The Spin Cycle is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with less cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description, visit the inaugural edition.
Well, well, well. The EPA has finally gone and done it. They have actually calculated the climate change impacts projected to result of one of their climate change regulations—in this case, the proposed rules for the efficiency standards for medium and heavy duty vehicles.
What they found was hardly surprising—the climate impacts from the proposed regulations will be vanishingly small.
The EPA calculates that the amount of global temperature rise averted by the end of the 21st century from the proposed regulations to be… wait, this is too good to paraphrase. From the EPA:
The results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference case, by 2100 projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by 1.1 to 1.2 part per million by volume (ppmv), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0026 to 0.0065 °C, and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.023 to 0.057 cm.
Did you catch that? According to the EPA’s own calculations, their regulation mandating the fuel economy of medium and light duty trucks avoids somewhere between twenty-six ten-thousandths and sixty-five ten-housandths of a degree of future global warming. In other words, it is a useless measure when it comes to influencing the future course of global temperature. If the EPA wants to regulate the fuel efficiency of trucks, it needs to justify it for reasons that don’t relate to climate change.
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.
This week, the royal families of Clinton and Bush offered up their 2016 campaign insights on climate change. People have been very interested in what they would say because, as Secretary of State, Clinton gave hints that she was even more aggressive on the issue than her boss, and Bush is the son of GHW Bush, who got us into this mess in the first place by going to Rio in 1992 and signing off on the Climate Treaty adopted there.*
Hillary Clinton unveiled her “climate plan” first. As feared, it’s a step-up over Obama’s, with an impossibly large target for electricity production from renewable energy. While her fans were exuberant, noticeably absent from her plan were her thoughts on Keystone XL pipeline and a carbon tax.
Manhattan Institute scholar Oren Cass (whose take on the carbon tax we’ve featured previously) was, overall, less than impressed. Calling Hilary’s climate plan a “fake plan” in that it really would have no impact on the climate. Cass identifies what Hilary’s “real” plan is—pushing for a $100+ billion annual international “Green Climate Fund” (largely populated with U.S. dollars) to be available to developing countries to fight/prepare for climate change.
The White House Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) has released a draft of revised guidance that “describes how Federal departments and agencies should consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change” under reviews governed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—an act which basically requires some sort of assessment as to the environmental impacts of all proposed federal actions.
Under the revised guidance, the CEQ makes it clear that they want federal agencies now to include the impact on climate change in their environmental assessments.
But here’s the kicker, the CEQ doesn’t want the climate change impacts to be described using measures of climate—like temperature, precipitation, storm intensity or frequency, etc.— but rather by using the measure of greenhouse gas emissions.
Basically, the CEQ guidance is a roadmap for how to circumvent the NEPA requirements.
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.”
The Obama Administration this week is set to release the latest version of the National Climate Assessment—a report which is supposed to detail the potential impacts that climate change will have on the United States. The report overly focuses on the supposed negative impacts from climate change while largely dismissing or ignoring the positives from climate change.
The bias in the National Climate Assessment (NCA) towards pessimism (which we have previously detailed here) has implications throughout the federal regulatory process because the NCA is cited (either directly or indirectly) as a primary source for the science of climate change for justifying federal regulation aimed towards mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Since the NCA gets it wrong, so does everyone else.
A good example of this can be found in how climate change is effecting the human response during heat waves. The NCA foresees an increasing frequency and magnitude of heat waves leading to growing numbers of heat-related deaths. The leading science suggests just the opposite.
Read the rest of this post »
This Current Wisdom takes an in-depth look at how politics can masquerade as science.
“A pack of foma,” Bokonon said
Paraphrased from Cat’s Cradle (1963), Kurt Vonnegut
In his 1963 classic, Cat’s Cradle, iconic writer Kurt Vonnegut described the sleepy little Caribbean island of San Lorenzo, where the populace was mesmerized by the prophet Bokonon, who created his own religion and his own vocabulary. Bokonon communicated his religion through simple verses he called “calypsos.” “Foma” are half-truths that conveniently serve the religion, and the paraphrase above is an apt description of the Administration’s novel approach to determining the “social cost of carbon” (dioxide).
Because of a pack of withering criticism, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is now in the process of reviewing how the Obama Administration calculates and uses the social cost of carbon (SCC). We have filed a series of Comments with the OMB outlining what is wrong with the current SCC determination. Regular readers of this blog are familiar with some of the problems that we have identified, but our continuing analysis of the Administration’s SCC has yielded a few more nuggets.
We describe a particularly rich one here—that the government wants us to pay more today to offset a modest climate change experienced by a wealthy future society than to help alleviate a lot of climate change impacting a less well-off future world.
Hmmm. A pounding blizzard hits the Northeast, followed by an Arctic cold blast. All the while, Florida is set to oust New York and join California and Texas as the top 3 most populous states in the U.S.
Here is the story according to the Associated Press:
So while some folks yammer on about the perils of a warming climate (and try to force regulations upon us aimed at “doing something” about it), a great many others are actively seeking out warmer places to live. Perhaps not entirely for the climate, but that factor is almost assuredly not out of mind.
Maybe the public doesn’t think that its “health” is as “endangered” by a warmer climate as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contends.
Tomorrow [today] Rep. Henry A. Waxman and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, co‐chairs of the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change, will host representatives from five of America’s major sports leagues, as well as the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC), to discuss the effects of climate change on sporting activities and the work these organizations are doing to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The group will meet for a closed‐door discussion, followed by a press availability.
Now, admittedly, even as a climatologist, I do spend a fair amount of time discussing sports.
But I do so around the water cooler or at the local bar, not with Congressional task forces.
Your tax dollars are probably better served that way.