Marlo Lewis

E-15: Life in the Fast Lane

by Marlo Lewis on September 4, 2013

in Features

Post image for E-15:  Life in the Fast Lane

Guest Post by Dave Juday

There is a debate ongoing about the efficacy of so-called e-15, i.e. motor gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol.  The standard blend has always been 10 percent ethanol.  While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted final approval for e-15 in June 2012 for use in late model cars and light duty trucks, the American Automobile Association has cautioned, “this new fuel entered the market without adequate protections to prevent misfuelings and despite remaining questions about potential vehicle damage, even for EPA-approved 2001 and newer vehicles.”

Such concerns are nonsense says the ethanol trade association Growth Energy.  The testing by EPA was “exhaustive,” there are misfueling labels required for pumps, and “additionally, NASCAR has run on … a fuel blended with 15 percent ethanol for over four million miles.”

This last point should give pause.  Are the engines used in the professional stock car racing circuit a fair proxy for the family auto?  For driving conditions?  Is it even really the same e-15 fuel?

The fuel is different.  NASCAR switched to e-15 in 2011 and uses a version that has a 98 octane rating.  Retail e-15 has an octane rating of 90.  Regular grade gasoline available commercially has an octane rating of 87; premium grade is 93.

Driving conditions, of course, are different.  NASCAR winners so far in the 2013 season have logged average speeds of 153 miles per hour at the Brickyard in Indianapolis, 144 miles per hour at Michigan International Speedway, and 129 miles per hour at Pocono Speedway.  Is that a model for the average morning stop-and-go, engine idling commute?

The engines are different.  Consider, the top selling model in the US for 2011 and 2012 was the Ford F-Series pick-up truck which come with V-6 or V-8 engines that range from 302 to 360 horsepower respectively.  For passenger cars, the top seller in 2012 was the Toyota Camry.  The Camry has two engine choices – a 2.5 liter four-cylinder which produces 178 horsepower, or a 3.5 liter that has 268 horsepower.  The average NASCAR engine makes about 750 horsepower. [click to continue…]

Post image for Study: Warming Will Shift Tracks of Future Sandy-Like Tropical Storms Away from U.S. Northeast

“The weather patterns that steered deadly Superstorm Sandy into the East Coast last year may be on the decrease, thanks to rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” states the press release for a study published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The release continues:

While the atmospheric conditions that pushed Sandy into the New Jersey coast in October 2012 will still occur in the North Atlantic, a team of researchers led by Elizabeth Barnes, assistant professor in the Colorado State University Department of Atmospheric Science, has found that those conditions will occur less often, making it less likely that any future superstorms that form will be steered into the United States.

“Using state-of-the-art climate models, we project that there will be a decrease in the frequency and persistence of the westward flow that led to Sandy’s unprecedented track,” Barnes said. “That implies that future atmospheric conditions are less likely than at present to propel tropical storms westward into the coast.”

Two anomalous weather patterns slammed Sandy into the Northeast, according to Barnes. First, the jet stream shifted toward the south. Second, a “wave breaking” and blocking event in the upper atmosphere blocked the normal west-to-east wind, “causing the wind to blow back towards North America rather than out to sea.” When Sandy “met the block and the westward wind flow, it accelerated toward the New Jersey Coast with winds in excess of 80 miles per hour.” In the PNAS study, “the models show a lessening of the frequency of the breaking-and-blocking pattern with a poleward shift of the jet-stream in the future, and that this is found for the Southern Hemisphere as well.”

There may be no greater heresy in this enlightened age than the notion that global warming will avert weather disasters. But there’s evidence it has already begun.

In June, Cato Institute climatologist Chip Knappenberger, in a column on MasterResource.Org, described several “Billion Dollar Weather Events Averted by Global Warming.” Not unlike the Barnes PNAS study, Knappenberger found that wind patterns “consistent with” global warming prevented two tropical storms from developing into full-blown hurricanes and prevented two others from hitting the U.S. East Coast. Here’s an excerpt: [click to continue…]

Post image for RSS Satellite Record Shows 200 Month Warming Pause

In case you missed it, I want to call your attention to an important essay by Werner Brozek posted last week on Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up with That (WAWT).

NASA supports two main satellite-based global temperature monitoring systems: the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) program headed by John Christy and Roy Spencer, and the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) program headed by Frank Wentz.

Climate activists have generally been boosterish about RSS and negative about UAH. The RSS found a mid-troposphere warming trend from the start of its satellite record in July 1987 whereas the UAH found a cooling trend from 1979 through 1995.

In 1998, Wentz published a study in Nature arguing that uncorrected instrument error associated with satellite orbital decay injected a spurious cooling bias into the UAH dataset. Spencer and Christy accepted the criticism, made the adjustment, and since 1998 their dataset has shown a long-term warming trend. However, at least through 2004, the UAH record showed less warming (0.09°C/decade) than the RSS record (0.12°C). So activists continued to take potshots at Spencer and Christy, implying (or asserting) that their political biases accounted for the discrepancy.

Ah, but how quickly the wheel turns! During the 2000s, the divergence began to go the other way as the RSS record showed less warming than the UAH record.

Which brings us back to Brozek and his post in WUWT.  Brozek shows there has been no warming in the RSS data from Dec. 1996 through July 2013 — a 200 month warming pause.

RSS temperature Dec 1996 through July 2013

Figure explanation:The graphic above shows 3 lines. The long line shows that RSS has been flat from December 1996 to July 2013, which is a period of 16 years and 8 months or 200 months. The other slightly higher flat line in the middle is the latest complete decade of 120 months from January 2001 to December 2010. The other slightly downward sloping line is the latest 120 months prior from present. It very clearly shows it has been cooling lately, however this cooling is not statistically significant.[click to continue…]

Post image for Why Did China Reject Binding Emissions Limits at Kyoto?

Earlier today I received an email out of the blue from a Russian journalist inquiring what the impact on the Chinese economy might have been if, at the Kyoto climate conference of Nov.-Dec. 1997, Beijing had agreed to limit China’s greenhouse gas emissions and actually implemented such limits. Here’s the gist of my response:

The average emissions limitation for Annex I (industrial) counties under the Kyoto Protocol is a 5% reduction below 1990 levels during a 2008-2012 commitment period. China’s CO2 emissions in 1990 were about 2.4 billion metric tons per year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). China’s emissions in 2012 were 8.994 billion metric tons – 274% larger. China could not comply with the Kyoto Annex I target without de-industrializing its economy.

What about the impacts of milder versions of the Annex I target such as limiting China’s emissions growth to, say, 15%, 20%, or 25% above 2005 levels (the year Kyoto entered into force)? Even these ‘soft’ Kyoto targets, if actually implemented, would have devastated China’s economy.

A recent report (p. 16) commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy notes that the increase in China’s coal consumption more than tripled from 3.6% per year during 1980-1999 to 12.2% per year during 2000-2012. Oil and gas consumption also increased dramatically. According to the EIA’s country report on China, oil consumption in China increased from about 6.5 million barrels per day in 2005 to 12 million barrels per day in 2012 — an 84% increase; gas consumption increased from 2.0 trillion cubic feet in 2005 to 4.6 trillion cubic feet in 2011 – a 130% increase.

Yes, China in recent years has also made large investments in hydropower, nuclear, and renewables. Nonetheless, as of 2009, fossil fuels accounted for 93% of the country’s energy consumption. China’s economic development is overwhelmingly fossil-fueled.

China energy_consumption_by_type [click to continue…]

Post image for Is Climate Change Causing Climate Models to Fail?

A visitor to Anthony Watt’s blog, Watts Up With That, who identifies himself simply as “Craig,” today posted one of the funniest comments I’ve ever seen in a debate where 97% of scientists seem to have no sense of humor. Enjoy!

STUDY: Climate change causing climate models to become less reliable

A groundbreaking new study has shown that climate change is the underlying cause of increasingly frequent and severe climate model failures. Researchers at Pennsylvania State Community College have discovered a critical link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration and general circulation model errors.

“Climate change has made it increasingly difficult to predict climate change,” says Dr. Manyard Michael, the lead scientist behind the study. “The current 16 year pause in global warming illustrates just how serious this situation has been; if not for climate change, we now know that we would have been able to accurately predict the current break in warming and clearly show that climate change is actually accelerating faster than forecast – not stopping as climate change is making it appear to those outside of the climate science community.” Dr. Michael also noted that they stumbled on this important finding almost by accident. “We just happened to notice that the higher carbon dioxide concentrations climbed, the more we had to adjust the data to get the results we knew to be right, and the more we adjusted the data, the bigger the error in the models. It’s a very strong positive feedback.” [click to continue…]

Post image for Inconvenient Truth Update: Was the Record-Breaking Mumbai Rainfall of July 2005 Evidence of Climate Disruption?

One of my favorite moments in An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) is when Al Gore blames global warming for a record-breaking downpour in Mumbai, India.

“July 2005, Mumbai, India, received 37 inches of rain in 24 hours—the largest downpour any Indian city has received in one day,” Gore wrote in the book version of the film (p. 110). Clear evidence (in his mind) that the world’s weather was going crazy and fossil fuel emissions were the culprit.

I looked into this back in 2007. Since it is unscientific to attribute any particular weather event to a gradual increase in global average atmospheric temperatures, I reasoned that if global warming were influencing rainfall in Mumbai, we would see it in long-term precipitation records. Through a quick Web search I found that Mumbai had not one but two weather stations, and each had a program allowing site visitors to access and plot historic weather data.

So for each station, I directed the program to plot rainfall in Mumbai for the month of July as far back as data were available (1959). In neither case was there any discernible precipitation trend over the previous 45 years.

Mumbai Santa Cruz July Rainfall

Mumbai Colaba Rainfall July

Why rehash this ancient history now? [click to continue…]

Post image for Can Climate Models Explain the 15-year Slowdown in Warming?

“Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?” That is the title of a new discussion paper by Hans von Storch, Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg.

Storch stated the problem his paper explores in a recent (June 20, 2013) interview with Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven’t risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

STORCH: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

The abstract of Storch’s new paper outlines three possible causes of the divergence between observations and model projections of near-surface global annual mean temperatures:

Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but the second and particularly the third would. [click to continue…]

Post image for Climate Change: Be Not Afraid!

This post is adapted from a talk I recently gave to CEI’s Summer 2013 interns. I made the following points:

 

  • “Worse than we thought” is a political mantra pretending to be a scientific finding. The state of the climate is better than they told us.
  • Recent research indicates climate sensitivity is significantly lower than “consensus” science assumed. Lower sensitivity means less warming and smaller impacts.
  • IPCC models project about 50% more warming than actually observed in the tropical atmosphere.
  • The scariest parts of the “planetary emergency” narrative – ocean circulation shutdown triggering a new ice age, ice sheet disintegration raising sea levels 20 feet, malaria epidemics in industrialized countries, runaway warming from melting frozen methane deposits – are implausible and not supported by scientific research.
  • The only card left in the alarmist deck is extreme weather.
  • However, there has been no long term trend in the strength or frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, U.S. floods or drought.
  • The one exception is heat waves, but, paradoxically, the more common hot weather becomes, the more heat-related mortality declines: People adapt!
  • There is no long-term trend in “normalized” extreme weather damages (losses adjusted for increases in wealth, population, and consumer price index).
  •  Globally, mortality rates and aggregate mortality related to extreme weather have declined by 98% and 93%, respectively, since the 1920s.
  • The state of the world keeps improving as CO2 emissions increase.

Since giving the talk, I have tweaked my Power Point presentation in hopes of making it fully referenced and self-explanatory. To view the slide show, click on Climate Change: Be Not Afraid!

 

Post image for Climate Change ‘Deniers’ Not Welcome at Interior – Secy. Jewell

DOI Secretary Sally Jewell told employees today that combatting climate change is a “privilege” and “moral imperative,” adding: “I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior,” E&E News PM (subscription required) reports.

Such moralizing would be funny were it not for the chilling effect it is bound to have in an agency already mired in group think.

What does she mean by “denier” anyway? Is it literally someone who denies that greenhouse gas emissions have a greenhouse (warming) effect? Or is a “denier” merely someone who thinks climate change is not a “crisis,” or who regards the usual panoply of climate policies — carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, other market-rigging interventions — as a ‘cure’ worse than the alleged disease?

In recent testimony before House Energy and Commerce, University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologist Roy Spencer unhesitatingly included himself among the alleged 97% of scientists who BELIEVE. He explained:

It should also be noted that the fact that I believe at least some of recent warming is human-caused places me in the 97% of researchers recently claimed to support the global warming consensus (actually, it’s 97% of the published papers, Cook et al., 2013). The 97% statement is therefore rather innocuous, since it probably includes all of the global warming “skeptics” I know of who are actively working in the field. Skeptics generally are skeptical of the view that recent warming is all human-caused, and/or that it is of a sufficient magnitude to warrant immediate action given the cost of energy policies to the poor. They do not claim humans have no impact on climate whatsoever.

Would Spencer, who challenges the climate sensitivity assumptions underpinning the global warming scare, be welcome at DOI? Not a chance on Jewell’s watch.

The problem with trying to turn climate activism into a moral imperative is that coercive carbon reduction poses risks of its own to public health, human welfare, and biodiversity.

Globally, poverty remains the leading cause of preventable illness and premature death. Poor countries require affordable energy to fuel their growth out of poverty. For the foreseeable future, that chiefly means carbon-based energy. Is eliminating poverty a moral imperative, Ms. Jewell? If so, then opposing the imposition of carbon caps or taxes on developing countries is a moral imperative.

Even in industrialized nations, carbon taxescaps, and renewable electricity mandates can destroy jobs and income, and an abundant literature confirms the widespread intuition that poverty and unemployment imperil life and health. Is improving public health and welfare a moral imperative? If so, then opposing domestic carbon suppression policies is a moral imperative. [click to continue…]

Post image for Are Weather Extremes Getting Worse? Roger Pielke, Jr. Shares the Data with Senate Panel

When it comes to extreme weather, climate activists want to have their cake and eat it. Many acknowledge that it is unscientific to attribute any particular weather event to global warming. But then, in the same breath, they’ll say that this or that drought, flood, or hurricane is “consistent with” the types of weather “scientists” predict will become more frequent in a warming world.

Or they’ll say that such weather is “exactly what global warming looks like.” Or they’ll say that because “all weather events are affected by a warming planet,” the burden of proof is now on skeptics to show that climate change did not cause or contribute to a particular weather-related disaster.

Some activists, though, simply come right out and assert what others insinuate. Plaintiffs in Comer v. Murphy Oil, a case that made it all the way to a federal appeals court, claimed that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from ExxonMobil, American Electric Power, and other U.S. energy and power companies contributed to global warming, which intensified Hurricane Katrina, which in turn wrought death and destruction upon the citizens of New Orleans.

There was a major “anthropogenic” component to the New Orleans disaster — but it was not the emissions. Decade after decade, policymakers failed to improve a levee system “predicted to fail in a major hurricane,” as Cato Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels noted at the time.

Although always a staple of global warming advocacy, climate activists have turned up the rhetorical heat on extreme weather in recent years. The reasons aren’t hard to fathom. The 15-year pause in global warming makes it harder to scare people about warming itself. The two greatest terrors featured in An Inconvenient Truthrapid ice sheet disintegration leading to catastrophic sea-level rise and ocean circulation shutdown precipitating a new ice age — have no credibility. Nobody takes seriously the prospect of warming-induced malaria epidemics either. If you want to scare people, extreme weather is the only card left in the climate alarm deck.

In addition, a rationally-ignorant public can easily be fooled into confusing climate change risk with plain old climate risk (the nasty surprises Mother Nature generates all on her own). Part of the reason is psychological. Due to their sheer magnitude and terror, natural catastrophes have an almost supernatural aspect. People are naturally inclined to imagine that natural disasters have non-natural causes. Thus, each time disaster strikes, pundits, especially those with scientific credentials, can plausibly blame fossil fuels — just as in earlier ages political or religious authorities blamed “sinners” (i.e., their adversaries) for floods, plagues, crop failures, and the like.

Perhaps the leading debunker of extreme-weather hype on the scene today is University of Colorado Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., who testified last week before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at a hearing titled “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now.”

As his testimony notes, Pielke, Jr. is not a climate change skeptic. He affirms, for example, that “Humans influence the climate system in profound ways, including through the emission of carbon dioxide via the combustion of fossil fuels.” However, he regards the oft-asserted linkage between global warming and recent hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and drought as “unsupportable based on research and evidence.” Highlights of his testimony appear below. [click to continue…]