Tag Archives: Global Warming

Global warming’s effects are coming on faster than previously thought.

January 22, 2015Uncategorizedarctic sea ice, Climate Change, Climate Change, Climate Change Graphics, Global Warming, Global Warming, Ice Caps, IPCC, methaneGreg Laden

Arctic sea ice decline happened faster than expected. This has the effect of accelerating global warming because less of the Sun’s energy is reflected back into space by ice.

Northern Hemisphere snow also sends some of that energy back into space. The amount of snow cover we have is also declining.

Difference from average annual snow extent since 1971, compared to the 1966-2010 average (dashed line). Snow extents have largely been below-average since the late1980s. Graph adapted from Figure 1.1 (h) in the 2012 BAMS State of the Climate report.

The warming of the Arctic region is also probably causing an increase in the amount of CO2 and Methane, previously frozen in permafrost or offshore, that is going into the atmosphere. For this and other reasons, Methane, along with other greenhouse gases, are increasing. I quickly add that stories you’ve heard of a civilization “methane bomb” in the Arctic are not supported by the best available science. But these additional greenhouse gases still count.

Global average abundances of the major, well-mixed, long-lived greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC-12 and CFC-11 - from the NOAA global air sampling network are plotted since the beginning of 1979. These gases account for about 96% of the direct radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases since 1750. The remaining 4% is contributed by an assortment of 15 minor halogenated gases including HCFC-22 and HFC-134a (see text). Methane data before 1983 are annual averages from D. Etheridge [Etheridge et al., 1998], adjusted to the NOAA calibration scale [Dlugokencky et al., 2005]. — Global average abundances of the major, well-mixed, long-lived greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC-12 and CFC-11 – from the NOAA global air sampling network are plotted since the beginning of 1979. These gases account for about 96% of the direct radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases since 1750. The remaining 4% is contributed by an assortment of 15 minor halogenated gases including HCFC-22 and HFC-134a (see text). Methane data before 1983 are annual averages from D. Etheridge [Etheridge et al., 1998], adjusted to the NOAA calibration scale [Dlugokencky et al., 2005].

Now we are learning that glacial ice, in particular in Antarctica, is melting faster than expected.

That video is from a recent post by Peter Sinclair, who has more on glacial melting.

We knew a lot of the additional heat (from global warming) was going into the oceans, but now we have learned that a LOT of this heat is going into the ocean. This heat goes in and out, so what has been going in will likely be going out (into the atmosphere).

90% of the Earth's energy balance involves the ocean's heat, shown here. Note that there is no current pause, and that surface temperature estimates (see graph above) tend to underestimate the total amount of anthropogenic global warming because much of this heat, routinely, goes into the ocean. We can expect some of this heat to return to the atmosphere in coming years. — 90% of the Earth’s energy balance involves the ocean’s heat, shown here. Note that there is no current pause, and that surface temperature estimates (see graph above) tend to underestimate the total amount of anthropogenic global warming because much of this heat, routinely, goes into the ocean. We can expect some of this heat to return to the atmosphere in coming years.

(See also this post by Joe Romm.)

This causes me to look at a graph like this …

Figure SPM.5. Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–1999) for the scenarios A2, A1B and B1, shown as continuations of the 20th century simulations. Shading denotes the ±1 standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The orange line is for the experiment where concentrations were held constant at year 2000 values. The grey bars at right indicate the best estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range assessed for the six SRES marker scenarios. The assessment of the best estimate and likely ranges in the grey bars includes the AOGCMs in the left part of the figure, as well as results from a hierarchy of independent models and observational constraints. {Figures 10.4 and 10.29}

… and figure that warming over coming decades will be at, near, or even above, the range previously estimated.

“Let me introduce you to my little friend”: 2014, warmest year

January 22, 2015Uncategorized2014 warmest year, Andrew Revkin, Climate Change, Climate Change, Global Warming, Global WarmingGreg Laden

Andrew Revkin has this commentary at the New York Times: How ‘Warmest Ever’ Headlines and Debates Can Obscure What Matters About Climate Change.

I will argue below that Revkin has, inadvertently or not, linked a science denialist trope to the important scientific finding that 2014 is the warmest year on record, as part of his presumably well intentioned effort to focus on trends rather than individual points. (See his comment on this blog below.) Yes, the trend is more important than a given data point, but the headline does not really obscure, but rather, underscores.

I’m afraid the devaluing of 2014, or any year, as a new data point in measuring global surface temperature change will become yet another climate science denialist claim. The strength of this claim would lie entirely in absurd idea that one data point in set a of data demonstrating a trend, with N=130, is not important if it is not “statistically significant” in difference from nearby points. That is actually what we expect when adding new data to the end of a trend, when the trend itself is real and there are already sufficient data points to lend a high degree of confidence. Indeed, the temperature anomaly estimate for 2014 is exactly what we would expect under conditions of continuous global warming.

Like this:

2014 is exactly where we expect it to be assuming that the long term trend is well represented by current data and models. That is Significant with at big 'S'. — 2014 is exactly where we expect it to be assuming that the long term trend is well represented by current data and models. That is Significant with at big ‘S’.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama said, “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does?—?14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.” The President refers here to last Friday’s announcement by the key US government agencies that study climate and weather, NOAA and NASA, that 2014 was the warmest year in a record of temperatures that goes back to 1880. President Obama correctly notes the milestone of 2014 being the warmest year, and that the larger, more important, fact, is that all of the warmest years we’ve experienced since industrialization have been very recent.

Revkin notes the NOAA/NASA report and links this to criticisms from the Daily Mail (one of the most notorious rags at the fringes of journalism), the right wing “The Federalist,” and an extreme climate science denialist site. This has the effect of creating a balance between established government scientists and agencies who say one thing, and critics providing an alternative view. What this really is, of course, is a false balance between mainstream science on one hand and rather extreme science denialism on the other. By uncritically providing their point of view along side the findings of NOAA and NASA he effectively elevates cranks to the status of expert. This slight of hand seems to have had the function of allowing Revkin to note that “it’s a distraction to focus on records … given how year-to-year differences in global temperature are measured in a few hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit, and given the implicit uncertainty in such measurement.”

So. 2014. Shiny! Since we are capable of thinking about only one thing, lets’ avoid thinking about 2014? No. That would be wrong.

Revkin previously claimed that when writing about science he tries to only refer to scientists, in a 2006 interview conducted by Paul Thacker:

Thacker: Scientists consistently complain that the journalistic practice of “balance” allows skeptics to gain an unfair toehold in media coverage, which ignores consensus in favor of controversy. Do you agree, and do journalists need to rethink their approach to covering complex scientific issues?

Revkin: Balance is a necessary evil, a crutch, particularly in daily journalism, but only works with coverage of the science –policy interface if the journalist works hard to label the voices in a story to reflect what they represent (a consensus or knowledgeable minority) and certainly to reflect their motivation or potential conflict (paid by industry? on staff at an environmental group?). When I’m writing strictly on a scientific finding, I avoid voices from anyone other than scientists. When I’m writing on policy, I’ll quote those with an agenda, but only if I label their agenda.

He did not do this in his latest New York Times commentary.

Much of the rest of Revkin’s post is a foray into probability and statistics that ends up not being very helpful, mainly because the meaning of 2014’s surface temperature estimate was not appreciated.

Here is what is going on. The value of a given year when it is one of 130+ data points is limited. That was true before 2014 turned out to be the warmest in that data set, it would have been true if 2014 had turned out to have been a bit cooler or warmer. It applies to each and every one of the years for which surface temperatures have been estimated by a half dozen or so agencies or research groups. What we are really measuring here is change over time, over decades of time. We do not decide if there is a trend of change over time in such a data set by looking at a given year. We look at the trend itself, incorporating all of the data.

At the same time, every single point counts. The trend is an accumulation of annual averages of individual years arranged across time. We are ultimately asking two questions of these data. First, we are asking about patterns in the past, since humans started releasing copious amounts of the greenhouse gas CO2 into the atmosphere. We are seeking other relationships over that time frame as well, looking at the strength of the sun over time, the effects of atmospheric dust spewed by volcanoes or human activities, and complex interaction between “surface temperature” (the thing these data sets measure) and the actual global temperature which includes the ocean (containing well over 90% of this heat). In order to examine this record in light of all of those variables, we have to pay attention to each and every year. And, the most important year is always the one we just got, because it serves as a tiny but helpful test of our running hypothesis. And, it is more data! It is like finding a new friend.

The second question we are asking is what will happen in the future. Right up until the start of January, the year 2014 was in the future. The temperature value estimated for 2014, or more exactly, the degree (literally) and direction of this year as an anomaly reflected against a long term average, is the very point of this research, and of course, this applies to 2015, 2016, and so on. The relative position of 2014 in relation to the long term data is of great interest. Had that value been substantially less than the trend predicts, there would be some ‘splainin to do. Had the value been way higher than the trend predicts, there would be some ‘splainin to do. As it turns out, 2014 couldn’t have been much closer to the exact value the long term trend line predicted. It was dead on under the assumption of continued warming. That, ladies and gentleman, is a data point of worthy note.

2014’s temperature value is significant for the very fact that it is not statistically different from expectations under the widely accepted model of anthropogenic global warming. That is the meaning of 2014’s surface temperature estimate.

Please remember that the “surface temperature” is only the measurement of the air near the ground and the surface of the sea, combined. This is less than 10% of the total heat containing portion of the planet affected by global warming. The surface temperature is an important indicator of change over time, and for historical reasons this is a measurement we use. But it is like the tail of the dog, where the dog is the ocean, where the other 90% or so of heat resides. John Abraham just posted a commentary on the most recent data, just updated, on ocean heat content, and it has been rising apace. (See also this paper on that topic, and this post by Joe Romm.)

2014’s surface temperature estimate obscures nothing, it reveals. It is not a distraction. It is the point.

I think it is important to note that the reality of global warming, and tracking it, is complex. This was, in fact, the warmest year on record. The fact that a new warmest year will almost always be only a little warmer than a previous recent warmest year does not diminish the importance of the new top rank year, but rather, underscores it, since all the “warmest years” are recent. If this year beat out the next warmest year by only a small amount, and that next warmest year was from 1881, we would not be impressed. But since this new warmest year’s friends, the other previous winners of this particular numerical beauty contest, are all very recent, we are impressed. And we should be worried.

It would be odd to not acknowledge a new warmest year when the data come out, and it would be odd to not recognize its significance.

The Serengeti Strategy

January 21, 2015Uncategorizedanti-science, Climate Change, Climate Change, Global Warming, Global Warming, Lies and Denial, Michael Mann, Science Denialism, Serengeti Strategy, serengettiGreg Laden

What is the Serengeti Strategy?

“The Serengeti Strategy” is a term coined by climate scientist Michael Mann in which “special interests faced with adverse scientific evidence … target individual scientists rather than take on an entire scientific field at once.” His invention of the analogy must have been an interesting moment, given the context. In his book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Line, Mann talks about a trip to scientific meetings in Arusha as an IPCC co-author, during which he took the usual side trip to the Serengeti:

After the meeting, I joined a daylong expedition to see one of the world’s greatest displays of nature: Serengeti National Park. Here, zebras, giraffes, elephants, water buffalo, hippos, wildebeests, baboons, warthogs, gazelles, and ostriches wander among some of the world’s most dangerous predators: lions, leopards, and cheetahs. Among the most striking and curious scenes I saw that day were groups of zebras standing back to back, forming a continuous wall of vertical stripes. “Why do they do this?” an IPCC colleague asked the tour guide. “To confuse the lions,” he explained. Predators, in what I call the “Serengeti strategy,” look for the most vulnerable animals at the edge of a herd. But they have difficulty picking out an individual zebra to attack when it is seamlessly incorporated into the larger group, lost in this case in a continuous wall of stripes. Only later would I understand the profound lesson this scene from nature had to offer me and my fellow climate scientists in the years to come.

Later in the same book, Mann, writing about attacks on his “Hockey Stick” research, notes:

Climate change deniers went on to wage a public—and very personal—assault against my coauthors and me in the hope that somehow they might discredit all of climate science, the fruit of the labors of thousands of scientists from around the world, by discrediting us and our work. The Serengeti strategy writ large.

More recently, Mann published a paper in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, The Serengeti strategy: How special interests try to intimidate scientists, and how best to fight back.

What do Michael Mann, Rachel Carson, Charles Darwin and PZ Myers have in common?

Mann provides other examples of the Serengeti Strategy in use. Most of these examples will be familiar to you. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian “think” tank, produced a website called “RachelWasWrong” for the purpose of discrediting the environment friendly writings of Rachel Carson. The site attacks Carson, ineffectively if you know the facts, in an effort to discredit environmentalism in general.

Mann also mentions Darwin. To my knowledge, there wasn’t much of a Serengeti Strategy launched against Darwin in his day. People didn’t operate that way back then, perhaps. The attempts at refuting Darwin’s theories of evolution were more regularly launched at the theories themselves, and of course, Darwin had his bulldog, Thomas Huxley, which helped keep him out of the fight. But in more recent times, we see creationist organizations attacking Darwin by trying to link him with Hitler, the Nazis, the Holocaust, etc., in order to make his ideas seem unpalatable. That is of course a good example of an ad hominem attack.

Individual modern day evolutionary biologists are also attacked this way. One of the best examples is probably the regular attacks by Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League, or operatives of the Intelligent Design purveying Discovery Institute, on biologist and blogger PZ Myers.

I’ve been the subject of this strategy as well, most annoyingly by members of the Mens Rights Movement, who wish to discredit the commonly held and relatively sensible version of human behavioral biology (related to human behavior, sex differences, etc) to which I subscribe. This came to a head a while back when I wrote a novel (which you must have read by now, right?) live on the internet as a fundraiser for the Secular Student Alliance, an organization that I strongly supported. The very secular Mens Rights Movement set aside the fact that this effort was to raise money for a cause they actually supported in order to attempt to destroy sales of the revised version of the novel with numerous bogus awful reviews (here is where you can find the details of that dust up, and a link to get your own copy of the novel!). Michael Mann has been attacked, by the way, in a similar manner, on his Amazon page.

The point of all this is that ad hominem, or other, attacks on individuals who publicly represent a point of view, as a means of taking down the larger concept (the reality of global warming, evolutionary biology, etc.) is a technique. Mann is especially well prepared to discuss this problem because he pretty much lives every day with a ring of hungry hyenas following him around. (By the way, Mann leaves off hyenas in his list of dangerous predators in the Serengeti. Indeed, there are times and places in that region where hyenas are the main predator, to the extent that lions may be found scavenging off their kills more often than the other way around. But I digress.)

So why is this strategy employed and how well does it work?

From Mann’s paper:

…it is effective, for a number of reasons. By singling out a sole scientist, it is possible for the forces of “anti-science” to bring many more resources to bear on one individual, exerting enormous pressure from multiple directions at once, making defense difficult. It is similar to what happens when a group of lions on the Serengeti seek out a vulnerable individual zebra at the edge of a herd, which is why I call it the “Serengeti strategy”…

I can’t help but think that one of those resources, a gaggle of willing internet trolls, is more easily engaged in attacks on individuals rather than ideas because an attack on an individual is a potentially satisfying act of sadism, while an attack on an idea is not. Also, the latter is harder work. And, yes, there is evidence that the internet trolls are sadists.

Mann also notes that it is more difficult to attack an entire group of scientists, several individuals expert in a subfield, at once. This, indeed, is what makes the Serengeti predator analogy work. However, this is also an appropriate moment to note a minor weakness in the analogy. Super-predators in open habitats, those who hunt cursorially, tend to achieve the best results when an individual member of the herd goes off in the wrong direction or is slower because of a weakness or injury. That aspect of actual predation does not apply to the Serengeti Strategy against scientists, and in fact, it may be that going after one of the stronger members of the herd is the preferred strategy.

In his article Mann provides detailed discussion of the strategy and its links to big industry, and also ties together the idea of “swiftboating” and Serengeti Strategy. With respect to the latter, we may fold back in, once again, anti-evoltuionary biology strategies. As Mann notes, scientists are ethically bound to approach problems, and discussions of problems, in a certain way, whereby things like facts and strong theories predominate in the formulation of arguments. The attackers don’t have to do this. They can do and say whatever they want. They can lie, cheat, obfuscate, cherry pick. Moreover they can switch strategies as needed. The same individual science denialist may claim a certain scientific finding is invalid, say during an Internet conversation in a blog’s comments section. Once an argument is made (by others) against that point, that denialist may drop it, and move on to a different point. But later, in a different Internet context, the same denialist will re-use the original discredited point. Most denialists have a laundry list of points they keep coming back to, often shifting from one point to the next very quickly in order to avoid being pinned down. This is known as the Gish Gallop.

Speaking of attacks on the Hockey Stick research, which by the way has been tested by a great deal of subsequent research and found to be solid, Mann notes:

Many of the attacks claimed that the hockey stick was simply wrong, or bad science, or that it was debunked or dis- credited, despite all evidence to the contrary–such as the reaffirmation of our findings by the National Academy of Sciences, the subsequent reports of the IPCC, and the most recent peer- reviewed research.

Others were challenges to my integrity and honesty. Most worrisome were thinly veiled threats leveled against my family and me. (And some not so veiled, such as letters and e-mails threatening my life and my family’s lives, including an envelope sent in the mail that contained a white powder, subsequently investigated by the FBI …

Then came the manufactured, so- called “climategate” controversy … in which climate change deniers stole thousands of e-mails and mined them for words and phrases that could be taken out of context and made to sound as if scientists had been doctor- ing data or otherwise engaged in misbehavior. Nine investigations later, we know that the only wrongdoing was the criminal theft of the e-mails in the first place.

What to do about the anti-science Serengeti Strategy?

Mann notes that he became a “science advocate” instead of just a regular scientist because of these attacks. I find this interesting. Many other scientists, such as myself, have gotten into science advocacy because of attacks on science, but not necessarily because of attacks on us. The attacks came later because we stuck our heads up. I would like to know how unique that aspect of Mann’s situation is.

In any event, there are probably things one can do to respond to this situation, mainly having to to with communication. Giving public talks, lectures, and interviews is part of it, Mann notes. Engaging on the Internet, such as through a blog (Mann was a cofounder of RealClimate) helps. Mann is a go-to guy for the press, which as he notes must be very satisfying. When denialists are circling and begin to howl, their very victim is brought in to provide a response. You don’t see that on the African Savanna very often. And, where possible, Mann suggests engaging with good faith skeptics in a constructive manner. But, when the good faith is not there, don’t engage.

Mann closes his article on a positive, or at least, optimistic note:

There is some evidence that flat-out climate change denial has lost favor over the past few years. With authoritative reports coming in from not just the scientific community but the business community, the national security community, and even some conservative groups that climate change is a very real and existential threat to society, a new breed of climate change contrarian — ?the delayer — has now emerged.

Examples of individuals occupying that niche in the media today are folks like Judith Curry … Richard Muller, and … Bjorn Lomborg. Rather than flat-out denying the existence of human-caused climate change, delayers claim to accept the science, but downplay the seriousness of the threat or the need to act. The end result is an assertion that we should delay or resist entirely any efforts to mitigate the climate change threat…

So while the battle is far from over, the tide does appear to be turning. We are seeing the slow but steady retreat of climate change contrarians … The window of public discourse appears to be shifting away from the false debate … There is still time to act so that we avert leaving a fundamentally degraded planet for future generations….

We scientists?must hold ourselves to a higher standard than the deniers-for-hire. We must be honest as we convey the threat posed by climate change to the public. But we must also be effective. The stakes are simply too great for us to fail to communicate the risks of inaction.

I recommend reading the original paper, as I’ve only briefly summarized it here.

“Few things threaten America’s future prosperity more than climate change.”

January 20, 2015UncategorizedClimate Change, Climate Change, Energy, Energy, Global Warming, Global WarmingGreg Laden

The title of this post is the beginning of a more extensive comment, as follows:

Few things threaten America’s future prosperity more than climate change.

But there is growing hope. Every 2.5 minutes of every single day, the U.S. solar industry is helping to fight this battle by flipping the switch on another completed solar project.

According to GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the United States installed an estimated 7.4 gigawatts (GW) of solar last year — a 42 percent increase over 2013 — making it the best year ever for solar installations in America. What’s more, solar accounted for a record 53 percent of all new electric generation capacity installed in the first half of 2014, pushing solar to the front as the fastest-growing source of renewable energy in America.

Today, the U.S. has an estimated 20.2 GW of installed solar capacity, enough to effectively power nearly 4 million homes in the United States — or every single home in a state the size of Massachusetts or New Jersey — with another 20 GW in the pipeline for 2015-2016.

Additionally, innovative solar heating and cooling systems (SHC) are offering American consumers cost-efficient, effective options for meeting their energy needs, while lowering their utility bills. In fact, a report prepared for SEIA outlines an aggressive plan to install 100 million SHC panels in the United States by 2050. This action alone would create 50,250 new American jobs and save more than $61 billion in future energy costs.

Where do we find this quote? In a rather unexpected place. It is from a 2015 report by The AmericanPetroleum Institute.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is a national trade association that represents all segments of America’s innovation-driven
oil and natural gas industry. Its more than 600 members — including large integrated companies, exploration and production, refining, marketing, pipeline, marine shipping and support businesses, and service and supply firms — provide most of the nation’s energy and are backed by a growing
grassroots movement of more than 27 million Americans. The industry also supports 9.8 million U.S. jobs and 8 percent of the U.S. economy, delivers $85 million a day in revenue to our government and, since 2000, has invested more than $3 trillion in U.S. capital projects to advance all forms of energy.

The report (PDF) is here.

I had never realized the link between that Bob Dylan song and … sea level rise!

The State of the Climate: New Peter Sinclair Video

January 20, 2015UncategorizedClimate Change, Climate Change, Global Warming, Global Warming, Peter Sinclair VideoGreg Laden

Background and context is here.

Video is here:

So, are we going to have an El Nino, or what?

January 20, 2015UncategorizedClimate Change, El Nino, ENSO, Global Warming, Severe weatherGreg Laden

Officially, 2014 closed without an official El Nino. Probably. If you went back in a time machine to the spring, and told El Nino watchers that, they would be a little surprised, but they would also say something like, “Yeah, well, you know, we keep saying this is hard to predict.”

Despite the fact that for the most part there was not an official El Nino declared, a subset of El Nino conditions have been around, off and on, for many months. To officially declare an El Nino, a number of things have to add up, and while some of those things developed, the standard was not met. A few weeks ago, the Japan Meteorological Agency did retroactively say that there had been an El Nino, but others are not really going along with that. Some agencies are saying something similar but with less certainty.

Over the last few days, a number of new statements about El Nino have come out, and it looks like we are not too likely to see a large El Nino in 2015, but maybe a weak one. Or maybe none. (But some who watch this phenomenon have quietly suggested there could be a strong one.) Here are some of those statements.

Let’s start with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology ENSO Wrap-Up:

Tropical Pacific Ocean moves from El Niño to neutral
Issued on 20 January 2015
Since late 2014, most ENSO indicators have eased back from borderline El Niño levels. As the natural seasonal cycle of ENSO is now entering the decay phase, and models indicate a low chance of an immediate return to El Niño levels, neutral conditions are considered the most likely scenario through into autumn.

Central tropical Pacific Ocean surface temperatures have fallen by around half a degree from their peak of 1.1 °C above average in late November. Likewise, the Southern Oscillation Index has weakened to values more consistent with neutral conditions, while recent cloud patterns show little El Niño signature. As all models surveyed by the Bureau favour a continuation of these neutral conditions in the coming months, the immediate threat of El Niño onset appears passed for the 2014–15 cycle. Hence the ENSO Tracker has been reset to NEUTRAL. The Tracker will remain at NEUTRAL unless observations and model outlooks indicate a heightened risk of either La Niña or El Niño developing later this year.

From NOAA’s climate prediction center, from a statement issued on January 8th, 2015:

Although the surface and sub-surface temperature anomalies were consistent with El Niño, the overall atmospheric circulation continued to show only limited coupling with the anomalously warm water. The equatorial low-level winds were largely near average during the month, while upper-level easterly anomalies continued in the central and eastern tropical Pacific. The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) remained slightly negative, but the Equatorial SOI remained near zero. Also, rainfall remained below-average near the Date Line and was above-average over Indonesia (Fig. 5). Overall, the combined atmospheric and oceanic state remains ENSO-neutral.

Similar to last month, most models predict the SST anomalies to remain at weak El Niño levels (3-month values of the Niño-3.4 index between 0.5oC and 0.9oC) during December-February 2014-15, and lasting into the Northern Hemisphere spring 2015 (Fig. 6). If El Niño were to emerge, the forecaster consensus favors a weak event that ends in early Northern Hemisphere spring. In summary, there is an approximately 50-60% chance of El Niño conditions during the next two months, with ENSO-neutral favored thereafter (click CPC/IRI consensus forecast for the chance of each outcome).

And now a shout out from NOAA, January 15th:

CURRENT ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC CONDITIONS CONTINUE TO SHOW MIXED SIGNALS
REGARDING THE ENSO STATE. SEA-SURFACE TEMPERATURES (SSTS) REMAINED NEAR TO
ABOVE AVERAGE FOR MOST OF THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC, BUT THROUGH EARLY JANUARY,
THE ATMOSPHERIC RESPONSE IS NOT ROBUST. TAKEN AS A WHOLE, THE ENSO SYSTEM
REMAINS IN AN ENSO NEUTRAL STATE, WITH SOME ASPECTS OF A WARM EVENT. THE
CHANCES OF EL NINO DEVELOPING DURING THE NEXT 2 MONTHS ARE 50-60 PERCENT, WITH
A RETURN TO ENSO NEUTRAL CONDITIONS FAVORED THEREAFTER.

(I thought they were going to stop using all caps.)

From the International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Columbia University, IRI ENSO forecast:

During December 2014 through early January 2015 the SST exceeded thresholds for weak Niño conditions, although the anomaly level has weakened recently. Meanwhile, only some of the atmospheric variables indicate an El Niño pattern. Most of the ENSO prediction models indicate weak El Niño conditions during the January-March season in progress, continuing through most or all of northern spring 2015.

And now a few pullouts from the January 19th ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions report from NOAA, a PDF file chock full of graphics and stuff put out every month.

This table (of ONI Index values) puts the current year in context of previous El Nino (red) and La Nina (blue) seasons. It is interesting to look at how long it has been since the last strong El Nino event. Most of 2012, and all of 2013 and 2014, qualify as being enough of anything by this measure to call it anything other than Neutral.

This graphic summarizes the chance of El Nino over coming months.

ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Watch
ENSO-neutral conditions continue.
Positive equatorial sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies continue across
most of the Pacific Ocean.
There is an approximately 50-60% chance of El Niño conditions during the
next two months, with ENSO-neutral favored thereafter.

So, did we have an El Nino? Not officially, though some features that make up this phenomenon were present, off and on, over the last several months. Will we have an El Nino? Well, the indications we are having now are not too different than what we have been having, so who knows? My personal opinion is that the last year and the coming months together are going to have to be looked at carefully to determine if the way in which El Nino is measured need to be tweaked. But, that is nothing new, there is an ongoing conversation among climatologists about this.

The graphic at the head of the post is from “Fishing in pink waters: How scientists unraveled the El Niño mystery.”

Testing Matt Ridley’s Hypotheses About Global Warming

January 19, 2015UncategorizedClimate Change, Climate Change, Global Warming, Global Warming, Matt Ridley, The Times, UncategorizedGreg Laden

Matt Ridley has written an opinion piece for The Times (not the New York Times, the other one) which is a response to his critics, specifically, to those who openly disagree with him about climate change. Ridley’s commentary is jaw dropping, and for most of you, those who are not of Royal Blood and highly privileged, it is more than a little squirm-inducing. But, putting that aside, Ridley makes a number of assertions, two of which (*) I’d like to address. Other problems with Ridley’s approach have been addressed here, by Dana Nuccitelli.

Spoiler alert, he is wrong on both counts.

First, to summarize his arguments, I paraphrase of his commentary in The Times (which is behind a paywall), in bullet point form:

Since so many people disagree with me, I am probably right.
I think global warming is real, and mostly man-made.
I think global warming is not dangerous.
I think global warming is slow and erratic*, AND will continued to be*.
That global warming has been slow lately conforms with my lukewarm hypothesis.
I annoy people.
I have been called a lot of names.
My detractors are mainly public employees including scientists and politicians.
I have lost opportunities because people conspire against me.
I do other things than write about climate change.
People do not attack my arguments, they attack my motives. For example, I make money off of coal.
I really prefer natural gas to coal.
I have been offered, many times, opportunities to install clean energy technology on my vast land holdings. I have refused every time.
I used to think climate change is serious, but since it seems to have slowed down, I no longer think so.
Climate change models are wrong.
The hockey stick graph has been discredited. (I quickly add that the hockey stick graph has been confirmed again and again. See this. A version of the hockey stick graph is the image at the top of this post.)
Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have it right. (They don’t; see the links.) The vast majority of the other climate scientists have it wrong.
Climate change is not settled science. (There is, of course, a scientific consensus on climate change.)
The IPCC agrees with me.
Policies to combat climate change are ineffective, expensive, harmful to the poor, and bad for the environment.
No one had ever effectively addressed my doubts.
Bob Ward is a poopyface.

Of these assertions, I want to address only two (starred); Ridley has said that global warming has slowed down, and he has said that this slowness will continue in the future. These are both reasonable hypotheses at first glance, and testable. So let us test them. But before we do, I want to point out that they are not really reasonable hypotheses, because the physics are pretty solid on climate change. A real long term slow down in warming would be unexpected, astounding even, given what we know about how the atmosphere works. That alone does not make the ideas impossible, necessarily, but it certainly gives Ridley’s hypotheses a rather steep incline.

First, has global warming slowed down? If it has, Ridley may be on to something (but maybe not). If it has not, then this hypothesis is falsified.

There are several lines of evidence to suggest that global warming has not slowed down. First, we need to acknowledge that “warming” as the term is often used means changes in estimated global surface temperatures based only on measurement of the air near ground level, combined with sea surface temperatures. An excellent primer on how this is done can be found here. Keep that in mind.

Some have suggested that there has been a recent slowdown in global warming, as per this particular measurement. The first thing you need to know is that there are frequent slowdowns in warming in this data, as well as frequent speedups. One way to characterize this is to have a look at the famous Escalator Graph produced some time ago by by Dana Nuccitelli and recently updated.

Click on the picture to see the moving GIF version! Caption from the source: One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate contrarians is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to "cherrypick" short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps). Isn't it strange how six periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades? Several factors can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the 11-year solar cycle. These short-term cycles don't have long-term effects on the Earth's temperature, unlike the continuing upward trend caused by global warming from human greenhouse gas emissions. — Click on the picture to see the moving GIF version! Caption from the source: One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate contrarians is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to “cherrypick” short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps). Isn’t it strange how six periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades? Several factors can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the 11-year solar cycle. These short-term cycles don’t have long-term effects on the Earth’s temperature, unlike the continuing upward trend caused by global warming from human greenhouse gas emissions.

Now that we understand that the squiggle representing surface temperature … well, squiggles up and down … we can have a longer term look at warming and see if an estimate of the rate of warming for recent years shows a slowdown. Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt recently tweeted this graphic addressing this very question:

Notice that the trend does in fact drop slightly in upward slope in recent years. Ever. So. Slightly. But, in the end, 2014, which turned out to be the hottest year of the instrumental record so far, is dead on the long term prediction of warming. In other words, rather than warming slowing below the predicted level, it has nearly maintained the predicted level, thus falsifying Ridley’s hypothesis. Don’t expect 2015 do be a big drop in temperature. It is way too early to say anything close to definitive about the year we just started. But, January has been warm and we are expecting El Nino conditions to add heat to the atmosphere this year, so we might expect 2015 to be like 2014, or may be even warmer.

But, yes, there may be a slowing of surface temperature increase, but that is only part of the story. The vast majority of the heat that is added to (or subtracted from) the Earth goes into and out of the deeper ocean, not the atmosphere or sea surface. (See above graphic.) This means that the surface temperatures are a bit like the tail of the dog, where the dog itself is the sea. I wrote about this here. Meanwhile, there is strong evidence that the top 2000 meters or so of the oceans is indeed taking in the extra heat that helps account for a minor slowdown in warming. Here is a link to a recent paper on this, by John Abraham, John Fasullo and Me. And here’s a graph from that paper:

So, Ridley’s first hypothesis, that warming is slow, is falsified.

To the extent that there is some slowing in recent years, it is generally thought that this is a combination of the ocean taking in extra heat, some slowing of warming due to dust put into the atmosphere by a higher than usual amount of volcanic activity (from smaller volcanoes, the ones you don’t really notice unless you live near them), and a current decline in the energy provided by the sun (not to worry, that goes up and down on a regular basis). In that order, probably.

Let me add that even if warming was slower than some preconceived rate, that does not mean that it is not a problem. First, even a slowed down rate of warming suggested by Ridley and others is very fast by long term geological standards, too high to be safe. Second, certain long term effects of warming, such as melting polar ice sheets and causing massive sea level rise, may simply arrive later. But they will still arrive.

Ridley’s second hypothesis, that global warming will be slow in the future, is not testable at this time. The fact that his second hypothesis is based on the first, that future slowness is assumed because of (non-existing) present day slowness, seems to be obviated. But, we can let the hypothesis stand as proposed and untested, if for no other reason than to mitigate Matt Ridley’s whinge. Then, in a few years, we can test it. Ridley is, essentially, predicting that over the next decade or so far more years will fall below a regression line based on recent decades, with fewer and fewer years falling above the line as time marches on. In a few years, let’s check back.

Meanwhile, let’s be sensible and smart and do something about global warming, because it is real. For his part, I hope Matt Ridley stops mining coal out of his own land and allows those other folks to put up a windmill or two. That would be royal.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/climate-change-sceptics-headless-chickens-prince-charles

New York Times Puts AGW Above The Fold, But …

January 17, 2015Uncategorized2014 warmest year, Climate Change, Climate Change, Climate Change Graphics, Denialism, Global Warming, Global Warming, New York TimesGreg Laden

The New York Times put the news of 2014 being the warmest year on their front page, in the precious space known as “Above The Fold.” But, the venerable paper of record continues to give credence to science denialists by calling them “skeptics,” and continues to imply that there really is a debate between consensus based science and politically motivated denial of science. To underscore this point I created the above graphic.

I would also like to congratulate the Washington Post for putting this piece by Joby Warrick and Chris Mooney on the front of section A1.

And, TIME has also placed the latest AGW news in a prominent place, and explicitly puts deniers in their place: A Bad Day for Climate Change Deniers … And the Planet. (Hat tip: Paul Douglas)

The Hottest Year: 2014

January 16, 2015Uncategorized2014, Climate and weather, Climate Change, Climate Change, Global Warming, Global Warming, Hottest Year, Hurricane, NASA, NOAA, Sea Level RiseGreg Laden

NOAA will announce today that 2014 was the warmest year during the instrumental record, which begins in 1880. The announcement, which addresses findings of both NOAA and NASA, will be made today at 11:00 Eastern. Below is the press release from NOAA.

I talked about this and other climate matters in a radio interview at Green Divas:

Michael Mann has made the following statements regarding this news:

2014 Was Earth’s Warmest Year On Record
Three major climate organizations (JMA, NASA, and NOAA) have now released their official estimates for the 2014 Global Mean Surface Temperature. Both JMA and NOAA conclude that 2014 was substantially higher, i.e. outside the margin of error, of previous contenders (1998, 2005, and 2010) while NASA finds 2014 to be warmest, but within the margin of error of 2005 and 2010 (i.e. a “statistical tie”).

Based on the collective reports, it is therefore fair to declare 2014 the warmest year on record. This is significant for a number of reasons. Unlike past record years, 2014 broke the record without the “assist” of a large El Niño event. There was only the weakest semblance of an El Niño and tropical Pacific warmth contributed only moderately to the record 2014 global temperatures. Viewed in context, the record temperatures underscore the undeniable fact that we are witnessing, before our eyes, the effects of human-caused climate change. It is exceptionally unlikely that we would be seeing a record year, during a record warm decade, during a multidecadal period of warmth that appears to be unrivaled over at least the past millennium, were it not for the rising levels of planet-warming gases produced by fossil fuel burning.

The record temperatures *should* put to rest the absurd notion of a “pause” (what I refer to as the “Faux Pause” in Scientific American in global warming. There is a solid body of research now showing that any apparent slow-down of warming during the past decade was likely due to natural short-term factors (like small changes in solar output and volcanic activity) and internal fluctuations related to e.g. the El Nino phenomenon. The record 2014 temperatures underscore the fact that global warming and associated climate changes continue unabated as we continue to raise the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The Press Release

NOAA: 2014 was Earth’s warmest year on record
December 2014 record warm; Global oceans also record warm for 2014

The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA scientists. The December combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was also the highest on record.

This summary from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides to government, business, academia and the public to support informed decision-making.

In an independent analysis of the data also released today, NASA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.

2014

    <li>During 2014, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all years in the 1880-2014 record, surpassing the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).</li>

    <li>Record warmth was spread around the world, including Far East Russia into western Alaska, the western United States, parts of interior South America most of Europe stretching into northern Africa, parts of eastern and western coastal Australia, much of the northeastern Pacific around the Gulf of Alaska, the central to western equatorial Pacific, large swaths of northwestern and southeastern Atlantic, most of the Norwegian Sea, and parts of the central to southern Indian Ocean.</li>

    <li>During 2014, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 1.80°F (1.00°C) above the 20th century average. This was the fourth highest among all years in the 1880-2014 record.</li>

    <li>During 2014, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all years in the 1880-2014 record, surpassing the previous records of 1998 and 2003 by 0.09°F (0.05°C).</li>

    <li>Looking above Earth’s surface at certain layers of the atmosphere, two different analyses examined NOAA satellite-based data records for the lower and middle troposphere and the lower stratosphere.</li>

    <ul>
<li>The 2014 temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the lowest five miles of the atmosphere) was third highest in the 1979-2014 record, at 0.50°F (0.28°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), and sixth highest on record, at 0.29°F (0.16°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).</li>


            <li><li>The 2014 temperature for the mid-troposphere (roughly two miles to six miles above the surface) was third highest in the 1979-2014 record, at 0.32°F (0.18°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and sixth highest on record, at 0.25°F (0.14°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by RSS.</li>


            <li><li>The temperature for the lower stratosphere (roughly 10 miles to 13 miles above the surface) was 13th lowest in the 1979-2014 record, at 0.56°F (0.31°C) below the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and also 13th lowest on record, at 0.41°F (0.23°C) below the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by RSS.  The stratospheric temperature is decreasing on average while the lower and middle troposphere temperatures are increasing on average, consistent with expectations in a greenhouse-warmed world.</li></ul>

According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the average annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during 2014 was 24.95 million square miles, and near the middle of the historical record. The first half of 2014 saw generally below-normal snow cover extent, with above-average coverage later in the year.

Recent polar sea ice extent trends continued in 2014. The average annual sea ice extent in the Arctic was 10.99 million square miles, the sixth smallest annual value of the 36-year period of record. The annual Antarctic sea ice extent was record large for the second consecutive year, at 13.08 million square miles.

December 2014

    <li>During December, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.39°F (0.77°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for December in the 1880-2014 record, surpassing the previous record of 2006 by 0.04°F (0.02°C).</li>

    <li>During December, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 2.45°F (1.36°C) above the 20th century average. This was the third highest for December in the 1880-2014 record.  </li>

    <li>During December, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 0.99°F (0.55°C) above the 20th century average. This was also the third highest for December in the 1880-2014 record.</li>

    <li>The average Arctic sea ice extent for December was 210,000 square miles (4.1 percent) below the 1981-2010 average. This was the ninth smallest December extent since records began in 1979, according to analysis by the National Snow and Ice Data Center based on data from NOAA and NASA.</li>

    <li>Antarctic sea ice during December was 430,000 square miles (9.9 percent) above the 1981-2010 average. This was the fourth largest December Antarctic sea ice extent on record.</li>

    <li>According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during December was 130,000 square miles below the 1981-2010. This was the 20th smallest December Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 49-year period of record.</li>

A more complete summary of climate conditions and events can be found at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13

Merchants of Doubt Trailer

January 16, 2015UncategorizedClimate Change, Climate Change, Denialism, Global Warming, Lies and Denial, Merchants of DoubtGreg Laden

A new documentary you’ll want to see.

An eye-opening documentary exploring the tactics of climate change deniers.

An overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming caused by human activity is one of the most critical dangers our planet faces. But a well-organised band of professional spinners and obfuscators toil in the shadows to pretend there is a genuine debate on the subject. That’s the argument put forward by this provocative new documentary from Robert Kenner, director of the Oscar nominated food industry expose, ‘Food, Inc’. Adapted from the book of the same title by Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, the film begins by exploring how the tobacco industry spent decades trying to camouflage the dangers of smoking. It then moves on to reveal how climate change deniers now a use similar approach. Their intention, it’s claimed, is not to win the argument but to frustrate action by sowing the seeds of doubt.

Lots of new climate change science stuff

January 15, 2015Uncategorized2015 hurricane season, Climate Change, Climate Change, Global Warming, Global Warming, Sea Level Rise, Volcanoes, Warmest Year 2014Greg Laden

I just did an interview on Green Diva Radio, and talked about a lot of climate change science news. For those who want to see the sources, here is a quick summary:

On Friday, NASA and NOAA are expected to announce that 2014 was the hottest year on record. I had been planning to write an extensive blog post going into all sorts of details about how that works, how they calculate it, etc. But then the people at Climate Nexus wrote a post that would have blown mine out of the water with the detail and informtation provided in it. Go here to read this excellent post: 2014: Putting The Hottest Year Ever in Perspective.

More than one new paper has come out describing new work on melting glaciers, especially in the Antarctic. One of the papers is described by an author, John Abraham, in this blog post: The Antarctic ice sheet is a sleeping giant, beginning to stir. You can get to the original paper via a link in that blog post. Bottom line is that the polar ice sheets are melting faster and faster every time someone looks. There is also some interesting stuff about melting glaciers, gravity, and sea level rise. Very much worth a look.

There is also a new sea level rise curve. I’ve not looked at this so I have no comments on it, but you can see a write up here: A new sea level curve.

The first in a series of predictions for the 2015 Atlantic Hurricane seasons has come out: 2015 Hurricane Zone Predictions: Stronger Season with Three U.S. Hot Spots. Bottom line is that it will be a pretty average hurricane season, which, in turn, means more hurricanes and more severe hurricanes than during the last few years, which have been rather anemic. Which, by the way, is probably a side effect of climate change.

There has been some recent work confirming some earlier work, suggesting that a lot of “small” volcanoes have created a lot of dust contributing to cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere, slowing greenhouse gas caused warming. Despite what at lease one of these items says, we are now pretty sure that most of the surface temperature slowdown is because most of that heat is going into the ocean (see this), but volcanic dust has also made a contribution (as has the sun, being in a somewhat weak phase). So there are two things you should have a look at: Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown and Small volcanic eruptions explain warming hiatus. Imma go out on a limb and guess that a little over 50% of the lack of warming (though it is warming, just slower) is from the ocean taking in more heat, the next biggest contribution is the volcanic dust, and a smaller but still two digit percentage (maybe) is from the sun. Feel free to challenge me on those numbers but do so with evidence please. I’ll be happy to see that estimate refined.

Top Global Warming Skeptic Explains Global Warming

January 10, 2015UncategorizedBEST research, Climate Change, Climate Change, Climate Change Graphics, Global Warming, Global Warming, Lies and Denial, skepticalGreg Laden

This is serious. A highly regarded and widely recognized planetery physicist put together the most dangerous scientific ingredients that exist: skepticism of the established science, a comprehensive list of hypotheses that stood in opposition to that established science, a huge amount of data, a healthy amount of funding including a good chunk from energy companies that mainly sell fossil carbon based fuels, and a hand selected research team of others who were also skeptics.

In the end, he came up with an explanation for what people call Global Warming. Personally, I believe him. I think he has it right. Whatever you were thinking as the cause of global warming, you have to look at this work and if you have not come to the same conclusion, you should reconsider.

Here’s an interview which includes an explanation of the whole process.

There is more context and additional video here.

Talking about the warmest year …

January 9, 2015UncategorizedClimate Change, Climate Change, Global Warming, Global Warming, Green Diva InterviewGreg Laden

I did an interview on Green Diva, which you can tune into and enjoy HERE or here:

My part starts just after 30:40 into the show, but do feel free to listen to the whole thing!

Green Round Table

January 7, 2015UncategorizedClimate Change, Global WarmingGreg Laden

I did a thing called the “Green Round Table” in which I addressed a number of questions about climate change and global warming.

HAVE A LOOK

An Open Letter to the Industrial Capitalists and Members of the %0.01

January 4, 2015UncategorizedClimate Change, Environment, Global Warming, Lies and Denial, PoliticsGreg Laden

The following is a letter from John Irving, posted originally on his Facebook page and reprinted here as a guest post:

NOTE: JOHN NOW HAS HIS OWN WEB SITE AND HAS POSTED HIS LETTER THERE. So do note that there are comments, including by John, below, but also go and visit his site!

Dear Industrial Capitalists and members of the %0.01,

I feel obliged to inform you that you’ve made a huge strategic blunder and things aren’t probably going to work out very well for you soon.

You recall that way back in 1965 – 50 years ago this year – President Lyndon B. Johnson was warned about the dangerous impact industrial activity was having on the Earth’s atmosphere. Unfortunately, rather than confronting the challenge you opted to do the complete opposite – you doubled down on fossil fuels.

Over the intervening years you employed many unethical and subversive tactics to maintain the dirty status quo. This included investing many billions of dollars to obfuscate the problem through the use of propaganda and so-called “think tanks,” covertly influencing government and lobbying politicians, suppressing alternate forms of clean energy technology, poisoning land and sea through toxic extraction techniques and transportation blunders, and shafting taxpayers to the tune of many trillions of dollars through outrageous and unwarranted subsidies.

As outlandish as all that was you went even further. Decades ago, when the public started to become aware of, and concerned about, widespread environmental damage that threatened your interests, you subverted democracy itself – the greatest invention since probably, well, ever! I could go on and on but co-opting the religious right, fabricating a protest movement (a.k.a. The Tea Party) and a fake cable news network are a few examples that come to mind.

And who could forget the invasion of Iraq under false pretences that led to hundreds of thousands of casualties and disrupted the lives of millions, the obstruction of every attempt by the global community to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and bringing the most powerful democracy the world has ever known to a grinding legislative halt (if not the brink of financial default).

Thanks to these underhanded methods of gaming the system for your own narrow interests and greed America now has levels of inequality not seen since 1929. Even worse the planet’s biosphere is now completely out of whack and will be for millennia. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced and require aid due to sea level rise, extreme weather events, drought, crop failure and more. Countless species will go extinct. To put it bluntly – it’s an absolute mess!

People are now starting to realize what you have done and they are not very happy about being completely screwed over for decades just so you could have private jets, mansions and plastic surgery. Even some of your traditionally dependable supporters have been abandoning you lately. People are even talking about ditching capitalism itself – some are even talking about outright revolution (I’m not exaggerating!).

This is just my opinion but I think you might have gone a little bit overboard this time.

John Irving

Ottawa
John is on Twitter at: @ClimateNow
The original letter is here, where you will find additional comments.