as the number one country in pollution emissions. (8%)

Remember, check www.realclimate.org for the facts on climate science. And, keep in mind those who you wish to nominate for the 2011 Awards,  which  will be held next December.

If the ice on Antarctica melts, the oceans will rise several meters, inundating low islands and coastal regions.  There is a controversy about the rate at which Antarctica is warming.

The headline read “O’Donnell et al 2010 Refutes Steig et al 2009″. Wow! Steig’s work had been featured on the cover of Nature (1) when he found that over the last fifty years, the Antarctic had been getting warmer by 0.1 C per decade. I wanted to see how it was possible that Steig was wrong, but O’Donnell’s paper was nowhere to be found. My search led me to the Steve McIntyre’s ClimateAudit website. Yes, McIntyre claimed, a peer reviewed paper in J. Climate had refuted O’Donnell.  After wading through some verbiage about the failure of the scientific peer review process and the evils of “Climategate”, the truth emerged. McIntyre was one of the coauthors of the paper and had access to it, though it had not yet been published.

It is considered bad form among scientist to claim that your paper refutes another scientist’s. That is best left for other scientists to decide. It is even worse to do so before your paper is published. There is a prohibition in scientific ethics about making premature and exaggerated claims to the public. Apparently, McIntyre missed that, as he did the same thing in “Climategate” . He claimed the climate scientists were guilty of hiding data, not sharing their raw data, of colluding to keep skeptics from publishing, and of using the peer review process to keep skeptics from publishing. This is, for lack of a better name, the ” Twisted Science Theory”. Five investigations into “Climategate”  found no scientific misconduct. Apparently, McIntyre believes in getting his version of the facts “out there” before the truth can be discovered.

The Feud: But, did O’Donnell’s paper prove the Antarctic was not warming? No, not at all. The refutation claim is part of a running feud McIntyre has with Michael Mann, a coauthor of Steig’s paper. The dispute started much earlier when, after repeated complaints of scientific secrecy, Mann had released the raw data from one of his papers to Steve McIntyre. McIntyre recalculated the results and claimed to have refuted Mann’s work. McIntyre had a bit of trouble getting his work published in a peer-reviewed journal, but after much complaining, the Geophysical Research Letters finally published it. Shortly after its publication, Peter Huybers found McIntyre’s paper to have errors that, when corrected, led to results similar to Mann’s. That should have ended it, but the dispute became a political football when Congress intervened. Congress rejected the National Academy of Science’s offer to investigate the matter and instead chose Edward Wegman, a statistician from George Mason University. Wegman relied heavily on McIntyre’s work and opinions, he refused to answer scientists’ questions about his methods, and he produced a flawed report. Wegman is now himself under investigation by George Mason University for alleged plagiarism and improper research methods.

The Refutation: McIntyre should certainly get some credit for proving Sir Walter Scott’s “Tangled Web Theory”. However, by being a coauthor of a paper in a respected, peer reviewed journal, McIntyre has clearly refuted his own “Twisted Science Theory”. McIntyre’s involvement in O’Donnell’s work and his premature claims of “refutation” made me wonder if McIntyre might have introduced bias into O’Donnell’s methods. I contacted O’Donnell and asked about his funding, McIntyre’s role, and whether he considered his paper a refutation of Steig’s work.

The Scientific Controversy: O’Donnell was very honest and professional in answering my questions. He explained that the idea for the paper arose from a series of posts on McIntyre’s blog and the replies on RealClimate. He explained: “The paper would not likely have happened had I not been presented a challenge by both Dr. Steig and Dr. Gavin Schmidt at the RealClimate blog.” “None of the four of us have advanced degrees and none of our degrees are in the geosciences ”. “Steve McIntyre’s function with respect to the paper was to ensure that, to the best of our ability, we made the best possible use of the available data”. The work did not have external funding and the authors contributed the work, the expenses, and even the page charges from their own pockets.

O’Donnell’s Reply was very diplomatic. Whether his paper could be considered a refutation or not, he said, depended on what you considered important about Steig’s work. The essence of his reply was:

” 1. If you consider the focus in Steig et al.’s abstract ‘Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported’ – with the conclusion that the warming in West Antarctica cannot be solely explained by an increase in the circumpolar westerlies, then I feel that characterizations of either ‘refutation’ or ‘rebuttal’ are appropriate.

2.  If you consider the overall picture of Antarctica presented by Steig et al. to be the most important – e.g., overall positive trends, though not significant for East Antarctica or the continent, more warming in the Western half than the Eastern – then ‘improvement’ is appropriate.  One must exclude the seasonal analysis, however, as the seasonal differences between our paper and Steig et al. are both significant and physically important in terms of the dynamics driving Antarctic climate.

3.  If you consider the mathematical method used by Steig et al. to be the most important, then either ‘improvement’ or ‘rebuttal’ would be appropriate, though I would lean toward ‘improvement’.  There are two definite mathematical errors in the Steig analysis.  One of the errors has a negligible impact on the results; the impact of the other is significant.  However, the largest differences between the Steig et al. result and ours arise due to using objective criteria for parameter choices rather than heuristics.”

He continued,

“I always viewed the challenge as a friendly one (as, I believe, did Dr. Steig).  Dr. Steig was quite helpful in my email communication with him when we were attempting to exactly replicate his method.  Regardless of the language used by anyone, our paper is only important if it enhances the understanding of what has happened with Antarctic climate and prevents similar mathematical mistakes from being propagated.  In terms of the larger picture, the characterization of ‘refutation’ or ‘improvement’ is less important than the question of whether our paper has made a contribution.”

Steig’s Reply: Now that O’Donnell’s paper has been published (2), Eric Steig has posted an analysis of O’Donnell’s paper on RealClimate (3). He explained the differences in the two paper’s methods, gave credit where he thought O’Donnell had improved on his work, and explained where he thought O’Donnell was in error. His evaluation of the work was summed up in his statement:

” As one would expect of a peer-reviewed paper, those obviously unsupportable claims found in the original blog posts are absent, and in my view O’Donnell et al. is a perfectly acceptable addition to the literature. O’Donnell et al. suggest several improvements to the methodology we used, most of which I agree with in principle. “

Antarctica Is Warming: This reasoned debate stands in sharp contrast to McIntyre’s assertions. The exchange between O’Donnell and Steig is an excellent example of the kind of open academic debate that underlies every significant research conclusion in science. I would not consider O’Donnell’s paper a refutation, but an addition to our understanding. The significant point to me, and they both seem to agree, is that Antarctica, the coldest place on Earth, is warming.

(1) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html

(2) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3656.1

(3) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/west-antarctica-still-warming-2/

V   Share this.        (C) 2011 J.C. Moore

The concentration of CO2 in the air is increasing rapidly due to our use of fossil fuels. Since plants require CO2, it would seem that the CO2 increase would be good for plants. However, that is a great simplification as the increased CO2 levels may not be good for most plants or for mankind.

CO2: In 1900, Arvid Hgbom found that factories were emitting about the same amount of CO2 as all the world’s volcanoes. This worried some people – but they were told not to worry, the plants and oceans would soon take up any excess. However, that has not been the case. We have destroyed many of the forests that take up CO2. Our factories and other activities now are emitting thirty billion tons of CO2 each year, around 200 times as much CO2 as all the world’s volcanoes. The CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, which has made the oceans 20% more acidic in the last century. This has damaged the coral and phytoplankton that take up CO2. Also, since CO2 is less soluble in the more acidic waters, the oceans are losing their ability to take up the excess CO2. Measurements by Charles Keeling of atmospheric CO2 levels have shown that the plants and the oceans are not taking up the CO2 nearly as fast as we are producing it. The concentration of CO2 in the air has increased rapidly over the last century, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 385 ppm, a 38% increase. It would seem that one bright spot might be that the higher CO2 level would be good for plant growth. However, that may not be the case.

Historical Data shows that the concentration of CO2 in the air has varied widely over the Earth’s history, from over 7000 ppm in the Paleozoic era to a low of 180 ppm during ice ages. Ice core studies show that during the last four ice ages, the CO2 concentration was about 180 ppm during the cold periods and rose to about 280 ppm during the warmer interglacial periods. Warmer temperatures occur at the same times as the higher CO2 levels, so it is difficult to sort out the effect on plants caused by CO2 changes from those caused by temperature changes. Ancient plants that grew at higher temperatures and CO2 levels during the Paleozoic Era adapted to the drop in CO2 level and temperatures near the end of that era by developing leaves. Ancient leaved species, such as Ginko and Magnolia, when exposed to higher levels of CO2, change their leaf structures. Other plants have adapted by changing the altitude at which they grow. For the last 6000 years, we have been in an interglacial period. The Earth’s temperature has been relatively stable and the CO2 concentration has been about 280 ppm, except for the last century.

Plant Growth: According to Dr. Surendra Singh, a biologist with a background in botany, modern plants have adapted to the 280 million ppm CO2 concentration that has existed over the last thousands of years. There is no reason to believe that the increasing CO2 concentration would be better for plants as CO2 is seldom the limiting agent in plant growth and seed production. Plants also require water, nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sunlight, and trace elements. Over-fertilizing, over-watering, or putting a shade plant in bright sun will harm the plant. More is not always better, and the increasing the CO2 levels might harm plants that are not adapted to higher CO2 levels.

Greenhouses: Commercial greenhouses have found that adding CO2 helps plants grow better. Some people claim that that proves CO2 stimulates plant growth, but that is not necessarily true. In an enclosed greenhouse, the plants quickly deplete the supply of CO2 if more is not made available. That may also be the case with hydroponic gardeners, who claim better production at higher CO2 levels. Specific crops may do better at the higher levels of CO2 – if all the other nutrients are supplied at an optimum level and plenty of water is available. That is not possible for plants in the outdoors. We do fertilize many crops, but doing so depletes the soil of other nutrients and there is an energy cost in producing and spreading the fertilizers.

Experiments: It is difficult to do outdoor experiments on the effect of CO2 levels on crop growth, but a few have been done. One experiment found that wheat grown at higher CO2 levels has more leaf mass and more kernels; however, the kernels are smaller and have less nitrogen, making them less valuable as a food source. In another experiment, higher CO2 levels in wheat used for grazing correlated with lower nitrogen in the leaves, making the crop less suitable for grazing. Agriculture experts are saying that the result of increasing CO2 levels coupled with increasing temperatures will lower crop yields or quality. That has been found to be true in rice production, and rice is a staple for half the world. In an inadvertent experiment, we have found that some invasive species, such as Kudzu, are well adapted to the increasing temperatures and CO2 levels. They have prospered and are expanding their range northward.

Certainly, plants need CO2, but to say more CO2 will make all plants grow better is a great supposition and oversimplification. The Earth’s atmospheric CO2 level is now 385 ppm, possibly higher than it has been in the last 20 million years, and it is increasing every year. By pouring more CO2 into the air each year, we are conducting a great experiment with unknown results. What will happen if the production from agricultural plants decreases significantly?

(C) 2011  J.C. Moore

V  Share this