Marlo Lewis

Bjorn Lomborg has an excellent column today on the forthcoming (extensively leaked) IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on climate science.

Especially valuable is Lomborg’s chart based on a commentary (“Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years“) published in the monthly journal Nature Climate Change.

Lomborg comments:

Compared to the actual temperature rise since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CIMP5) overestimates it by 71-159%. A new Nature Climate Change study shows that the prevailing climate models produced estimates that overshot the temperature rise of the last 15 years by more than 300%.

Today, the House Energy & Commerce Committee held a hearing on the administration’s climate policies. Although 13 agencies were invited to testify, the administration provided only two witnesses: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

A notable exchange occurred about two hours and sixteen minutes into the hearing between McCarthy and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.). You can watch the segment on Youtube.

Through persistent questioning, Pompeo spotlighted a key fact well-known to the climate cognoscenti but not to the general public. Even assuming climate change is as bad as the global warming movement says it is, the administration’s policies will have no discernible effect on climate change and produce no identifiable benefit to public health and welfare.

The real objective of the administration’s current and proposed greenhouse gas regulations is not to protect the public but to influence “the international community,” particularly China, India, and other developing nations. Developing country emissions are growing so rapidly that no combination of U.S. domestic actions — not even a magical carbon tax that eliminates all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions — would detectably affect global temperatures.

The administration’s underlying theory, apparently, is that if the U.S. sets a good example, others will follow suit. But that’s been the thinking behind international climate negotiations from day one, and so far it hasn’t panned out. China and India feel no obligation to limit their emissions (and, consequently, economic growth) just because Western nations are willing to shoot themselves in the foot.

My unofficial transcript of the exchange between Pompeo and McCarthy follows:

Pompeo: Ms. McCarthy I want to ask a couple of questions of you. So one of the objectives today is to identify the greenhouse gas regulations that already existed and those in the future — how they actually impact the climate change, right? So you’d agree we want to have a successful climate policy as a result of those sets of rules and regulations that you promulgate? Fair base line statement?

McCarthy: In the context of a larger international effort,  yes.

Pompeo: You bet. And on your Web site you have 26 indicators used for tracking climate change. They identify various impacts of climate change. So you would believe that the purpose of these rules is to impact those 26 indicators, right? So you put a good greenhouse gas regulation in place, you’ll get a good outcome on at least some or all of those 26 indicators.

McCarthy: I actually . . . I think that the better way to think about it, if I might, is that it is part of an overall strategy that is positioning the U.S. for leadership in an international discussion. Because climate change requires a global effort. So this is one piece and it’s one step. But I think it’s a significant one to show the commitment of the United States.

Pompeo: Do you think it would be reasonable to take the regulations you promulgated and link them to those 26 indicators that you have on your Web site? That this is how they impacted us?

McCarthy: It is unlikely that any specific one step is going to be seen as having a visible impact on any of those impacts — a visible change in any of those impacts. What I’m suggesting is that climate change [policy] has to be a broader array of actions that the U.S. and other folks in the international community take that make significant effort towards reducing greenhouse gases and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

Pompeo: But these are your indicators, Ms. McCarthy. So . . .

McCarthy: They are indicators of climate change, they are not directly applicable to performance impacts of any one action.

Pompeo: How about the cumulative impact of your actions? Certainly you’re acting in a way . . . you say these are indicators of climate change. Certainly it can’t be the case that your testimony today is that your cumulative impact of the current set of regulations and those you’re proposing isn’t going to have any impact at all on any of those indicators?

McCarthy: I think the President was very clear. What we’re attempting to do is put together a comprehensive climate plan, across the administration, that positions the U.S. for leadership on this issue and that will prompt and leverage international discussions and action. [click to continue…]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) has published a study by 13 scientists that provides “clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”

The study, led by Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, reports that, over the 34-year satellite temperature record, the troposphere (middle atmosphere) has warmed while the lower stratosphere (the atmospheric layer above the troposphere) has cooled. This is the vertical pattern or “fingerprint” predicted by greenhouse theory.*

Climate models run with only known internal climate variability (such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation ocean cycle) and natural “forcings” (such as changes in solar irradiance and volcanic aerosol emissions ) do not produce this pattern. Models produce the “fingerprint” only when they are also “forced” with anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

In layman terms, human-caused global warming is real. OMG!

Why, you might wonder, is cooling of the lower stratosphere evidence of man-made global warming? Greenhouse gases warm the planet by blocking outgoing infrared radiation that would otherwise escape to outer space. As greenhouse gas concentrations increase in the troposphere, less outgoing heat energy reaches the lower stratosphere.

Is this a momentous discovery? No, it’s a yawn.

Back in the early 2000s, prominent climate “skeptic” Patrick Michaels explained to me that surface and tropospheric warming combined with stratospheric cooling were strong evidence of anthropogenic climate change. He said: “The Sun doesn’t only shine in Irkutsk” (i.e. in the high northern latitudes where most of the Earth’s surface warming has occurred).

His point? The Sun also shines on the stratosphere. If changes in solar irradiance were the primary cause of global warming, the stratosphere should be warming too. Instead, it’s cooling.

After savoring Pat’s Irkutsk quip for a few moments, I accepted the implication and moved on. Apparently, the Santer team and PNAS still consider it big news.

The PNAS paper is, I suspect, a desperate attempt to divert public attention from the crisis in “consensus” science due to the modeling fraternity’s failure to anticipate a 16-year pause in global warming. Publishing another study ‘proving’ the reality of climate change amounts to ignoring the elephant in the room.

Try as they might to change the subject, however, the elephant is conspicuous in their “clear evidence” that climate change is real.

Here is the vertical profile (“fingerprint”) of changes in atmospheric heat projected by the latest climate models:

Here is the observed pattern based on the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) dataset:

Note what’s different: The tropical troposphere warms much faster in the models than in the observations. [click to continue…]

Next week the EPA is expected to issue its revised greenhouse gas (GHG) performance standards for new coal- and gas-fired power plants, also known as the Carbon ‘Pollution’ Rule. In addition, in 2014 the EPA is expected to adopt “guidelines” for controlling GHG emissions from existing power plants.

This morning in my in-box, I received an unattributed analysis of the revised Carbon ‘Pollution’ Rule. The analysis is in my opinion completely sound and leaves no doubt the EPA is still aggressively waging regulatory warfare on coal electric generation and, thus, on affordable energy. Here’s the text:

EPA Greenhouse Gas Performance Standards for New Units

1. Next week, EPA will issue greenhouse gas (GHG) performance standards for new coal and natural gas-fired electric generating units (EGUs). EPA’s proposed performance standards for coal-fired EGUs are expected to require carbon capture and storage (CCS). EPA’s justification for these highly aggressive standards is expected to rely heavily on the Kemper County IGCC facility in Mississippi, which is still under construction and not expected to begin operation until next spring.

2. These proposed standards are not appropriate under the Clean Air Act (CAA), which provides that performance standards must reflect “the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.”

A CCS-based standard is not the “best system of emission reduction,” or “BSER,” under this language because: (a) Kemper is not even running yet, and so its performance level has not been demonstrated; (b) Kemper could not have been built without significant government support; and (c) Kemper has access to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) sites where the captured CO2 can be injected, whereas coal-fired EGUs built in many areas of the country will not be located near EOR sites and will not be able to store CO2 unless significant new storage sites and pipelines are developed and a permitting and legal liability system are put in place. [click to continue…]

Yesterday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on “Preventing Violations of Federal Transparency Laws.” This is a huge problem.

When agencies flout transparency laws — as for example the White House, the EPA, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did when negotiating motor vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards under a “put nothing in writing, ever” vow of silence — they obstruct congressional oversight, facilitate corruption, and undermine the government’s accountability to the public.

The highpoint of yesterday’s hearing was an exchange between Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson (a.k.a. “Richard Windsor”). Gowdy pressed Jackson about an email she sent to Siemens lobbyist Alison Taylor on Dec. 8, 2009. In it Jackson writes: “P.S. Can you use my home email rather than this one when you need to contact me directly? Tx Lisa.”

At the hearing, Jackson argued there was no impropriety in instructing Taylor to email her at home, because she and Taylor are friends, and she was trying to move a private conservation to her private account. The text of the email (see bottom of post) contains no hint or suggestion that Taylor emailed Jackson to discuss a personal matter, and none that Jackson was trying to clarify the need to keep discussions of personal matters out of government email. Rather, thanks to Gowdy’s persistent questioning, it’s obvious that Jackson was inviting Taylor to use Jackson’s home email to discuss official EPA business.

Why does that matter?

As Chairman Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) pointed out, conducting official business via personal email defeats the intent of transparency laws like the Federal Records Act. The FRA requires agency heads to “make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency.” Communications conducted via government email accounts are automatically captured for record-keeping purposes. In contrast, conducting official business via personal email empowers agency officials to hide or delete conversations with lobbyists and other interested parties rather than preserve those communications for the record.

In the video of the hearing, Gowdy’s examination of Jackson, with Issa’s follow-up, runs roughly from 113:50 to 120:15.

My unofficial transcript of the segment follows.

Gowdy: Ms. Jackson, “Can you use my home email rather than this one when you need to contact me directly.” Why did you say that?

Jackson: Because Alison Taylor, the author in the email chain, was a friend, and I believe a personal friend should use personal email.

Gowdy: Is there an exception for personal friends in the Federal Records Act?

Jackson: Sir, as I have already stated, my intention was to comply with the Federal Records Act.

Gowdy: That wasn’t my question, actually. Is there an exemption or an exception that you’re aware of for personal friends? It’s a simple – it’s not a complicated question. Are you aware of an exception to the Federal Records Act for personal friends? Yes or no? [click to continue…]

Months ago, indefatigable watchdog Anthony Watts called out Organizing for Action (OFA) for declaring, in a Tweet issued in President Obama’s name, that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

OFA was invoking a study in Environmental Research Letters by John Cook and colleagues, who supposedly found that 97% of climate scientists accept the “consensus” position on climate change. Cook manages Skeptical Science, a Web site dedicated to debunking climate “skeptics.”

As Watts and others, such as Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, point out, Cook et al. did not attempt to estimate the number or percentage of climate scientists who agree or disagree that climate change is “dangerous.”*

But what about Cook et al.’s widely reported finding that 97% of climate scientists believe most of the 0.7°C warming since 1950 is due to the buildup of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Does the Cook team actually demonstrate overwhelming agreement with that core “consensus” position of the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

Not by a long shot, argue University of Delaware climatologist David Legates and three colleagues in Climate “Consensus” and Misinformation. In fact, less than 1% of the 11,944 science papers (actually, just the abstracts) surveyed by the Cook researchers express agreement with the so-called consensus. [click to continue…]