[Part 1 of a two-part article; Part 2 will be published next Wednesday.]
With all due sympathy for my readers in the Midwest and the East Coast, who have been suffering through relentless snow and extremely cold weather, here in California we've had just the opposite problem. Since the start of the rain year July 1, the state's rainfall has been only 56% of average.
Marin County, where I live, had the third-driest January on record with just .58 inches of rain. At the Shasta Dam to the north, it was the driest ever, with just 4% of normal rainfall.
This is shaping up to be the third consecutive dry winter for the Golden State. Water levels in reservoirs and snowpack are so low that officials are predicting the worst drought in California history, and calling for cuts of 30% to 50% in water consumption, including immediate conservation measures and rationing.
High temperature records fell like dominoes across the state for weeks on end, with many locales besting the past highs by seven to 18 degrees. By all accounts, it has been a most unusual January.
As beautiful as it was, I found it a bit hard to enjoy the warm weather because I have an inkling of its implications. I was reminded of a piece I wrote at the end of another hot January two years ago ("Hot Fun in the Wintertime") when, like this year, I was worried about the trees budding ahead of schedule and the impact it might have on fruit production.
This year, they're even earlier. The acacia have been in full bloom for two weeks already. My plum tree has already budded and bloomed. Various insects are showing up earlier than they should, and others are not showing up soon enough to catch up with the warmer weather. It just ain't right. Not right at all.
California vineyard owners are particularly concerned, as their vines are budding a month too early, leaving them vulnerable to frost. Vineyards normally combat frost by spraying the vines with water, but this year their water supply is too low to do that without depleting their wells, which may not get refilled later in the season. Growers with over 30 years in the field say they've never seen such a dismal winter rainfall. This is on top of a tough 2008, where a late spring freeze, wildly fluctuating temperatures, low rainfall and high winds conspired to cut into the harvest.
The lack of water is seriously threatening the survival of many of the state's species of fish as well. Requirements to maintain sufficient water in streams and rivers to keep them from extinction are quickly coming up against the needs of farmers, who are concerned about having enough water to maintain their crops.
Thank you Arnold Schwarzenegger for making us rich!
Thanks to an executive order from the California Governor, our favorite wind energy stock could now deliver gains of more than 112% in the next 4 months. Click here for more info.
Extreme Is The New Normal
California is hardly alone in its extreme weather this winter. New York state had the 16th-coldest January on record, and cities from the Midwest to the East Coast received double their normal amounts of snow for the month.
The worst snow in 18 years brought London to a halt this week, paralyzing transportation in what was classified as an "extreme weather event" by the Met Office. Record low temperatures were recorded across Britain, marking the coldest winter in 13 years and raising the chances of 2009 being the coldest winter on record. This follows record rainfall in Britain in September, after a month's rain fell in 24 hours, causing widespread flooding.
Meanwhile, Australia is suffering through its worst heatwave on record. Temperatures over 110 F were recorded for three days in a row. The nation has been in drought for a decade, making the worst drought on record.
Drought is the key concern in China right now as well. Last week, a drought "red alert" was issued for Henan province, the nation's major grain producer and home to some 100 million people (that's one-third the population of the United States). The drought is the worst since 1951, according to the provincial meteorological bureau. Droughts in northern China have reportedly affected 10 million hectares of crops, leaving livestock and millions of people with insufficient drinking water.
At this time last year, you may recall that China was groaning under record-breaking snows which later melted and became catastrophic floods.
In fact, extreme weather has become the norm worldwide, and it's getting more extreme. Temperature and rainfall records, both high and low, are being broken year after consecutive year.
According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the top 11 warmest years on record have all been in the last 13 years. The past decade was the warmest on record, but the next decade is expected to be warmer still.
Don't Call It "Global Warming"
I can hear some of you now: "So if there is global warming, why am I shivering in the snow?"
The "global warming" label, while accurate enough for scientists who study average global temperatures, doesn't really communicate to the average person what's truly happening, which is climate change.
Every time I hear somebody say that global warming must be a hoax because "it's cold out" I cringe, because they have completely misunderstood the concept.
The threat of climate change is not only that melting ice caps will lead to inundated coasts, but that weather will become more unpredictable, and more chaotic. The sort of wicked weather the world is experiencing now, be it hot or cold, is precisely what we should expect from global warming.
In turn, changing weather will have enormous implications on food production, species survival, and the very landscape of Earth.
Now, I know I said just last week that peak oil, peak gas, and peak coal should be our main focus, not climate change, and that by transitioning to an all-electric infrastructure powered by renewable energy, the CO2 problem will take care of itself. I still believe that is true.
However, there remains the possibility that we will respond to peak oil and natural gas not by taking the "powerdown" and renewable energy route, but by pulling out all the stops to extract the remaining hydrocarbon sources like coal and tar sands. If we do so without capturing their CO2 emissions, which are much higher per BTU than oil and gas, it could be disastrous.
In Part 2 of this article, I'll demonstrate how incredibly sensitive crops and ecosystems are to even minor changes in temperature, and argue that scientific uncertainty about anthropogenic global warming should be our reason for action, not an excuse for inaction.
Until next time,
Chris
P.S. The way I see it, investors have two choices. They can either sit in fear on the sidelines, too afraid of this financial crisis, or they can begin securing their future wealth from these enormous buying opportunities. In know for a fact your fellow readers are taking advantage of this bear market and are on the verge of making their next move.
Subscribe to
You're too smart to get caught up in this global warming bullshit. I believe it is one of the leading causes of what's wrong with the world economy these days. Idiots spending $400,000 on a fricking windmill that generates enough power to light a string of Christmas lights. Hello!!
I am so impressed with your comprension of the Big Picture. I don't have a penny to invest, but your analysis is more than enough reason to stay with this internet rag. BTW, your lecture to the California Nuclear Class was fabulous, but you needed another 15 minutes. I wish I could hear that 15 minutes. You're the only person of any stature that seems to acknowledge the global population problem. Everyone else is scared to death of even approaching it. Keep on pounding on the solutions.
Ron Shook
Al Gore (who invented the internet) says it is appropriate to overstate the threat, becaue the consequences are so catistrophic. That is what we heard in the late 1990s from the demos and the Bush administration followed through.
Now the demos are solving the energy crisis by shutting down the economy, so we no longer will need as much energy.
Why did they name what is now a very large island of ice "Greenland"?
Your answer would be appreciated!
Enjoy your other observations however.
Thanks
Once again we can't help but make everything anthropomorphic, good, bad or indifferent - all opinions on how we percieve it affects or personnal fortunes etc. Really! You think? Surley not! We're really not all that self centered are we? You betcha!!
This planet has warmed and cooled about every 750 years for millions of years. The last cooling cycle ended about 1850 and we've been warming ever since and will continue regardless of our carbon foot print. By the way, if you really want to reduce that footprint, do something about the birthrate in the third world!
Great opportunity to make money?...Yes! That's what was necessary to set up Carbon Credits.
Al Gore telling thefacts? No.
All one has to do is look back over the geological record. At the last "Global Warming" the industrial age was not even thought of. I agree strongly that the climate is changing, but not with man as the major cause. Should we clean up the environment?..YES! But Carbon credits...I thought that was a brilliant idea when I first hear rumors of it...not because it was factual, but what a scheme to create wealth...kinda like bottled water...who would pay $2.00 for a little plastic bottle filled with tap water?...lots of folks. Who would sell Carbon Credits?...slick operators...well, enough of that. But, for a parting shot, if you have not seen the British movie answering Mr. Gore's misleading masterpiece...watch this..http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm It's worth your time...oh, and part of the warming? It's the wool that's been pulled over your eyes.
Cheers!
During prehistoric times much of the northern hemisphere had a warm semi-tropical climate that was later followed by an ice age. What caused these conflicting changes in climate? Tell us! Certainly not man. Moreover, suppose we could reduce per capita carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions by half. In time, as the world's population doubles and presumably it will, we're right back where we started from. In fact it could worsen because more humans and animals plus their attendant requirements like buildings, roads, parking lots, airfields and associated deforestation, will increase the planet's overall heat absorbtion. And I haven't heard or read any commentary on how to deal with that ominous certainty. What's your answer to that?
The use of heat absorbing solar panels for energy or whatever use just add to the problem. Will make the planet warmer. The fact that it offsets other methods for providing energy may or may not prove beneficial. The one thing that is certain is that the Earth is a finite size fully dependent on the Sun for providing our livable climate that is sometimes changed by forces like volcanic eruptions that man has no control of. The global warming zealots seem to have blinders on in not understanding, willfully or otherewise, their ability to control global warming. But bandwagons always love company.
I would prefer to believe that it has to do with a natural sun-cycle which we humans have absolutely no chance of influencing or overcoming.
The link between carbon dioxide and global warming is tenuous at best, and the implications of further increases in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for the human race are unclear
The current contributors to CO2 pollution are as follows
o Coal burning power stations 50%
o Human transportation 20%
o Agriculture 20%
o Industrial and other 10%
The current focus of most governments is to spend 90% of their funds on the contributors that account for just 10% of the supposed problem!
Kyoto is a failure it is a device used by the Europeans to seize the initiative and take the moral high ground. They do not have the ability to meet the targets they have set for themselves and everyone else, but as long as the US, China, the UK etc hold out against Kyoto they will have the ascendency in any debate.
Carbon trading as planned will be a failure for all except the governments that implement it. Their benefit will be a new form of tax. What is needed is an industry restricted program, administered by each industry sector, with sanctions for non compliance, rather than the intervention of governments and the involvement of bankers. The US power generating industry has had such a program in place for the past three years and US pollution levels in the power industry are below 1990 levels. All without government intervention or the creation of new types of trading/securities.
Paleoclimatologists have reported that
o Climate change is inevitable if one takes a 3,000,000 year view
o Global warming/cooling operates in roughly 100,000 year cycles. During these cycles the earths temperature oscillates widely in a 10 degree Celsius band. At the end of the cycle it plateaus at the higher level for about 10,000 years. We are in such a phase right now, except that this time the temperature has stayed at the top of the range for 10,000 years.
o What is certain is that the earth will get less warm, but it is not clear when
o Current increases in ocean levels have been at the rate of 0.6 cm per annum for the past 1000 years. Even the worst case scenario has this only doubling ie over the next 100 years levels would only rise 0.6m above that expected if historical rates were sustained.
o Climate change will eventually wipe out the human race unless it can find a way to adapt to living in a frozen space for an extended period of time
Because this is a complex subject involving many dimensions (at least 5: political, economic, scientific, technical capability and time) there is a natural tendency to simplify by reducing everything to a single dimension. Of course this means that most government initiatives are largely expensive cosmetic exercises as they lie within a single dimension (usually the political) and focus on the lowest common denominator. Carbon trading and Kyoto signing are politically motivated solutions that bear little relationship to the other four dimensions but most governments are locked in. The climate change consequences by and large effect the very rich and the very poor. If I had to direct how resources are allocated for the very poor I would concentrate on quality of life clean water, health, education, the stopping of exploitation through terrorist acts and local wars all have a higher priority to me than some ill thought through climate change activity whose impact on society will be mainly the transfer of wealth from the US to the Chinese-we are buying their dirty air- and higher taxes.
Global EPC firms say there seem to be inadequate technical and project management resources to deal with all the initiatives that governments want to put in place.
The various actions for a 1 giga tonne reduction in CO2 (40 gt reduction is necessary to get to 1990 levels)would involve time scales well in excess of the next ten years (the deadline set by the doomsayers) and levels of physical resources just not available today, even if all project resources were directed at this problem. So we have little chance short of a major scientific breakthrough of achieving even a 2 ½ % reduction!
The actions that the US has taken in the last 4 years most of which are embodied in legislation that was passed in the last months of the Bush administration mean that the US now leads the world in both the comprehensiveness and level of standards that apply to air pollution in the industrial, mining, generating and automotive spaces. I hope Obama lays claim to the initiatives Bush launched because in this crazy world that will actually credentialize them.
I knew Marin County [San Anselmo] before there was a GG Bridge. We took a ferry to Sausalito and caught an electric train to San Anselmo. I spent one summer there, and I don't recall any rain there all the time I was there.
I grew up in North Hollywood when it was desert, and we had scorpions, horned toads, black widow spiders. Our yard and those of our neighbors were pure sand. hen it DID rain, our dry rivers, called "washes", ran bank-to-bank. During WWII, the Corps of Engineers built bridges across the washes so that Army trucks could cross the Valley, because there was no bridge from San Fernando Road to Vineland Avenue almost to Ventura Blvd. Just never really needed bridges with such rare flash floods.
I have the solution but no money!
you have money but no solution!
Together we can save the world.
Human excrement + Nuclear waste = Hydrogen
http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/010/0001/0001/0012/0002/0008/s7_e.htmþ
Yours Sincerely
Dennis Baker
About the drought in Australia - see these reports from yesterday :
http://www.physorg.com/news152961032.html "Australian floods wash crocodiles into streets", and from 7 Jan http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7174377.stm "Australia floods strand thousands".
About the record high temperatures in the USA, see this : http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2009/01/decadal-occurrences-of-statewide.html "Decadal Occurrences Of Statewide Maximum Temperature Records"
You emphasise early in your article that it is about "climate change", not "global warming", but then go on to make it clear that you are really talking about "anthropogenic global warming" and that you will address that in Part 2. What all the available data shows, again and again, in every level of the atmosphere and most importantly in the oceans, is that the Earth is not exceptionally warm now, that the planet was warmer in the 1930s in spite of all the new CO2 in the atmosphere now, and that the oceans (the whole oceans not just the surface) have been cooling for a few years. What all this shows is that Climate Change is NATURAL, not Anthropogenic.
First, all the greenies were screaming "global warming" and laying it at the feet of too much carbon pollution. Then, when we began to also see much more strong signs of global cooling (a concept which actually does have merit), NOW the greenies are calling it "climate change."
Oh brother.
Although the idea of too much carbon in the atmosphere APPEARED to have some merit by way of the greenhouse analogy, trying to lay "climate CHANGE" on the same carbon doorstep just doesn't cut it.
Please explain - anyone -- how does too much carbon in the atmosphere cause simultaneous cooling and warming??? How does it cause cooling at all???
CO2??? Uh, almost every living thing on this planet that isn't a plant emits carbon dioxide. Hmmm.
Earth is in a prolonged warming trend, but the cold will inevitably return, and many of our descendents in the Northern Hemisphere will be forced to move South in the future as the ice encroaches.
Most genuine clamatologists believe that the natural cycles will be repeated and that spending trillions of dollars on the carbon dioxide bugaboo is paractically useless.
Must remove sulfur, noxious chemicals, heavy metals from smokestacks and exhaust pipes, but spend money on alternate energy, not carbon dioxide control. Ramember, more carbon dioxide makes plants grow bigger and faster so more food will result.
near the end you mentioned "peak oil, peak gas, and peak coal". Which is all very worrying of course. But I wonder if you could also find time to write something about "peak minerals" in general. My understanding is that there are many whose end is within sight.
There is a tendency among some to say about peak oil etc "Its OK. Technology and the market will come up with alternatives. But at what cost if crucial minerals are in short supply and therefore expensive or gone altogether?
Cheers
Doug Nottage
When you go to Vegas, you're betting on the weather. The House is betting on the Climate.
Unfortunately you seem to be learning your science from Al Gore. Mr. Gore should stick to politics. He clearly does not understand science.
Concerning your belief that recent'extreme weather' events are somehow at odds with the overall recent global cooling trends. please consider this. Weather is essentially caused by winds and winds are essentially produced by the difference in temperature between the cold poles and the warm equator. When the climate changes, temperature changes are felt most powerfully nearest the poles. During global warming, the poles warm rapidly relative to the equator, the temperature differential between the poles and equator diminishes, and we get less 'weather' because there is less wind. That is why there were fewer hurricanes during the late 20th century - it was a bit warmer. Since the year 2000 we have been entering a perfectly 'natural' cooling phase. As cooling continues, we can all expect to be subjected to more severe 'weather'.
If we don't then these two crises will force us to change and we won't like it.