John Abraham on Climate, Science, and Evapotranspiration.
I’ve profiled John Abraham here before. Abraham vaulted to international prominence with his searing, point by point, no-stone-unturned, scorched earth destruction of “Lord” Christopher Monckton’s climate disinforming nonsense. He is a founding member of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, which assists media in connecting with real science and scientists on climate stories.
FutureDude: So, tell me a little about what you do?
John Abraham: I’m a professor of thermal sciences at the University of Saint Thomas, which is in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Much of my research is on clean and renewable energy especially for the developing and impoverished parts of the world. We want to bring them clean and reliable energy to create a positive impact on their lives.
I also do research on climate change both in education and via my own basic research. I‘m involved in oceanography. I’m working with a team who are trying to measure how much heat is going into the ocean. Because that can tell us where our environment is heading. So I do basic research and public education.
So you live and breathe science every day. Did you have any interest in the future when you were growing up?
The future is where our possibilities lie. The future presents opportunities as well as challenges. It challenges us today and it provides opportunities in the future. What can we do today to ensure that we have the greatest possibilities for ourselves and for coming generations, so that we can live fulfilled and happy lives in the future?
I firmly believe that the actions we take now will have direct consequences in the future. We can make things better or we can make things worse.
Some people believe in fate. Things are just going to happen. I don’t believe that. I believe that we make our own fate. And it’s the responsibility of a scientist to try to help us all understand how the things we do today impact where we’re going to go tomorrow.
Absolutely! I agree 100%. It’s of supreme importance how information is gathered and ultimately how it’s disseminated. I really see scientists as interpreters of the natural world. So, that said, there are a couple of major reasons why I wanted to talk with you.
Where are we right now? We are obviously living in some very extreme times when it comes to our atmosphere. Things seem downright volatile. I hear talk about the weather and I hear talk about the overall climate. It might be helpful to get a sense of the difference. Can you define that?
There is no strict distinction, but I’ll give you a working definition. ‘Weather’ is what you see on a day-to-day basis. You stick your head out the window and it’s hot and sunny. Maybe it’s humid. Maybe it’s dry. Maybe it’s snowy. We get weather patterns that last a few days or weeks.
‘Climate’ is different. Climate is long term trends in the weather over wide areas.
Minneapolis might be hotter or colder tomorrow or the next day. That’s weather. Climate asks a different question: what’s going to happen to weather over the Upper Midwest over the next 30 to 40 years? They are very different questions. But they’re related to each other. Climate is the background of weather.
We’re sitting here in July and we’ve just gone through an incredible heat wave in the United States; I think another one is coming in the next couple of days. That you can view as a pattern, but it’s set upon a warming climate. So, long term trends verses short term fluctuations.
Once of the confusing things is that, for weather, small differences don’t matter. If it’s 95 or 96 degrees Fahrenheit tomorrow, it’s not going to make that much of a difference. In fact, in Minnesota, we see temperatures go from below zero in the winter to 100 degrees in the summer.
But for climate, small changes matter. If we have a climate that changes by 8 or 9 degrees Fahrenheit that’s the difference between the weather we have now and ice sheets over Minneapolis throughout the year. Small temperature changes really matter from a climate standpoint.
So, the heat wave we just endured is a weather event that was driven by climate?
Exactly. I’ll use an analogy. Let’s say you go to an amusement park and you ride on a kid’s rollercoaster. It’s got ups and down but they aren’t very big. They’re sort of short and gentle. That’s a normal weather pattern. When climate change is happening, the ups and downs become much bigger. Your droughts become drier and longer. Heat waves become hotter and longer. Your precipitation is heavier.
We had a major, major flood in Duluth a few weeks ago that cost Minnesota $100 million. There may have been a flood without climate change, but it wouldn’t have been as likely and it wouldn’t have been as severe. So, the bottom line: climate change makes weather patterns unstable and more severe.
The flash floods that tore through Duluth, Minnesota, cost over $100 million in damages.
I observe the weather radar several times a day. I find weather intriguing. I have since I was a kid. I noticed a shift in the overall pattern over about a week and a half literally toward the Duluth area. They were inundated while, down in Indianapolis, my mother has had less than an inch of rain since May 1st.
Like I said, climate change affects weather patterns, but, how? One of the key areas is that, as the atmosphere warms, it does two things to water. First of all, it evaporates things faster, so if you have lakes they’ll evaporate faster in a warmer climate. If you have trees or plants they lose a tremendous amount of water through their leaves. It’s called ‘evapotranspiration’. That happens faster in a warmer climate.
Wow… Evapotranspiration.
Yeah, try using that word at a cocktail party next Friday night.
(laughs)
That process tends to dry things out. And that makes sense if it gets hotter it gets drier. Another thing that climate change does is that since it causes increased evaporation, it puts more water in the air. It is more humid in July than it is in January. That’s because warmer air can hold more moisture. So, you are sucking water away from the ground and you’re sticking it in the air.
Now, that does two things. It dries out the ground, which promotes droughts. But, also, because you have more moisture in the air, it causes heavier downpours. Heavier precipitation.
So, these two things are happening with a warming climate. More severe droughts, but when rains occur you have much heavier downpours. And that’s exactly what we are seeing.
I’ve been noticing that. I had a recent drive across the country from Washington DC to Minnesota and I encountered a number of severe weather moments. Each time is was some of the heaviest rain I’ve ever seen. It was crazy. It’s like, when it rains, it REALLY, really rains!
In 2011, Texas had a severe drought and heat wave. It cost that state over $5 billion dollars. By the way, if people think there isn’t an economic cost to global warming, just take a look at Texas. Recently, they had tremendous downpours and flooding. Again, it’s these swings going from hot and dry to hot and wet.
It’s the rollercoaster analogy. You go up and down in wild swings, and we’re going to see more of that as the climate continues to warm.
28 thoughts on “John Abraham on Climate, Science, and Evapotranspiration.”
The latest U.S. Drought Monitor dated July 17 is available. Here’s a six-week animation using the latest data. Note how much the drought has widened and deepened within the last week:
***
Dr. Jeff Masters at Weather Underground has a terrific blog on drought. You’ll find a chart on percentage of the nation in drought conditions (we’re currently experiencing the sixth worst drought in the record) and the economic consequences of drought (two out of three of the most expensive natural disasters in U.S. history have been droughts).
And they note in greater detail than I did that this past week has really seen a dramatic shift for the worse in terms of rain deficit in our main ag areas.
As you appear to spend more time looking for ridiculous ways to discredit climate science, rather than learning about it, you may not have picked up on the fact that climate science is pretty cross-disciplinary. Dr. Abraham would know more about the radiation physics and heat transfer portions of the science.
You, on the other hand, are merely an economic ideology driven activist that seems to have a problem with the implications that climate change may bring. You have little room to spout snide remarks calling a university professor an amateur.
Through the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, Dr. Abraham has done some good work and diligence to defend highly corroborated and cited scientists and scientific ideas against think tanks and individuals such as Monckton who spout misinformation in the name of defending a rigid economic worldview. You may not understand this on a gut level, but that is beyond hope anyway.
otter17 – your comment is beneath you. I could easily reply that I don’t parade myself as an Authority in Climate Science like Abraham does, despite having published zero as a climate scientist.
Besides, nothing in my comment could be construed as an “attack on climate science”.
Anyway…Abraham’s (new) main research activity has produced…two papers on solar power, both about Uganda, both with his name in second position. I wonder how many people here know what being in second position in a paper’s list of authors means.
And by the way even if I were into shameless self-promotion I would have avoided distributing a picture of me as the Confident White Man moving forward among Faceless Black People.
When omnologos speaks of amateur hour, of poorly published and shamelessly publicity-seeking non climate scientists speaking out about climate science, he should be taken seriously. He is, after all, an expert on the topic.
Loading...
Logic and irony defy some of the commenters here. Surprisingly, I presume.
I refer to the cumulative effect of your thoughts on many climate scientists and the recommendations of the science in general.
Nevertheless, your consistently one-sided criticism of scientists that attempt to educate and are on the side of the vast majority of scientific organizations and evidence is tiresome. Lay people do this very same thing whenever an article pops up on lets say Yahoo or another news outlet with comments. When Stephen Hawking is speaking on the origins of the universe or Richard Leakey is providing a voice on the truth of evolution, there are various people that come out of the woodwork to deny the theory and attack the scientists involved.
The same occurs with climate change. The fact that something pro-active ought to be done does not sit well with some people (economically, emotionally, whatever), thus they come up with any excuse, no matter how ridiculous. The tactics amount to pedantry or any other logical fallacy in the denial toolbox.
“Confident White Man moving forward among Faceless Black People”? What is this? Just a baseless attack, a red herring. Rather than look into his thoughts on the issue or his work to help the region, just throw insulting insinuations. That is sadly not beneath you considering your past remarks regarding Dr. Hayhoe.
One of the terms that deniers use when attempting arguments against the science behind climate change is that scientists are being alarmist – instead of referring to ‘AGW theory’ they refer to ‘CAGW theory’ (with the ‘c’ meaning catastrophic).
Catastrophe is a rather open-ended term. I think deniers use it to mean in mocking terms that scientists are saying the end of the world due to global warming is a sure thing. But maybe I’m wrong in that assumption. Does ‘catastrophe’ mean billions of dollars in damge – does it mean floods, droughts, wildfires, species loss, and water shortages?
If ‘catastrophe’ is defined as that second option, it is going to be harder and harder to maintain the denialist position. It’s just sad that the thing they fear is made more likely by refusing to believe it’s possible in the first place.
I happen to live in Texas. It should be obvious here, but the denialist position is probably stronger than ever. Global warming isn’t really a comfortable social topic – it’s not much better than talking about abortion.
Personally, I think things are going to have to get a lot worse before the public opens its eyes wide enough to actually do anything about it. I think denial is strongest when its effects are imminent but still questioned – people really, really don’t want to believe it’s true, and that high a level of motivation blocks critical thinking.
There’s a Churchill quote, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.”
I’m not saying we won’t wake up – I’m saying it won’t be soon. But that’s not to say John Abraham (and you, Peter) aren’t doing deeply, deeply important work. Change starts on the individual level.
No, ahaveland,most people have not even heard the alarm, I’m sad to say.
At least hitting the snooze button would signify that the message is getting through.We have much work to do I’m afraid.
Peter,you are my hero!
What he’s been up to for the past month is to stake out a no man’s land between real weather events matching AGW predictions vis-a-vis the denialist obfuscations.
Nielsen-Gammon has created what he called the “skeptic”. And what we used to call in observing corporate disinformation, “spreading the FUD”. I.e. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
For the past couple of years I’ve been pretty much an admirer of Nielsen-Gammon and his level-headedness. Now I find him grating and annoyingly unwilling to come to grips with the new reality that is all too apparent to those who are keeping accurate records on the entirely unprecedented, wilder and less predictable climate we’re creating.
***
On a sillier note, I might suggest that we update CAGW to AAGW, or Apocalyptic AGW. My reasoning? Pestilence is on the rise. After suffering the worst drought in living memory in 2011, Texas is now in the grip of a Biblical pestilence, with grasshoppers invading North Texas: http://tinyurl.com/6ujajrzhttp://tinyurl.com/6ujajrz
OK, it’s not really that bad. Nothing like the Rocky Mountain Locust disaster of the 1870s. At least not yet.
Simple definition:
AGW is what happens half a world away to some anonymous third world people.
Catastrophic AGW is when my home,my crops,my city,my family,my property,my savings,my stock holdings,,my family,my…life…
is lost.
Context is everything.
I see that Climate Crocks has been blessed by the philosopher, “omnologos”, and his blank verse poetry. He’s just adding to his anthology, an epic work entitled: “blah, blah, blah!: a contrarian, non-climatologist’s viewpoint”.
Apologies for being off topic.
John Abraham is great people. He has answered my questions personally though the CSRRT. It’s a great service for those of us in media who know enough about the subject to know when the other side is trying to sell us a pig in a poke. Really neat to see what he’s doing, and I hope he reads this.
John – you’ve got it completely topsy-turvy. I am not the one proclaiming that only climate scientists should speak about climate change (an obvious absurdity as this very blog would have to be closed if that were true).
I personally welcome Abraham’s (and Monckton’s) contributions and believe the topic is too important to be left to professionals, be them politicians or scientists.
Moriarty is the master of deception and intrigue. Notice how all his comments lead off topic and descend into the darkness of shallow opinion. As potholer54 commented in a climate crocks video, he started his blog to encourage a more reasoned discussion than the kind that leads to arm wrestling matches at beer swilling establishments. Potholer54 preferred enlightened reason, shared thought, and enlightenment.
Back to topic, Wisconsin has also shown the effects of climate change. Lake levels are down permanently from forty years ago and it is warmer, and the soil is drier by my senses. The lake level is a fairly good indicator, as shown by piers and docks. Boats used to float forty years ago in areas that are dry land now.
The latest U.S. Drought Monitor dated July 17 is available. Here’s a six-week animation using the latest data. Note how much the drought has widened and deepened within the last week:
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/6_week.gif
***
Dr. Jeff Masters at Weather Underground has a terrific blog on drought. You’ll find a chart on percentage of the nation in drought conditions (we’re currently experiencing the sixth worst drought in the record) and the economic consequences of drought (two out of three of the most expensive natural disasters in U.S. history have been droughts).
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2154
Weather.com has a commentary on the latest U.S. Drought Report:
http://www.weather.com/news/severe-drought-new-high-20120719
And they note in greater detail than I did that this past week has really seen a dramatic shift for the worse in terms of rain deficit in our main ag areas.
s/Evapotransporation/Evapotranspiration/
Solar power, evapotranspiration…is it amateur hour or what? I thought climate science was for climate scientists?
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/
As you appear to spend more time looking for ridiculous ways to discredit climate science, rather than learning about it, you may not have picked up on the fact that climate science is pretty cross-disciplinary. Dr. Abraham would know more about the radiation physics and heat transfer portions of the science.
You, on the other hand, are merely an economic ideology driven activist that seems to have a problem with the implications that climate change may bring. You have little room to spout snide remarks calling a university professor an amateur.
Through the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, Dr. Abraham has done some good work and diligence to defend highly corroborated and cited scientists and scientific ideas against think tanks and individuals such as Monckton who spout misinformation in the name of defending a rigid economic worldview. You may not understand this on a gut level, but that is beyond hope anyway.
otter17 – your comment is beneath you. I could easily reply that I don’t parade myself as an Authority in Climate Science like Abraham does, despite having published zero as a climate scientist.
Besides, nothing in my comment could be construed as an “attack on climate science”.
Anyway…Abraham’s (new) main research activity has produced…two papers on solar power, both about Uganda, both with his name in second position. I wonder how many people here know what being in second position in a paper’s list of authors means.
And by the way even if I were into shameless self-promotion I would have avoided distributing a picture of me as the Confident White Man moving forward among Faceless Black People.
If omnologos is so anti-amateur and castigates the Professor the one would presume he would also castigate the venerable Lord Monckton himself.
But he does not. Instead he is last seen blasting an exocet of an own goal from 30 metres out instead.
That’s *so* unfair of you, John.
When omnologos speaks of amateur hour, of poorly published and shamelessly publicity-seeking non climate scientists speaking out about climate science, he should be taken seriously. He is, after all, an expert on the topic.
Logic and irony defy some of the commenters here. Surprisingly, I presume.
I refer to the cumulative effect of your thoughts on many climate scientists and the recommendations of the science in general.
Nevertheless, your consistently one-sided criticism of scientists that attempt to educate and are on the side of the vast majority of scientific organizations and evidence is tiresome. Lay people do this very same thing whenever an article pops up on lets say Yahoo or another news outlet with comments. When Stephen Hawking is speaking on the origins of the universe or Richard Leakey is providing a voice on the truth of evolution, there are various people that come out of the woodwork to deny the theory and attack the scientists involved.
The same occurs with climate change. The fact that something pro-active ought to be done does not sit well with some people (economically, emotionally, whatever), thus they come up with any excuse, no matter how ridiculous. The tactics amount to pedantry or any other logical fallacy in the denial toolbox.
“Confident White Man moving forward among Faceless Black People”? What is this? Just a baseless attack, a red herring. Rather than look into his thoughts on the issue or his work to help the region, just throw insulting insinuations. That is sadly not beneath you considering your past remarks regarding Dr. Hayhoe.
One of the terms that deniers use when attempting arguments against the science behind climate change is that scientists are being alarmist – instead of referring to ‘AGW theory’ they refer to ‘CAGW theory’ (with the ‘c’ meaning catastrophic).
Catastrophe is a rather open-ended term. I think deniers use it to mean in mocking terms that scientists are saying the end of the world due to global warming is a sure thing. But maybe I’m wrong in that assumption. Does ‘catastrophe’ mean billions of dollars in damge – does it mean floods, droughts, wildfires, species loss, and water shortages?
If ‘catastrophe’ is defined as that second option, it is going to be harder and harder to maintain the denialist position. It’s just sad that the thing they fear is made more likely by refusing to believe it’s possible in the first place.
I happen to live in Texas. It should be obvious here, but the denialist position is probably stronger than ever. Global warming isn’t really a comfortable social topic – it’s not much better than talking about abortion.
Personally, I think things are going to have to get a lot worse before the public opens its eyes wide enough to actually do anything about it. I think denial is strongest when its effects are imminent but still questioned – people really, really don’t want to believe it’s true, and that high a level of motivation blocks critical thinking.
There’s a Churchill quote, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.”
I’m not saying we won’t wake up – I’m saying it won’t be soon. But that’s not to say John Abraham (and you, Peter) aren’t doing deeply, deeply important work. Change starts on the individual level.
They’ve hit the snooze button too many times already – the lie-in has to end urgently.
No, ahaveland,most people have not even heard the alarm, I’m sad to say.
At least hitting the snooze button would signify that the message is getting through.We have much work to do I’m afraid.
Peter,you are my hero!
Hi Jim,
Re: “I happen to live in Texas. It should be obvious here, but the denialist position is probably stronger than ever.”
Alas, the denialist’s fantasy world is being aided and abetted by the Texas State Climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon. Here’s his blog:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/
What he’s been up to for the past month is to stake out a no man’s land between real weather events matching AGW predictions vis-a-vis the denialist obfuscations.
Nielsen-Gammon has created what he called the “skeptic”. And what we used to call in observing corporate disinformation, “spreading the FUD”. I.e. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
For the past couple of years I’ve been pretty much an admirer of Nielsen-Gammon and his level-headedness. Now I find him grating and annoyingly unwilling to come to grips with the new reality that is all too apparent to those who are keeping accurate records on the entirely unprecedented, wilder and less predictable climate we’re creating.
***
On a sillier note, I might suggest that we update CAGW to AAGW, or Apocalyptic AGW. My reasoning? Pestilence is on the rise. After suffering the worst drought in living memory in 2011, Texas is now in the grip of a Biblical pestilence, with grasshoppers invading North Texas: http://tinyurl.com/6ujajrzhttp://tinyurl.com/6ujajrz
OK, it’s not really that bad. Nothing like the Rocky Mountain Locust disaster of the 1870s. At least not yet.
Try googling climatecrocks.com for “catastrophe”. I think there is plenty of examples of what its meaning is supposed to be.
Simple definition:
AGW is what happens half a world away to some anonymous third world people.
Catastrophic AGW is when my home,my crops,my city,my family,my property,my savings,my stock holdings,,my family,my…life…
is lost.
Context is everything.
I see that Climate Crocks has been blessed by the philosopher, “omnologos”, and his blank verse poetry. He’s just adding to his anthology, an epic work entitled: “blah, blah, blah!: a contrarian, non-climatologist’s viewpoint”.
Apologies for being off topic.
John Abraham is great people. He has answered my questions personally though the CSRRT. It’s a great service for those of us in media who know enough about the subject to know when the other side is trying to sell us a pig in a poke. Really neat to see what he’s doing, and I hope he reads this.
John – you’ve got it completely topsy-turvy. I am not the one proclaiming that only climate scientists should speak about climate change (an obvious absurdity as this very blog would have to be closed if that were true).
I personally welcome Abraham’s (and Monckton’s) contributions and believe the topic is too important to be left to professionals, be them politicians or scientists.
And Monckton’s contribution is……… ?
He is the Litmus test in the debate, anybody who does not think he is fraud is a genuine denier
Oh, Omno, you really want it all ways around, don’t you? It has amused me. I think the topic is too important to be left to armchair amateurs.
I prefer wars to be fought when the generals aren’t around
You’ve gone all Dali on us with your surreal response. Hiding?
Moriarty is the master of deception and intrigue. Notice how all his comments lead off topic and descend into the darkness of shallow opinion. As potholer54 commented in a climate crocks video, he started his blog to encourage a more reasoned discussion than the kind that leads to arm wrestling matches at beer swilling establishments. Potholer54 preferred enlightened reason, shared thought, and enlightenment.
Back to topic, Wisconsin has also shown the effects of climate change. Lake levels are down permanently from forty years ago and it is warmer, and the soil is drier by my senses. The lake level is a fairly good indicator, as shown by piers and docks. Boats used to float forty years ago in areas that are dry land now.
A video would make this interview so much more viral.