Tag: global warming

You Ought to Have a Look: U.S./China Agreement, Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Natural Variability

You Ought to Have a Look is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science posted by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. (“Chip”) Knappenberger. While this section will feature all of the areas of interest that we are emphasizing, the prominence of the climate issue is driving a tremendous amount of web traffic. Here we post a few of the best in recent days, along with our color commentary.

The big news of the week was the “historic” (in President Obama’s words) climate agreement between the U.S. and China—but about the only “historic” thing about it was the hype the White House and environmental groups heaped upon it.  In actuality, there was very little new news. The emissions reduction pathway that Obama announced for the U.S. was not much different (actually a teense lower) than the one announced after the (failed) U.N. Copenhagen meeting in 2009, and China agreed to…well, it’s unclear to what they agreed. NBC News reported “China intends to begin to halt the rise in CO2 emissions by around the year 2030.” Try that line (inserting your own specific vice) on your significant other and see how it goes over.

A good article in Reuters by John Kemp nicely eschews the hype and looks more closely at the facts.  He opening paragraph reads:

Nov 12 (Reuters) - The joint statement by the United States and China on climate change, issued on Wednesday, is more important for its political and diplomatic symbolism than any practical effect it might have in reducing emissions.

Both Kemp’s article and our article on the announcement are worth having a look at to see what the agreement really entails, and its chances at success (spoiler alert: they aren’t good).

Another big news item this week—or at least it should have been—was the release of Alex Epstein’s remarkable book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. We can’t say enough good things about this book—and we try often! You may have seen our glowing review on these pages yesterday along with some provocative text provided by Alex that cuts to the basic premise of the book—that the societal pros of fossil fuel use far, far exceed the cons, and therefore, it is, well, immoral, to try to restrict their usage and further development. This week Alex also hosted a Reddit AMA (“ask me anything”) to allow internet savvy folks to interact with him directly as ask questions about his new book and his general way of thinking.  Alex entertained many interesting questions, for example:

Question:  What should be the role of government with respect to pollution? Should it ban pollution? Limit it? Tax it?

Answer: Good question, the subject of chapter 7 “Minimizing Risks and Side-Effects.” The basic principle is that we should think of it in terms of individual rights. At a certain threshold of emission someone is polluting your person or property and should be forbidden to do so. But certain threshold is important and contextual based on the state of technology. So in the 1800s people should have been allowed to use the coal plants they did but we shouldn’t today. If something is fundamentally necessary to human life it’s not pollution. There’s a lot of complexity in application but that’s the framework I use.

If you want to see all that transpired in this lively round of questioning is archived here.

And finally, our friend, the ever-informative Dr. Roy Spencer has a good post up over at his blog looking at what really are the biggest influences on the climate during the timescale of our lifetime. What does he find? Why natural variability, of course! He takes us through a couple of the most influential natural sources of variability and the possible drivers behind them. Here is some insight from Roy:

But statistics aren’t enough. Since we understand that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and should cause some warming, but we don’t understand natural climate cycles, scientists only look where the streetlight of government funding illuminates the problem: CO2.

What complicates policymaking even further is that what motivates public perceptions and thus decision makers the most are weather events. Hurricane Sandy. A snowy winter. We end up blaming these on the only thing we thing we think we understand — increasing CO2 should cause some change, so it must be responsible for all of the change we see…

To the extent that human-caused warming is occurring, I am increasingly convinced it is a largely benign — and possibly beneficial — needle lost in the haystack of Mother Nature’s natural climate gyrations.

You ought to have a look at the rest of Roy’s article, which can be found here.

You Ought to Have A Look: IPCC Deception, Poorly Performing Climate Models, Natural Disasters

You Ought to Have a Look is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, posted by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. (“Chip”) Knappenberger. While this section will feature all of the areas of interest that we are emphasizing, the prominence of the climate issue is driving a tremendous amount of web traffic. Here we post a few of the best in recent days, along with our color commentary.

Leaving the election results aside (noting that they were bad for the Obama administration’s ill-founded and executive-ordered climate policies), we highlight a couple (among the many) interesting climate change–related tidbits scattered among the intertubes.

The first is an analysis of what was left out of the latest (final?) report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), conducted by Marcel Crok, a Dutch journalist who covers climate change with a somewhat skeptical eye.

Crok recently partnered up with climate researcher Nic Lewis to produce a major analysis of climate sensitivity—one of the key parameters in helping to understand how much influence human activities will have on the future climate—for the United Kingdom’s Global Warming Policy Foundation  (another site that you’ll surely be hearing from in these pages from time to time). Lewis and Crok found that the IPCC greatly overestimated the climate sensitivity based on a critical review of the extant scientific literature on the topic.

In a post this week on his blog (which is sometimes written in Dutch), Crok compares how the IPCC treatment of climate sensitivity changed from being-front-and-center in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report to being nearly buried in its 2014 Fifth Assessment Report.  

Why the change? Because the more people look at climate sensitivity, the less it looks like the IPCC produced a very good “assessment” of it. Virtually the entirety of their reports are premised on a climate sensitivity of around 3.5°C. A much more realistic value is around  2.0°C—a difference so large as to consign most of the IPCC reports to the dustbin of climate history.

New Research Erases Global Warming from Pacific Northwest

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

Poof, it was gone.

Just like that, the human fingerprints on a century-long warming trend in Northwestern United States were erased and replaced instead by the telltale signs of natural variability. 

That is the conclusion of new research published last week by a pair of scientists from the University of Washington. James Johnstone and Nathan Mantua published their paper titled “Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change 1900-2012” in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

So as not to be accused of putting words in their mouth, here, in full, are the contents of a box labeled “Significance” from their paper:

Northeast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regional atmospheric dynamics. This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends.

 

Translation: Natural variability in the atmosphere/ocean dynamics of the northern Pacific Ocean rather than human-caused global warming can largely explain the century-long rise in temperature in the Pacific Northwest.

And the authors have the figures to prove it.

The World Needs More Energy, Not Less

This week, a few major media outlets covered my take on the effectiveness and judiciousness of President Obama’s call, at the U.N. Climate Summit, for all countries of the world to make pledges of how and how much they are going to reduce their national carbon dioxide emissions. It should be no surprise that I think such actions would be ineffective and imprudent.

My biggest criticism is that not all countries of the world are at the same stage of energy development. While the developed nations may have all the energy supplies they want and need, most developing countries do not. So, while developing countries pursue  “luxuries” like indoor lighting and clean cooking facilities (not to mention improved sanitation), developed countries are awash in the luxury of debating whether to alter the relative components of their fuel mix in hopes that it may (or may not) alter the future course of the climate.

Since historically (and today) there is an extremely tight coupling between energy production and carbon dioxide emissions (since fossil fuels are used to produce the overwhelming bulk of our energy), calls like those from President Obama to restrict carbon dioxide emissions are akin to calls to restrict energy usage and expansion.

Imposing carbon restrictions on developing nations would have large-scale negative implications, not only to those directly affected, but to the world as a whole, as a large expanse of human ingenuity–arguably humanity’s greatest resource–would remain constrained by basic survival efforts and 50-year life expectancies.

Basically, no one is going to go along with this. So despite promises, when adhering to plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (whether informal or formalized in a treaty) comes up against economic expansion and human welfare improvements, the latter are going to win out every time (or so we would hope).

Obama Lonely at U.N. Climate Fest

People should learn from their mistakes. The last time President Obama took it upon himself to “lead” a U.N. climate fest was at Copenhagen in December, 2009, which, from the point of view of my greener friends, was a notorious failure. 

Today, he’s back, this time at Ban Ki-moon’s U.N. “climate summit,” but not a lot of his global peers are going to be there. Prime Ministers from China, India, Canada, Australia and Germany have all decided to stay home. 

Together, they emit almost three times what the U.S. does, which means we are going it alone in New York.  Any policy we agree to is  meaningless.  According to the EPAs “Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change” (yes, it is MAGICC), if we emitted not another molecule of carbon dioxide between tomorrow and January 1, 2100, the amount of warming that would be prevented is a mere 0.14°C, an amount too small to reliably measure. That’s probably an overestimate, too, as the EPA appears to have overestimated 21st century warming.

EPA assumes  that the “sensitivity” of surface temperature to a carbon dioxide doubling is 3°C, an amount very likely far too great, compared to what is being observed.  Or, perhaps, compared to what is not being observed, as global surface temperatures have held constant for 17+ years now (actually 19, according to Cato scholar and eco-statistician Ross McKitrick), according to the surface annual temperature history that climate scientists cite the most. So the “saved” warming from any policy is likely to be even less than what MAGICC says.

You’re not going to hear that from the President. As happened at the 2009 Copenhagen disaster, the President and the Secretary-General will declare a roaring success.

In Copenhagen, that meant that all participants had to submit specific action plans to reduce emissions within two months.  But, a bit more than a month before the deadline, the U.N.’s climate commissioner, Yvo deBoer, announced that they really didn’t have to. Then he resigned.

There’s still no new international agreement to replace the failed Kyoto Protocol. But, last month, the President got people pretty worked up when he proposed a new, U.N.-sponsored agreement (a treaty—or a modification of an existing one—by any other name) on climate change that he didn’t think would require ratification by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, counter to what is explicitly stated in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of our constitution:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur… 

Not only is the president going to be quite lonely at the U.N., he could be setting the country up for a huge constitutional conflagration.

It’s not going to happen on his watch, though. Any agreement that he signs on to won’t likely take effect until at least 2016.  Even under the most rosy Democrat-wave election that year (one is likely to happen, given the demographics of the Senate crowd that is up for re-election), there’s no way 67 are going to vote to ratify a treaty that differentially harms the U.S. while China and India keep increasing their emissions dramatically.

Of course we’re going to hear the rhetoric, repeated again today, that the U.S. has to “lead by example.”  Well, Mr. President, with those big emitters and the developing world saying “no way,” no one is going to follow.  In 2012, the last year for which we have reliable data, the U.S. contributed 14% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Together, the five big no-shows emitted almost three times as much as us, and their fraction can only grow as both China and India are determined to develop their economies.

If we were really going to lead by example we would show the world how our free economy has resulted in investments in clean, big power sources like shale gas. The developing world is currently lacking in large sources of dense energy. If we’re going “lead by example,” maybe that example should be that governments should get out of the way of economic development and cleaner energy will follow. 

Should We Credit Global Warming When Disasters Don’t Happen?

Every time there is some sort of weather disaster somewhere, someone blames it on human-caused global warming. Maybe not directly, but the implication is clear. “While we can’t link individual events to global warming, the increase of this type of event is consistent with our expectations, blah, blah…”

Most recently this came in testimony from White House Science Adviser John Holdren before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives:

In general, one cannot say with confidence that an individual extreme weather event (or weather-related event)—for example, a heat wave, drought, flood, powerful storm, or large wildfire—was caused by global climate change. Such events usually result from the convergence of multiple factors, and these kinds of events occurred with some frequency before the onset of the discernible, largely human-caused changes in global climate in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. But there is much evidence demonstrating that extreme weather events of many kinds are beginning to be influenced—in magnitude or frequency—by changes in climate.

Holdren then goes to list a bunch of types of extreme weather whose characteristics have changed (remarkably, all becoming worse), adding that:

There are good scientific explanations, moreover, supported by measurements, of the mechanisms by which the overall changes in climate resulting from the human-caused build-up of heat-trapping substances are leading to the observed changes in weather-related extremes.

Is it “Moral” to Restrict Fossil Fuel Use to Mitigate Future Sea Level Rise?

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”


Organizations of all sorts are scrambling to get their ducks in a row in preparations for The People’s Climate March (we are not making this up) scheduled in NYC on September 21st as a prelude to the U. N.’s Climate Summit on the 23rd.  President Obama has pledged to be at the Summit.  The leaders of China, India, Australia, Germany, Canada, among others, have better things to do.

One of the pre-Summit events being held by several sponsors of The People’s Climate March is a Capitol Hill briefing scheduled for Thursday, the 18th. The Franciscan Action Network, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (there is no way we could have made up that collaboration) are hosting a briefing titled “The Impact of Sea Level Rise Right Now: Stories of the Lived Experience and the Moral Call to Action.”

The bottom line of the briefing will be that:

Climate change is a moral, non-partisan and pragmatic issue which can be addressed by solutions with multiple co-benefits. We urge legislators to join global business, faith, scientific, health and military leaders in acknowledging that climate disruptions are real, happening now, and requiring our nation’s leaders to act.

It is interesting that they juxtapose a “moral issue” with calls for “policies to reduce national and global greenhouse gas emissions.” Interesting, we say, because there is a soon-to-be released and incredibly compelling book written by the Center for Industrial Progress’s Alex Epstein titled The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Its main premise is that both the short- and long-term benefits of using fossil fuels greatly outweigh the risks of any climate change that may occur as the result of the accompanying carbon dioxide emissions. Epstein argues that the “moral” thing to do is to continue (and expand) the use fossil fuels:

If we look at the big picture of fossil fuels compared with the alternatives, the overall impact of using fossil fuels is to make the world a far better place. We are morally obligated to use more fossil fuels for the sake of our economy and our environment.

The primary case against expansion of current fossil fuel use involves the risk from anthropogenic climate change.  However, here, the threats are overstated—especially by organizations (like many of those behind The People’s Climate March) that favor centralized government control of energy production (and most everything else).

The sea level rise concerns that are to be described in the Hill briefing will undoubtedly fall into the “overstated” category. According to the briefing’s flier:

“The U.S. National Climate Assessment projected that sea levels will rise 1 to 4 feet by 2100, affecting 39 percent of the U.S. population and impacting the very futures of many coastal communities and small island nations.”

We imagine that the focus will be on the high end of the 1 to 4 foot range (and beyond), even as a plethora of new science argues for an outcome nearer to the low end.

The current decadal rate of sea level rise is about 3 mm (.12 in) per year, which would result in about a foot of sea level rise during the 21st century. There  is a lot of recent research that concludes that a large increase in this rate of rise as a result of the melting of Greenland’s and/or Antarctica’s glaciers is unlikely.

The statistical models most responsible for the high-end sea level rise projections used have been shown to be questionable and thus unreliable. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, the future projection of temperature rise made by climate models (upon which the sea level rise projections are based) have been shown by a growing body of scientific research to be overestimated by about 40 percent.

Taken together, the latest science argues that the case for rapid and disruptive sea level rise is flimsy at best.

Undoubtedly, sea levels will continue to rise into the future, in part, from the earth’s temperature increase as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions resulting from our use of fossil fuels. Appropriate adaptations will be necessary. However, signs point to a rather modest rise in sea levels accompanying a rather modest rise in temperature—a pace at which our adaptive response can keep up.

So long as this is remains case, the continued use of fossil fuels to power the developed world and the expanded use to help provide safe, reliable, and cheap electricity to the more than 1 billion people in the underdeveloped world that currently live without any (or very minimal) access to it is a no-brainer.  That’s where the moral imperative should lie.

Pages