Abilene Effect and Anomalies

This post is a continuation, in some respects, of the temperature investigations I've made over the past few weeks for the U.S. land surface records, using the data placed on-line in late 2009 by the Hadley Research Center (England) and their Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The data consists of just over 1000 records, one each for a city around the world, giving monthly average temperatures from roughly October 2009 back to, in some cases, the early 1800s. Hadley states they released this data voluntarily, after the Climate Gate scandal happened in November 2009, with the purpose to show there was nothing to hide in their data.

I posted earlier on the Abilene Effect (my phrase), showing that the small town of Abilene, Texas, has had no significant warming for the past 120 years. The Abilene Effect shows that a warming could be found if one carefully selects the last 25 years of the 20th century, from 1975 to 2000, because a series of cold winters from 1975 to 1980 skewed the results. In effect, the Abilene Effect shows that global warming (or the appearance thereof) was caused by a few cold winters. (see this link, where I wrote a bit about anomalies)

This post carries the subject just a bit further, and delves into the anomalies for Abilene using the hadCRUT3 dataset. As a caveat, I have no idea what massaging went into the numbers posted by Hadley; these may or may not be the actual monthly average temperatures measured in Abilene over all those years. I suspect, though, that the monthly averages are pretty good. As I wrote earlier, it would not be very clever (or smart) for scientists (even agenda-driven ones) to tamper with the data that is rather easily verified - or refuted. Abilene has newspaper records for daily temperatures going back many decades. If it was a cold winter, one can be sure the newspaper reported on it. Similarly for a hot summer. There also is a US Air Force Base just outside of town, Dyess AFB. One can be sure that the Air Force measured the temperature every day and got it right, plus kept the records. There are also other temperature records for that city in various other databases. So, I'm guessing that the basic data shown in my charts for Abilene are not too far from reality. (as a note, computing a monthly average from daily temperatures is at least one step in the data massaging. There is very likely an earlier step, that is, computing the daily average temperature from the high and low temperature measured for that day. The number of steps in the calculations becomes important, as shown in a moment).

Where the shenanigans begin, more than likely, is in the calculations applied to the basic data - in effect, starting with the anomalies. The anomalies, to start off with the basics, are simply the differences between one day's temperature and a long-term average of the temperature for that date. Anomalies can also be made for monthly averages, annual averages, or any other time frame. The hadCRUT3 data is given as monthly averages for each city, so the anomalies shown below are for monthly, and later for annual time frames.

One key to calculating anomalies is deciding what is to be the base period, or the long-term average for that date. HadCRUT3 uses 1961 to and including 1990, a 30-year period. This is a very interesting choice, actually. The late '60s and '70's were rather cold, as will be shown in a moment, relative to the entire 120 - year record for Abilene. I am not quite sure why that 30-year period was chosen, perhaps a reader can explain this in a comment. The choice of a cold base period makes anomalies higher when the temperatures revert back to the long-term normal, and much higher when temperatures periodically exceed the long-term normal. Conversely, it is more difficult (or more rare) to find a negative anomaly when a cold base period is used.

The Hadley data includes a value for the average monthly temperature for each month, calculated as the arithmetic average for the 30 values of that month from 1961 to 1990, inclusive. I calculated these separately to verify if Hadley can do a simple average. They were actually pretty close on this, having rounded the results to one decimal place. This is good, as a mistake here would sound several alarms.

For the charts below, I computed the anomalies as (current temperature minus average base temperature); thus a positive anomaly shows hotter than the base period, and a negative anomaly shows colder than the base period. (warm is up, cold is down; this makes sense to me). For those keeping score, this is step 2 (or maybe 3) in the process.

Once the monthly anomalies are computed, then an annual anomaly can be found by simply averaging the twelve monthly anomalies for each year. (this is at least step 3 in the process, or 4 if we count averaging the daily high and low to create the average daily temperature). The chart of annual anomalies for Abilene is shown below as Figure 1:

Figure 1

Abilene TX Monthly Temperature Anomalies

(click for larger view in new window)

Next, I calculated the simple arithmetic average of all the annual temperature anomalies, which gave a value of +0.36 deg C. Inspection of Figure 1 shows that most of the data lie above the zero line, confirming that 0.36 is a reasonable value. This also shows that the base period chosen by Hadley is indeed colder than the long-term average.

Several interesting observations can be made from Figure 1. The blue connected dots are the annual anomaly data, the black line through the center is a 10-year moving average to show trends, and the red line shows the linear trend from start to finish. The linear trend has a slope of negative 0.27 degrees C per century (-0.0027 deg C per year). The linear trend for anomalies is negative, but is at a steeper slope than that shown from my earlier chart for Abilene that uses each monthly average temperature (-.0027 compared to -.0019). This is something that happens with anomalies.

More interesting, though, is the 10-year moving average line. This shows a slightly more pronounced increase from 1890 to 1940 than the increase from 1975 to 2000, both at roughly 2.4 degrees C per century. This initial period of increasing temperature anomalies would have created havoc for the world, had scientists known about it and politicians acted on it, as some propose they do now.

The moving average also shows a decline from 1940 to 1975 of 1.6 degrees C in only 35 years - a rate of cooling of almost 5 degrees C per century. No wonder the scientists in the late 1970s were all in a panic over an impending ice age. Again, compared to the monthly average data trend for the same period, the anomalies show much more change (anomaly slope negative 4.6 degrees C per century, monthly average slope negative 2.2 degrees C per century).

The 10-year moving average also shows that CO2 cannot be the cause of any temperature changes, as the AGW proponents insist that temperatures go up as CO2 increases. Clearly, in Abilene, temperatures decreased from 1940 to 1975, yet CO2 increased as world population increased and fossil fuel consumption increased. From fundamentals of process control, one cannot control any system unless changes in the manipulated variable (CO2) have a measurable and consistent effect on the system; stated another way, if CO2 makes things warmer, then it must make things warmer at all times. CO2 does not do this.

A final point or two about Figure 1. What the AGW proponents continually harp on about is that the 2000s and the 1990s were the hottest decades on record. One would have a hard time proving that from examining the Abilene data, especially the anomalies. The black moving average trend line shows that Abilene's decades were hotter than the 1990s in the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Also, the 2000s were exceeded by the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Finally, hottest years did not occur in the 1990s and 2000s. These temperatures were exceeded nine times, in 1910, 1921, 1927, 1933, 1934, 1938, 1939, 1946, and 1954.

To summarize the overall anomalies chart of Figure 1, the temperature trends are consistent in direction with the monthly averages, but much greater in the rate of change (slope).

The next chart, Figure 2, shows the annual anomalies for the period 1975 to 2000, that period heralded by the AGW proponents as proof that CO2 is warming the earth and that the rate of heating is unprecedented. They claim that the entire world must curb fossil fuel consumption to stop the runaway warming that is certain to result. And if all I had to look at was Figure 2, I would be alarmed, also. That is one scary chart. The black linear trend line shows a rate of increase of 2.9 degrees C per century. If that rate were to continue, the world would indeed be in trouble. But let's examine this chart.

Figure 2

Abilene TX Monthly Temperature Anomalies 1975-2000

(click for larger view in new window)

As I mentioned earlier, in the discussion on statistics in the Abilene post, one can achieve an upward slope in a line by having lower values at the beginning of the data, and higher values at the end. This is the see-saw analogy. Referring again to Figure 2, there are very low values at the beginning (lower left portion of the data), plus higher values at the end (upper right portion of the chart). Yet, the data in the middle, between those extremes, shows a downward trend! This is a prime example of the Abilene Effect, where careful selection of start and end dates show a warming. In this case, not only cold winters in the late 1970s but anomalies that show a warm trio of years for 1998, 1999, and 2000 contribute to the warming trend.

If all this is revealed in a simple analysis of one little town in the USA, one can only wonder how much additional BS (bad science) is there to be uncovered from full analysis of all the temperature records. Unfortunately (for me, at least), I do not have time to do a similar analysis on all the 86 or 87 cities in the USA's lower 48 states (see this link for charts of all 86 hadCRUT3 USA cities showing monthly average temperatures).

The conclusions are clear. Temperature anomalies create alarm where none exists; they exaggerate trends; and they are used by the alarmists to show a global warming where none exists.

UPDATE: March 2, 2010 A point about manipulating the data. Note that the hadCRU data that was released has only the monthly averages. These can easily be manipulated by not including selected months temperature, for example if one wanted to show a slight warming in recent years (say since 1975), one could leave out the data for a cold month. The resulting average of 11 months will be slightly higher than if all 12 months were included. Similarly, one could make the earlier years data a bit colder, by leaving off a hot month here and there. This is not an accusation that this type of thing was done, but it could have been done. That is but one reason that the full data set must be released for all to see, if climate scientists hope to regain their lost credibility. [end update]

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

20000 Hits and Counting

It seems like only last week I wrote that SLB passed the 10,000 hits mark, and here it is at 20,000 hits. A big Thank You to all those who take time to have a look, and leave a comment. Actually, 10,000 hits was 4 months ago in October of 2009.

Since then, quite a number of events have happened that are of great interest to me. The US EPA has been challenged in the courts (US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) concerning its Determination that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. Several lawsuits were filed, some by individual states including Texas. The primary charge is that US EPA did not follow the law and use the best science available, but instead followed the IPCC's flawed conclusions, many of which are based on opinion magazines.

California was also sued in the US District Court in Fresno, California, seeking to declare their Low Carbon Fuel Standard un-constitutional and a prohibitory injunction preventing its implementation. Similarly, a bill in the California Assembly was defeated in committee, which would have stopped implementation of the entire AB 32 until unemployment drops to healthy levels of 5.5 percent. But, a ballot initiative to accomplish the same thing is underway. Also of importance to California's AB 32, the State of Arizona withdrew from a key multi-state pact (Western Climate Initiative), declaring that Arizona will not enforce the cap-and-trade provisions because of the adverse economic effect it will impose on Arizona businesses. This is a key event in the idiocy of AB 32, as businesses that can relocate away from California now find a very attractive and nearby location in Arizona.

The Copenhagen climate summit was a bust, which is a very good thing. No treaty, no agreement, and no disaster for the world. Thank you, China and India, for having the good sense to not hamstring your economies.

Perhaps the biggest news is the ongoing, and ever-deepening, scandal of Climate Gate, the revelation that key scientists in the global warming field falsified, altered, manipulated data, used non-peer-reviewed reports in their findings, and indeed perverted the peer-review process to stifle dissenting views. Meanwhile, global warming appears to have run away and is hiding in shame, as it is very cold and snow is at record levels in the Northern Hemisphere. Yet, CO2 continues to increase. Perhaps CO2 does not read the IPCC reports? It seems pretty clear, now, why climate scientists do not publish their raw data nor their data manipulation methodologies. Independent reviews revealed that there is no warming, but there was massive manipulation of the data to show a warming.

My own research into the published Hadley research center's HADCRU data (see this link) shows not only essentially zero warming for the entire USA, but several cities with pronounced temperature declines recently. If these declining temperatures do not reverse soon, it will be very, very cold in Eureka, California; Los Angeles, California; Washington, D.C.; and Marquette, Michigan.

The Grand Game, energy supplies for the world, has made some interesting turns as the US refining industry is reeling from lack of demand for their products. The Saudis announced they anticipate Peak Oil Demand to occur within the next decade. Peak Oil Demand already occurred in the USA, in 2005. I posted on this.

Also, new nuclear power plants in the USA continue to have serious problems with financing and regulatory approval. South Texas Nuclear Project's expansion is on the ropes as the parties involved battled it out in court. Also, the Japanese reactor vendor for STNP cannot seem to reveal the final price, which has escalated to $17 billion - but will likely be far, far more. This is quite puzzling, since the nuclear proponents' mantra has always been that these plants are mature technology in Japan, with great certainty on construction costs and elapsed time to completion. Apparently not.

Meanwhile, the US government issued a loan guarantee to Georgia's Southern Company for two new nuclear reactors - but notably, not to South Texas Nuclear Project expansion. The loan guarantee amount, $8.3 billion, is far too small to provide much comfort for lenders, so that project, too, is dead. A project of that size will cost approximately $25 billion or more, thus the loan guarantees represent only approximately one-third the investment. Typically, utilities borrow around half the total amount. That leaves several billion dollars without guarantees.

I tried something new a few days ago, with the first guest post on SLB. My cousin Charley Sowell has some interesting things to say about global warming, from the perspective of a Texas rancher near San Angelo, Texas. Charley is highly educated and knows his stuff.

It has been a fascinating four months, with SLB now at 20,000 hits and visitors from 97 countries, an increase from 76 countries in October.

Thank you, everyone. I cannot imagine what events will occur between now and 30,000 hits. Hopefully, the world will regain some much-needed sanity and stop the nonsense about global warming from carbon, the US federal laws on cap and trade will die and go away, and the chemical engineers' message that science must obey the fundamentals of process control will gain a wider audience.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Record Snowfall in New York City

Nothing new here, really, as many news media and blogs have mentioned the very cold and great quantities of snow in the USA this winter of 2009-2010. The article states that the snow thus far in Central Park has broken the record of the previous 114 years, with another storm likely next week so the record will grow. Still, it seems appropriate to mention that all three U.S. coasts are getting more snow than the usual for the past few years. California is, once again, getting late winter snow in the Sierras, even as I write this. Snow just covered Houston, Texas, which is (by last count) the third time it has snowed there in the same winter. Three snow events in one winter is completely un-precedented in modern times. Who knows how often this occurred before 1700.

I was at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport) this afternoon, and a colleague mentioned that there were not many flights landing or taking off, for a Friday afternoon. It looked a bit odd, actually, as LAX is usually a booming place on Fridays. But not this Friday. I observed to my friend that it was likely due to all the grounded flights on the East Coast, due to their massive snowstorm.

The interesting thing, to me, from massive snowstorms in areas that usually do not receive them is their effect on the Earth's albedo - the reflection of sunlight (and heat) away from the Earth. For all the attention lavished on CO2 and the so-called greenhouse effect, a far greater effect is the reflectivity of snow, particularly when the snowfields do not melt as early as normal but keep on reflecting later and later into Spring. The phrase "white as snow" comes to mind. White is a high-albedo color. The chief concern for many, including me, is the effect on farmers as they plant their Spring crops. Late planting due to cold winters and excess snow makes it difficult for the harvest in the Fall.

A friend recently had a novel idea to deal with the huge amounts of snow in the cities, and minimize the albedo from all the snow. His idea is to use construction haul trucks to create mountains of snow, similar to what construction sites do with excess dirt and rock. The mounds of snow would be packed down so that the haul trucks could drive up a gentle grade, dump their load of snow, then shuttle back around for another load. The idea is that, for a one-foot snow event, the amount of land covered by the snow would be reduced by having that snow removed and stored on the snow mountain. Who knows, it just might work.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Earth Hour 2010 Busted Again

It's almost time for the annual lunacy known as "Earth Hour." Last year's was a complete bust, as I wrote on here. Briefly, eco-nuts around the world thought it would be great fun to turn out the lights for an hour, and then tell themselves how cool they are and how they are saving the planet by not using electricity and not burning that horrid fossil fuel that everyone knows is making the global warming...err, climate change....nope, this week the correct term is climate weirding, or is it climate strangeness, or perhaps climate chaos? Nobody seems sure anymore, as they keep seeking a catchy phrase. Whatever the catch-phrase, the appointed Earth Hour time is 8:30 p.m. local time, on March 27, 2010.

Briefly, last year I managed to catch a screen-shot of California's power grid for the day on which Earth Hour occurred, and the graph showed absolutely zero blip in the smooth curve before, during, and after the so-called event. Then, I caught the same grid results for the following week, which had no power shenanigans and also showed no blip in the curve.

This year, on this blog post, I plan to capture the Saturday grid charts for California and post them here for the two weeks before, the actual Earth Day, and the week after. It should make for an interesting comparison. (UPDATE March 13, 2010: see below for Figure 1 and this Saturday's power consumption in California. No blips or dips between 8 and 10 p.m., just a smooth decline in power consumption.)

After all, California is the leader (or so they continually remind anyone who will listen) in going green, with a state law known as AB 32 that will vault California to the fore-front of economic prosperity, low unemployment, and almost zero carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. Or so they say. I, however, have serious doubts and have expressed them on this blog, and a few other places. The realities of physics and engineering win out every time, a lesson that California's government has not learned, apparently. Which is strange, because they have a large contingent of Civil Engineers - men and women who should certainly know better.

Stay tuned, and we can see how 4 eco-nuts turning out 2 light bulbs has absolutely zero impact on the vast power grid that powers California. By way of explanation, California's power grid usually peaks at around 8:00 p.m. on a Saturday night at the end of March, with approximately 26 Giga-Watts of power consumed. So, when the eco-nuts turn off their 2 light bulbs, each consuming 50 watts, is anyone really expecting the grid to notice?

In fairness, judging from the hilarious comments on Anthony Watts' blog WattsUpWithThat.com last year, a fair number of people around the world compensated by turning on every light and appliance they had. Ah well. Earth Hour, theatre of the absurd.

UPDATE 2 March 13, 2010: We can see the impact on the state's power grid from millions of lights being turned off as the sun rises, at around 6:00 a.m. in Figure 1. No similar dip occurs around 8:30 p.m. (20:30 on Figure 1). [end update 2]

Figure 1 - power curve for March 13, 2010 in California

source: www.caiso.com

Figure 2 - power curve for March 20, 2010 in California

source: www.caiso.com

UPDATE 3 - March 28, 2010: Figure 3 below shows the California power consumption on March 27, 2010, which includes "Earth Hour" from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. (see graph for 20 to 22 hrs, and the half-way positions). Pretty smooth, as usual, from what I can see. There may have been a very small dip right at 8:30 p.m. (20:30 hours), and another dip at 10:00 p.m. (22:00 hours). Still it was nothing like the dip at around 6:30 a.m. when the street lights and security lights are turned out.

Figure 3 - power curve for March 27, 2010 in California

source: www.caiso.com

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

HydroElectric Power - The Greenest of All

This article caught my eye (actually, my web watchdog's electronic eyes) and has some interesting aspects for the green movement. Hydro-Quebec (pronounced hee-drow) is a major producer of hydroelectric power in Quebec, Canada. HQ exports some of this power into the U.S., and is looking to expand those exports. However, they are running into opposition because the U.S. does not classify large hydro-electric power as renewable.

It is indeed strange, but sometimes laws are written with very strange twists. Hydro-electric power is the ultimate in low-cost power, because there is zero fuel consumed. The energy is provided by rain - and rain is free. Thus, there are zero emissions to the atmosphere, and no toxic radioactive spent fuel as is the case with all nuclear power plants. The big plus with large hydro-electric power is that the power is reliable and available on demand, when needed, as needed. Storms don't affect the hydro-electric plants, neither does cold weather. Solar and wind power plants are of course greatly affected by by storms and cold weather. And there are very few droughts in Quebec - it has very reliable and very much rain.

From the article, the average export price recently was approximately 6 cents per kWh, much lower than a new nuclear plant could ever hope to match (by a factor of at least 4!)

It makes too much sense for the U.S. not to import as much power from Quebec as they are willing to sell. Not for environmental reasons - CO2 does nothing to impact the climate or global temperature either up or down - but for economic reasons.

There is a reason that large consumers of electric power, such as aluminum plants, were built by hydro-electric sources of power. The low-cost and very reliable electric power helps the aluminum producers to keep their costs down, which is a win-win for everyone.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

When Engineers are Wrong People Die

Below is a comment I left on Anthony Watts' blog WattsUpWithThat.com, the most popular blog in the world on climate issues. The blog post was by a guest, Dr. Jerome Ravetz, who has an interesting point. He posits, among other things, that science has made a journey over the decades, and now is in what he calls Post-Normal Science, or PNS. By PNS, he means (among other things) that the peer-review system of years gone by is also gone. The advent of the internet with various blogs where anyone, anywhere, anytime, can join the discussion has forever changed the way science is done. Freedom of Information laws (which Dr. Ravetz mentioned) also play a role, as some, perhaps most, science is now done via government funding - thus the information obtained is subject to disclosure in most cases. There are some instances in which government-funded research is not to be disclosed, one such instance is national security. But climate science has little to do with national security, and thus is subject to FOI.

The enhanced scrutiny of PNS has obvious difficulties that weigh against, or balance the benefits. One difficulty is what Dr. James Hansen of NASA termed "jousting with jesters." This is, to put it simply, a waste of a talented scientist's time to respond to questions or criticism posed by those who are unqualified to discuss the issues. And that is a valid point, to a certain extent. There are, and will likely always be, a few jesters around to slow things down. Some jesters deliberately strive to slow things down by disrupting - they have an agenda. Greenpeace is a good example, when they try to prevent law-abiding ships from accomplishing their goals.

But then there are the knights noble (to continue the medieval royal court analogy). One wants to be careful about jousting with a knight, especially an experienced, knowledgeable one with a superb horse and superior equipment. One can get seriously injured jousting with such a knight.

And there are, indeed, such knights around the world with internet access. I have run into quite a few, myself. People who know what questions to ask, and how to evaluate the responses they receive to those questions. People who, like me, seldom read the conclusions of a report, or if I do read it, discount it with a mental note of "well, let's just see if his data supports such a claim, and see what analysis was made and if it was done properly." This attitude is due to my background in engineering, specifically chemical engineering in oil refineries, where things explode when things go wrong. When one works in a place that could instantly turn into a raging inferno, one's wits get sharpened and the tolerance for BS (in this case, "Bad Science") disappears. I realize that few people in the world understand or even care what happens in an oil refinery, and what it takes to make them run safely and smoothly day after day for decades. And yes, sometimes mistakes are made. I know this probably better than most, as a good part of my law practice comes from such matters. My clients love the fact that their attorney, me, understands what they are saying without a lot of background explanations.

My response on WUWT was to a statement Dr. Ravetz made, from the Quaker principle: ‘never forget that you might be wrong.’

My comment begins: The engineer in me shudders when I read that. Engineers (I am a chemical engineer – and a lawyer) had better not be wrong. We don’t have that luxury; for when engineers get it wrong, people die. The news outlets – and the court cases – are replete with examples.

Engineers never, ever, forget that we might be wrong, so a good engineer falls back on the fundamentals – that which is never wrong. The legal term for one aspect of this, in the U.S., is RAGAGEP. This acronym stands for Recognized And Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practice. Other disciplines have similar standards, one such is GAAP for Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

Many of my contacts are puzzled at some of my writings and statements, as they see the world in far more shades of gray than do I. They wonder just how I can be so adamant that I am right. The answer is simple: fundamentals of engineering are right. As just one example, a given grade of steel has a certain strength at a given temperature. Engineers use this fact to design and build all sorts of structures, from bridges to boilers to boxcars; and oil refineries.

The fundamentals are also very useful in a law practice, where defendants did not adhere to RAGAGEP but instead cut corners or did a sloppy job or substituted a cheaper material or fabrication technique.

In engineering, there is much parallel to science, in that there are experiments designed and conducted, data acquired and analyzed, theories formulated and tested against the data, and better experiments or larger systems built and tested. It angers me to observe how pathetic the science has been with respect to climate change. I cheer inwardly when I read comments on various blogs where quality of measuring instruments is described as paramount. If the raw data is suspect, then one might as well stop right there – any further use of the data is useless, and likely dangerous if one is an engineer. It can also lead to massive economic losses to the defendant in a lawsuit brought by an injured plaintiff, who is represented by a knowledgeable and skillful attorney.

It is encouraging to me to see that, in the extended peer community described by Dr. Ravetz, some are engineers. I don’t disparage non-engineers by this, as there are many good, skeptical, knowledgeable people without engineering degrees. And it is true that some engineers do a bad job, or more likely, are not permitted to do a good job because their bosses (usually non-engineers) prevent them. The Toyota car problems of the moment come to mind; it is very likely that the engineers at Toyota knew exactly what to do and how to do it to send out cars without the problems, but layers of management prevented them from doing so.

I would hold all scientists to the same standards to which engineers are held: get it right, or people die. My own background is in oil refineries, natural gas plants, petrochemical plants, basic chemical plants, and power plants. In those industries, one does not take chances, use bad data, use questionable measuring instruments, falsify data, manipulate data to obtain a pre-determined outcome, or any of the other myriad things revealed in the post-Climategate mess. Things blow up and people die.

Therefore, I am a skeptic about climate science. At every turn, there is sloppy work, conclusions not supported by the data, very poor quality data, and agenda-driven work. My research and investigations show me that essentially none of the AGW claims are true, and will never be true. I am also very encouraged to see that many other engineers are speaking up and speaking out, using the internet.

As Dr. Ravetz said, Post-Normal Science is here, and it is not going away.

As I see it, the knights are suited up, and astride their horses. Climate scientists are now required to joust with the knights. May the best man win.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

More Snow Equals Drought in AB 32 Speak

California's AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was passed to prevent several dire consequences of global warming due to greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere. The legislature delegated authority to the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to write specific regulations to curb greenhouse gases - especially CO2 - by 2020. It is interesting, though, how the dire consequences are not working out.

To wit: "The potential adverse impacts of global warming include. . . a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack. . ."

(California Health and Safety Code Section 38501(a); where AB 32 is codified in the state laws)

Yet, there is this pronouncement dated January 29, 2010, from the State Department of Water Resources: "water content in California’s mountain snowpack is 115 percent of normal for the date statewide. This time last year, snow water content was 61 percent of normal statewide."

Since January 29, the snows have been falling heavily and regularly in the Sierras, and are falling again as I write this, as shown in the chart below (see Figure 1):

UPDATE 1: February 24, 2010 - [still more snow storms are on the way to the Sierras, with 1 to 3 feet expected to fall this weekend. - RES]

Figure 1

Weather Conditions in USA for Feb 23, 2010

(click image for larger view)

I'm terribly confused...the California government told us all that more CO2 in the atmosphere will create a shortage of snow and therefore less water available for the state. That was one of the key reasons AB 32 was passed. Well, we know the CO2 has continued to increase.

Somehow, though, the snow-making mechanism in Nature did not get the memo. Snow continues to fall, over and over again, and heavily, in the Sierras. Meanwhile, even the rain is getting into the lakes, as Lake Shasta, the largest reservoir in the state, is now at 97 percent of its average capacity for today's date. When the snow begins to melt, that water will also flow into Lake Shasta, and other lakes in the state. Lake Shasta will soon be far above 100 percent of its average capacity. How can this be, during a drought? Isn't the definition of a drought a shortage of water? Where is all this snow and rain coming from? (Answer: it is a natural phenomenon, likely due to the El Nino sitting just offshore in the Pacific Ocean. California tends to get more rain and snow during El Nino years, and less during La Nina years). These have absolutely nothing to do with the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

California's water-keepers are about to be faced with a big decision: when to start letting the water out of the reservoirs, to run down the rivers into the ocean - unused by the farmers or cities - just to make room for all the snowmelt they are about to receive. (see this link for current status of California's lakes - organized by river system).

Another point about the Department of Water's announcement: how can there be almost double the amount of snow this year compared to last year (115 percent of normal, compared to 61 percent of normal last year)? Their answer, of course, is that one wet year does not break a drought. Doesn't it? How else does a drought break? By having dust fall out of the sky, perhaps? I was led to believe that more rain and snow equals no drought.

Another claim by the legislature that passed AB 32 is that the Sierra snowpack is melting earlier and earlier each Spring. That is something we will have to wait on and see. For those who want to follow along on such things, the state's temperatures and rainfall may be seen here.

In conclusion, yet another bust for the AB 32 dire predictions. The snow pack is above normal, and getting deeper and deeper with each additional snowstorm. Temperatures are not running away, either. Sea levels are not rising up and inundating the shores, either. Massive, record-breaking heat waves are not occurring, either. Is there anything at all that AB 32's proponents have correct? Answer: nope. Correction: yes, one thing. Utility prices are indeed rising, but by more than was predicted.

Vote to suspend AB 32 in the November election. This is a law that California never needed, and certainly does not need now. We need jobs, not business-closing regulation.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey