Hurricanes show climate change
Here in Hawaii, we are aware that hurricanes are a result of warmer ocean temperatures. This, of course, is why we have hurricane seasons.
The U.S. Government’s NOAA has a list of the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin since 1851 (www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html). It also calculates a measure of the total accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) for each year.
If you look at a graph of the ACE since 1851 (click the blue “ACE” on that page) you will notice several things.
There is great variation from year to year in hurricane energy.
There also seems to be something like a 50-year cycle, which shows up if you graph the ten-year average ACE over time.
There is a gradual upward trend in hurricane energy over time.
This is a great source of climate change data. The climate change carbon debate has car lovers on one side and potential recipients of new tax revenues on the other. Both sides have axes to grind. This ACE information comes from a reputable and probably neutral source. It tells us about the temperatures over a broad area of the Atlantic Ocean.
I divided the 166 years in half, comparing the 83 years before 1934 to the 83 years after. I calculated a line of best fit for both periods. Before 1934, the ACE energy averaged 78 and grew by 0.414 points per year, on average. After 1934, it averaged 99 and it grew by 0.435 points per year.
For the past 300 years, we have been recovering from a mini ice age. It is no surprise to discover a warming trend over the past 166 years. But it is interesting that the warming trend since 1934 is 5 percent greater than the warming before 1934 (0.435 points versus 0.414 points).
If this difference is caused by modern human activity, we see that, due to humans, it now takes 19 years to warm the globe the amount than the previously required 20 years.
Mark Beeksma, Koloa
Proof is in the math
So…. Thinking of what it might mean to Kauai to pay $15 per hour to workers, I checked with a financial site.
Here’s the math:
$15. Per hour X 40 hours per week = $600.00 (gross) per week
Average federal taxes on weekly amt= 27.00 per week
Average HI. State taxes on weekly amt= 25.00 per week
Average FICA taxes on weekly amt = 46.00 per week
NET PAY $501.00 per week
NOTE: THIS IS WITHOUT VOLUNTARY DEDUCTIONS SUCH AS MEDICAL INSURANCE.
501.00 net pay per week X 4 weeks = $2004.00 per month net pay
For well managed finances, it is suggested that people pay no more than 33% of their net income for housing.
$2004. 00 per month X 33% = $661.00 per month.
How many places to live are there on Kauai for $661.00 per month ?
Gee whiz ! Wonder why we have a homeless problem ?
And young parents who can’t afford medical insurance for their kids? And uninsured drivers ?
And parents who have to work 4 jobs between them ? (Thank God for grandparents on Kauai doing child care.)
And workers who are too exhausted to put the kind of energy into either of their jobs that employers would like them to ?
We need to strengthen the unions again, and elect representatives who understand what it really means when workers are not paid a living wage.
Mary Mulhall, Kapaa
Great letter Mark! Since America is a minor, if net any, contributor to Global Warming, perhaps we should stop beating up on ourselves and go to war with China and India over this? They, of course, are the primary sources of CO2 and “man” made global warming! BY FAR!! World War III, who’s going to sign up to fight for your cause!???
For carbon dioxide emissions alone, the USA produces 15%, second behind China (28%) and above India (6%). These three equal the entire rest of the world! Yeah….minor role…..yeah, baby!
Mary, great work! Must have taken you a lot of research to come up with such amazing information! Living on the most beautiful, tiny, rock in the world, in the middle of a vast and beautiful ocean with an economy based primarily on tourism is the conundrum. You will never fix it by giving other peoples tax dollars, or forcing business to pay more for their services than what the market will bare. Remember one absolute. THE CONSUMER WILL ALWAYS PAY! If the consumer is a tourist, a tax on them is acceptable to a point that they still come and feed the economy. If the “minimum” wage is paid for by local businesses, and/or a tax on residents, it is a formula for disaster long term. THERE IS NO FREE MONEY ANYWHERE! It doesn’t exist! Unions have proven to be long term failures and a bad idea that makes everything worse over time! Thank you for a snapshot of the problem!
Yes, Unions: “… a bad idea that makes everything worse over time!” Why thanks to them, Business owners can’t hire just one person and make them work all night and through the weekend!”
Why, before unions came along, we had Bob Cratchit who worked for Ebenezer Scrooge at 60+ hours a weeks for the modern equivalent of $94. He also took all of Scrooge’s abuse without any pesky harassment suits. Before unions, sick employees quickly died and you could just as quickly get another one just like them by misrepresenting everything they would be doing and getting. Oh baby, those were the days, dreams Gordon Oswald!
There was a time and place for Unions, and that time and place passed a long time ago. Thankfully, they are a dying breed.
There are now government laws, prohibiting what you just mentioned, unless you are salary. Unions were really needed many years ago for the safety of the employee…..again, we now have endless regulations.
You should really study what Union Leaders do (next to nothing)….they are worse than organized crime, and all they do is drive up prices.
Hey Jake, is your boss a wonderful fellow always looking out for you, putting you first?
Are you a boss? Are you a wonderful fellow always looking out for your staff, putting them first?
Yeah, right!
The high cost of living on Kauai is due to the cost of shipping things in and the high demand for living space in paradise.
In this expensive paradise, you cannot expect to work 40 hours per week at a non-high-skilled job and have enough income to have your own place (unless you already own it). If you could expect this, hundreds of thousands would want to move to Kauai. No many of us would want that.
Unions are not the answer. Unions killed the pineapple plantations quickly. They eventually killed the sugar plantations as well. The big hotels are already unionized and seem to be surviving. However, many other businesses would fail if they were forced to pay high-skill wages to non-high-skill workers.
Hawaii is already recognized as the worst state in the U.S. to try to start a business. Killing off more businesses with unions would not help people make ends meet.
Correction: “Not many of us would want that.”
Beeksma is wrong again to no one’s surprise!
The Pineapple Industry began it’s decline, after a 1957 peak, when Del Monte and Dole continued to develop their Postwar properties and canneries in the Philippines, and later: Thailand, for one tenth of the labor cost. At the same time, Hawaiian properties and canneries were neglected and gradually closed. What was left existed for local fresh fruit consumption and this lasted for several years. Costa Rica now dominates that part of the industry while Dole maintains a token effort.
Having a union or not having a union would not have changed the 9 tenths labor cost differential.
As for sugar, In the ’90s, the state’s 55 sugar farms and five companies were Hawaii’s third biggest employer, even after a hundred years of political interference with unintended consequences and it’s own lopsided labor cost differential. It’s decline was threefold:
1) The price of sugar in the USA has not changed remarkably in 30 years.
2) Guaranteed market access, granted in trade deals, enabled less efficient foreign producers to take domestic market share from more efficient U.S. growers.
3) The past and current over supplies are heavily subsidized by the national governments of foreign producers.
After a history of near misses, Hawaiian Sugar finally fell to the politics and practices of international trade; not unions. Hawaiian Sugar Unions brought tremendous social change to Hawaii; but, ultimately, they could neither kill, nor save, the sugar industry.
Just Saying,
I would like to thank you for your research. You say that pineapple and sugar failed because of labor costs differences. You then say that the fact that unions drove up labor costs made no difference. You basically contradicted yourself.
Nevertheless, I do appreciate your efforts in sharing this information. I don’t dispute that these other factors also played a role.
For full disclosure, my wife is a 3rd generation Kauaian. Her family benefited from union plantation wages for two generations. I certainly am grateful that this helped make her college education possible.
I like seeing people employees paid well. Henry Ford and the guy who started Costco are two examples of business founders who paid employees more than necessary and still were successful. This is the ideal, I think.
Unions have a habit of killing the geese that lay the golden eggs.
I did not contradict. I clearly said that a 9 tenths differential was beyond the scope of union activities. Do you really fault the unions for not getting workers to give up 90% of their pay? Really Mark?
Besides, union activity ended for decades in Hawaii after police, shot and killed 16 filipino strikers, Sep. 9, 1924, while doing the bidding of aging, white, male, union haters like you. By the time union strength returned enough to throw out the republican party, the decisions to move operations and development had already been made.
BTW, that 9 tenths differential was created by the concerted efforts of USA Colonial Govenors and The United Fruit Company (The source of the phrase: Banana Republic).
I somehow left out that the 16 filipino strikers killed were killed in Hanepepe and this is known as the Hanepepe Massacre.
Ms. Mulhall, while showing some dexterity with arithmetic, does not understand economics. By arbitrarily mandating higher minimum wages, marginally productive workers are put out of work and the problem of affording housing, etc. is exacerbated. She’s only looking at one side of the issue–the seen or intended side. Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th century political economist, wrote that there is “…what is seen and what is unseen…”. He is referring to the unintended consequences of political decisions even if they are well intended.
“In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause — it is seen. The others unfold in succession — they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference — the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, — at the risk of a small present evil.”
I am sure that Ms. Mulhall is a woman of good intentions…she just didn’t look for the unintended or unseen consequences of her wishes for higher minimum wages, or the so called “living wage” ( a meaningless PC term).
This fact is clearly shown when looking at unemployment rates for black and white teenagers. No employer will pay more for unskilled labor than what they (employees) are capable of producing.
Pay attention to economics and look for the unintended consequences before advocating for feel-good policies.
RG DeSoto
Ms Mulhall:
Read this real-time experiment with “living wages” in Venezuela.
https://mises.org/wire/bernie-sanders-might-learn-something-venezuelas-minimum-wage-experiment
RG DeSoto
$15/hour is about $30,000/year.
A family of 4 would have a net income of $26,729 vs the $24,048 calculated in this letter.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#NMwnp61zvb
This change should hardly detract from Mary’s conclusion about the lack of affordable housing.
If both parents work, take home should be about $48,000. Using the same 1/3 going to housing rent is $1333/month. Still difficult to find.
OH, folks might find it interesting that this family with two breadwinners will pay MORE in Federal Income Tax in 2018 after the Trump tax cuts than they did in 2017.
In 2016, Asia represented 34.2% of world land mass and 36.1% of world GDP. Yet, carbon emissions from Asia totaled 58.4% of world carbon emissions. Asia’s share is still rising.
“Hey, that guy two doors down the street, he doesn’t take his trash cans back in, why should I do this chore when that guy gets away with it? Hi, my name is Mark and I’m seven years old!”
What are you talking about? We are taking our trash cans in. The U.S. carbon emissions have been declining for years and continue to do so in the Trump administration.
How disingenuous you can be. There is a war being fought against climate change science and the Paris Accords.
Source it? Yes. But that is for moving company. Too tired. Paper is better. Still required is two jobs. What now? Labor market. Too tired, but at least the job is easy. Labor.
Gordon,
I would like to add a little analysis. As my letter stated, U.S. govt. hurricane figures indicate a 5% acceleration in global warming since 1934. Assuming this is human-caused, we should also consider other anthropogenic sources.
Coal factory soot in Asia has been turning the snows of Siberia from white to dark, dramatically affecting the absorption of heat from the sun. Assume that is 1%.
Large metropolises are visible from space, especially at night. Assume these huge cities add 1% to global warming.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Humans are raising more cows, sheep, goats, etc. Assume this with other less-familiar greenhouse gases total 1%.
This leaves 2% global warming acceleration due to carbon emissions. The U.S. produces 14.5% of carbon emissions. Assume we make drastic cuts far beyond the Paris agreement and cut our production by 25% from where it is now.
What difference would a drastic 25% cut in carbon emissions have on global warming, according to this analysis?
The answer is that the global warming that would have happened in 1,379 years would now take 1,380 years; thanks to our huge sacrifice. Here is the math: 1/(2%*14.5%*25%)=1,379.
I am not saying that we should care less about what happens to the earth. I am saying that we should be smart about what we focus on.
I would like to see more efforts on preventing invasive species in Hawaii. I would also like to see more efforts on fighting invasive species that are already here, before it is too late. Congratulations to Katie Castle and others for their tireless efforts to save many species here on Kauai!
There are real ecological crises to be worked on. We have been too distracted by this phony carbon crisis.
Beeksma takes one small aspect of the big picture and applies a simple math application of his own making, with no control whatsoever over a ton of variable and then claims a conclusion.
Fortunately, that’s NOT how science works!
Beeksma’s piece is just plain laughable!
I think this Atlantic hurricane data is the best data I have seen. Data from space observation involves too short of time period, especially when we see 50 year cycles. Data from onshore locations in the 1800s were like small towns in the woods. Those same locations are now big concrete cities, making the temp data comparisons unreliable. The Atlantic Ocean is very large and it is still the Atlantic Ocean after 166 years. Hurricanes are directly related to ocean temperatures. This appears to be the best data we have.
You have one aspect of a complex, multi faceted issue. Within that aspect you’ve gone against the overwhelming scientific consensus. Not because you have discovered stunning world changing data; but, because a small group of aging, white, male politicians decided to make Global Warming a partisan issue. They saw short term benefit in rallying their aging, white, male sheep. If they had decided to pick the other side (probably was a coin flip), you, Mark Beeksma, would be showing us data in support of Global Warming!
Let’s say we make a mistake and make the world a cleaner, safer, healthier, and better place without solving the warming. WOULDN’T THAT BE JUST HORRIBLE?
The New Religion,Global Warming? Just say no to the Dope!
Just Saying – You not have good brain! Global Warming caused by man is an unprovable myth. Let’s say man is the entire cause and it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? Without China and India, along with many other incredibly pollution producing Countries of the Earth. THE UNITED STATES CAN NOT MAKE A DENT IN IT!! We’re already the cleanest Country in the world that’s our size and population. You need to go back to school and STUDY!
Who told you it was a myth? Do you even remember? When something enjoys an 87% scientific consensus, it’s not a myth! If something comes out of white trash trump’s mouth like “China thinks I have a very, very good brain,” then that is a myth!