Wild Weather!

It looks like the predicted storms in California are knocking down trees, as expected. Of course the almost unanimous blame will directed towards extreme weather, ignoring the weakened condition of the trees - rotting limbs and root systems - from ozone and acid rain.

Think of how much hotter the loss of trees will make our homes. There is nothing like cool shade under a tree on a hot day.

The Daily Beast ran a a very controversial article called "The 14 Most Heinous Climate Villains" which attracted some typical sparring between deniers and warmists in the comments. I won't copy them here but you can click the clicky - they are fun reading for those so inclined. At least, I had fun!

The number one climate villain on the list is Don Blankenship, Massey Coal CEO - and it so happens he will be debating tonight with arguably the number one climate hero (along with Jim Hansen and Joe Romm, even though they disagree), Robert Kennedy Jr.

From R.Pauli, who found this on the Huffington Post:

Bobby Kennedy Jr. will debate the CEO of Massey coal, Don Blankenship, about the destructive effects of coal production and consumption, on Thursday, January 21st at 6:15 pm, eastern, from the University of Charleston, West Virginia. The program will be carried online at www.wowktv.com, as well as by other local media. You can visit www.ucwv.edu for more information.

The coal industry in general, and Blankenship in particular, are responsible for some of the most egregious environmental devastation of the last one hundred years. To listen to Kennedy debate these issues, such as mountaintop removal, is something you won't want to miss.

Thursday, January 21st, 6:15 pm. One of the great environmental heroes of our time takes on one of the greatest environmental villains.

A comment from Icarus

Icarus has left a new comment on your post "Scientists are Egomaniacal DoucheBags":

"Alas, we have arrived at the sunset of human civilization"

The more I read about it, and the better I understand the way civilisation works, the more I am coming to this conclusion too. Our entire civilisation is based on energy - overwhelmingly on the amazing property of fossil fuels, that they give us back many times more energy than we expend in acquiring them. I can propel a car full of people and luggage hundreds of miles at 70mph just by burning a few gallons of flammable liquid. When you think about it in those terms, it is quite amazing. Think of what would be involved in moving that amount that distance by manpower alone, even at a vastly slower walking pace. Fossil fuels directly or indirectly power virtually all our mechanised transport. They form the basis of many raw materials (e.g. plastics and fertilisers). They give us nearly all of the world's electricity. And they're all finite resources - oil has probably peaked (demand is going up and production down). Same goes for any other raw materials - they are all finite. We can recycle, but that takes energy, which requires more fossil fuels. We can build nuclear power plants, which work on the basis of an even higher energy density fuel than fossil fuels, but we don't have the luxury of many decades to replace fossil fuels with nuclear... and constructing them would require large amounts of energy from fossil fuels, even if there was enough raw materials and nuclear fuel for us to do that. The sun, wind and waves could potentially give us unlimited energy but only at a very low energy density, so would require vast amounts of raw materials and fossil fuels to build infrastructure and make a significant difference. Do we have the time and resources (and will) to make such a huge change? I'm very much afraid that we don't.

Then there is food - we are probably near the limit of productivity for the land which is already being farmed, and there aren't vast amounts of free fertile land to convert to farmland, even ignoring the climate consequences of doing so. At the same time, human population continues to increase (nearly 7 billion now). The productivity we have now relies hugely on fossil fuels, for fertiliser and mechanisation. How will we feed 8, 9 or 10 billion people on limited farmland, declining water resources and scarcer and more expensive fossil fuels?

Civilisation is based on energy and predicated on infinite growth, but this is clearly impossible on a finite planet, so it is inevitable that *at the very minimum* the kind of civilisation that we're used to has to end and be replaced by something sustainable. The question is, what size of human population is 'sustainable' on an already over-exploited world? It's hard to see how, with greatly diminished fossil fuels, we could grow enough food for more than 1 or 2 billion people.

And all of this, of course, is before we even consider the chaos looming from disastrous climate change.

For most of my life I've almost unconsciously assumed that life just gets better all the time, that I'll always have a job, that I'll eventually retire in comfort, that my kids will have a decent life etc. Now I'm not nearly so sure. I can't take it all for granted any more. I'm more and more convinced that it will inevitably collapse, and that it will do so soon enough to make life a lot less secure and comfortable for me and my family in the future.

"Scientists discover link between atmospheric ozone over US and pollution from burning fossil fuels during Asian economic boom"

Here is poetic justice for you. Americans are gobbling up plastic junk from China, and the pollution from their booming export economy is drifting right back to us!

"Ozone is harmful to people's respiratory systems and plants."

No way!

Scientists are Egomaniacal DoucheBags

I have nourished this clivia for about 25 years. It typically blooms around this time, a deep brilliant orange. Now this year, it is streaked with white. Is that significant? I have no idea, but it IS weird. And now that I think of it, last summer many of the lilies in the garden lost their pigment and turned white as well.

In the last post I mentioned that trees appear to be bleeding sap. This is becoming prevalent, everywhere.

Examples abound.

Notice how the soil is almost bare of any cover. Bizarre!

The bleeding is accompanied by bark shearing off from trunks and branches.

Truly a vile apparition.

Also notable are extremely strange pockmarked growths.

They reveal extensive internal damage.

Shrubs everywhere show evidence of toxic atmospheric impacts. They are actually shrinking and puny, like they are starving.

This Japanese Andromeda has leaves with the discoloration and prominent veins typical of greenhouse gas poisoning.

Here is a mature hedge of arborvitae.

But so many of them died, the town replaced a number of totally dead specimens with younger plants - which, oops! - are also dying.

The needles are all turning brown.

And even more interesting than brown, they go from green to a creepy purple.

The ground beneath is covered with their dropped fronds.

Next, let us visit a stand of mature trees, a mix of maples and white pines. These maples looked normal a year ago - they started to turn black and now are blanketed with a green moss.

The color is lurid and almost unearthly.

It is thicker at the base but has crept up the trunks.

I like moss but this is overwhelming.

And by now it reaches high up to the topmost branches.

Decay accompanies the progression.

Some of the formations are quite strange!

This oblong growth is about the size of two footballs.

I may just splurge on a new camera so I can do justice to such amazing sights.

The odd green also colonizes inanimate structures like the fence.

as well as other constructs, like this set of stairs.

The pines in this setting have been losing needles.

And branches.

Their bark has been coated with a crusty lichen.

Alas, we have arrived at the sunset of human civilization. Very few realize it, even though it is glaringly obvious. Some are deliberately, greedily obtuse, and desire to prolong their binge as long as possible. For most people though, I think it is a failure of imagination.

Here is the latest futile correspondence:

Dear Editor, Dr. Allen, Dr. Stephenson, Dr. McDowell, and Dr. Sala,

I am writing in reference to this story about the effects of long-term drought from climate change. When I first noticed wide-spread tree decline I felt reasonably certain that less frequent precipitation and considerably less snowpack could be the primary cause. Since then however I am convinced that the major reason trees are dying is that our atmosphere has intolerable levels of toxic gases from fossil and biofuel emissions.

Trees that are not deprived of water - those along rivers, for example, or young trees being grown in watered pots in nurseries - exhibited the same foliar damage as trees growing in landscapes or in the wild. For that matter, last summer, annual crops and ornamentals, whether in pots or in fields, also had the characteristic stippling from damaged stomata as did the trees.

Also, in reading any research I can find on this topic it turns out, there are many studies showing that ozone and acid rain are extremely poisonous to vegetation. Although there are many isolated studies of trees dying - in California, in Colorado, in New Hampshire, in Bangladesh - very few scientists or foresters connect the dots. Most often they attribute individual species decline to particular insects, fungus, or disease, ignoring the fact that the immune systems of trees have been damaged leaving them unable to resist such assaults.

I am begging you to think outside the box. Scientists are so focused on their specialties that I think sometimes the bigger picture is lost. I am not a scientist, I do not have the capability to bring attention to this very urgent existential threat. Please consider the possibility that we could lose all our forests, which are the foundation of our ecosystem, if somebody doesn't investigate the connection between pollution and tree death, before there aren't any seeds left.

I have been posting photographs and links to scientific studies at www.witsendnj.blogspot.com. Of particular interest might be this post with links to research, and this Stanford study. This post links to a website with numerous studies in the US and internationally.

I also urge you to consider the consequences of disruption to the nitrogen cycle. I would be delighted to discuss this further with any of you. Thank you so much for reading. Here is a link to my profile at the World Wildlife Fund climate witness program which describes the origin of my interest in this topic.

Sincerely, Gail Zawacki Oldwick, NJ

Gail, Your concern for the forests of this world is admirable. Yes, air pollution is a problem too, but we have focused on the effects of drought and heat, which are predicted to increase in many areas. You may wish to read the attached articles, and some of the references mentioned in them, for some perspectives on the work we've been doing. Best regards - Craig

Dear Craig,

I do understand that you have focused on drought and heat, and I think that's admirable. I really don't need perspectives on the work you are doing, however, as I'm quite certain it is of great value, and I'm equally convinced that climate change is going to kill many or perhaps all trees through those mechanisms. It seems obvious the trees can't adapt fast enough to the relatively rapid warming and drying - climate change is always followed by mass extinctions.

What I wrote you about is the work you are NOT doing. The explanation for tree decline that you and your co-authors provide simply does not explain all of the empirical facts. The foliar damage that is apparent on annuals, aquatic plants, and potted, irrigated trees is identical to that of indigenous species in the wild. If you are serious about explaining forest decline, you have to include all of the data, which indicates an atmospheric toxin.

It is critically important to identify the precise source because the the decay is accelerating which urgently requires attention. The good news is that once the source is identified, we could quickly reduce it, which would buy some time to devise methods to mitigate the longer-term problem you have been researching and publishing.

I have to say your response to me felt patronizing and dismissive. Did you even read any of the scientific articles linked in my message? There is actually quite a body of research demonstrating the poisonous properties of ozone and acid rain, but there seems to be little coordination.

I do believe that the USGS, which is a publicly funded agency, should allocate some of their resources to studying this problem which is going to affect every single citizen. All of our trees are at risk, as are all the species that depend upon them. Ultimately our food security will be imperiled.

Surely this is enough reason for scientists to abandon their myopia and gaze at the big picture.

Is there anyone at the USGS that is pursuing this line of inquiry?

Sincerely,

Gail

Carnage, Unmitigated

Today after a brief but very cold and snowy period, the temperature jumped again this winter to over 50 degrees F. In spite of the complaints about cold temperatures, maples are exhibiting the same sort of seepage of sap that I first photographed in a hickory tree here, that is the result of overall warming.

The black bark is hideous, and evil, like Darth Vadar, and the splits in the bark go high up the trunk.

This color of bark is unprecedented and weird. The sap is seeping out.

And the deep saturation makes quite a contrast to the raw brown flesh underneath.

This is evidence of how it is breaking off in chunks.

It reminds me of a condition called elephantitis. We had a horse once, long ago, who died from it. Her skin swelled and split and oozed blood. It was horrible, and so is this.

Below is an update to when I first noticed daffodils emerging in early December.

After extremely cold temperatures, and significant snowfall, guess what?

The intrepid daffodils aren't just still there, they are growing!

Not all vegetative species are as resilient and tenacious. The trees are far more delicately calibrated and we are losing them. This article (found at Des) infuriates me!!

What will it take for people to connect the dots?

It's the atmosphere, folks!

Laugh and be Merry!

It's a dismal, cold drizzling afternoon, which means it's time to look on the bright side, to the extent possible. Now that the days are getting just a little longer, my chickens have started laying eggs again! And here come some funnies, the first speaks for itself:

Next is an exchange from a thread at the Environmental Defense Fund. This delights me for a number of reasons, not least because after my last comment when I looked up David Wojick Ph.D., I discovered he is a long-time professional denier with deep financial ties to energy industries, which makes my reference to tobacco whores utterly hysterically (if somewhat inadvertently) on point.

Comment from
David Wojick Ph.D. January 16th, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Part of the problem is that skeptics and warmers look at the same evidence and see different things, just like a hung jury. I am reminded of a scene in “Patterns of Discovery” by Norwood Russell Hanson, which has Tycho Brahe and Copernicus sitting on a hill watching the sunrise. Tycho sees the sun moving but Copernicus sees the earth moving. The data is the same for both, but each interprets it differently, based on their theoretical beliefs.

For example, the surface temperature record for the last 70 years shows a 20 year period of warming, from roughly 1978 to 1998. For the remaining 50 years the temperature is steady to cooling, both before and after this period of warming. CO2 levels rise steadily during the entire 70 year period. That is the data.

Skeptics see little evidence for CO2 induced warming in this record. Warmers have responded by constructing elaborate computer models, to try to show why the warming that should have occurred as CO2 levels rose, was masked by other factors. Skeptics are skeptical of these models, especially since they disagree with one another. Some of the models project extreme warming in the future, which skeptics see as a weakness in the models and warmers see as a warning. And so it goes.

The point is that this is not a failure of communication; rather it is a difference of opinion. Rational people of good will can look at the same evidence and come to opposing views. Warmers and skeptics know the science equally well; they just see it differently.

Comment from Gail January 16th, 2010 at 8:07 pm

David Wojick, that is just demonstrably false, it is not a difference of opinion – the science is clear that we have been warming since 1998. Here is just one graph among so many other debunkings of that tired canard. http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/16/hansen-global-warming-cooling-nasa-gisstemp/

Comment from David Wojick Ph.D. January 17th, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Gail, the graph you reference shows 5 year and 11 year running means. Both mask recent trends, especially the 11 year mean, which takes a long time to respond. The 5 year mean is already showing the non-warming that began after the 1998-2000 ENSO cycle; note the hook on the end. Note too that the GISS estimate is the hottest of the three surface measures. The other two estimates, as well as the satellite readings, show no warming after the 1998-2000 cycle. Temperatures are clearly steady, not rising.

It gets even more interesting if one argues that these surface temperature estimates are inferior to the satellite readings. The surface estimate is based on a large number of poorly maintained stations, with sparse, unrepresentative global coverage. What is interesting is that the only warming in the satellite record is a step-up during the ENSO cycle. That is, temperatures are steady from 1978-1997, and steady again after 2000, but at a higher level. Looked at this way, the only warming in the last 70 years occurred during the 1998-2000 ENSO cycle. There is then no evidence whatever of GHG warming.

You may not accept the skeptics' arguments, but they are very real. The evidence cuts both ways, depending on how you look at it.

Comment from Gail January 17th, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Wrong, David. That's about as sophisticated as claiming the evidence cuts both ways on the theories of gravity, plate tectonics, or evolution.

Try this one on for size: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/17/petersinclair-on-cold-weather-vs-global-warming/

Furthermore, lets just look at this without considering skeptics arguments or physics or chemistry. Let's just look at it from the point of view of people who are not scientists – cause I'm not, and you're not, either, right?

So what should we do? Probably, listen to what the experts are saying. If a neurosurgeon told you that you had a tumor in your brain that had to be removed, would you keep shopping around for opinions until you found some chiropractor who was going to treat your chronic dizziness with homeopathic remedies? Oops I didn't think so.

So, in the case of diagnosing what is wrong with the planet, I think we should listen to the people who know something about it, don't you? And what do they tell us?

Simply put, ALL major science organizations and academies agree that humans are causing global warming that will lead to an uninhabitable climate if we don't stop pouring fuel emissions into the atmosphere, and soon. See this letter to the US Senate, endorsed by the following:

American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences American Meteorological Society American Society of Agronomy American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical Association Association of Ecosystem Research Centers Botanical Society of America Crop Science Society of America Ecological Society of America Natural Science Collections Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

here’s the link to the letter: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf

which says, among other things:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”

and

“For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.”

and

“If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

And that is just a list of organizations from the US. Every international scientific group also endorses reducing emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change.

It's comparable to the situation where every reputable medical authority advises that smoking is dangerous to your health, and a few corrupt charlatans, funded by the tobacco industry, testified that the link is too uncertain for government regulation, thus sowing confusion amongst the pubic and legislators, delaying action and causing untold illness and death. But of course that didn't happen, did it? Oh, wait…

Now, can you come up with a list of scientific organizations that claim the jury is out on climate change? How about ONE? And the US Chamber of Commerce doesn't count…

I thought not.

Okay agree, wasn't that just delish!? And lastly on our humor roster today, is an email forwarded to me from the ever vigilant R.Pauli, which originated with the California Parks Dept. It's rather astonishing, if true, and is followed by a marvelous graph. Here goes:

Update
> >Currently, the strong El Nino is reaching its peak in the Eastern
Pacific, and now finally appears to be exerting an influence on our
weather. The strong jet has been apparent for quite some time out over
the open water, but the persistent block had prevented it from reaching
the coast. Now that the block has dissolved completely, a 200+ kt [this
means approximately 230 miles per hour] jet is barreling towards us.
Multiple large and powerful storm systems are expected to slam into CA
from the west and northwest over the coming two weeks, all riding this
extremely powerful jet stream directly into the state.
> >
> >The jet will itself provide tremendous dynamic lift, in addition to
directing numerous disturbances right at the state and supplying them
with an ample oceanic moisture source. The jet will be at quite a low
latitude over much of the Pacific, so these storms will be quite cold,
at least initially. Very heavy rainfall and strong to potentially very
strong winds will impact the lower elevations beginning late Sunday and
continuing through at least the following Sunday.. This will be the case
for the entire state, from (and south of) the Mexican border all the way
up to Oregon. Above 3000-4000 feet, precipitation will be all snow, and
since temperatures will be unusually cold for a precipitation event of
this magnitude, a truly prodigious amount of snowfall is likely to occur
in the mountains, possibly measured in the tens of feet in the Sierra
after it’s all said and done.
> >
> >But there’s a big and rather threatening caveat to that (discussed
below).Individual storm events are going to be hard to time for at least
few more days, since this jet is just about as powerful as they come (on
this planet, anyway). Between this Sunday and the following Sunday, I
expect categorical statewide rainfall totals in excess of 3-4 inches.
That is likely to be a huge underestimate for most areas. Much of NorCal
is likely to see 5-10 inches in the lowlands, with 10-20 inches in
orographically-favored areas. Most of SoCal will see 3-6 inches at lower
elevations, with perhaps triple that amount in favored areas.
> >
> >This is where things get even more interesting, though. The models
are virtually unanimous in “reloading” the powerful jet stream and
forming an additional persistent kink 2000-3000 miles to our southwest
after next Sunday. This is a truly ominous pattern, because it implies
the potential for a strong Pineapple-type connection to develop. Indeed,
the 12z GFS now shows copious warm rains falling between days 12 and 16
across the entire state. Normally, such as scenario out beyond day seven
would be dubious at best. Since the models are in such truly remarkable
agreement, however, and because of the extremely high potential impact
of such an event, it’s worth mentioning now. Since there will be a
massive volume of freshly-fallen snow (even at relatively low elevations
between 3000-5000 feet), even a moderately warm storm event would cause
very serious flooding. This situation will have to monitored closely.
Even if the tropical connection does not develop, expected rains in the
coming 7-10 days will likely be sufficient to cause flooding in and of
themselves (even in spite of dry antecedent conditions).
> >
> >In addition to very heavy precipitation, powerful winds may result
from very steep pressure gradients associated with the large and deep
low pressure centers expected to begin approaching the coast by early
next week. Though it’s not clear at the moment just how powerful these
winds may be, there is certainly the potential for a widespread damaging
wind event at some point, and the high Sierra peaks are likely to see
gusts in the 100-200 mph range (since the 200kt jet at 200-300 mb will
essentially run directly into the mountains at some point). The details
of this will have to be hashed out as the event(s) draw closer.
> >
> >In short, the next 2-3 weeks (at least) are likely to be more active
across California than any other 2-3 week period in recent memory. The
potential exists for a dangerous flood scenario to arise at some point
during this interval, especially with the possibility of a heavy
rain-on-snow event during late week 2. In some parts of Southern
California, a whole season’s worth of rain could fall over the course of
5-10 days. This is likely to be a rather memorable event. Stay tuned.

My response to RPauli after seeing this was "Is that storm warning as bizarre as it looks? The picture is like the sword of Damocles aimed at San Francisco. Oh wait. Aren't there a lot of teh gehs there?

(don't know why the picture keeps vanishing!)