WSJ: U.S. carbon emissions fell in 2012, thanks to the oil and gas industry

Natural Decarbonation

U.S. carbon emissions fell in 2012, thanks to the oil and gas industry.

WSJ.COM 10/29/13: One of President Obama's steadfast second-term priorities is his regulatory "climate action plan." If the point is to reduce carbon emissions, the evidence suggests he'd accomplish more counting on capitalism.

The federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported last week, to too little media fanfare, that U.S. energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions declined 3.8% in 2012, bringing C02 emissions to their lowest level since 1994. The only year since 1990 with a steeper decline was 2009 amid an economic recession. The 2012 decline occurred even as the economy grew 2.8%.

Much of the 2012 decline was due to a warm first quarter that reduced the use of heating fuels, as well as fewer transportation emissions, as Americans drove less and overall vehicle miles were flat compared to 2011.

More notable is that 2012 saw the largest drop in the overall "carbon intensity" of the economy since the feds began keeping records in 1949. The EIA reports that the boom in natural-gas production "substantially reduced the carbon intensity of electricity generation in 2012." The switch to natural gas, mainly from coal, was so substantial that the resulting CO2-emissions decreases offset what was an "overall decline" last year in renewable power generation.

The EIA report also cited such Administration policies as mandates for more fuel-efficient cars as contributing to the carbon decline. But those mandates played a token role in the overall reduction, though they have cost consumers in higher costs for vehicles.

If you're scoring at home, this means that the innovation of the private oil and gas industry in extracting natural gas from oil shale has done more to reduce CO2 emissions than have all of the Obama Administration's subsidies, mandates and crony-capitalist schemes for renewable energy.

Mr. Obama should say a prayer of thanks every day for the fracking and horizontal drilling revolutions, which have so far managed to avoid the crippling grasp of Washington regulators. If Mr. Obama is looking for a slogan for his "climate action plan," here's an idea: Keep on frackin'.

Read More

New review paper finds Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were worldwide and warmer than the present

A new review paper by SPPI and CO2 Science summarizes the literature on the Medieval Warm Period and the world's oceans and concludes,

Yes, climate change is real ... just like the world's climate alarmists vehemently contend. In fact, it's the norm. And in the several oceanic studies briefly reviewed above, as well as studies pertaining to the terrestrial surface of the planet, Earth's climate has been recognized as having shifted over the past century or so from the coldest period of the current interglacial to a significantly warmer state, but one that appears not yet to have achieved the level of warmth characteristic of the prior Medieval Warm Period or the earlier Roman Warm Period, as is also demonstrated by the hundreds of other such studies reviewed on the co2science.org website. And since none of these "warm-ups," as well as still earlier ones, were driven by increases in the air's CO2 concentration (which hovered around 285 ppm until the Industrial Revolution started it on its upward course towards today's 400 ppm), there is no compelling reason to believe that the 20th century warming of the globe was driven by concurrent anthropogenic CO2 emissions. 

For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.

[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]

Excerpts:

Keigwin (1996) introduced his classic paleoclimatic study of the northern Sargasso Sea by stating that "it is important to document natural climate variability in order to understand the effects of anthropogenic forcing." And, therefore, working with two subcores of a sediment box core retrieved from 33°41.6'N, 57°36.7'W of the undulating plateau of the northeast Bermuda Rise, he measured the oxygen isotope ratios (?18O) of the white variety of the planktonic foraminifera Globigerinoides ruber, which lives year-round in the upper 25 meters of the northern Sargasso Sea and has a relatively constant annual mass flux and shell flux to the sediments. Calibrating these data against temperature and salinity data obtained at Ocean Station "S" (32°N, 62°30'W) over the prior 42 years, he first determined that "temperature accounts for about two-thirds of the isotopic signal, whereas salinity accounts for one-third." And based on these results, he calculated sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of the prior three millennia, after which he "stacked the temperature proxy data from the two subcores by averaging results in 50-year bins," obtaining the results below.

These data clearly indicated there was a period of time in the early part of the past millennium when the climate in the area of the southwestern Baltic Sea was significantly warmer than it is today. 

The data of Esper et al. (2002) show, in their words, that the warmest portion of the Medieval Warm Period "covers the interval 950-1045, with the peak occurring around 990."

Newton et al. stated that their data from the Makassar Strait of Indonesia clearly indicated that "climate changes during the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were not confined to the high latitudes" nor to countries bordering the North Atlantic Ocean.

We now have substantial evidence that throughout portions of both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, SSTs in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool were essentially equivalent to those of "the late twentieth century," indicating - once again - that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current air temperatures in this critically important region of the globe. 

The warmth of the more distant past clearly exceeded that of the recent past, with the peak temperature of the MWP exceeding that of the Current Warm Period by about 0.6°C, as best as can be determined from the graphical representation of Ran et al.'s data. 

Yes, climate change is real ... just like the world's climate alarmists vehemently contend. In fact, it's the norm. And in the several oceanic studies briefly reviewed above, as well as studies pertaining to the terrestrial surface of the planet, Earth's climate has been recognized as having shifted over the past century or so from the coldest period of the current interglacial to a significantly warmer state, but one that appears not yet to have achieved the level of warmth characteristic of the prior Medieval Warm Period or the earlier Roman Warm Period, as is also demonstrated by the hundreds of other such studies reviewed on the co2science.org website. And since none of these "warm-ups," as well as still earlier ones, were driven by increases in the air's CO2 concentration (which hovered around 285 ppm until the Industrial Revolution started it on its upward course towards today's 400 ppm), there is no compelling reason to believe that the 20th century warming of the globe was driven by concurrent anthropogenic CO2 emissions. 

Read More

New paper demonstrates climate models don't even have the 'basic physics' of the greenhouse effect correct

A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters inadvertently demonstrates that climate models don't even have the so-called 'basic physics' of the greenhouse effect correct. According to the paper, climate models show that "With CO2 at or below 1/8 of the 1950 value [i.e. ~39 ppm], runaway sea ice does occur as the planet cascades to a snowball Earth climate with fully ice covered oceans and global mean surface temperatures near – 30 °C."



However, -30°C is much colder than the -18°C calculated* for an Earth with no atmosphere or oceans or greenhouse effect at all! Further, -30°C is much, much colder [i.e. 35°C colder] than the +5°C global mean temperature calculated using the IPCC formula** for CO2 forcing using a CO2 level of 39 ppm.



It is astonishing that the authors, who claim to be top experts on the physics of CO2 radiative transfer, did not realize that their computer model is outputting physically-impossible GIGO. 



Perhaps this is not surprising, since the paper is co-authored by Andrew "control knob" Lacis, who claims CO2 contributes 20% (alone) to the greenhouse effect. That means CO2 was responsible for 6.44°C warming in 1850 [32.2*.2] and 6.6°C now [33*.2], a warming effect of 0.16°C despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels! [assuming a total 'greenhouse effect' of 33°C].



Also using the same flawed climate model, the authors simulated the effect of 79,360 ppm CO2, 256 times the 1950 value [~310 ppm in 1950, current ~400 ppm], which would only take 39,480 years to reach at the current rate of 2 ppm/year, assuming unlimited fossil fuels and no intervening ice age of course. Despite the ridiculous 79,360 ppm levels of CO2, the authors state, "No water vapor induced runaway greenhouse caused by increased CO2 was found for the range of CO2 examined."

The first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the alleged heating effect of CO2 to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. Source

Logarithmically declining CO2 forcing effect is greatest at the lower concentrations. Source

*note this simplistic calculation widely used in greenhouse effect calculations assumes a flat, stationary earth receiving 340 Wm-2 solar input instead of the physically realistic calculation using real-time differential thermal equations of a rotating Earth receiving 1362 Wm-2 solar input. Using the correct physical description of the solar-earth system results in an even greater disparity between the model output and the physics.

**5.35*ln(400/39) = 12.4 Wm-2 = IPCC alleged CO2 forcing at the top of the atmosphere from increasing CO2 levels from 39 ppm to 400 ppm

3C/3.7 Wm-2 * 12.4 Wm-2 = 10 C warming from increasing CO2 levels from 39 ppm to 400 ppm

Current global mean temperature is ~15C

15C-10C = +5C global mean surface temperature for an Earth with CO2 levels of ~39 ppm per the IPCC formula.


Fast Atmosphere–ocean Model Runs with Large Changes in CO2

Gary L. Russell, Andrew A. Lacis, David H. Rind, Christopher Colose, Roger F. Opstbaum

DOI: 10.1002/2013GL056755

How does climate sensitivity vary with the magnitude of climate forcing? This question was investigated with the use of a modified coupled atmosphere–ocean model, whose stability was improved so that the model would accommodate large radiative forcings, yet be fast enough to reach rapid equilibrium. Experiments were performed in which atmospheric CO2 was multiplied by powers of two, from 1/64 to 256 times the 1950 value [of ~310 ppm]. From 8 to 32 times the 1950 CO2, climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 reaches 8 °C due to increases in water vapor absorption and cloud top height, and to reductions in low level cloud cover. As CO2 amount increases further, sensitivity drops as cloud cover and planetary albedo stabilize. No water vapor induced runaway greenhouse caused by increased CO2 was found for the range of CO2 examined. With CO2 at or below 1/8 of the 1950 value [~39 ppm], runaway sea ice does occur as the planet cascades to a snowball Earth climate with fully ice covered oceans and global mean surface temperatures near – 30 °C.

Erroneous greenhouse effect assumptions are only the tip of the iceberg for the multitude of other climate model failings

Read More

Obama's 'social cost of carbon' is at odds with science & ignores 'social benefits of carbon'

Obama's 'Social Cost Of Carbon' Is At Odds With Science

By CHIP KNAPPENBERGER
Posted 10/28/13  INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

The Obama administration's latest, greatest weapon to prosecute its war on global warming is something called the "social cost of carbon." It is an instrument honed on ill-founded climate alarm and is readily blunted in the face of the best science.

The social cost of carbon is supposed to be a complete accounting of the market externalities, both positive and negative, resulting from carbon dioxide emissions released by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, or natural gas.

But as its name implies, the government's accounting of the social cost of carbon focuses almost entirely on conjured "costs" while ignoring proven "benefits" of carbon dioxide emissions.

The administration has determined that each ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere today from human activities leads to a future cost to global society of about $40 (in today's dollars).

This assigned $40 premium on carbon dioxide emissions proves to be a powerful sword that the administration has been wielding to slash the apparent costs of a flurry of proposed new rules and regulations aimed at reducing emissions.

Here's how it works: any new proposed regulation viewed as reducing future carbon dioxide emissions gets a cost credit for each ton of reduced emissions equivalent to the value of the social cost of carbon. That credit is then used to offset the true costs.

In this way, all qualifying rules and regulations, including the EPA's promised emissions limits on new and existing power plants, appear less costly — a critical asset, as costs are often the greatest barrier to approval.

Since the war on global warming is a high priority within the Obama administration, finding ways to make the social cost of carbon appear to be as high as possible is the ongoing objective.

Back in May, the administration increased its previous estimate by more than 50%, from $25 to $40, which means that all proposed carbon dioxide emissions cuts are now some 50% more valuable.

But that increase doesn't jibe with science. In fact, in its pursuit of a high social cost of carbon the administration is going further down a path that is divergent from the one paved by the very best science on the issue.

For example, its new estimate completely ignores a large and growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that the Earth's climate is much less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions than the administration assumed.

This means that carbon dioxide emissions result in less global warming, less sea level rise, and less overall climate impact than previously thought.

In other words, the social "costs" that may result from human-caused climate change are substantially, some 33%, less than those in the administration's calculation.

Another important point largely ignored by the current administration is that there are "benefits" in addition to the "costs" of carbon dioxide emissions.

One of the key benefits is enhanced global food production. Carbon dioxide is a fertilizer for plants, and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means stronger, healthier, and more productive vegetation, including most crops — a fact established by literally thousands of scientific studies.

A new analysis by Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change estimates that over the last 50 years, the value of global food production has increased by $3.2 trillion as a result of our carbon dioxide emissions.

The handling of this large, significant and proven benefit from carbon dioxide is grossly deficient in the administration's accounting of the social cost of carbon.

Had the new science on the Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, the science on carbon dioxide's role as a plant fertilizer, and other critical issues not been largely ignored, the administration's latest estimate of the social cost of carbon would have dropped to near zero, or perhaps actually become negative.

A proper accounting of the social cost of carbon would have sheathed the administration's blade, or even turned it upon itself, as Congress and the American people would see the true cost of the regulations being imposed on them, and the president's climate war effort would be eviscerated for lack of alarm.

• Knappenberger is the assistant director for the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.

Prior posts on Obama's social cost of carbon trick

Read More

New paper says biofuels will cause high food price inflation, but don't worry, you'll eat less as a result

A paper published today in Global Environmental Change finds biofuel production will cause a significant increase in future food prices, especially in the US. The authors predict that high food price inflation due to producing biofuels in the US will lead to fewer calories consumed [aka more people starving], but says nonetheless CO2 "emissions per calorie [will increase] slightly in all three countries [US, China, Brazil]." This begs the question, why do we burn our food?

Prior posts on biofuels

The impact of biofuel-induced food-price inflation on dietary energy demand and dietary greenhouse gas emissions

• Noah Scovronick^, , 


• Paul Wilkinson 

• London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom

Highlights

•

Biofuel production is predicted to increase future food prices.

•

We estimated associated changes to dietary energy demand and dietary GHG emissions.

•

[Dietary] Energy demand decreased in all three countries (Brazil, China and the USA).

•

But diets became more GHG intense per unit food and energy demanded.

•

Results suggest net changes in dietary GHG emissions only in the USA (a reduction).

---

Abstract

Dramatic increases in liquid biofuel production have led to concerns about associated impacts on food prices, with many modeling studies showing significant biofuel-related price inflation. In turn, by changing patterns of food demand, biofuel production may indirectly influence greenhouse gas emissions. We estimated changes to dietary energy (calorie) demand and greenhouse gas emissions embodied in average diets under different biofuel-related food-price scenarios for Brazil, China and the United States, using food-price projections and food-price elasticities. Average [dietary] energy demand decreased in all countries, from about 40 kcal per person per day in Brazil under a moderate price inflation scenario – a reduction of 1% relative to the (2009) reference scenario – to nearly 300 [kcal] per day in the United States with high price inflation – almost 8% of reference levels. However, emissions per calorie increased slightly in all three countries. In terms of total greenhouse gas emissions, the results are suggestive of overall reductions only in the United States, where average reductions ranged from about 40 to 110 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per person per year. In China, the direction of impact is unclear, but the net change is likely to be small. Brazilian results were sensitive to parameter values and the direction and magnitude of impact is therefore uncertain. Despite the uncertainty, even small changes (positive or negative) in individual dietary emissions can produce large changes at the population level, arguing for the inclusion of the dietary pathway in greenhouse gas accounting of liquid biofuels.

Read More

New paper finds no evidence that climate has become more variable or extreme, says many models predict decreased variability

A paper published today in Environmental Research Letters finds that there is "no firm evidence" that the global climate has or will become more variable or extreme. According to the authors, 

"debate rages in the literature about whether the climate has or will become more variable. There is currently no firm evidence that temperature variability has or will increase because questions have been raised about the methods used to reach this conclusion."  

"The IPCC has so far been unable to draw firm conclusions about whether temperature variability is increasing. Indeed SREX even contained the question 'is the climate becoming more extreme?'. To paraphrase the answer, 'we don't know'." 

"Once issues such as these [data analysis problems] have been accounted for, there appears to be little overall change in global temperature variability. In addition, Huntingford et al indicate that many climate models predict decreases in variability in the future, while [another model] essentially points to no change."

Debate heating up over changes in climate variability

Lisa Alexander and Sarah Perkins

2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 041001 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/041001 Published 28 October 2013

Abstract

Heatwaves have profound socio-economic impacts. Increases in temperature variability would exacerbate these impacts but debate rages in the literature about whether the climate has or will become more variable. There is currently no firm evidence that temperature variability has or will increase because questions have been raised about the methods used to reach this conclusion. However, irrespective of changing temperature variability, the impact from increases in the frequency and intensity of heatwaves will be a major problem for the future.[non-sequitur]

Heatwaves kill people and cause enormous economic and environmental damage [1, 2]. In 2012, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) concluded that there was medium confidence that the length and/or number of heatwaves had increased since the middle of the 20th century and that it was very likely that the length, frequency, and/or intensity of these events would increase over most land areas by the end of the 21st century [3]. These conclusions were reiterated and strengthened by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) [4], released last month. However the IPCC has so far been unable to draw firm conclusions about whether temperature variability is increasing. Indeed SREX even contained the question 'is the climate becoming more extreme?'. To paraphrase the answer, 'we don't know'. If it is, then the impacts from changes in extreme heat could be far greater than if only mean temperatures were increasing.

In recent years several studies have tried to address this question directly. Some have analysed daily observational data [5, 6] but these data are not available across the whole globe. Methodological differences between these studies mean that the results are hard to compare. Most studies, including Coumou and Robinson [7], who investigated both past and future temperature variability, have used monthly or seasonal temperature data as a proxy for severe heatwaves [8–10]. This allows a more global assessment. However, although a relationship exists between extreme monthly mean temperatures and the presence of heatwaves [8, 9], monthly temperatures do not reflect the intensity and duration of heatwaves—the aspects that are likely to have the most severe impact on people and the environment. In contrast to the studies based on daily observations, the studies using monthly or seasonal data [8–11] can be compared but disagree on temperature variability.

There are two camps: one that says that temperature variability is increasing globally [9] and one that says that it isn't [10, 11] (or at least that the jury is still out [6]). The validity of the method used by the first camp [9] and also incorporated into the Coumou and Robinson study, has been questioned by studies in the second camp [10–12]. The main issue relates to the normalization of temperature anomalies, creating the impression that overall variability has increased [10]. Other problems relate to the existence of trends in time series and the changing number of observing stations over time [11]. Once issues such as these have been accounted for, there appears to be little overall change in global temperature variability. In addition, Huntingford et al [10] indicate that many climate models predict decreases in variability in the future, while [7] essentially points to no change. However there does seem to be some consistency between the studies in both camps that variability has increased in some regions e.g. western Europe.

Read More

New paper finds the Sun controlled precipitation in Tibet over past millennium

A new paper published in Quaternary Research reconstructs precipitation over the past 1,000 years on the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau and finds precipitation may have been controlled by solar activity and the natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO]. According to the authors, the precipitation data "suggests possible linkage with solar variation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). [The precipitation proxy] also shows coherent patterns with solar irradiance variation: the precipitation tends to reach low values during the well-known solar minimum." The paper adds to many others finding solar activity correlated to precipitation, droughts, and floods over the past several millenia. 

The authors find "Dry spells, even more severe than the 1920s drought, occurred during AD 1139–1152, 1294–1309, 1446–1503 and 1708–1726," but that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about current levels of precipitation.

Figure 4. Comparison among the total solar irradiance (TSI), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), PC1 and the correlation coefficient between the filtered PDO and PC1. (a) TSI (Bard, 2000); (b) [Precipitation proxy] PC1 filtered by 31-yr running average; (c) PDO (MacDonald and Case, 2005) filtered by 31-yr running average; (d) The running correlations between the filtered PDO and PC1, with a window of 101 yr and a step of 5 yr (values for the correlation are at the middle of the 101-yr period). Two black lines show the 95% confidence level. Significance tests were carried out using the random phase method (Ebisuzaki, 1997). The hatched bars show the solar minimums. Vertical light gray bars indicate the PC1 in phase with the PDO, whereas the vertical dark gray bar indicates the PC1 in anti-phase with the PDO.

Precipitation variations and possible forcing factors on the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau during the last millennium

• Xiaohua Gou^a, , , 


• Yang Deng^a, 


• Fahu Chen^a, 


• Meixue Yang^b, 


• Linlin Gao^a, 


• Atle Nesje^c, d, 


• Keyan Fang^a

• ^a MOE Key Laboratory of Western China's Environmental Systems, Collaborative Innovation Centre for Arid Environments and Climate Change, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 73000, China


• ^b State Key Laboratory of Cryospheric Sciences, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China


• ^c Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen, N-5007 Bergen, Norway


• ^d Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, N-5007 Bergen, Norway

Abstract

Understanding precipitation variation, drought and flood history, and their associated forcing mechanisms are important to human society. In this study, five moisture-sensitive tree-ring width chronologies are used to represent variations in precipitation over the past millennium on the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau (NETP). We find a strong coherency between chronologies in the NETP, indicating a common response to regional climate during the last millennium. The first principal component of the five chronologies (PC1) correlates significantly with regional precipitation and can thus be used as an indicator of regional precipitation variations. Dry spells, even more severe than the 1920s drought, occurred during AD 1139–1152, 1294–1309, 1446–1503 and 1708–1726. Previous studies in this area using other proxies also identified these droughts. Multi-Taper spectral analysis demonstrates significant periodicities at 205 yr and 73 yr, plus a range of ~ 2 yr cycles, suggesting possible linkage with solar variation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). PC1 also shows coherent patterns with solar irradiance variation: the precipitation tends to reach low values during the well-known solar minimum.

Read More