Devastation in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria, which climate scientists agree was spawned by warmer ocean temperatures from global warming.
In a WSJ article Tuesday (p. A15) by Steven F. Hayward ('Climate Change Has Run Its Course') it is claimed that climate change is now passé and "climate change as an issue is essentially over". It is quite possible that Hayward, a "senior resident scholar" at the University of California -Berkeley, really is a scholar of some repute at least in "government studies". But the tripe he wrote for the WSJ a few days ago discloses him as merely another climate know nothing who probably has never even taken a college physics course.
Basically this dunderhead trots out all the usual canards which I do not intend to go through in detail - as I've addressed them dozens of times with other uninformed dopes, pretenders and propagandists, e.g. Steve Koonin, David R. Henderson, Roger Pielke Jr. et al. So I will just take up the new arguments that Hayward insists disqualifies the topic as anything of immediate import.
What is ironic here, is just as I was reading Hayward's codswallop, wifey and I were on the phone with an agent from the Hartford, to discuss yet another roof replacement. This was to do with replacing all the tiles on our roof after another mega hailstorm barely three weeks ago - with many stones the size of golf balls or half dollars. This followed an initial hail storm featuring baseball size hail in 2016 which saw us replacing the roof for the first time. This after residing 17 going on 18 years here in Colorado, but which featured two massive hailstorms in the past two years that required new roofing. Of course, even the most menial moron ought to be able to grasp this is linked to climate change. Just as the drought we're in the middle of which has now eroded the snowpack to 50 % of what it was a few months ago.
This triggered water restrictions in Manitou Springs, nearby, but not yet here in Colorado Springs. (Though it should!) Meanwhile, we're now in the midst of a string of 90 degree plus days or some 15 degrees hotter than normal.
And this is just the beginning of what we here in Colorado can expect. Merely two years ago the average temperature in Denver for June, July and August was 72.7 degrees — 1.5 degrees higher than the annual average of 71.2 dating to 1872, according to Kyle Fredin, meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Boulder. If current trends in heat-trapping emissions continue, Denver residents by 2050 will face an average of 35 days a year where temperatures hit 95 degrees or hotter, the study found.
Boulder by 2050 will have an average 38 days a year with temperatures exceeding 95 degrees and, by the end of the century, an average of 75 such days a year. The studies found Fort Collins by 2050 will have an average 24 days with temperatures exceeding 95 degrees and 58 days on average by the end of the century.
These numbers may not significantly impress many people, but they should given they mean vastly more demands on the power grid. Moreover, our power grid demands will be multiplied across the nation and people will take notice as their electricity costs spike upward from 100-200%. Also, as extended periods of each day find people - wherever they live- without power, especially in 100 degree plus temperatures.
Factor in also the "one hundred year storms" with rain downpours the likes of which that can sweep whole towns away - such as for Ellicot City, MD recently. See e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/11/rivers-from-skies-nature-of-mega.html
Then there is the ongoing risk of flooding in Miami given sea level rise. Even though it may only be measured in inches these rain events are able to flood the streets even on sunny days if there is also a king tide on those days..
Research published in the journal Environmental Research Letters and reported in the WSJ (April 21-22, p. A3) shows that "single family homes in Miami Dade County are rising in value more slowly near sea level than at higher elevations."
Reinforcing Keenan's work, the WSJ (ibid.) cites another new paper from researchers at the University of Colorado-Boulder and Pennsylvania State University. This paper "shows the trend in Miami is playing out across the country, with homes vulnerable to rising sea levels now selling at a 7 percent discount compared to similar but less expensive properties."
But all this is but a prelude to what can be expected by 2035, e.g. as seen in this U.S. Geological survey projected map:
I reference all the above, as well as the monster hurricanes last year, that wreaked havoc in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico given the following words from Hayward's piece:
"While opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard climate change as a problem, the issue has never achieved the high salience among the public, despite the drumbeat of alarm from the climate campaign. Americans consistently ranked climate the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues."
Eliciting the question of why this is so when Europeans - who generally aren't threatened by monster hurricanes or tornado outbreaks - rank it consistently higher. Are the Germans, Dutch, British more intelligent than Americans? I wouldn't say so only that their media do not undermine the message by canceling out the alarms by publishing the dreck from rightist and libertarian think tanks in the misplaced interest of "balance". These op-ed pieces are written mainly by propagandists and climate deniers paid by the think tanks so the newspapers save money by filling space without using actual journalists.. Again, we call this agnotology. As Exhibit One I present this garbage published in the WSJ in January, 2012:
In many ways it's cut from the same patch of recycled, already skewered balderdash as Hayward's recent piece. As I have pointed out repeatedly, agnotology, derived from the Greek 'agnosis' - the study of culturally constructed ignorance- is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made (and as we know NO scientific theory is free of uncertainty).
Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied it to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends . In other words, the supporters of agnotology - whoever they may be- are all committed to one end: destroying the science to enable economic profit and hence planetary ruin. Proctor also notes these special interests are often paid handsomely to sow immense confusion on the issue. Hence, it's no surprise most of the twits who scribble these pieces hail from economics, government studies or political science - and also belong to rightist, corporate think tanks (e.g. American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute, Hoover Institution). In Hayward's case, he is an imp from the American Enterprise Institute.
Despite all this, as well as the fact that typical brains take more time to process slow moving threats, I am still convinced climate change will make its way up the priority ranking of issues for Americans. It is bound to after enough of their homes are destroyed by tornado outbreaks, hail storms, floods, or general severe storms such as intensifying hurricanes. All spinoffs as climate change ramps up.
Knowing Hayward's connection to that think tank I wasn't the least surprised when he wrote the following:
"The descent of climate change into social justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality."
-
SO in other words, we are to ignore the fact that the poorest, most resource -devastated populations are usually the most ferociously hit, such as in Puerto Rico. (See image at top). In that instance, when reporters like David Muir from ABC travel to Puerto Rico's hinterlands to show us vast scenes of devastation and the people drinking from contaminated pools to get water, we are to see them as detached from us - maybe a different species. But lord help you if you identify with them. As if there is no way such a fate could ever befall the rest of us, especially in the nightmare that is Trump world - where Scott Pruitt's EPA is daily wrecking more and more protections from climate change onslaught.
Anyone can see this is irresponsible nonsense, and in fact if we dispel identity politics in any form we cede the memetic and political battlefield to the Right. Naomi Klein put it thusly in her book NO Is Not Enough - Resisting Trump's Shock Politics' :
"It is short-sighted, not to mention dangerous, for liberals and progressives to abandon their own focus on identity politics",
because:
"To a terrifying degree, skin color and gender conformity are determining who is physically safe in the hands of the state, who is at risk from vigilante violence, who can express themselves without constant harassment and who can cross a border without terror."
Process that the next time you see the images of Trump tossing packages of paper towels to Puerto Ricans after Maria, and marveling at only "16 dead" when we now know the total is over 4,600.
Instead of peddling horse manure like in his WSJ op-ed, Steven Hayward ought to be explaining to his groupies why it is that reinsurance companies like Munich Re all have climate change factored into their tables, costs, plans. But he won't because he's a puppet for those whose only interest is to milk the oil out of the planet, even if it surpasses the 550 gigaton limit we can extract without triggering the runaway Greenhouse.
See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jeremy-brecher/79526/a-climate-constitution-in-the-courts-and-the-streets
In a WSJ article yesterday (p. A17) by David R. Henderson and John M. Cochrane ('Climate Change Isn't the End of the World') it is claimed that climate change is really no biggie. After all the "costs of moving and adapting are not as imposing as they seem", and besides "carbon dioxide hurts nobody's health" and it's "good for plants".. In fact, it is incredible that such recycled rubbish could even appear in a serious newspaper, but there it is. Climate codswallop is indeed fertile soil for the denizens of the Hoover Institution. They earn their living hawking it.
The formidable problems of trying to adapt I've already dealt with here:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/01/climate-change-adaptation-will-be.html
Really choice is the authors' remark:
"It follows that if the future of civilization is really at stake adaptation or geo-engineering should not be unmentionable"
True, which is why I did discuss them in the post associated with the preceding link, especially the latter. I also showed why the various geo-engineering solutions are totally impractical!
None of the problems I examined are in the distant future as the authors seem to believe, but basically right around the corner. For example, the projection by the U.S. Geological Survey for the loss of Florida land owing to sea rise by 2035 - or barely 18 years from now. (This is depicted below.)Estimated economic cost to Florida's economy? Well over $10 billion, and factoring in inflation - probably closer to $20 billion.
As for the claim CO2 "hurts nobody" I wonder where these two Hoover Institution bozos who wrote the piece got that idea or if they ever lived in a dense urban center with thousands of vehicles outgassing CO2 (as well a CO) for hours on the day. But more important and deadly is the cumulative indirect effect of CO2 being added by the gigatons each year to our atmosphere. To put it into quantitative terms, the temperature of the planet is currently out of balance by 0.6W/ m2 and this is almost entirely due to the annual rate of CO2 concentrations increasing. Further, every increase in CO2 concentration by 2 ppm increases the radiative heating effect by 2 W/ m2.
Prof. Gunter Weller (formerly of the Univ. of Alaska Geophysical Institute) estimated the runaway greenhouse effect would kick in when the CO2 concentration level of 600 ppm is surpassed- which seems reasonable. If it is just over 400 ppm now - by many conservative measures - then doing the math (adding 2 ppm per year and 2 W/ m2 puts us in jeopardy by 2100.
The authors claim "typical costs are well blow 10 percent if gross domestic product in the year 2100 and beyond". But they are basing this on way too conservative models that have already been shown not to have reckoned in the expected much more rapid increases. In fact, by 2100, if nothing is done much earlier, economic costs could well exceed 50 percent of GDP for most nations of the planet. These costs will be engendered by:
- Collapse of power grids and energy infrastructure, i.e. from being unable to meet demand in a climate where 130- 140 F is hit in most cities around the world daily.
- Associated collapse of utility electrical pumping stations, i.e. to provide enough water for a much larger population. (because electric power is needed to pump water for use)
- Spread of tropical diseases including cholera, dengue fever and worm parasite infestations, e.g.
Millions more tapeworm cyst infections of human brains in affected areas - perhaps four fifths of our planet's land surface.
Also filiarisis worm infections - as shown on the left. Estimated cost to treat victims, including in North America: over $100 billion per year.
Adapting to worm infestations may be the most straightforward process for some kind of adaptation but require enormous supplies of anti-worm serums, meds such as Ketrax. I recall here my own worm infestation while in Peace Corps - noticed only after being awakened one night by intense itching of my skin, mainly on the inner thighs. As I switched the night light on and spotted definite wriggling movement of the skin, I realized the worms would spread if I didn't act. The cure? Ketrax, prescribed by the spoonful (by a dermatologist) three times a day. After a few bouts of vomiting the vermin out (visible wriggling in the vomit), all had been eliminated. I don't know that people will even be properly diagnosed as multiple worm infestations spread on approaching the cusp of the runaway greenhouse.
We will also have to expect long before the runaway greenhouse kicks in, the spread of antibiotic resistant diseases which will add even more enormous medical costs - and indeed, there may be no way to stem such infections once temperature averages are beyond a certain limit.
Left unsaid, is how increasing CO2 is also altering the composition of our oceans to render them less supportive of life. As recently as 2012 scientists from Columbia University, which led much of the research, have found surging levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that forced down the pH of the ocean by overall 0.1 mean unit in the last century. This is 10 times faster than the closest historical comparison from 56 million years ago. It's deadly serious because - like the margins for ushering in a runaway greenhouse effect, the margins of safety for acidic oceans are extremely low. Hence, one can't tell by the small magnitude of numerical pH that the increment change is nothing to fret over.
As noted in earlier blog posts: the seas absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, forming carbonic acid. The particular chemical reaction is:
H2O + CO2 -> H2 CO3
The lower the pH level of the seawater ('7' is neutral pH), the more acidic. This is also worrisome because mass extinctions of marine creatures in the past have been linked to instances of increased ocean acidification. Thus, the current incremental change could also threaten important species. This according to Baerbel Hoenisch, the paleoceanographer at Columbia who was lead author of a 2012 paper that appeared in the journal Science. As he noted:
“If industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about — coral reefs, oysters, salmon,”
By one estimate, at the rate of acidification, the only marine life that will still survive by 2050 will be jellyfish.
As for the authors' claim that "CO2 is good for plants", the response is yes, but WHAT kind? Seven years earlier we learned in The Wall Street Journal (June 4, p A16, 'Superweeds Trigger New Arms Race'; June 21, 2010, p. D1 that at least 40% of U.S. corn and soybean crops will "harbor Roundup resistant super weeds." Indeed, CO2 spiking concentrations have already led to "super weeds" such as a pig weed variant capable of releasing an irritant chemical known as urushiol and resistant to the most toxic weedicides, excepting perhaps the highly carcinogenic agents known as: 2, 4- D, dicamba and paraquat.
Yes, the plants just love the CO2, but not the kind of plants we want!
The two Hoover -based morons who wrote the piece also insist on the ease of moving, but how will they reckon such climate change flight (say away from an area laden with brain -infesting worms) when it is set against similar migrations occurring simultaneously worldwide?
They ought to consult the 'Defense, National Security And Climate Change Symposium' , held in Washington, D.C. At the Symposium, Brigadier General Stephen Cheney stepped up to the podium to discuss 'Conflict and Climate Change'. Cheney, like some other speakers- zeroed in on climate-driven migration, asserting:
"We know for a fact that climate change is already driving internal and cross border migration"
Referencing here, for example, that in Bangladesh - the 'ground zero' of global warming- rising sea levels could displace 15 million by 2050. Oxford University's Norman Myers has projected there could be as many as 200 million climate refugees by mid-century. Cheney's presentation tagged a number of conflicts that climate change triggers, including the desertification in the borderlands between Chad and Nigeria which "has caused a lot of migration". He also indicated that the terror organization Boko Haram "is simply taking advantage of that".
Other aspects of Cheney's talk cited beefing up military infrastructure at home and abroad to be resistant to harsher climate. The army, in fact, has adopted a 'Net Zero' initiative to make its U.S. bases water and energy independent. Supporting the national defense position, nearly all the reinsurance companies (like Munich Re) have climate change factored into their tables, costs, plans.
A vastly more serious voice than the two Hoover Institution clowns is economics and psychology expert George Loewenstein. His take was typical of the risk assessment experts consulted in a recent AP study. He called climate change "a problem that threatens the very existence of the human race and is already having devastating consequences around the world".
Indeed, extreme weather events derived from climate change have killed more than twice as many people in the U.S. as terror attacks in the past 15 years - including the carnage on September 11, 2001. In fact, the slow rolling disaster of ever intensifying climate change can be thought of as a mode of natural terror which we dismiss or diminish at our peril. New research also discloses that the runaway greenhouse isn't as far off or unlikely as some might wish to believe. See, e.g.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130730163146.htm
But a word of caution: the astronomers who did the research show again why they also need to communicate with climate scientists That is, an increasing solar constant is not required to trigger the runaway, only increasing radiative heating of the atmosphere via added CO2. For every 2 ppm higher CO2 concentration we are registering increases in the radiative heating effect by 2 W/ m2.
Here's a timely heads up when one might encounter articles such as the one from the WSJ yesterday: If it's written by authors based at the Hoover Institution don't trust a word of what is put forward. (And look at the end of such op-ed pieces to see where the tract originated. As we know the Hoover Institution is one of the primary enclaves for climate deniers and skeptics.)
