Tag: global warming

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.

People Shouldn’t Be Able to Sue Think Tanks When They Disagree with Us

What’s worse than a public policy debate that turns bitter and impolite? Well, for one, having the courts step into the marketplace of ideas to judge which side of a debate has the best “facts.”

Yet that’s what Michael Mann has invited the D.C. court system to do. In response to some scathing criticism of his methodologies and an allegation of scientific misconduct, the author of the infamous “hockey stick” models of global warming – because they resemble the shape of a hockey stick, with temperatures rising drastically beginning in the 1900s – has taken the global climate change debate to a record low by suing the Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Review, and two individual commentators. The good Dr. Mann claims that some blogposts alleging his work to be “fraudulent” and “intellectually bogus” were libelous. (For more background on the matter, see this excellent summary by NR’s editor Rich Lowry; linking to that post is partly what led Mann to target CEI.)

The D.C. trial court rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss this lawsuit, holding that their criticism could be taken as a provably false assertion of fact because the EPA, among other bodies, have approved of Mann’s methodologies. In essence, the court seems to cite a consensus as a means of censoring a minority view. The defendants appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals (the highest court in the District of Columbia).

Cato has now filed a brief, joined by three other think tanks, in which we urge the court to stay out of the business of refereeing scientific debates. (And if you liked our “truthiness” brief, you’ll enjoy this one.)

Should We Expect Fewer Hurricanes in the Near Future?

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.”


With hurricane Arthur headlining the news as throwing a possible wet blanket on 4th of July fireworks shows along the Northeast coast and with a new record being set each passing day for the longest period between major (Category 3 or greater) hurricane landfalls anywhere in the U.S. (3,173 days and counting), we thought that now would be a good time to discuss a new paper which makes a tentative forecast as to what we can expect in terms of the number of Atlantic hurricanes in the near future (next 3-5 years).

With every storm post priori blamed on global warming (or at least being “consistent with expectations”), we thought it would be interesting to actually establish a priori what the expectations really are.

To this end, a new paper authored by a team led by Leon Hermanson has just appeared on-line in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that describes a decadal forecasting model developed by the U.K. Met Office and called, rather unimaginatively, the Decadal Prediction System (DePreSys).

Oops: Got the Sign Wrong Trying to Explain Away the Global Warming “Pause”

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.”

A couple of years ago, when it was starting to become obvious that the average global surface temperature was not rising at anywhere near the rate that climate models projected, and in fact seemed to be leveling off rather than speeding up, explanations for the slowdown sprouted like mushrooms in compost.

We humbly suggested a combination of natural variability and a lower “sensitivity” of surface temperature to rising carbon dioxide.

Now, several years later, the “pause” continues. Natural variability is now widely accepted as making a significant contribution and our argument for a lowered climate sensitivity—which would indicate that existing climate models are not reliable tools for projecting future climate trends—is buoyed by accumulating evidence and is gaining support in the broader climate research community. Yet is largely rejected by federal regulators and their scientific supporters.  These folks prefer rather more exotic explanations that seek to deflect the blame away from the climate models and thus preserve their over-heated projections of future global warming.

The problem with exotic explanations is that they tend to unravel like exotic dancers.

Such is the case for the explanation—popular with the press when it was first proposed—that an increase in aerosol emissions, particularly from China, was acting to help offset the warming influence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

The suggestion was made back in 2011 by a team of researchers led by Boston University’s Robert Kaufmann and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Shortly after it appeared, we were critical of it in these pages, pointing out how the explanation was inconsistent with several lines of data.

Now, a new paper appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature takes a deeper view of aerosol emissions during the past 15 years and finds that, in net, changes in aerosol emissions over the period 1996-2010 contributed a net warming pressure to the earth’s climate.

Kühn et al. (2014) write:

Increases in Asian aerosol emissions have been suggested as one possible reason for the hiatus in global temperature increase during the past 15 years. We study the effect of sulphur and black carbon (BC) emission changes between 1996-2010 on the global energy balance. We find that the increased Asian emissions have had very little regional or global effects, while the emission reductions in Europe and the U.S. have caused a positive radiative forcing. In our simulations, the global-mean aerosol direct radiative effect changes 0.06 W/m2 during 1996–2010, while the effective radiative forcing (ERF) is 0.42 W/m2.

So in other words, rather than acting to slow global warming during the past decade and a half as proposed by Kaufmann et al. (2011), changes in anthropogenic aerosol emissions (including declining emissions trends in North America and Europe) have acted to enhance global warming (described as contributing to a positive increase in the radiative forcing in the above quote).

This means that the “pause,” or whatever you want to call it, in the rise of global surface temperatures is even more significant than it is generally taken to be, because whatever is the reason behind it, it is not only acting to slow the rise from greenhouse gas emissions but also the added rise from changes in aerosol emissions.

Until we understand what this sizeable mechanism is and how it works, our ability to reliably look into the future and foresee what climate lies ahead is a mirage. Yet, somehow, the Obama Administration is progressing full speed ahead with regulations about the kinds of cars and trucks we can drive, the appliances we use, and the types of energy available, etc., all in the name of mitigating future climate change.

As we repeatedly point out, not only will the Obama Administration’s actions have no meaningful impact on the amount of future climate change, but it is far from clear that the rate of future change will even be enough to mitigate—or even to worry about.

References

Kaufmann, R. K., et al., 2011. Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102467108

Kühn, T., et al., 2014. Climate impacts of changing aersol emission since 1996. Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1002/2014GL060349

0.02°C Temperature Rise Averted: The Vital Number Missing from the EPA’s “By the Numbers” Fact Sheet

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.”


Last week, the Obama Administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a new set of proposed regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing U. S. power plants. The motivation for the EPA’s plan comes from the President’s desire to address and mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

We hate to be the party poopers, but the new regulations will do no such thing.

The EPA’s regulations seek to limit carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production in the year 2030 to a level 30 percent below what they were in 2005. It is worth noting that power plant CO2 emissions already dropped by about 15% from 2005 to2012, largely, because of market forces which favor less-CO2-emitting natural gas over coal as the fuel of choice for producing electricity. Apparently the President wants to lock in those gains and manipulate the market to see that the same decline takes place in twice the time.  Nothing like government intervention to facilitate market inefficiency. But we digress.

The EPA highlighted what the plan would achieve in their “By the Numbers” Fact Sheet that accompanied their big announcement.

For some reason, they left off their Fact Sheet how much climate change would be averted by the plan. Seems like a strange omission since, after all, without the threat of climate change, there would be no one thinking about the forced abridgement of our primary source of power production in the first place, and the Administration’s new emissions restriction scheme wouldn’t even be a gleam in this or any other president’s eye.

But no worries.  What the EPA left out, we’ll fill in.