The world is melting, The world is melting.... part 4

Welcome to the final installment in my the world is melting the world is melting series.

The other parts went into the details, so I won't retrace that ground.

In Part one of this series, I talked about the claims and predictions that global warming supporters and the main stream media have been saying over the last several decades . I also showed facts that debunk all of that, at least in my opinion (IMO).

Part One

In part two, I talked about what I think is causing the Earth to warm. I used a lot of real data that shows how water vapor and not CO2 is at the heart of what is going on.

part Two

In part three, I showed how  human prosperity across the entire planet has never been better, than it is right now.   I also used the historic record to show how the Earth has had warm ups and cool downs over the millennia.  The data showed that humankind always gains affluence and sees abundance during the warm periods; but sees scarcity, hardship and abject poverty during the cool downs.

Part Three

In part four, I will sum things up:

Part four:

My Mother, has told me how the climate change discussion back in the 60's and 70's was all about global cooling, and concern we were all heading into an ice age.  The culprit back then was  industrial pollutants, vehicular emissions, coal combustion emissions, and other such human caused possesses  causing smog.

Here is a News Week article from 1975 that shows what the media back then was abuzz with.

 

 

But to be fair, many scientist of the time we're talking about a warming globe.

 

During the 1980's the media attention switched to global warming; again the guilty party was humankind and our machines and technology .  The initiative didn't change, only the temperature was going up instead of down.

During the 1990's the phrase coined became climate change. But calling it climate change, the scope of everything went well beyond just a warming planet.

We are told, that human caused global warming/climate change is a scientific fact.  But it really isn't.  Instead it's a theory.  Scientist have many tools available they use to try to describe how things work.  In common usage, the words hypothesis, model, law, theory, and fact have different interpretations and many times aren't use all that accurately. But when it comes to science these words have exact meanings.  

My Father was a huge fan of Star Trek. I remember, watching an episode with him ( I think it was the original Star Trek). Anyway, the captain was being court marshaled. During the show, in response to a lawyers question, Mr. Spock, said something like "If I let go of a hammer, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen."

Fact, when you drop a hammer, it falls to the ground (or your foot).  A fact is an observation that has been confirmed time after time. So many times, that for all intent and purpose it is accepted as true. But science leaves the door always open, because there is a chance that the hammer might not always fall.

Example of a hypothesis, a hammer fell to the ground because an unseen force is pulling it down.

Example of a law, all objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance which separates their centers. This is the law of gravity.  Using another law, Newton's Law Of Gravity, we can calculate the gravitational force between the Earth and the Hammer, which would let us calculate the hammers acceleration as it falls, calculate the force it would exert when it hit the ground, and how much force it would take to pick the hammer back up, etc.

A theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural universe we live in that's well-substantiated by facts, tested hypotheses, and laws.

Example of a theory, the laws of physics are the same everywhere. Because of this the behavior of all objects in space and time are affected , so Mass and energy cause space/time to curve and warp, and the force of gravity arises from the curvature of space/time. This is  Albert Einstein's famous theory of relativity. The idea that space and time were fluid, upended centuries of the scientific idea space and time were fixed and unmovable.

So the general idea this theory is talking about, is that gravity is the result of a curving or warping of space, instead of an invisible force that attracts objects  to one another.  The more massive the object the more it warps the space around it. In the case of our original hypothesis, the hammer isn't being pulled down by an invisible force, it is being affected by the warping and curvature of space/time, due to the difference in mass between the hammer and the Earth.

An example on a larger scale, the sun is massive enough to warp space across our entire solar system...a bit like if our hammer fell to rest on a rubber sheet visibly alters (warps) the shape of the sheet. As a result the Earth and the other planets move in curved paths (orbits) about the sun.  

The concept of gravity is undoubtedly much more complex than what Einstein's purposes, so at some point we will have to move beyond the theory of relativity to a more comprehensive theory that explains the things that the theory of relativity can't explain.

But at this time, Einstein's theory is best description of how gravity works.  

Mr. Einstein actually has two theories of relativity. One is the theory of general relativity, the other is the theory of special relativity. The subject matter of both of these theories goes beyond the scope this post wants to cover. But If y'all want, I can make a separate post sometime that deals with both theories of relativity.

I've sidetracked myself and all of y'all long enough....back to global climate change.

Climate change/global warming is a very hot button topic. There is so much noise surrounding the debate, that it can be difficult to see the forest for the trees.  In this multipart series, I've tried to show the science and major facts behind the current climate debate, as I understand them. I'm a meteorologist not a climatologist; but that doesn't mean I don't have a good grasp of the subject of climate. changeability

The 2019 hurricane season started out very slowly. There wasn't a lot of talk in the media about global warming until hurricane Dorian; since then the global warming alarm has been ringing nonstop.  To me it seems the climate change alarmist, strike when the iron is hot; When a hurricane is having a major impact, we hear about how human caused climate change is the cause for it. When we have a major tornado outbreak, again the cause is human caused climate change.  Major flooding like that caused by Harvey, Florence, and now Imelda is caused by...you got it,  human caused climate change.  They say, hurricane Dorian stalling over the Bahamas was a result of climate change.  We always seem to hear about all the record breaking heat....but never really hear anything about, where there is record cold.

On September 20th, over a million school children, were allowed to miss school, in order to demonstrate and show support on the issue of global warming/climate change.  For me personally I find it more troubling that the schools encouraged the walk out, and that many in government (like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders) and the media supported the idea of the school walkout, than I do about the subject of global warming / climate change.  The so called climate strike was backed by more than 100 environmental and political activist groups and other institutions. IMO it is virtually child abuse, to use seven and eight year old children, as pawns in a complex issue like this. But, that is my option, y'all can have a different option and that is fine. I think one of the biggest obstacles in the climate change debate is the apparent inability to listen to other peoples options.        

Earth's climate is extremely complex. It's effected by solar output,  our orbit, atmospheric gases, volcanoes, as well as a multitude of teleconnections and other atmospheric drivers. 

The planet's climate has constantly been changing over geological time. The global average temperature today is about 15C. in the previous parts I showed how it has been much warmer and much colder in the past. The claim is that our current warming period, is advancing more rapidly than many past events. The climate change supporters are concerned that the natural fluctuation in our climate is being overtaken by a rapid human induced warming element that has serious implications for the stability of our climate oscillation ebb and flow. 

But weather isn't climate. This is the most important thing I want all y'all to take away from all of this.  Humankind hasn't been keeping any kind of real temperature records for very long.   The United States has been keeping records going back to around 1875; while Europe has been keeping temperature records a bit longer going back to around 1850. So our observations and real records only go back a short distance in time. Before the modern historic record, it is mostly guesses as to what was really going on. If those guesses are input into the climate models, if the guesses are wrong, the end result will be something far from reality..... garbage in garbage out.  Over the last several years, the data has been adjusted to better fit the theory of what is going on. Instead of adjusting the models and thinking to what the data is saying. IMO, this makes the water so murky, no one could see the answer if they tried.  As facts change the theory evolves, not the other way around.   

Climate change is an extremely complex subject.  But we can't let emotions and fear tactics to drive the dynamics. We need to let science and reason control the narrative. 

In parts one, two, and three, I said there is no doubt that the globe is warming. I just disagree with those who support the idea that the sole reason is it's  human caused.  But that doesn't mean, I don't support efforts to reduce the influence humankind has over the Earth's Climate.

The idea that we know all the reasons the Earth is warming, is beyond arrogance into the absurd. We need time for real science to figure out what's going on , and what we can do to slow it down. But If I'm right that the vast majority of the current warming is due to natural reasons...there isn't much we can do about it.

That's about it, hope you enjoyed it....and can see my side of this climate change debate. 


   

The world is melting, the world is melting.....part two.

In part one, I talked about the predictions and proclamations that have been made by global warming supporters. I also showed some recent temperature anomaly data.

Link to part one.

The world is melting part one

 

In part two, I will discuss what I think is causing the global warming. This is much longer than Part 1. But, it covers a lot of scientific ground and is a bit more complex than my typical post.

 The Historic Record:

The Earth has been warmer during certain periods in the past. And there have been times of extreme cold. I'm sure most of y'all know of the great ice ages.  An ice age is an extremely long period (typically millions to tens of millions of years), where surface temperatures are very cold, and large areas of the Earth are covered in continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The global record shows there have been at least five great ice ages. The earliest know one was two billion years ago. The latest ice age began about 3 million years ago, looks to have peaked about 20,000 years ago. You might find it interesting  that the globe is still technically still in the current ice age footprint. All ice ages have periodic shorter time spans of warmth called interglacial warming cycles. The current ice age has had several warming cycles. The three most recent are The Roman Warming Period, The Medieval Warming period, and the current warming period.  Between the current and the medieval warming periods, was a time called the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age started around 1300 AD and lasted until about 1870 AD (Remember George Washington's cold winter at Valley Forge).  That means it officially ended only 150 years ago. An interesting side note:  as the ice caused by the little ice age melted and retreated there was a lot of increased iceberg activity in the Pacific  and Atlantic Oceans, the sinking of the RMS Titanic of April 15, 1912 happened toward the end of this increased iceberg activity period. The Titanic could be the last victim of the Little Ice Age.

         

The Roman Warming went from about 250BC to about 400 AD.  The Medieval Warming went from around 800 AD to around 1300 AD. Both of these periods spiked warmer than our current warming period has done so far. There are those who say...the processes that led to the Roman and Medieval warming periods were different than what has led to our current warming. I haven't seen anything substantial that supports that claim. But both of those warm periods happened well before the industrial age, and humankind adding  Carbon Dioxide (CO₂)  to the atmosphere. So the idea that natural processes can lead to increased atmospheric temperature spikes isn't absurd.

 

 

 

The idea that we're gradually warming shouldn't come as a big surprise; The Little Ice Age ended not that long ago. Looking at the global record, we should expect the current warming trend to continue for several decades. 

 

Carbon Dioxide VS Water Vapor:

We hear a lot of discussion on how Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is the cause for the climate warming up.   But I ask all y'all to find a saturation mixing chart for CO_2's  impact on temperature. I hope you have a lot of time to look, because you won't find one. There is no correlation between CO₂  and temperature.  If you can't show a saturation mixing ratio, how can you say that is causing all the problem with rising temperatures?  

But there is a direct correlation between water vapor and temperature. Here is a chart (Joe Bastardi used this) that I've cleaned it up a little, that shows how water vapor concentration effects temperature.

 

The column on the far left shows how the change in temperature VS water vapor goes to near 0. The top row shows that an increase of around 0.12 gram/kg of water vapor at -40°F degrees corresponds to a 10°F degree increase in temperature. Dropping down a couple of rows shows that  an increase of 0.35 gram/kg of water vapor at -20°F degrees corresponds to only a 4°F degree increase in temperature. Dropping down a few more rows shows that  an increase of 0.94 gram/kg of water vapor at 0 degrees corresponds to only a 2°F degree increase in temperature. This clearly shows that the rise of temperature is not a linear process. If you read part one of this series, you will remember, I said "We see the poles have warm temperature anomalies during the arctic cold season, but cooler temperature anomalies during their warm season" understanding the reason for this , is one of the major keys in the cause for a warming Earth.

What the chart is showing us is, if a small amount of water vapor is added to cold air, the rise in dew point temperature in the air will cause the air temperature to get close to or equal to the dew point temperature. The chart shows it takes substantially less water vapor (moisture) to increase the dew point temperature from -40°F   degrees to -30°F   degrees; than to increase the dew point temperature  from 10°F   degrees to 20°F degrees.

As for the polar regions the coldest and driest air is found there during that poles respective winter season. So the fact that the arctic winter sees the warmest temperature anomalies shouldn't be surprising. Why? Because the heat capacity of air is determined by the amount of water vapor it contains. Since winter in the arctic is very cold and the air is very dry, it has an extremely low heat capacity. So very small inputs of extra energy from the water vapor will increase the air temperature, the colder the air the greater the temperature departure.

What does this have to do with global warming? If the heat capacity of the atmosphere is increased, all else being equal, it will not cool as readily. it will not get as cold. That is because, with the air having a higher heat capacity, removing the same amount of energy will not lead to as large a fall in temperature. Why is most of the heat anomaly in the polar regions? The lower the temperature the more water vapor will mix in to raise the temperature. As the air temperature rises the more the water vapor will tend to limit it. So since the air in the temperate and tropical regions are warmer,  water vapor has less effect on these areas maximum temperatures. This is why those night time temperature anomalies are so high. So since the air can't cool down as readily the globe keeps warming slightly.

The atmospheric ocean system is very complex, water vapor also helps to moderate temperature. Observation shows us that temperature and humidity have an inverse relationship. The higher the temperature the lower the humidity.  During the morning when the day is at it's coolest, the percentage of humidity in the air is higher. But by 3:00 pm, as we approach the warmest part of the day, the percentage of humidity in the air is lower. So water vapor does help keep a cap on how warm the air can get.  Also increased water vapor  leads to an increase in clouds. More clouds equals more redirected Infrared solar radiation. So since there is less solar input temperature is reduced.  But, I have to point out that different cloud types redirect solar radiation in different ways and amounts.   

A look at some of the numbers associated with all of this:

This section involves some mathematics. But I have tried to stay out of the math as much as I can, and try to make it easy to follow. And try to show how I arrived at my conclusions.    

How big a contribution Humankind make to the Greenhouse Effect, depends on if you exclude or include water vapor into the equation. I have found that often, data about global climate, doesn't include water vapor as part of the model input. Instead, the model input relies heavily on CO₂  concentration. In my option, not including water vapor not only skews the data, it makes it unusable.

It is a scientific fact that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Based on concentration, water vapor constitutes 95% of the total greenhouse effect. Almost all (99.999%) of the water vapor comes from natural sources, of which the global oceans teleconnection and other cyclical processes contribute the vast majority. The oceans contain 99.9% of the energy of the ocean-atmospheric system. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases,  CO₂, Methane (CH₄), Nitrous Oxide (N₂ O), and miscellaneous other gases (with the exception of  Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's)),  are mostly of natural origin as well, CFC's are certain types of: refrigerants, solvents, and aerosol sprays. Many CFC's have been banned; the other are tightly controlled.  

Below are some tables that show how the major greenhouse gases stack up against each other. Some of these numbers have been rounded

Table 1

Table 1 was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE) and other sources. The table summarizes the concentrations of various greenhouse gases. Note: the DOE for whatever reason doesn't include water vapor.  The concentrations used are in parts per billion.  

 

Without including water vapor the combined natural and humankind CO₂    production  makes up (368,400 / 370,484) = 99.44% of all greenhouse concentrations. Human added  CO₂  activities cause (11,880 / 370,484) = 3.207% of all greenhouse concentrations. The total human contribution is (12,217 / 370,484) 3.298% for all greenhouse gas concentrations.

Note: the data in the table hasn't been corrected to show the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each of the greenhouse gases shown in Table 1    

 

Table 2

Table 2  takes the same data, but includes the GWP in the results. By including the GWP the data is more useful. But without including water vapor it still shows a skewed view of what is actually going on.

 

I made the conversion by (concentration) (the appropriate GWP multiplier (of each gas relative to CO₂ )) = the greenhouse contribution.   The GWP multiplier can be found on the EPA website. But other sites also carry the table.

When we place GWP into the picture, we find combined natural and humankind CO₂   production , without including water vapor, the combined natural and humankind CO₂  has been reduced to (368,400 / 509.056) = 74.37% of all greenhouse gases. Human activities CO₂ contribution has been reduced (11,880/509,056) = 2.33% of all greenhouse gases. This results in a combined total human greenhouse contribution of (28,162/509,056) = 5.53%

The table shows that, while the other greenhouse gases only make up 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentration; they contribute about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect. That shows that as a group, they are much more potent and have a much greater impact on global warming relative to CO₂.  

 

Table 3

Factors in Water Vapor. Together with all the other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

 

Water vapor comprises about 95% of the greenhouse effect. While CO₂   impact has been reduced to 3.62%. When we include water vapor, humankinds impact to the greenhouse effect has been reduced to 0.072%.  There is no doubt that water vapor, is the predominate player in the greenhouse arena.

It is true, that some greenhouse gases like CH₄  produce water vapor as a byproduct as they breakdown in the atmosphere. But this a natural process instead of one caused by human activity.  It is also true that  CH₄  is produced mostly from natural sources such as from living organisms and decaying plant matter. CH₄  is also produced in large amounts by volcanos and glaciers.  There is no doubt that human activities like certain agricultural practices, and solid waste landfills also contribute to CH₄  production. The use and transportation for fossil fuels also produces CH₄

 

Table 4.                                         

This Chart takes the data from Table 1, and is used to illustrate the percentage of how much of each greenhouse gas is derived from natural VS human made.  

 

Table 4a

 

The  CO₂ that comes from human activities it totals out to a trifling 0.117%

But when everything is factored in....humankinds total contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 0.28%

 

Below are a couple of tables that show the common CFC's. The data comes from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 

 

Global warming alarmist, say "small increases in global temperatures can be hard to measure over short time periods, because they can be masked by natural variations.  The atmospheric ocean system does have cycles of warming and cooling, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO₂  emissions".  To me, this means they have hypothesis on what is going on.....but not much in the way of provable facts.

I have showed that water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. All human activity contributes virtually nothing as way of direct influence on water vapor atmospheric concentrations. The entire climate system is very complex. The interaction of all the various cycles and other atmospheric process is amazing in it's ability to control and modify the environment and the climate. We have a lot to learn, before we can know all the answers. Heck we're still trying to complete the question.    

I do want to touch briefly on precipitation.

Global warming supporters point out that  CO₂, CH₄ , and other greenhouse gases produced by human activities, stay in the atmosphere a lot longer than water vapor (This is true). These other gases can stay in the atmosphere for years or even a century (depending on the gas). Because they stay in the atmosphere so long, it leads to increased atmospheric water vapor, which leads to more warming. This process is called a positive feedback loop.  Because of this, warmer air can hold more moisture, as the climate warms the higher temperatures leads to more evaporation, which increases atmospheric moisture even more. The increased water vapor in the air leads to even greater warming, which then loops back around enhancing the greenhouse effect, making extreme downpours much more likely. As the positive feedback loop keeps going around the process gets worse and worse.

At first this entire positive feedback loop idea seems reasonable. But I pointed out earlier how properties of water vapor helps to warm cold temperatures, while other properties of water vapor reduces warm temperatures. Water vapor is basically natures thermostat. Seen in this light, water vapor acts more like a negative feedback loop.  If we take the human cause global warming supporters claim of water vapor's positive feedback as valid; wouldn't the planet have had run away global warming long ago?

Because of the way temperature and humidity oppose each other. I can't see how increased water vapor leads to run away warming. Here are some images that show how temperature and humidity are directly opposed to each other.

 

 

Image came from junksciencearchive  

Water vapor is a major part of an amazing and complex natural system. I want to make three major points.

1)  Because of  a process called latent heat of vaporization; It takes heat energy to turn liquid water into water vapor, during the conversion from a liquid to a gas, the absorption of heat energy takes place without changing temperature. The other side of the same coin, is called latent heat of fusion; this takes heat energy to change ice to liquid water, again without raising temperature.

Points 2 and 3 are interlinked and involve the great heat capacity of water and water vapor . Remember I said " The oceans contain 99.9% of the energy of the ocean-atmospheric system".

2)    Water vapor has the ability to store a lot of heat energy. As the warm air rises, the water vapor in the air transports the heat near the surface away. This process is called convection.  

3)   Water vapor is almost transparent to incoming solar radiation. Water vapor is an excellent absorber of infrared radiation.

I've shown how water vapor not CO₂  is the major reason for how the climate is acting.  Over 99% of atmospheric water vapor is natural in origin. in fact other then CFC's most of the other greenhouse gases are also of natural origin.      

Humans biggest contribution to a warming planet are the heat island effect and deforestation. But our contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations is very minuscule. I'm not saying humankind and human activities don't have an impact on global climate. Nor am I saying we have no need to change the way we interact with the environment.  We have to try to find a way to combat the heat island effect and stop widespread deforestation. We can and should also reduce emissions. 

What I am saying is that As far as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, nature far outpaces our input. I'm also saying that I believe  cyclical climate cycles have a great impact on not just the weather, but also the climate as a whole. Natural process have caused at least five great ice ages and these same natural process produced many smaller ice ages as will as several warming periods between the ice ages. None of these needed human intervention to cause them.  I'm also saying, I think these natural processes are more than capable of producing yet another ice age.....and I think nature can reverse this current warm period, just as it has in the past. I think the main driver as far as climate, is water vapor not CO₂.

Increased CO₂  warmer temperatures and extra precipitation can be good for plant growth.

 

Well that's it for Part 2.  

In Part 3 I will get into the  aspect of enhanced plant growth and other vegetation and agriculture. I will again discuss the urban heat island effect and deforestation. I will also discuss the idea of could global warming be beneficial, or the end of human existence.

Link to part 3.




 

The world is melting...the world is melting....Part one.

I saw an NBC article

Where global warming supporters  made the clam that "a strange, wavy jet stream  is blasting Europe with heat. Scientists say this could be the 'new normal" They use words like profound, unusual, extreme.

Here is the link 

Denise Chow (writer and editor at NBC News) wrote:  " An oppressive heat wave baked Western Europe this week, setting record high temperatures in France, Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic. In India, a severe drought has choked water supplies in the city of Chennai, exposing it's 9 million residents to a major shortage. And after the United States wettest 12 month stretch on record, towns across the Midwest and the Great Plains are reeling from devastating floods".  She also wrote, " The reasons behind these extreme weather events are complex, but scientists believe they have a common trigger: profound recent changes in the set stream, a ribbon of fast-moving air that flows from west to east over the Northern Hemisphere and controls weather systems".

These so called extreme weather events find their way into mainstream and social media all the time. The catch phrase now is climate crisis. Media is talking about Japan seeing its warmest recorded temperature in history of 106°F. How Montreal has seen temperatures approach 100°F. Toronto has seen 18 days that exceeded 30°C, Forest fires in Siberia and Europe are the worst in history, and so on and so on.   

The predictions:

Tornadoes:

The number of tornadoes this year are being blamed on climate change.  But that is simply not true.  Looking at the tornadic trend for 2019 we see it's below 2008 and 2011, both of these years had a lot of cold air in Canada and northern tier of CONUS during May.  For tornado outbreaks to occur the prime requisite is cold air from the Rockies into the Great Lakes, sitting over warm air farther to the South .

 

Above images curtesy of the Storm Prediction Center.

Tropical cyclones:

In the Pacific Hawaii is going to see a lot of action heading their way.  Again the media, will say its global warming is the reason.  supporters of global warming will take that and run with it.  But again it won't end up being true. 

One of the latest global warming idea trends is that tropical cyclone rapid intensification is caused by global warming.  But again that is a gross exaggeration of the facts and what is really going on.

Back in June of1988 James E. Hansen from NASA testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (Hansen is called the father of global warming theory, by many). At the time there was a prolonged heat wave impacting North America (this was the first of two devastating heat waves that summer).  Hansen showed a multitude of climate model predictions, and inferred " He had a high degree of confidence, that there was a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming" During his testimony, he said, " The globe would see a significant warming over the next 25-30 years" He also stated " the 1990 into the 2000's would see much greater than average warming in the Southeast US. and in the U.S Midwest"  No such spike in temperatures has ever been measured. Over the ensuing years he talked about how CO₂   was the main culprit, and many more predictions, hurricanes would become increasingly more powerful, Hurricanes would cause increasing more and more damage in the US, tornadoes would become stronger, and the biggest one was in 2007 when he said " the Greenland ice sheet would be completely melted soon, resulting in a rise in the global oceans of 23 feet". He made dozens of other claims.  But looking back at these all of these predictions show none of them have come true. Over the last few years snow and ice amounts have been increasing in Greenland, Hurricanes aren't more powerful than the historic record shows for past hurricanes, Based on the gross domestic product index, hurricanes aren't causing greater amounts of damage (even though the coast is becoming more and more developed). Tornadoes are not becoming more frequent or more powerful than tornadoes of the past.  The list of what didn't occur is long and tedious.  

10 years ago, the media was alight with the talk of perma-drought in California  and the Southern Plains into the Midwest. The climate warming alarmist said perma-drought was here to stay with no  end in sight, that human caused climate change was the reason and that a new dust bowl era had started. But this kind of talk isn't decades old, as resent as 2015 Katherine Hayhole declared that "permanent drought was the future of Texas panhandle and that the nations beef would get increasingly strained".   But none of these predictions came true. Just two to three years after Hayhole's prediction. The same areas that were to have perma-drought, are now overflowing with water. As for California, in 2014 Gov Brown, said perma-drought was the new normal for 40 million people who depend on the Colorado Rivers water" as of the end of June, the upper Colorado River basin had a snow water equivalent of 425% of average. I would say the fear of a perma-drought in California has been erased.

Al Gore has made many of these same claims in his book "An Inconvenient Truth" and in a more recent movie.  It remains to be seen if any of his claims will become true.

To be fair, there are global warming deniers, who go off the scale on the other side of this debate, but it seems to me that they are outnumbered by the global warming supporters.  The current debate is saturated with junk science. We need to get the junk science and politics out of the debate, if we truly want to understand what is going on....   

 Looking at some data:

 We are only 4 days into the month of July and the reports of all time record heat are flying all over the place.  We hear about record heat in Europe,  Miami, FL has had two almost 100 degree days for the first time ever in a single year. Record breaking heat in Alaska. 

When I was at A&M I remember been taught that the highest global temperature ever recorded was 136 in El Azizia, Libya, back in Sept. 13, 1922. But that temperature record was thrown out in 2012.  There have been a bunch of other very hot temperatures thrown out too.  It's hard to refute something if many of the true facts aren't around anymore.

When we look at the current global  2-M temperature anomaly we see it's 0.310 °C above average, With the CONUS 2-M temperature anomaly 0.121°C above average.  When we look back at past decades there were years that saw higher temperature anomalies and lower temperature anomalies. When we look at the overall temperature pattern over the last 40+ years there is no doubt that global temperature anomalies are rising.  But clearly the world isn't burning up (as many in the past have predicted it would be). I mean really, a 2-M global temperature anomaly of 0.310°C isn't a huge difference. There has to be enough compensating colder areas to keep it close.

 

Above image courtesy of WeatherBell Analytics

 

Averaging out year to date, finds the eastern half of the CONUS has been cooler than average. This is a change from last year.

Above image courtesy of WeatherBell Analytics

Current Maximum daytime temperature anomalies are  0.97°F above average

 

Above image courtesy of WeatherBell Analytics

 

Current minimum nighttime temperature anomalies are  2.0°F above average

Above image courtesy of WeatherBell Analytics

The temperature anomalies for the CONUS are well above average. By looking at the daytime and nighttime anomalies we can clearly see most of the temperature anomaly difference is because of very warm nighttime lows.

When we look at the global temperature anomaly map we see the vast majority of the warmth is near and in the polar regions. whereas the temperate regions (where we and everything else lives) is a mixture of warm and cool areas, that seem to balance each other out. So clearly, the heat in the polar regions is a major reason for the above average global temperature anomaly.

We can see how the poles react during the northern and southern hemisphere summer season and winter season.

We see the poles have warm temperature anomalies during the arctic cold season, but cooler temperature anomalies during their warm season. What could be the reason for that?

So while I agree that the global temperatures are gradually increasing. I disagree with the idea from global warming alarmist as to the cause of the current warming.

 What could be causing the warming?

The reasons I think the globe is warming will be covered in part two.

Link to part 2.

 

 

 

 

 

Global warming and hurricanes.

It didn't take long; I'm already seeing articles, linking Major Hurricane Joaquin to global warming and climate change. The latest, is " How Climate Change is intensifying Hurricane Joaquin. By Lydia O'Connor in the Huffington Post. Ms. O'Conner states that "warmer oceans are making everything worse".  O'Conner also quotes Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center, as saying "Joaquin's quickly progressing strength can be tied to unprecedented sea surface temperatures in the hurricanes vicinity."

If you want to read her article you can find it here..

If you've read any of my post on the subject of human caused global warming...then you know I'm a skeptic, of the stinky stuff being peddled by the Climate Science Rapid Response Team. You also know I believe that patterns and cycles are why we see warming or cooling. The same stuff being said about Joaquin have been said of Sandy, Irene and others.  

  I've posted in the blog, many write-ups on hurricanes. A few years ago, I wrote on how we're entering a pattern that we saw in the 1950's. Here are links if you haven't read them.

Part 1  

Part 2

It's common for me to compare current storms to past storms.  Last week I said the overall pattern Joaquin was in was similar to what we saw with Sandy. We had small differences,  like placement of the trough and northern high pressure, that allowed for a different outcome. I also said the East Coast dodged a major bullet, by comparing Joaquin to hurricanes like. Carol Hazel Connie, Diane, and Donna. The idea that what Joaquin did was unparalleled is simply ludicrous.

In the past, the East Coast including the Northeast have seen much bigger hurricane impacts than we've seen in the last several years.

Here is another post I did on historic hurricanes..

The East Coast will see a higher risk for landfalling tropical cyclones, due to the fact that we're  transitioning from a warm positive AMO phase, to a cool negative AMO phase.  The same thing that happened in the 1950's. This was a strong El Nino year, it was (and did) going to cut down on the number of Atlantic hurricanes. But if you read my 2015 tropical outlook...what we saw shouldn't have been a surprise. The reason we saw more of an active season deals with several factors...not the least of which is the AMO.  So while warm Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) are influencing the weather pattern, the reason isn't human caused global warming,

John Abraham, a mechanical engineer from the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. said in 2012 "Major hurricanes are the only ones that really matter, and that major hurricanes are increasing."

 I guess Mr. Abraham, did not think the records kept by NOAA in the National Hurricane Center data archive, were worth looking at.   NOAA also has "Chronological List Of All Hurricanes Which Affected the Continental United States 1851-2014" These sources show, Abraham and the rest that say "were seeing a greater number of hurricanes and more intense hurricanes" don't know what they're talking about.

Looking into the archive, I was able to compile the following information.

Over the past 100 years 70 major hurricanes have stuck the United States. That makes of a basic average of 7 major hurricanes a decade.

Between 1900 and 1949 there was a total of 91 hurricanes, that made a U.S. landfall, 34 were major.

Between 1950 and 1999 the U.S. was hit by 74 hurricanes, 30 of these were major.

Breaking down the last half century by decade....the data shows.........

From 2001 to 2010 a total of 7 major hurricanes struck the U.S.

From 1991 to 2000, only 6  Category 3 or above hurricanes made a U.S. landfall.....below the 100 year average.

1981-1990, 4 major hurricanes fell on the US, a figure will below the 100 year average.

From 1971 to 1980, the same thing happened, only 4 major hurricanes.

From 1961 to 1970, 7 major hit the U.S.

Over this 50 year timeframe, not one decade saw major hurricane's excide the 100 year average.

Let's take a look back another 50 years. This is the time, of the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane, this is still the strongest hurricane to make a U.S. landfall....minimum pressure of 892mb, and max winds of 200mph at landfall. It also saw the 1938 Long Island Express, still the benchmark for landfalling Northeast hurricanes...this storm killed over 600 people in just 6 hours. A storm that is almost forgotten is the Great Hurricane of 1941 that carved a deadly damage path from North Carolina to New England. Anyway let's look at the numbers.

From 1951 to 1960, 9 major hurricanes struck the U.S. This decade saw some the worst landfalling hurricanes in U.S. history.   

From 1941-1950,  an incredible 11 major hurricanes made a U.S. landfall. That is well above the 100 year average.

From 1931-1941, 8 major hurricanes struck the United States.

From 1921 to 1930, 6 major U.S. falling major hurricanes.

From 1911 to 1920, 8 major hurricanes struck the U.S.

If we were to look back even further, we would find the Great Galveston Hurricane.    

It's clear that the first half of the 20th Century was worse than the second half.

One more thing, I want to touch on. There hasn't been a major hurricane making a direct hit on the United States in nearly 10 years. There have been 9 major landfalls in the Caribbean and South America, but not one on the U.S.

2005 was the most active year in the Atlantic since records have been kept. 2005 saw the likes of Katrina,  Rita, and Wilma, the last major hurricane to strike the U.S....on October 24th, 2005.

Why the major hurricane drought?  Well since 2005, there haven't been many hurricanes that formed close to the U.S. Another reason is the weather patterns have discouraged land falling tropical systems. In 2005 we had a high pressure ridge over the East Coast.  But since then many years have seen a trough of low pressure sitting over the East Coast, So as was the case with Joaquin, major hurricanes have just gone out to sea.

Joaquin was going too slow to get steered into the East Coast, if he had, the damage would have made Sandy, seem like a thunderstorm in comparison. The major cites on the East Coast are very vulnerable to major hurricanes. The major cities and most of the communities along the East Coast have seen incredible growth, much of this growth has occurred right at the coast.

I've just shown you the facts. In spite what the global warming alarmist what you to believe, the record speaks for itself. There has been no noticeable increase in either the number of or intensity of hurricanes over the last 100 years.   

If you want to look at the numbers..... NHC Data Archive