Like a baseball player on steroids

Steroids won't guarantee that a baseball player hits a home run every time, but the drugs increase the chances of hitting more home runs across the whole playing season.

The greenhouse gases that are warming the atmosphere and oceans won't guarantee that we will get more extreme weather events EVERY year, but they will increase the chances of more extreme weather events over longer periods. It's already happening.

NCAR/UCAR has a great resource page framed around the baseball on steroids metaphor. Among the goodies, they offer this two minute cartoon video explanation.



Jeff Masters, a meteorologist and cofounder of the Weather Underground, describes global warming as like putting the atmosphere on steroids.

He uses this analogy in this PBS interview in the broadcast  “How 2011 Became a ‘Mind-Boggling’ Year of Extreme Weather” that aired on on 28 December 2011.

Watch How 2011 Became a 'Mind-Boggling' Year of Extreme Weather on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

And for those who think climate change has nothing to do with baseball, take a look at this graph of globabl temperatures and home run rates. Correlation is not causation, but...  The graph is discussed in this Washington Post article where climatologist Michael Mann is quoted as saying that the carbon emissions behind climate change may lower home runs. “If anything, anthropogenic carbon emissions and global warming should make the atmosphere slightly heavier, because we’re taking carbon that was trapped in the solid earth and releasing to the atmosphere (in the form of CO2), and a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor. Both CO2 and water vapor contribute (slightly) to the mass of the atmosphere.”

Temperatures compared to a 1951-1980 baseline since 1880 and the average home runs per team per game since 1880. (Temperature data from NASA GISS; home run data from Baseball-Reference.com ) [Click to enlarge]

We need to start taking the steroids out of the system by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Safe driving

It is difficult to know whether the car in front of you is going to slam on its brakes. Once it does, you are in crisis mode and your options are limited.

It is far better to practise safe driving and pay attention to what's up ahead. That way you can take evasive action in time to avoid it altogether, or to minimise the damage.

All the best scientists agree that there is a big problem ahead – the planet is warming and the consequences will be catastrophic for human society.

James Hansen, NASA climatologist, warns us, here,  of the dangers of exploiting Canada's tar sands.

Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now.

Matthew Huber, a Purdue climatologist, says that a 10°C temperature rise is definitely too hot for humans. He also thinks that 2°C  is a lost cause.

What happens if we ignore the problem that lies ahead and we're forced to cope in crisis mode? How can humans and animals adapt to catastrophic high temperatures? 

Burrow. Be active at night. Stay near bodies of water. Reduce activities to a minimum. Lower birth weight.

 Matthew Huber

Matthew Huber used this analogy in this interview.
Image is of a Volvo XC60 with sensor system to prevent rear impact collisions at city speeds.

Good news story

What's the good news story about climate change? For me, it is the exciting transition to a low-carbon economy.

The new low-carbon world will benefit billions of people by:

• Reducing prices/costs – reducing the cost of energy as fossil fuel prices soar. California wind and solar generators have signed contracts to deliver electricity for less than the cost of gas generators. Solar PV is cheaper than diesel in places as sunny as Spain.

• Providing jobs  – job creation in clean energy outdoes fossil fuels by a margin of 3-to-1. In Europe there are 1.1 million people are employed in renewable energy.

• Security – homegrown renewable energy gives certainty of supply that can't be provided by importing fossil fuels.

And of course the switch to a low carbon economy will prevent the worst excesses of 'business as usual' climate change.

Right now I can add to my rooftop solar PV for about $4,000 and eliminate electricity bills. Forever. It will take four years to recoup the $4,000 investment, after that I get free electricity.

I look forward to the first plug-in hybrid cars. They will eliminate my petrol bills except for occasional long trips. My current Prius saves me $1,000 a year in fuel bills, compared with my previous car.

I also want to see solar and wind power in the poorest countries – funded by carbon offset programs. A quarter of the world's population does not have electricity at all. I want them to get clean power.

What's YOUR good news story?

Who is winning the race?

Right now, nations are racing towards the new low-carbon future.

Fossil fuels can only get more expensive because the cheapest reserves have already been tapped and new reserves are more expensive. When industrialised economies were developing, oil was the equivalent of $13 a barrel, but now countries must pay $120 to $130, according to Fatih Birol of the International Energy Agency.

Another factor making fossil fuels more expensive is the increasing recognition of the damage caused by greenhouse gases and the impact of global warming. More countries are imposing carbon taxes/prices which will add to the cost of fossil fuels.

The race is on – 2011 was the first year that global investments in renewable energy surpassed investments in fossil fuels. 

European countries are ahead in the race because they started running years ago, while others watched from the sidelines. Now more countries are also running hard.

Some runners have been slowed down by fossil fuel interests that have undermined public confidence in the science behind climate change.  These countries are hobbled by their misinformed electorates.

Who are the winners? Anyone who is ahead of the pack will be a winner because they will avoid the worst impact of rising fossil fuel costs. Eventually, everyone will get there, but the laggards will pay a high price. Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, says that for every $1 that countries do not spend on cleaner fuel, they will have to spend $4.3 within the next two decades to make up for their reliance on fossil fuels.

Rich countries have a moral obligation to help poor countries keep up with the main pack.



Scott Mandia, a professor of meteorology at Suffolk County Community College in New York uses this analogy.  He is the founder of The Climate Science Rapid Response Team and The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.  He is a leading US voice in engaging the public, media and his students about the serious threat of climate change.

Source: Be Green

Bloomberg New Energy Finance produces a ranking of the Top 20 Green Banks which it bills as The Race for Clean Energy.

It's like your health – bad habits make it worse

Climate change is making difficult situations even worse, just as poor habits will make your health worse.

We know that poor diet affects health, and we know lack of exercise affects health, and when you put them both together, it REALLY affects our health.

We are using our natural resources at the edge of their capacity, or beyond it. For example, agriculture in West Texas relies on extracting water from the aquifers in winter. They are already extracting more water than is being replenished, so they will run out of water in a few decades.

The added impact of climate change makes the situation worse, and farmers in West Texas are likely to run out of water sooner.

The natural variability of the climate system puts stress on human activity through droughts, floods, severe winters, heatwaves, storms, etc. Climate change is making this natural variability more severe. 


The health analogy was used by Katharine Hayhoe, Research Associate Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas Tech University, in this interview.

House of bricks

You can think of the ecosystem as a very big house composed of 40 million bricks. Every brick represents a unique species. And every day, around 120 bricks are removed from somewhere in the building as species become extinct. 

"As more bricks are removed, cracks would develop in the walls, the roof would sag, and leaks would appear. At some point that we cannot predict, the entire structure would collapse and the house would turn to rubble."

 Source:  Clemson University

H/T Char Grainger

The clothes dryer effect

Just as a clothes dryer uses warm air to evaporate more easily, so our warming planet is drawing more moisture into the atmosphere. This moisure is leading to more extreme weather.

A report released in March 2012 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that a strong body of evidence links global warming to an increase in heat waves, a rise in episodes of heavy rainfall and other precipitation, and more frequent coastal flooding. 

We're lurching from one weather extreme to another. The United States saw a February freeze followed by record breaking warm Spring weather where farmers are planting six weeks early.  Across Europe, people died by the hundreds during a severe cold wave in the first half of February, but a week later revelers in Paris were strolling down the Champs-Élysées in their shirt-sleeves. Australia has gone from a 10 year drought to record breaking floods.

Scientists say that the loss of Arctic ice is part of the story.

The question really is not whether the loss of the sea ice can be affecting the atmospheric circulation on a large scale, the question is, how can it not be, and what are the mechanisms?

Jennifer A. Francis, a Rutgers University climate researcher

Thomas C. Peterson, a researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, used the clothes dryer analogy in this NYT article.