J.C. Moore Online

Current Events from a Science Perspective

Congressman Frank Lucas (R – OK) held a town hall meeting at Kingfisher, OK on November 7, 2013. About 15 citizens were in attendance. He reported that the war in Iraq is essentially over and that the war in Afghanistan is winding down. He said that nothing much has been accomplished by the Legislature. It is also unlikely that an agreement will be reached on an immigration bill this year. He tended to blame the Senate because a budget has not been passed as the House has sent it the budget four times and the Senate refuses to pass it. However, he did not mention that the Senate and the House must agree on a budget and that the House keeps putting back in the items that the Senate stripped from the budget each time it sent it back.

Comment: The Congressman is certainly right about nothing being accomplished as, in spite of the many problems that need to be addressed, this has been the least productive Congress in history. It has become so divided and partisan that it is becoming very difficult to carry out the business of government. As the end of the session nears, there is a great danger that many must-have bills will be passed without proper consideration.

The Congressman explained that the Senate had rejected the one-year delay in implementing the mandate in the Affordable Care Act and that enrollment was moving forward even though there were a number of problems with the healthcare.gov website. He said that according to a law (proposed by Sen. Grassley (R -IA ) passed by Congress, they must buy their healthcare insurance from the healthcare exchange. It is important to note that one of the criticisms of the Affordable Care Act is that if it is so good, why does Congress not buy their insurance through the exchanges? This clarifies that they actually must do so. Congressman Lucas has not signed up yet and it is unlikely that he will get a subsidy considering his salary. He did point out that White House and Congressional staff members are employees, and are covered by their regular insurance. He did not mention that he had voted, up till now, 42 times to repeal the affordable care act. 

The Congressman talked at length and emotionally about the Farm Bill since, as Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, it is his responsibility. There are number of disagreements and uncertainties between the Senate and the House about the bill, such as whether there should be price supports or subsidies for crop insurance, about reduced CRP payments which reimburses farmers for leaving marginal land unplanted, about the ethanol subsidy  which most everyone agrees should be reduced, and about means testing for farm subsidies. (Currently, a number of millionaires and even billionaires are receiving farm subsidies.) The main sticking point seems to be about whether $40 billion should be cut out of the SNAP program over the next ten years as the House wants, or whether it should be only the $10 billion in the Senate version. If the Farm Bill is not passed, nutrition benefits will continue, but there will be no help for the poor with energy bills, and farm policies may revert to laws passed several decades earlier. He said it was imperative that the farm bill be passed, as we must have food.

During the question period, one gentleman asked why there was such a division of the Republican Party which he said was letting the Democrats get whatever they wanted. Congressman Lucas commented that there were some in the party who were not satisfied with incremental changes, but who wanted to hit a home run in every piece of legislation or nothing.

Another person gave a long speech about how the Republicans were allowing the Democrats to win the battle of words. He wanted the Republicans to get on television and radio and explain how wrong the Democrats were. The Congressman did not seem interested in becoming a radio or TV personality.

When asked about the presidential election, he said that Romney was just not the right candidate. He had no preference for President in 2016, but when asked about Jon Huntsman, he said he did not think he was yet ready for the presidency.

When asked about whether cutting the SNAP program would hurt farmers, he said that he did not think so, but did not give a clear reason. It is hard to see why it wouldn’t, as the cuts would reduce the demand for food items.

When his turn came, the author explained that research has shown that the drought that the third district and Texas the last three years was caused by global warming, and though the recent rains had help the situation, it was likely that the droughts would be worse in the future, unless action was taken to reduce our carbon emissions. One way to address that problem and also to reduce the national debt would be a carbon tax with a portion of the tax used to pay down the national debt and the rest to be divided among the citizens as an energy dividend. He asked the Congressman what he thought about that proposal. However, a group of young people had entered the back of the room for a photo op, and the Congressman bypassed the question in order to welcome them.

Comment: Climate scientists have pointed out that there is increasing evidence that climate change is causing increasing incidences of extreme weather, such as droughts and storms, which may put our farms production and food supply at risk.  Congress turned down a motion that the Agriculture Department examine the risk to our food supply and Congressman Lucas voted with the nays.

It is also probably appropriate to mention the things that the Congressman did not say. His approach to the budget seems to be only to cut spending. Congressman Lucas had earlier voted for extending the tax cuts for wealthy citizens, costing the United States $800 billion in revenue. He also voted for the sequester which is delaying the recovery of our economy. And he voted for the government shut down, which is estimated to have cost about $24 billion and accomplished nothing, though that amount could have been used to make up the difference in the SNAP program. He often mentioned cutting spending, but he did not mention the possibility of raising taxes to pay off the national debt. That is likely because he and 219 of 234 Republicans in the House have signed Grover Norquist’s Anti-Tax Pledge, which essentially cuts off the possibility of raising revenue to pay our national debt and is an abdication of Congressional responsibility.

Congressman Lucas said that he conducts around 30 town hall meetings each year, and considering that he has been in Congress for 20 years, that is certainly a large number of meetings. The third district covers the Western two thirds of the state, and it is predominant Republican and very conservative. Congressman Lucas seems to reflect the values of his constituency, but he may also have been responsible for forming some of their values as he has encouraged partisanship during his town hall meetings by placing blame unfairly on and criticizing the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, and the President. My wife, who is a Democrat, does not feel the Congressman represents her at all and she has been quite upset by some of the things he has said about the Democrats. Perhaps now that he has witnessed the damage done to things that should be nonpartisan, such as the farm bill, he will reconsider his stance and become a Republican leader and a statesman.

Some of his answers were of concern to the author, as you can discern from his comments, and further information will be provided about Congressman Lucas’s views as the 2014 elections near.

Note: The author has written about several of Congressman Lucas’ town hall meetings, which can be found by entering his name in the search function at the top left of the homepage.

(c) 2013 J.C Moore

Research and editing credit: Barbara Moore

A large body of scientific evidence, going back to the middle of the 19th century, links the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide,  the temperature of the Earth, and the Earth’s climate. Those who study the Earth and its ecosystems have found ample evidence that the climate is changing. The USDA recently acknowledge that fact by shifting the plant hardiness zones for gardeners northward, acknowledging that frosts occur later in the fall and the last freeze in spring occurs earlier. However many people still doubt climate change and point to weather events as evidence.

Theory: Climate scientists would like to clearly establish the link between climate change and extreme weather events, but that is difficult because of the natural variability of the weather.  The link between global warming, heat waves and droughts would seem unquestionable, but it is difficult to prove. Global warming has increased the energy and moisture in the atmosphere, making conditions for severe storms and floods more likely.  In the last century, the Earth’s average temperature has increased by about 0.8°C, increasing the amount of water the air can hold by about 7%.  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.  (1) However, it has been very difficult to prove, and certainly even more difficult to convince skeptics that that might be the case.

Climate Models: Another approach to linking extreme weather events to global warming has been through the use of climate models. The models take into account the factors that influence climate and weather, and are often used by meteorologists for “future casting” the weather for 10 day forecasts, which is about as long as normal weather patterns last. However, the models may also be used to examine the effect of global warming on the weather events. The models are used to compare the prediction for a weather event assuming that there is no global warming with a prediction of the weather event that includes global warming. In many cases, it can be shown that the weather and rainfall will be more extreme under the global warming conditions. The results are often challenged by climate Skeptics, who claim that the models do not accurately represent the data, or that the models are “falling apart”. The models were developed to fit a century’s worth of the weather and climate data, and there is little evidence to support the Skeptics claims. However climate scientists would like to show a definite link between global warming and weather events to silence those criticisms.

Statistical Evidence: A recent NOAA report, edited by Petersen, et al. (2) , examined 6 extreme weather events that occurred in 2011 and found that there was a link between climate change and the extreme weather event. One of the most interesting reports (3) ,  found that the 2011 heat wave and drought in Texas were 20 times more likely to happen than they would have been in the 1950’s. How did they arrive at that conclusion? A recent paper by Hansen et al.  (4), shows that extreme temperatures are much more likely to occur worldwide than in the 1950’s, and over 10 times as likely to occur as in 1980. As Hansen puts it, the extreme temperatures “which covered much less than 1% of Earth in 1950, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small.”

Those two papers are important as they have been able to establish a quantitative link between the probabilities of weather events and global warming. More importantly, the link does not depend on theory or on climate models, and relies only on a straight forward statistical analysis of the data. The method depends on computing the normal distribution of the Earth’s temperature anomalies for each decade and then comparing how the distribution of extreme weather events change with time.

Normal distributions:  Before examining how the method works for weather events, it might be useful to examine how it works with something more familiar, like the height of American men. How could we show whether the number of extremely tall men was increasing as time went by?  This could be done by taking a representative sample of men and examining a graph of the normal distribution. We could find the average, μ , and then repeat the process every 10 years to see how the average changed with time. An increase in the average height might indicate that there would be more extremely tall men, but that is not the full story.

Another piece of information that needs to be considered is the variance, or how widely the height of men vary about the mean. The variance is usually measured by the standard deviation , σ, which can be easily calculated from the measurements done to compute the mean. A  graph of the normal distribution  is shown at the right.  “Normal” means that the data has been divided by the total number of men in sample, so that the area under the entire curve represents 100%. That feature is very useful for comparing heights, and it also allows us to associate an area under the curve with  probabilities.

The average height, μ on the graph, is 5’10”, and the standard deviation, σ, is 3 inches. About 95% of the sample falls within 2 standard deviations of the mean, which also says that the probability is 95% that a man selected at random would fall between 5’4″ and 6’4″. Those over 2σ  from the mean, or 6’4″, make up about 2% of the sample and are considered very tall. Finally, those over 3σ  from the mean , over 6’7″, are considered extremely tall and make up only 0.15 %. Michael Jordan and a host of other National Basketball Association players fall into that 3σ category.

How would it be possible to tell whether the incidence of extremely tall men is increasing? One way would be to take height data collected every 10 years, plot the normal distribution, and see how the area of the graphs out past 3σ change. We could not only tell whether there were more extremely tall men, but we could calculate how the probability of finding an extremely tall man changed, just by comparing areas on the graph.

Weather events. Enough data and computing power is now available to calculate normal distributions of temperature data every 10 years for many decades. Having the normal distribution of the temperature data by decade can be used to find whether the probability of extreme temperatures is increasing or decreasing. The Earth’s temperature was fairly stable from about 1950 to 1980, making it a convenient standard for comparing changes. Rather than using temperatures, the graph uses temperature anomalies, which measure how far a temperature reading was above or below average. 

The procedure is similar to the one described for examining the height of men. Hansen, et al. used the Earth’s temperature data to graph normal distributions of the Earth’s temperature anomalies by decade, from 1950 to the present. They found that the distribution of temperature anomalies approximate a normal distribution. 

The results of their work for the summer months show that beginning in about 1970, the mean begins to move to the right toward higher temperatures. It can also be seen that the variance of the data increased and shifted to the right, showing that the probability of extreme temperatures increase greatly from 1950 to 2011.  It can be seen that the number of extreme temperatures, those out past 3 ( meaning 3σ), almost nonexistent in the 1950s, have grown significantly larger in each decade after 1980. A similar graph, using  σ for the last 30 year period (not shown), found the probability of temperatures past 3 sigma is 10 times as great as for the 198o2 to 2010 years.

It should also be noted that the left side of the graph flattens, but that the probability of extremely cool temperatures is not zero. Though  hot temperatures became more probable, that there was still a significant likelihood of cooler temperatures.

Climate Skeptics often argue that an extremely cold weather event disproves global warming. The normal distributions by decade for the winter months is given at the right.  The graph shows the average winter temperatures have increased significantly during the last 30 years and the variance in the temperature has become greater as time progressed. However, the left side of the graph shows there is still a significant probability of extremely cold weather even though global warming is occurring. This means that the skeptics argument is baseless. It is also sometimes argued that extreme snowfalls disprove global warming, but that is also a baseless argument. Extremely cold air can hold little moisture, and it is warmer air, slightly below freezing, that produces the greatest amount of snow. The Inuit know that a warm spell brings a much greater chance of snow.

So there we have it. Climate physics predicts that global warming should cause higher incidences of extreme weather. Climate models find that global warming makes increased rainfall and storms more probable. A straightforward statistical analysis of temperature data not only shows that extreme temperatures are more likely, but has allow climate scientists to calculate how global warming affects the probability of extreme temperatures. A definite link between global warming and extreme weather has been established by the research.

 (1) http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/03/22/the-case-of-global-warming-and-extreme-weather/ 

(2) http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2011-peterson-et-al.pdf 

(3) http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/10/12665235-2011-texas-drought-was-20-times-more-likely-due-to-warming-study-says?

4) http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.full.pdf+html

(C) 2012 J.C. Moore

Congressman Frank Lucas (R – OK) held a town hall meeting at the Bristow Library on April 18, 2011. As in his town hall meeting in Hominy , he reported that: the war in Iraq is winding down, but that Afghanistan still continues to be a quagmire without a definite ending in sight.  There is concern about our role in Libya, and in spite of the criticism, the President does have power to take limited military action without a formal declaration of war. He reported that the Legislature has become even more divided and partisan over the last year, and it is becoming very difficult to carry out the business of government.

When asked whether Social Security would go broke, Congressman Lucas explained that, over the years, the surplus collected has been put in U.S. Treasury bonds. Though the government has borrowed against the surplus, it must be repaid and will be available to make future payments.  After the trust fund is exhausted, Social Security will pay benefits as money is collected, and benefits may be reduced by 20 to 30% unless the Social Security system is changed to extend the trust fund.

Comment: A little research after the meeting showed that the trust fund is expected to be solvent until about 2034 but that a few tweaks, such as reducing benefits, raising the retirement age, or raising the cap on FICA contributions, will make this trust fund solvent to about 2080. Americans overwhelmingly support raising the cap on FICA contributions over the other options.

One gentleman was upset about the cost of his health insurance and of Medicare. He noted that the creation of the Medicare Advantage Plans had added about 14% to the cost of the program. He described a recent surgery in some detail, the point being that Medicare was charged $3000 for one small piece of tubing because Congress had voted that Medicare could not negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies. His point was that Congressman Lucas had voted for both the Advantage plan and for the ban on negotiating prices.

One constituent complemented Congressman Lucas on the Tulsa World article where he defended raising the debt limit so that the U.S. would not have its credit rating lowered, which would be disastrous for the country. However, he also pointed out that Congressman Lucas had voted for extending the tax cuts for wealthy citizens, costing $800 billion, and also for the $610 billion in spending cuts spending cuts, which may cost 500,000 American jobs. The congressman commented that the mood in Congress was to cut taxes and reduce spending. There were several questions about  agriculture, such as whether there would be a carbon tax, whether the EPA would limit dust, and about the animal ID program. Congressman Lucas, who will be the chairman of the Farm Committee next year, said those are all things that the committee would likely examine.

Comment: Climate scientists have pointed out that there is increasing evidence that climate change is causing increasing incidences of extreme weather, such as droughts and storms, which may put our farms production and food supply at risk.  Congress has recently turned down a motion that the Agriculture Department examine the risk to our food supply and Congressman Lucas voted with the nays.

The discussion was lively and it was good that we could ask questions and express our concerns to Congressman Lucas. The third district covers a large area, the Western two thirds of the state, and we certainly appreciate Congressman Lucas taking time to visit with us. Some of his answers were of concern to the author, as you can discern from his comments, and further information will be provided about Congressman Lucas’s views as the 2012 elections near.

Senator Jim Inhofe is wirting a book that he claims will disprove global warming. It will be interesting to see what research he cites and what might comprise such a proof. Last winter, after a blizzard, Sen. Jim Inhofe built an igloo for his grandchildren and claimed  that the record snowfall disproved global warming.  It will take more proof than that. Oklahoma is now experiencing a record drought and heat wave. Recently, Bruce Plante, a Tulsa World political cartoonist,  drew a cartoon of a hot, perspiring person asking at the library if Jim inhofe’s  book, disproving global warming, was out yet.  Dean Jones, a supporter of Inhofe, sent a letter to the Tulsa World entitled “Global Cooling” (TW, 7/20/2011), which takes issue with the cartoon and “global warming advocates”.  However, there are no advocates for global warming – but there are those who advocate  that we listen to climate scientists who say that global warming is causing the weather events that occur to be more extreme.(1)  Have you noticed any extreme weather lately?

 There is little evidence for Mr. Jones’ claim of “global cooling”.  NASA’s records of the Earth’s mean temperature show a clear  trend upward with the whole Earth now being about 1.2°F warmer than a century ago. (2) A warmer Earth means water evaporates faster and that the air can hold more moisture.  Areas that are normally dry, dry out faster. And, when conditions are right for precipitation, the combination of more energy and moisture in the air increases the chance of severe storms and flooding.

 If you don’t believe that the weather has become more extreme, just watch your insurance bill.  Insurance giants  Swiss Re and Munich Re, who insure other insurance companies, have assessed the risks and found that global warming has increased the risk of insurance losses.  If your insurance rates go up – blame those who have prevented effective action to mitigate global warming.

(1) http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/03/22/the-case-of-global-warming-and-extreme-weather/

(2) See the graph at http://jcmooreonline.com/2010/12/13/science-climate-change-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

(c) 2011  J.C. Moore