Topic: Energy and Environment

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.

Reflections on Rapid Response to Unjustified Climate Alarm

The Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science today kicks off its rapid response center that will identify and correct inappropriate and generally bizarre claims on behalf of climate alarm. I wish them luck in this worthy enterprise, but more will surely be needed to deal with this issue.

To be sure, there is an important role for such a center. It is not to convince the ‘believers.’ Nor do I think that there is any longer a significant body of sincere and intelligent individuals who are simply trying to assess the evidence. As far as I can tell, the issue has largely polarized that relatively small portion of the population that has chosen to care about the issue. The remainder quite reasonably have chosen to remain outside the polarization. Thus the purpose of a rapid response Center will be to reassure those who realize that this is a fishy issue, that there remain scientists who are still concerned with the integrity of science. There is also a crucial role in informing those who wish to avoid the conflict as to what is at stake. While these are important functions, there are other issues that I feel a think tank ought to consider. Moreover, there is a danger that rapid response to trivial claims lends unwarranted seriousness to these claims. 

Climate alarm belongs to a class of issues characterized by a claim for which there is no evidence, that nonetheless appeals strongly to one or more interests or prejudices. Once the issue is adopted, evidence becomes irrelevant. Instead, the believer sees what he believes. Anything can serve as a supporting omen. Three very different previous examples come to mind (though there are many more examples that could be cited): Malthus’ theory of overpopulation, social Darwinism and the Dreyfus Affair. Although each of these issues engendered opposition, only the Dreyfus Affair led to widespread societal polarization. More commonly, only the ‘believers’ are sufficiently driven to form a movement. We will briefly review these examples (though each has been subject to book length analyses), but the issue of climate alarm is somewhat special in that it appeals to a sizeable number of interests, and has strong claims on the scientific community. It also has the potential to cause exceptional harm to an unprecedented number of people. This has led to persistent opposition amidst widespread lack of interest. However, all these issues are characterized by profound immorality pretending to virtue. 

NYT Reverses Course on German Renewables

This week the New York Times featured an article lauding Germany’s embrace of renewable energy in recent years. This came just under a year after it published a separate article questioning the costs of subsidized wind power.  The article last year noted that “Industrial users still pay substantially more for electricity here than do their counterparts in Britain or France, and almost three times as much as those in the United States, according to a study by the German industrial giant Siemens. The Cologne Institute for Economic Research said there had been a marked decline in the willingness of industrial companies to invest in Germany since 2000.”  

Regulation has published two articles addressing the issue of renewable energy subsidies in recent years.

In the first, Jonathan Lesser examines the costs of the Cape Cod wind farms in Massachusetts.  Cape Wind prices will be around 21 cents per kWh when it starts production and 35 cents at the end of the contract in 2027.  In contrast the market supply is currently around 11 cents per kWh and projected to be 15 cents from 2020 through 2027. 

In the second article, Lesser uses data on actual wind generation to demonstrate the perverse economic consequences of the inverse relationship between the availability of wind power (at night in the winter) and the demand for electricity (during the day in the summer).

From January 2009 to August 2012 in three of the areas of the country that account for more than half of the installed wind generation capacity in the U.S.: Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland, the upper Midwest, and Texas, the median wind unit operated only between 26 and 31 percent of the hours in a year and only between 2 and 16 percent of the peak hours in the 10 highest demand days of the year. 

Even though renewable power is least available when electricity is in greatest demand, renewable energy subsidies create taxpayer-subsidized competition for existing power generators during other lower-demand times.  This reduces the returns of existing generators.  The lower returns cause conventional supply to decline and eventually consumer prices increase particularly at peak times because so little wind generation is produced during peak hours.

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.

CO2 Going Up. Human Progress Going Up.

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.”

Yesterday it was announced by the World Meteorological Organization (an arm of the United Nations), with front page coverage by the global media, that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) last year reached a new high value (396 parts per million, ppm) and got there in record time (2.9ppm/yr). Although newer data (through July of 2014) indicate that the rate of rise has fallen back again to levels more characteristic of the past decade, the signal remains—carbon dioxide is building in the atmosphere and rising to levels that have probably not been seen in along time (hundreds of thousands of years).

This rise is a continued reminder of the steady drumbeat of human progress. The carbon dioxide that is building in the atmosphere, at least in part, gets there through human emissions of carbon dioxide that are the by-product of burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) to produce the vast majority the energy that has powered mankind’s industrial and technical ascent since the Industrial Revolution.

The gradual increase in the rate of the rise of the carbon dioxide concentration is a sign that we are continuing to expand our energy use and availability, primarily in developing countries like India and China. With more than a billion people still without much access to electricity (and many more than that who would like access to more) and all the life-improving benefits that come with it, we still have a long way to go.

Consequently, we should anticipate that the atmospheric CO2 concentration will continue to grow for many years to come.

The benefits that fossil use have delivered to humanity are enormous. A taste of them can be found at Cato’s website and a compelling case for why we should continue to embrace and expand fossil fuel use is made by Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress in his excellent (and very soon forthcoming) book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

The only concern that arises from growing atmospheric CO2 levels stems from the potential climate changes that may result. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that acts basically to trap heat trying to escape from earth to space. But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the projections of climate change that have been made by the current family of computerized climate models has been overdone—that the world will warm up significantly less than has been predicted as a result of our ongoing carbon dioxide emissions. We continue to detail the evidence that the earth’s “climate sensitivity” to carbon dioxide is less than expected. Our most recent summary of the new, relevant literature on this topic is available here. Less warming means less resultant impacts which mean less worry about rising CO2 levels (and less impetus for government action).

So rather than accompanying the WMO announcement with hand-wringing and talk of self-destructive doom and gloom—which was obiquitous in media coverage of the data release—the more appropriate response would be to applaud our progress in energy expansion across the world.

The last time an announcement of atmospheric CO2 levels reaching some new high (an announcement that could be made virtually every day), we wrote:

[The rise] of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should remind us of our continuing success at expanding the global supply of energy to meet a growing demand. That success which ultimately leads to an improvement of the global standard of living and a reduction in vulnerability to the vagaries of weather and climate.

[The rise] is cause for celebration.

The same holds today, and will do so far into the future.

Opinions of Climate Change: Related to Dependency on Government Money?

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.”


In our post last week titled “Climate Alarmism: When is this Bozo Going Down?” we described how new research increasingly casts doubt on the validity of climate models and their projections of future climate change.  It is increasing clear that climate models simply predict too much warming from human greenhouse gas emissions. 

But the scientific community, or at least that part of it which makes its living off climate alarm, is slow to accept this.

Who can blame these folks?  More money flows from the government into universities (or government labs) to study the effects of climate change if we all agree that human greenhouse gas emissions are leading to climate change of a dangerous magnitude.

So it is left to the emeritus or retired profs to lay bare the truth.

A fine example of this can be found in a recent article in the New York Times’ DotEarth blog run by ex-Times science reporter Andy Revkin. In his story looking into the implications of new scientific findings concerning the potential impacts of ocean circulation variability on our understanding of the behavior the global average surface history (parts of which we described in our last post), Revkin interviewed four prominent climate researchers.  The level of confidence that each showed in the mainstream (climate model-driven) global warming meme (despite this new research suggesting that something may be rotten in the state of Denmark) appears proportional to how much professional advancement still lies ahead.

The Unintended Consequences of Environmental Policy: For the Birds

So, here is a story to make your blood boil. According to National Review, “the federal government acted with a bias, giving renewable-energy companies a pass on unlawful bird deaths while rigorously prosecuting traditional energy companies for the same infractions.” The NR article follows a string of recent stories complaining about tens of thousands of birds cut up to pieces or fried in the sky by windmills and solar plants.

Speaking of birds…

Five decades ago, Rachel Carson, of Silent Spring infamy, helped to ban a pesticide called DDT. Back then, DDT was widely used not only in agriculture, but also in malaria control. Carson argued, among other things, that the use of DDT endangered bird populations. The political left jumped on Carson’s arguments. After a massive campaign, DDT was withdrawn from agriculture and its use in malaria control was greatly restricted. Most countries followed the American example and banned DDT for use in agriculture.

Although developing countries could technically use DDT for disease control, no donor agencies (dominated by western leftists) would support its use. This amounted to a de facto ban of DDT in malaria control. Nobody knows for sure, but thousands of Africans, perhaps millions, have died of malaria since the use of DDT was prematurely discontinued, all because of a hysterical drive to save the birds in the West.

Today, tens of thousands of birds are dying to satisfy the newest progressive fetish: the drive for renewable energy. At least they are dying in an environmentally friendly way.

As the left likes to say, you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs!