Anthony Ward

New studies are raising doubts about the reliability of climate model forecasts. As far back as the 1970s, most climate models have anticipated a decline in Antarctic sea ice. However, instead of declining, Antarctic sea ice in 2013 has approached record levels not seen since the 1970s. Scientists are scrambling to find explanations for this anomaly, but one thing is clear – model projections are facing a crisis of credibility.  If actual conditions diverge from the predicted, then how can we trust the predictions? It seems we are as likely to arrive to the truth about the Earth’s future climate using models as we are from reading tea leaves or performing an augury to pagan gods.

In order to salvage their credibility, scientists have sought a variable to explain away the errors of their models – increased polar winds. According to a new study, increased polar winds have offset the effect of rising temperatures. Adjusting for higher polar winds, models were able to account for 80 percent of the increase in Antarctic ice cover. The author of the study, Dr. Jinlun Zhang, an Oceanographer at the University of Washington, describes the results:

“The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging. Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth

While higher winds could be driving the increase in polar ice, the remaining 20 percent of the increase remains unaccounted. This suggests some other factor, or combination of factors, might be driving the decrease. Moreover, scientists admit they are uncertain why the models did not anticipate the increase in polar wind. Thus, the explanation for the model error is based on the admission the models were wrong about polar wind speed. If the models were wrong about polar wind speed, then criticism about model reliability still stands.

Accepting this explanation, however, raises another problem. According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Cover Data Center, previous studies suggest increases in polar wind speed lead to a faster rate of sea ice melt. How can the wind both increase and decrease the extent of ice?

It is clear that models must be taken with a grain of salt. Scientists are often uncertain about the exact cause of long-term changes in the Earth’s climate. Numerous variables should be considered. As Zhang notes in the study,

Still unknown is why the southern winds have been getting stronger. Some scientists have theorized that it could be related to global warming, or to the ozone depletion in the Southern Hemisphere, or just to natural cycles of variability.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers and Department of Energy have released a report titled, Economic Benefits Of Increasing Electric Grid Resilience to Weather Outages. The report calls for increased public and private spending on infrastructure aimed at hardening power lines from wind damage. In addition, the report argues in favor of increased funding towards the expansion of the nation’s energy storage capacity, and recommends the construction of sensors to monitor power fluctuations.

While some of the suggestions mentioned in the report are positive such as the hardening of existing power lines to protect from storm damage, many of the recommendations raise serious concerns. The Obama Administration claims to want to improve grid resiliency, but their anti-energy agenda and support for renewable subsidies show otherwise.

Last year, CEI Policy Analyst William Yeatman described the problems that would arise should renewable energy be incorporated into the grid:

There is no economy of scale for renewable energy. The electricity grid is a humongous, complex engineering project. At any given time, the electricity flowing into the grid must equal that consumed from the grid. The sun doesn’t always shine, the wind doesn’t always blow, and when these unreliable energy sources crap out, it sends grid operators scrambling to purchase backup power from reliable sources of power like coal and gas

What is the report’s solution? Energy storage.

If this were possible it might indeed solve the problem. However, there is a significant obstacle in the way. Energy storage technology of utility-scale energy does not exist. In addition, the report offers no suggestions as to how it might be developed demonstrating that the proposed solution is merely wishful thinking of government bureaucrats.

The report also claims:

“Since 1980, the United States has sustained 144 weather disasters whose damage cost reached or exceeded $1 billion. The total cost of these 144 events exceeds $1 trillion. Moreover, seven of the ten costliest storms in U.S. history occurred between 2004 and 2012. These “billion dollar storms” have rendered a devastating toll on the U.S. economy and the lives of millions of Americans.”

[click to continue…]

In some cases, neither the spoken nor written word is able to capture the emotional destruction wrought through disastrous public policy as does a simple tune. Perhaps this is why America was captivated when Jimmy Rose, enthralled audiences with a resounding refrain– “Coal Keeps the Lights On”:

From the coal mines of Kentucky to the battlefields of Iraq, Rose’s life lends credence to the message in his lyrics to provide the country a profound glimpse into the plight of the Appalachian coal worker.

Now, performing before a national audience last week on America’s Got Talent, Rose used his Coal Song to raise the spotlight further – perhaps Washington will take heed. The song marks a clear outcry against the Administration’s war on coal, which has endangered the very livelihood of coal workers in Appalachia.

Sadly, this message, so far, has seemed to have failed to reach the ears of the Obama Administration whose reckless policies and continual output of regulations match the pace of the continual decline in coal output and jobs. For years coal miners have been expressing their displeasure with the Administration. And, while Rose has brought the issue to the national stage, the calls of “Coal Keeps the Light On” are familiar a sight in this corner of Appalachia.  In an article last year, the NYTimes reported:

[click to continue…]

EPA has the most onerous regulatory agenda of all Federal Agencies. According to CEI’s Regulatory Report Card, EPA regulations cost the US economy $353 billion per year. Many of these costs are forced onto consumers in the form of higher energy prices. Such astronomical amounts are nearly double the second most expensive agency, Health and Human Services. Given the egregious results of unlimited regulatory authority, it comes as no surprise that the House of Representatives will this week debate and vote on the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013 to staunch the excessive burdens on consumers.

The Energy Consumer Relief Act requires EPA to submit the estimated costs and job impacts of all energy related regulations in excess of $1 billion. Moreover, the Act gives the Department of Energy authority to block any regulations deemed to have significant economic impacts.

EPA for far too long has had meager oversight. With the revelations of former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s false email accounts, as well as a significant power grab against state’s rights through regulatory disapproval, it is no surprise the House is likely to vote for stricter accountability.  Enacting inter-agency review to check the seemingly inexorable growth of EPA would be a strong step towards reasserting Congressional oversight over an out-of-control bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, the Democratic-controlled Senate is unlikely to consider this good-government legislation.

A. Cheap electricity.

The American Legislative Exchange Council this week released the latest version of its “Rich States, Poor States” report, which compares the economic performance of the fifty States.  It finds that eight of the top ten States for economic growth are controlled by Republican elected officials, while eight of the ten bottom States are controlled by Democrats.  Not co-incidentally, electricity costs are lower in the States with the strongest growth.  Nine of the top ten States have lower electric rates that the average of the bottom ten.

Executive branch overreach involving deliberate attempts to silence critics of the administration has become a pressing issue. Several revelations have come to light this week threatening to further cloud the Obama Administration’s claim of being “the most transparent administration in history.”  With the IRS facing allegations of deliberately targeting conservative groups, and the Department of Justice facing intense scrutiny for secretly monitoring the Associate Press, the executive branch is finding itself under siege from an onslaught of scandals. Now, something new can be added to the pile. According to CEI Senior Fellow Chris Horner, EPA has, in a sign of political bias, denied FOIA Fee Request Waivers requested by conservative groups.

Horner has discovered a clear pattern of bias against conservatives at EPA. While left-wing organizations almost always receive Fee Request waivers, conservative groups have had no such fortune.

According to a CEI press release:

In a review of letters granting or denying fee waivers granted at the “initial determination” stage from January 2012 to this Spring, Horner found green groups, such as the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and EarthJustice, had their fees waived in 75 out of 82 cases. Meanwhile, EPA effectively or expressly denied Horner’s request for fee waivers in 14 of 15 FOIA requests over this same time.

The administration’s actions are, perhaps, best described in a quote from Horner in the Washington Examiner. “This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS’ hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government.”

Below, I’ve posted EPA’s response to the FOIA. (N.B., there were some formatting issues, which rendered pages 2 and 3 inverted.)

EPA Responsive Records FY 2013 by Competitive Enterprise Institute

[click to continue…]