Marlo Lewis

As reported in the Washington Post and New York Times, Chapter 29 of Vol. 2 of the 4th U.S. National Climate Assessment claims that unchecked warming could raise global temperatures 8°C by century’s end, which in turn would reduce U.S. GDP by 10 percent.

Those estimates are based on this chart from Hsiang et al. 2017:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The chart shows the probability distribution of global warming projections when the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report’s climate model ensemble, known as CMIP5, is run with the RCP8.5 forcing trajectory.

On average, CMIP5 models hind-cast about twice as much warming in the lower atmosphere over the past 40 years as actually occurred.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although often billed as a “business as usual” scenario, RCP8.5 is actually a high emissions scenario. It assumes the kind of forcing trajectory that would emerge if coal scaled up rapidly to provide almost half of global energy from all sources by 2100–a market share not seen since 1940.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, the National Assessment ran a group of overheated models with an inflated emissions baseline. Yet, as the chart from Hsiang et al. 2017, reveals, even with that biased combo, global warming hits 8°C in only 1 percent of model projections.

Curiously, that’s a detail the National Assessment did not mention. Nor did it point out that even if U.S. GDP in the 2090s is 10 percent lower than it might otherwise be, the economy is still projected to be much bigger than it is today.

Your government at work!

The first chart shows the divergence between models and observations in the global lower atmosphere. The second shows the divergence between models and observations in the tropical bulk atmosphere. Note in both charts there is only one model, the Russian INM-CM4 represented by the purple spaghetti line in the second graph, accurately tracks observations in the tropical troposphere. For clearer images of those figures, click on Link 1 and Link 2.

Cato Institute scholars Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue recently updated Pat’s chart listing studies since 2011 that estimate lower climate sensitivities than the average sensitivity of both the CMIP5 models used by the IPCC to project climate change impacts and the Row-Baker probability distribution underpinning the Obama administration’s social cost of carbon estimates.

I tried posting the chart but it loses too much resolution. So I am making it available via this link. Enjoy.

 

 

 

 

The George C. Marshall Institute no longer exists and the organization’s superb monograph, “Connecting Climate Change and National Security,” is not easy to find. The topic is hot once again. So, I am pleased to post the study here. Enjoy!

Connecting Climate Change and National Security

Due to some glitch, my comment letter on the Obama EPA’s proposed “Carbon Pollution” Standards for new fossil fuel power plants was never posted on CEI’s Web site. So I am posting it here.

Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Comment on Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495, May 9, 2014

 

The House is expected to vote this week on H.Con.Res.119 expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax is detrimental to the U.S. economy. The House passed similar legislation in June 2016 by 237 to 163, with six Democrats voting in favor and no Republicans voting against.

The vote is apparently timed to put House members on record once again before Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R.-Fla.), co-chair of the so-called Climate Solutions Caucus, introduces a carbon tax bill he reportedly has been shopping to colleagues, businesses, and environmental groups. [click to continue…]

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to release the proposed Clean Power Plan repeal rule on Tuesday, October 10. Someone leaked the proposal on Friday, October 6. To read it, click here.

On Thursday, July 20, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on President Trump’s nomination of Kirkland & Ellis attorney Jeffrey Bossert Clark to be Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD).

To help inform public discussion of the nomination, I post below several pertinent documents. [click to continue…]

In a recent letter to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Troutman Sanders attorney Peter Glaser argues that “EPA far understated the effects of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) by exaggerating the amount of coal generation that will retire even without the rule.” Ironically, the smoking gun evidence is in the agency’s updated modeling, which now tallies with U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data.

Here’s how the numbers break down.

In EPA’s “base case” for the CPP, the agency assumed that in 2016, almost 20 percent of coal capacity would disappear even if the rule were not adopted, reducing coal generation to 214 gigawatts (GW).

However, EPA’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update, published October 26, estimates there will be 268 GW of coal generation in service through the end of 2016.

EPA’s new estimate for 2016 is now roughly in line with Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. EIA’s Electric Power Monthly shows 272 GW of coal capacity in service as of August 2016.

EPA estimates coal generation capacity under the Power Plan will decline to 174-183 GW by 2030 (Regulatory Impact Assessment, Table 3-12).

Bottom line: To comply with the CPP, U.S. coal generation will have to decline by about one third.

 

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals released a 320-page transcript of the marathon oral argument on EPA’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emission standards for existing fossil-fuel power plants, the agency’s so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP). 

To my knowledge, the transcript is not available on the Court’s Web site. To make the document more easily accessible to the public, I am pleased to post it on GlobalWarming.Org.

To read/download the oral argument, click on the highlighted text in the first paragraph above.