Thursday, September 25, 2014

Oregon is a Lousy Place to Hide from Climate Change

Dick Sherk next to "Welcome to Oregon" sign (1961)
Tom Mccall's sign. The next governor, Vic Atiyah (R),
considered it anti-business and had it changed
to simply "Welcome to Oregon"
Tom McCall, who was Oregon's governor from 1967 to 1975 (he was an ardent environmentalist who had some big balls on him), spoke about Oregon’s tourist industry in a 1971 speech, that is famous for this line on his slogan "Come visit, don't stay""
“I urge them to come and come many, many times to enjoy the beauty of Oregon. But I also ask them, for heaven’s sake, don’t move here to live.”
McCall probably wasn't thinking about climate change, but some people are now, and it doesn't look good for Oregon, says the NY Times:
Although few people today are moving long distances to strategize for climate change, some are at least pondering the question of where they would go.

“The answer is the Pacific Northwest, and probably especially west of the Cascades,” said Ben Strauss, vice president for climate impacts and director of the program on sea level rise at Climate Central, a research collaboration of scientists and journalists. “Actually, the strip of coastal land running from Canada down to the Bay Area is probably the best,” he added. “You see a lot less extreme heat; it’s the one place in the West where there’s no real expectation of major water stress, and while sea level will rise there as everywhere, the land rises steeply out of the ocean, so it’s a relatively small factor.”
Clifford E. Mass, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington, writes a popular weather blog in which he predicts that the Pacific Northwest will be “a potential climate refuge” as global warming progresses. A Seattle resident, he foresees that “climate change migrants” will start heading to his city and to Portland, Ore., and surrounding areas.

“The Pacific Ocean is like our natural air conditioning,” Professor Mass said in a telephone interview. “We don’t get humidity like the East Coast does.”

As for the water supply? “Water is important, and we will have it,” Professor Mass declared. “All in all, it’s a pretty benign situation for us — in fact, warming up just a little bit might be a little bit welcome around here.”

Already, he said, Washington State is gearing up to become the next Napa Valley as California’s wine country heats up and dries out.

“People are going crazy putting in vineyards in eastern Washington right now,” he said.
Last year, Oregon was already at the top of the list for inbound moves.

It's an interesting article with thoughts on the reprecussions of climate change for many areas of the US: Anchorage, Detroit, Florida, D.C., the Southwest, etc. But this might be over the top:
 “Alaska is going to be the next Florida by the end of the century.”
according to Camilo Mora, a geography professor at the University of Hawaii. (He was the lead author on this Nature paper from last year.) Anchorage's annual mean temperature is 2°C, while Miami's is 24°C. So even with Arctic amplification, that's a big jump. (Though if the ocean is lapping at your Miami condo, Anchorage would probably look pretty good.)

Like everyone else, I prefer the door be slammed on a place, right after I move there. And besides, the traffic is getting ever worse in Portland, we just started our cloudy season that will last until next June, and we're overdue for a huge earthquake. This place isn't utopia, and, please, let's keep it that way, OK?

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Patrick Moore is Back, as Deceitful as Before

A reminder for Patrick Moore
Patrick Moore has an op-ed in The Province, a newapaper in Vancouver, B.C.

It is almost a verbatim transcript of his February Senate testimony. I wonder if the paper's editor knows that -- editors usually want original material, not a cut-and paste job.

One noticeable change is the addition of "In my opinion," in front of a leading sentence pasted from his Senate testimony: "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years." And the words "scientific proof" are replaced by "conclusive proof."

In particular, Moore tells the same lie about the ice age 450 million years ago -- the Ordovician–Silurian ice age -- by not mentioning the sun was 4% dimmer back then. And that's after I wrote to him about exactly this point, and he wrote back
"If you had 5 minutes in the Senate I’m sure you would leave a few things out too."
which certainly looks like an admission the dimmer Sun was write.

I wonder what his excuse is now. Could it be, maybe, "I'm not paid to tell the truth about ice ages."

I've discussed more about Moore's testimony before, which contains this boneheaded statement about climate change and scientific proof:
If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
as if he thinks that every proof of every piece of science looks just like what you did in 10th geometry. In that case he should be paid less by his employer, and perhaps have his degree rescinded, since his field was ecology, where no scientific findings end with "Q.E.D." I wonder where he thinks the proof that smoking causes lung cancer is written down "for all to see." I wonder if he is convinced of the truth of Fermat's Last Theorem because he sat down. read, and verified all 109 pages of Andrew Wiles' proof.

What can you do about someone who's apparently willing to lie when he talks or writes? You can't even call them a climate denier; it's more like a climate cheater

PS: I'm hereby bringing the hashtag #climatecheater

PPS: For an excellent summary of the evidence behind AGW, read this Jeremy Shakun piece, "Teaching Climate Change through Six Questions"

The Inquisition of Climate Change

“I have come to believe that in the denial of global warming, we are witnessing the most vicious, and so far most successful, attack on science in history.”

- James Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Change (2011)


Via Imgur

Monday, September 22, 2014

Is "Arctic Melting" Due to Bad Data?

Update 9/23: I've heard from two people who were at the Royal Society meeting, and neither of them had heard of this Jonathan Drake paper. I assumed, wrongly, that his tweeting about it (more than once) meant he was presenting, but not he just looks to be after some attention. I should have checked before I blogged.

That would be a shocker, to say the least. A tweet from today's Royal Society of London conference on the Arctic:

Here's the full abstract, from a Scribd paper (PDF):

Drake's Twitter page says he is an electronics physicist "designing instrumentation for exploration." He retweeted this Joe Bastardi tweet, so that tells you something right there.

Anyway, from his paper:

Warming This Year Far Ahead of 1997's El Nino Year

Here's an update on comparing this year's El Nino -- such as it is -- to 1997-98's:

Red is 1997-98. Blue is this year.
Solid lines are GISS global surface temperaure anomalies (right axis).
Dotted lines are the Nino 3.4 sea-surface temperature anomalies (left axis).

Notice that this year has, so far, been significantly warmer than 1997, even after the 1997 El Nino began. And for every month; year-to-date it's an average of 0.26°C warmer.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Six Years Ago When Joe Bastardi Predicted Cooling

Six years ago, Joe Bastardi was quoted in the National Review:
“AccuWeather’s Expert Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi has stated: “People are concerned that 50 years from now, it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it’s cold and getting colder.”

"Chill Out on Climate Hysteria: The Earth is currently cooling," Deroy Murdock, National Review 5/2/2008
And since then -- like right now -- NOAA found this summer to be globally the warmest on record, and the Hadley Centre found June and July the warmest sea-surface temperatures on record.

Yet Bastardi is still, not surprisingly, still predicting cooling:
‘Planet Is Going To Be Cooling Next 20 To 30 Years Because Of Natural Processes’
I think it's becoming clear that denial of manmade climate change will never end. Never.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Another Paper Confirms Greenland's Accelerating Ice Loss

Here's a plot about Greenland's ice, from a recent paper in The Cryosphere by Hurkmans et al.

But note that the y-axis isn't the amount of ice in Greenland, it's the rate of change of the amount of ice, dM/dt.

In other words, it's the acceleration of ice loss. Eyeballing it, it looks like a change of about 325 Gt/yr in 13 years, or an acceleration of about 25 Gt/yr2, in agreement with Enderlin et al 2014 (27.0 ± 9.0 Gt/yr2 since 2000) and Wouters et al 2013 (25 ± 9 Gt/yr2).

It doesn't seem like much, but: if the melt rate for 2008 were to continue to 2100, with no acceleration, the loss in ice would be about 25,000 Gt, or 1% of Greenland's 2.6 M gigatons of ice. And it'd be another 1% for each century that goes by.

But with an (constant) acceleration of 25 Gt/yr2, the loss in 2100 will 106,000 Gt, or 4% of Greenland's ice, if I did the math correctly.

With the same acceleration, 18% of Greenland's ice would be gone by 2200, 74% by 2400, and all of it before 2500 -- 7.2 meters (24 ft) of sea-level rise. And that's with the same acceleration as today, which, given the world's trajectory, doesn't seem likely.

Greenland's ice gone in 400-500 years at most. Coastal cities mostly underwater. Is that a tragedy, or is it something worse?

Sunday, September 07, 2014

Patrick Moore No Long a Big Cheese at NEI

As this commenter on another post points out (thanks), Patrick Moore stepped down as co-chair of the NEI's Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy). In January 2013 he wrote:
" it is with mixed emotions that I share with you today my decision to retire as Co-Chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. I will remain an active member, but am at the point in my career where I am ready to step down from a leadership role and spend more time with my family."
So he's still a member, just not one of the Big Co-Cheeses (Co-Big-Cheeses?). That's probably why the NEI still puts in on its poster.

Feb 25, 2014
As the commenter said
"The only reason companies pay him for his op-ed work is because his signature can include the fact that he used to be a member of greenpeace."
and that's easy to believe, since Moore obviously doesn't have any expertise in climate science or physics.

Note, in the interest of full disclosure, Moore's affiliation with NEI wasn't disclosed in the transcript of his Feb 2014 statement to the Senate.