Let analyze article "The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic "

Let analyze article “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic “

By RICHARD A. MULLER

Published: July 28, 2012

Berkeley, Calif.

    Dot Earth Blog: 'Converted' Skeptic: Humans Driving Recent Warming (July 28, 2012)

Everyone could find this article on Google.

I took from article and underline by bold parts, which I am trying to analyze and discuss, where I am disagree with author.

1.       . Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

Please pay attention that Richard Muller blames for climate change human emission of greenhouse gases.

2.       We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone),

Here is, in my opinion, beginning of problem for team of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.

They suggest that data from urban station are wrong because of “urban heating” and data from rural station are correct from 1753 year till today and do not influenced by surrounding almost 100% of natural soil with virgin forests or steppes in 1753 and almost 100 percent of fields, which surround station today.

Let look at another source:

“Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo (2010), Global surface temperature change, GISS analyses beginning with Hansen et al. [1999] include a homogeneity adjustment to minimize local (nonclimatic) anthropogenic effects on measured temperature change. Such effects are usually largest in urban locations where buildings and energy use often cause a warming bias. Local anthropogenic cooling can also occur, for example, from irrigation and planting of vegetation [Oke, 1989], but on average, these effects are probably outweighed by urban warming. )”

It is again a riddle for me that Hansen agrees that “local anthropogenic cooling can also occur, for example, from irrigation and planting of vegetation” and went away from this point. At the same time in USA in 2000, harvested area only for grain was 282.1 million acres.

As Hansen &team, as Muller &team – both of them ignored changes around rural station. Of course, these changes are ten times less than in urban station but we can’t ignore them.

3.       How definite is the attribution to humans?

To feed growing population (1 billion in 1800 and more than 7 billion in 2013) humans activities cut 4,000,000,000 acres of forests around the globe with arable land. In average one acre of forests evaporate 4,000 tons of water from soil.

Roots of trees do not help evaporate anymore water from soil. It reduced humidity in air, probabilities of rains over all continents with arable land-real cooling mechanism in nature.

4.       The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.

We have the best confirmation that “The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried.”  Richard A. Muller and his team found that curve of increasing of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere match the data of warming  “at least as well as carbon dioxide does.”

If something in nature is proportional to increasing of amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it will also “match as well” as carbon dioxide does.

To cut trees around the world, to build our cities, infrastructure, to till the fields we used mostly fossil fuel as source of energy.

Even if scientists exclude urban station, they can’t exclude influence of heat from urban areas and infrastructure from balance of energy in the atmosphere.

They, also, can’t exclude influence of reduction of evaporation on all continents with arable land by cutting forests.

These reasons are proportional to “carbon dioxide curve”. They, more likely, are main reasons for climate change.

Theory, that greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change is looking as the most dangerous mistake in the science.

 Richard Muller asked: “CALL me a converted skeptic.”

In my opinion it is looks like Richard Muller as skeptic and as “converted skeptic” are deadly wrong and make a huge noise without any good reason.

5.       Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes.

A The Wall Street Journal, Friday, January 4, 2013 in article: “Coastal Residents Knock Insurers” wrote that numbers of costly hurricanes increased. Please, look what follow from this article:

(Year, name of hurricanes, cost for insurers in billion):

1989, Hugo, $7.8; 1992, Andrew, $25.6

2004, Frances, $5.6; Ivan, $8.7; Charley, $9.2

2005, Rita, $6.7; Wilma, $11.1; Katrina, $48.7;

2008, Ike, $13.4;

2012, Sandy $18.8

Cost for insurers do not provide data for emergency spending by Government (Katrina $150 billion, Sandy-asking for $60 billions).

Despite that Sandy was a weak storm it was on very huge area of Atlantic.

Despite we spend $150 billion on Katrina New Orleans do not became safer. Only luck save it from real damages, which will be in future, but nobody care.

As you can see most of costly for insurers hurricanes were from 2004 and 2012.

If we will look in link http://wildland-fires.sciencedaily.com/ , which provide how many acres (in million) of forests were burned by wildfires, you also will see interesting data:

1990-4.62; 1991-2.95; 1992-2.07;1993-1.8;1994-4.07; 1995-1.84; 1996-6.07; 1997-2.86; 1998-1.33; 1999-5.63; 2000-7.39.

It was burned from 1990 and 2000 (11 years)-35.95 million acres of forests.

2001-3.57; 2002-7.18; 2003-3.96; 2004-8.10; 2005-8.69; 2006-9.87; 2007-9.33; 2008-5.29; 2009-5.92; 2010-3.42; 2011-8.71.

It was burned from 2001 and 2011 (11 years)-74.45 million acres of forests.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/fire/ “Nationally, the amount of acres burned was 9,221,639 during 2012.”

In USA we had drought of 2010, 2011, 2012; increasing numbers of costly hurricanes in recent decade, comparing with previous decade; from 2001 and 2012 we had twice more wildfires than from 1990 and 2000.

It is from science of climate change, that winds distribute GHGs around the world during few weeks. Scientists Keeling spent almost all his life in Hawaii to see increasing amount of GHGs in the world and seasonal changes, which correlated with photosynthesis in spring-summer time and decay in fall-winter time. 

If winds distribute GHGs around the world during a week, only scientists of climate change will believe that they are responsible for disasters, which increased directly in USA during last decade.

WHAT COULD INFLUENCE DISASTERS IN USA?

Let find reasons, which stay in USA and do not distributed around the world during a week.

Let look in information:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43662777/ns/us_news-environment/t/bugs-growing-threat-forests-us-reports... updated 7/6/2011

“Bark beetles, engraver beetles and gypsy moths are the primary culprits behind a threefold increase in forestland mortality caused by insect attacks between 2003 and 2007, according to a U.S. Forest Service report obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.

The volume of forests in the lower 48 states killed by bugs totaled 37 million acres during the period, up from 12 million during the previous five years. Millions of additional acres have perished since.

When defoliated trees are added to those killed outright, the acreage significantly damaged by insects since 2003 totals about 50 million — 8 percent of forest area in the lower 48 states, the report says. The victims range from Rocky Mountain pine forests hammered by bark beetles to ash stands in Northeastern and Upper Midwestern states, where authorities have struggled to contain an emerald ash borer invasion.”

If, according these data updated 7/6/2011, we have 50 millions of acres of dead forests, we could be sure that in January of 2013 area of dead forests in USA is significantly bigger.

Situation in Canada is even worse.

Forests in USA and Canada evaporate around 4 tons/year.

It gives interesting calculation. If in USA and Canada we have more than 100,000,000 acres of dead forests and every acre evaporate around 4,000 tons of water:

In year of 2012 in air above North America was less water vapor than in 2003 at least 400,000,000,000 tons than in 2003. Calculation does not include 74.45 million acres of forests burned only in USA from 2001 and 2011.

Less evaporation means less humidity in air, less probabilities of rain-real cooling mechanism in nature. Less rain makes all continent hotter (drought of 2010, 2011, 2012). Hot continent heat air above North America, winds transport energy of hot air to Atlantic, and heat surface of ocean-EXACTLY A reason for power of hurricanes.

It confirms that GHGs have nothing to do with climate change.

In opposition to the opinion of most scientists of climate change, however, claims the following:

Properties of water are actually cooling the atmosphere, despite water vapor being GHG.

If it is true we no need to reduce amount of GHGs in the atmosphere by very expensive directions: windmills, solar cells, cup &trade, 50 miles/gallon...

We must restore sources of evaporation in USA and Canada. We could do it with profit and solve all problems in economy of USA:

a) Cut all dead trees and make profit from wood products.  We could, also, build small power plants in all dead forests, use wood as the cheapest source of energy for electricity, heat, hot water production. It is ten times better than emergency spending on wildfires. By the way if decay of dead forests and wildfires will anyway emit GHGs, this direction to produce energy will be with zero emission.

b) Clean area from dead trees and regrow forests.

c) Make all our ponds, lakes, streams, creeks, rivers-all of them deeper and wider, build reservoirs to collect spring water.

c) Start building systems to relocate water from flooding areas to dry, which will secure USA from drought years ahead.

Profit from harvest of 2013, from wood products, from energy production, from reducing emergency spending on wildfires and hurricanes will cover all expenses for creating millions of local jobs in all states of USA. Return of investment will be in 3-12 months.

Farmers, unemployed from housing and forestry industries could make it happen. They have needed machinery and skills. Scientists, engineers will be also welcome to provide the best scientific and engineering solutions.

These jobs by their nature will never go overseas despite globalization. They will provide real revenue for Government.

We have unique possibilities to create scientific experiment with profit, to evaluate science of climate change. In my opinion, this science is right that climate change is real. It is deadly wrong in explanation of reason for climate change. If we will follow advices from this science it will bring damage to the world population bigger than WW1&WW2 did together.

If this experiment will be successful we could fight climate change with help of only USA, Canada, and Mexico.  North America between Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic influence climate from France to Japan.