Guest post by David Middleton A very thoughtful column by Ross Pomeroy at Real Clear Science… Is Climate ‘Lukewarmism’ Legitimate? By Ross Pomeroy September 25, 2017 To many, prominent writers Matt Ridley, Ross Douthat, and Oren Cass are a baffling bunch. They are the visible proponents of the position that climate change is real, manmade, and occurring…
via Watts Up With That?
September 25, 2017 at 08:56AM
Yet another new scientific paper has been published that questions the current understanding of the Earth’s globally averaged surface temperature and its relation to the theoretical greenhouse effect.
Perhaps the most fundamental equation in climate science is the “thought experiment” that envisions what the temperature of the Earth would be if it had no atmosphere (or greenhouse gases).
Simplistically, the globally averaged surface temperature is assumed to be 288 K. In the “thought experiment”, an imaginary Earth that has no atmosphere (or greenhouse gases to absorb and re-emit the surface heat) would have a temperature of 255 K. The difference between the real and imagined Earth with no atmosphere is 33 K, meaning that the Earth would be much colder (and uninhabitable) without the presence of greenhouse gases. Of that 33 K, it is assumed that CO2 concentrations in range of 200 – 280 ppm (the pre-industrial ranges for the last 800,000 years) contribute 7.2 K (~20%), while water vapor concentrations (ranging between about 1,000 to 40,000 ppm for the globe) contribute 20.6 K to the 33 K greenhouse effect.
Atmospheric scientists Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. Ralph Dlugi, and Dr. Nicole Mölders have just published a paper in the journal Natural Science that exposes the physical and observational shortcomings of the widely-accepted 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation. They conclude that this “though experiment” is “based on physically irrelevant assumptions and its results considerably disagree with observations“.
The scientists offer a new approach to gauging the Earth’s surface temperature(s), and their results are significantly at variance with the 288 K – 255 K = 33 K “thought experiment”. For their calculations, they use observational measurements for the moon — which actually does not have an atmosphere — as their “testbed”. Using moon data would appear to yield more reliable results than an imaginary-world Earth with no atmosphere.
The following is a very abbreviated summary of these scientists’ conclusions about calculating Earth’s mean temperatures.
Instead of focusing on the technicalities of these authors’ Earth-temperature calculations using moon data, it’s important to call attention to the 5-point critique of the 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation outlined in the introduction to the Kramm et al. (2017) paper. The very first criticism listed is, by itself, worth expounding upon in detail. Here it is:
This is crucial. Not only is the heating contribution of the water vapor-and-CO2 greenhouse effect viewed as a “thought experiment” because it uses an imaginary world without an atmosphere as its premise, the 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation only considers a radiation budget analysis that pertains to atmospheric heating, not ocean heating. This is theoretical negligence, as it is tantamount to claiming that we should measure the temperature of a person’s spit to accurately determine his overall body temperature.
According to the IPCC (citing Levitus et al., 2012), 93% of the Earth’s heat energy resides in the oceans. The atmosphere hosts just 1% of the Earth’s heat energy “trapped” by greenhouse gases. To be physically meaningful, then, the Earth’s energy budget and “mean global temperature” should be calculated by featuring measurements for the thousands-of-meters-deep oceans, and not the atmosphere vs. no-atmosphere conceptualization
Furthermore, it is essential to consider that the heat flux for the Earth’s climate system nearly always goes from ocean to atmosphere, and not the other way around. The atmosphere does not warm the oceans; the oceans warm the atmosphere.
And because the direction of the heat flux is from ocean to atmosphere, for greenhouse gases like water vapor and CO2 to warm the atmosphere by 33 K, they necessarily must heat the oceans by that equivalent first. In other words, for the Earth’s theoretical greenhouse effect to “work”, downwelling longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) from water vapor and CO2 must be fundamental players in heating the Earth’s oceans to depths of thousands of meters.
An unheralded problem with this conceptualization arises: We have no physical measurements from a real-world scientific experiment that identify how much, if at all, parts per million (0.000001) increases (or decreases) in atmospheric CO2 concentrations heat (or cool) water bodies.
Even the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocacy blogs RealClimate.org and SkepticalScience.com acknowledge that we have no real-world evidence identifying the extent to which heat changes occur in water bodies when CO2 concentrations are varied in volumes of +/-0.000001 above them. We have to use proxy evidence from clouds instead.
And the problem with using clouds as a proxy for CO2 is that even very small (1%) cloud cover variations can quite easily overwhelm and supersede the greenhouse effect associated with changes in CO2 concentrations due to the magnitude and dominance of cloud LWIR forcing.
Using clouds as a proxy for CO2 in assessing how CO2 concentration changes affect water temperatures is therefore not comparing apples to apples in calculating their radiative significance, and thus any experimental results using clouds can not be generalized or assumed to simulate the heating effects of CO2 when varied over water bodies.
So we are left with an equation (288 K – 255 K = 33 K) that (a) is based upon a “thought experiment” using an imaginary world without an atmosphere; (b) claims to measure Earth’s temperatures, but doesn’t consider the temperatures of the Earth’s oceans as its primary parameter; and (c) assumes ppm changes in CO2 concentrations heat or cool water bodies to a measurable degree when raised or lowered even though no physical measurements from a real-world scientific experiment exists to support such a claim.
And this is just point (1) in the Kramm et al. (2017) critique of the 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation. Four other criticisms of the “inadequate” equation are also listed below.
As these three atmospheric scientists conclude, the 288 K – 255 K = 33 K equation underlying the theoretical greenhouse effect “lacks adequate physical meaning as do any contributions from optically active gaseous components calculated thereby“.
via NoTricksZone
September 25, 2017 at 08:50AM
The New York Times claims that satellites were first used to study the Arctic in the late 1970s.
We Charted Arctic Sea Ice for Nearly Every Day Since 1979. You’ll See a Trend. – The New York Times
In 1990, Tom Karl and Kevin Trenberth said we have “routinely” collected satellite data back to the early 1970’s, when sea ice extent was “significantly less”
h/t Leigh Yaxley
NOAA and the New York Times are now trying to hide the pre-1970 low sea ice extent, because it wrecks their global warming story.
This is a smoking gun of fraud. The people behind this need to called out and shut down.
via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
September 25, 2017 at 08:15AM
###################################################
Quote of the Week. “Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run, we are all dead.”— John Maynard Keynes, the British Economist who earlier predicted that the extreme punitive demands of the Treaty of Versailles, the primary treaty ending World War I, would lead to disaster.
###################################################
###################################################
A Concession? A work published in Nature Geoscience by noted British climate modelers led by Richard Miller has stirred considerable interest. Though some of the authors participate in the UN Intergovernmental Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they made a concession that their models overestimate global warming. Many of those skeptical about the claim that global warming / climate change is controlled by carbon dioxide considered this to be a major event. Others are not too sure, and consider it may be a tactical ploy.
The disparity between models and atmospheric observations has been recognized by many critics of the IPCC process. The reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) are an example. The greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere, yet the atmospheric is not warming as estimated by climate modelers. Largely, the efforts of the critics have been suppressed. The proponents of the IPCC, and its goals, have successfully smothered criticism in the Western press.
Roy Spencer and John Christy co-discovered the method of estimating atmospheric temperatures from data collected and published their seminal work in the early 1990s. Yet, they have had difficulty publishing in Western scientific journals since. Small errors in calculations, such as orbital drift, have been discovered and overblown. These errors are less than the disparity between model forecasts and atmospheric observations, but IPCC proponents, including those controlling Western scientific publications do not publish the work of Spencer and Christy.
The journal of the Korean Meteorological Society publishes Spencer’s work. The organization is to be thanked for upholding the principles of free scientific inquiry. Spencer’s comments on the new paper are particularly appropriate. He doubts that he and Christy would have been permitted to publish such a paper and states:
“The realization by the authors that the climate models have produced too much warming since about 2000 has been out there for at least 5 years. It has been no secret, and Christy and I have been lambasted as “deniers” for repeatedly pointing it out.”
Spencer writes that the climate establishment may be trying to address the growing disparity between models and observations for some time, and suggests:
“The resulting new paper is part of a grand scheme that Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich perfected decades ago. I believe the new narrative taking shape is this: ‘yes, we were wrong, but only in the timing of the coming global warming disaster. It is still going to happen… but now we have time to fix it, before it really, really is too late.’”
Those who have observed complex negotiation strategies would not be surprised by such tactics. The new paper may be a ploy, a throw-away, attempting to quell serious questioning of the greenhouse gas theory exemplified in the IPCC models. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC, Challenging the Orthodoxy, and Problems in the Orthodoxy.
**************
Other Comments on the Miller, et al. Paper: David Whitehouse of the UK Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) brings up that the period “record temperatures” of the past three years of surface temperatures appears to be ending. The recent temperatures were driven by a strong El Niño, which is ending. It is foolish to base long-term temperature projections on such short-term weather events. Further the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) may be shifting, leading to a cooler period, at least in Europe. He writes:
“Nobody has any real idea what global surface temperatures will do in the near future.”
“In short, assumptions made about important details of climate science that were accepted a decade ago are becoming increasingly frayed. Let us hope that a new era of scientific reality will replace the far-too-simple messages previously proclaimed to the public.”
Comments by others are not as generous. Believing the unrealistic claims of certainty by the IPCC and its adherents including, the foolish economic projections of Nicholas Stern, the UK Parliament passed Climate Change Act of 2008. This action forced the UK on a path of reducing greenhouse gases in 2050 to 80% below what they were in 1990. Appropriate targets and policies are under the specially created Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
Some citizens and politicians are beginning to realize that they are trapped between meeting these legal standards and vanishing promises that wind and solar can deliver reliable, inexpensive electricity, especially for heating and transportation. Even the headlines in The Times suggest that the Miller article may be a ploy to deflect criticism of the promoters of drastic global warming:
“We were wrong — worst effects of climate change can be avoided, say experts
“Scientists admit that world is warming more slowly than predicted”
Martin Livermore of the UK Scientific Alliance suggests the Miller paper may be a ploy to revive the Paris agreement, which President Trump announced he is abandoning. Livermore begins his analysis by citing the paper’s summary:
“’Hence, limiting warming to 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.’”
Livermore asserts that the BBC followed the message with the headline Paris climate aim is “still achievable.” He concludes his analysis with:
“No matter how low the price of wind-generated electricity, no matter how sophisticated electric cars become, no matter how quickly we convert domestic heating to electricity, a secure energy supply given the current state of technology will be very significantly higher [in cost] than at present. It need not be like this if the best minds on both sides of the ideological divide can work together to develop better solutions.”
The citizens of the US can be thankful the country is not shackled to the 2009 Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which the Senate did not pass. But, it still has the EPA endangerment finding, for which the justification became weaker. See links under Problems in the Orthodoxy and The Political Games Continue.
**************
The Russian Model: In his February 2, 2016, written testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, UAH scientist John Christy demonstrates that the general climate models used by the IPCC, and depended upon by other groups, overestimate the warming of the lower troposphere by 2.5 to 3 times. It is in the lower troposphere that the greenhouse gas effect takes place. There is no logical reason to assume that models that cannot track temperatures in the near-term will be successful in the long-term. If the purpose of the effort is to describe a need for government policy in controlling carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions, then the IPCC models are extremely poor for policy purposes.
The paper by Miller, et al. discussed above suggests a minor correction. A minor correction is insufficient. A major correction in the IPCC process, the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and the EPA finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare is needed. Fortunately, in his testimony, Christy provides guidance in the type of change that is needed. On page 12 Christy demonstrates that only one model describes what is occurring in the troposphere – the INM-CM4 model by the Institute of Numerical Mathematics of Russian Academy of Sciences.
It is important to note that in personal correspondence, Christy stated that for most models, including the Russian model, his findings are based on one available run. Fred Singer has demonstrated that, for most climate models, one run is not definitive and a minimum of ten runs are needed to estimate the actual trends projected in the models.
In discussing his views of the Miller paper, Patrick Michaels links to the 2010 paper describing the INM-CM4 model. In “Simulating present-day climate with the INMCM4.0 coupled model of the atmospheric and oceanic general circulations”, authors E. M. Volodin, N. A. Dianski, and A. V. Gusev describe that they modified the INM-CM3.0 climate model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), used in preparing the fifth assessment report (AR-5, 2013) of the IPCC.
Appropriately, the authors recognized the importance of natural climate change, stating:
“Among the most significant manifestations of variations in the Earth’s climate system are phenomena such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Arctic Oscillation. These phenomena significantly affect the current states of the atmosphere and the ocean and can change their intensity and recurrence against the background of climate changes.”
Physicist David Legates sent TWTW subsequent papers published by these authors. The 2012 paper results from simulation of climate changes covering in the late 19th, the 20th, and the early part of the 21st centuries. The abstract of the 2012 paper states:
“Like the previous INMCM3 version, this model has a low sensitivity of 4.0K to a quadrupling of CO2 concentrations.” [Boldface added.]
The latest estimate by the IPCC is a sensitivity of 3.0K with a doubling of CO2 concentrations. But, the important point is that there is some excellent work being done to model climate that is not being shackled by preconceived notions of needing to “prove” that CO2 concentrations “control” the earth’s climate and that by eliminating CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions, man can eliminate climate change. The IPCC has access to this work and largely ignores it. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
**************
Offshore Wind vs. Nuclear: As discussed in last week’s TWTW, an auction in the UK of commitments to provide electricity from offshore wind produced a spate of articles on how cheap wind power is becoming. As usual, those promoting wind and solar, including the Guardian newspaper gloss over details such as what happens when weather is not perfect for their devices. Writing in Energy Matters, Roger Andrews did a brief analysis on the claim that offshore wind power in the UK is less costly than nuclear, without getting into the bad deal the UK government did for the Hinkley nuclear plant.
Using January, a good wind month, for a basis, Andrews estimated that battery storage would increase the cost of wind by about 10 times. He writes:
“What it does tell us is that adding even a comparatively small amount of battery storage to a wind (or solar) project could kill it economically, which is probably what motivated the Guardian to make the comment about putting limits on how much “we” have to pay for “reliable baseload supplies”. And in the clean, green, environmentally-conscious, demand-managed, smart-meter-monitored, grid-interconnected, one-hundred-percent renewable world of the future the Guardian envisions we won’t need reliable baseload supplies anyway.”
Now, if we can only discover a low-cost way to store wind. See links under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
**************
The Hurricane Waltz: Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico, a territory of the US, knocking out grid-based electrical power to all the 3.4 million habitants. However, Puerto Rico, and other Caribbean islands, have experienced similar devastation in the past. Over the past week it was very interesting to watch Joe Bastardi of WeatherBELL Analytics explain how Hurricane Jose was guiding Hurricane Maria from moving west and north, possibly making landfall on the eastern seaboard. The multitude of factors involved in determining the intensity and track of hurricanes make any claims of great predictability absurd.
In addressing some of the claims that Puerto Rico is an example how global warming has made this season worse (as compared to last season which was claimed the “hottest year ever”), Paul Homewood referenced the graph of Tropical Cyclone Tracks from NOAA’s National Hurricane Center. The maze of tracks on the graph is very interesting. The data are from 1949 in the Pacific and from 1851 in the Atlantic.
The graft shows that tropical cyclones have gone well up the Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island in northern Canada. One the east side of Greenland, tropical cyclones have passed over Iceland and gone into the Greenland Sea, well above the Arctic Circle. One can imagine how the Climate Chorus would react if a tropical cyclone would go into the Greenland Sea today! See links Changing Weather and Changing Weather – Commentary.
**************
Sea Level Rise: Geophysicist Dennis Hadke compared the claim of drastic sea level rise with what is actually occurring in ten coastal cities with long and reliable records of rise (from tidal gages). He calculates linear fits, regression lines, for each of the ten cities. Not, surprisingly for TWTW readers have finds:
“There has been no dramatic and consistent sea-level rise in the past century, and projections
show no dramatic rise is likely to occur in the coming century.
“There is no correlation between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and sea-level rise.”
The work of Hadke concurs with retired NASA meteorologist Thomas Wysmuller discussed in the January 28 TWTW. Wysmuller explored the correlation between CO2 and sea level rise and found no measurable linkage between Sea Level and CO2. As Wysmuller stated:
“For the past 2,000 years, Sea Level rise was unchangingly linear, increasing between 1 & 1.5 mm/yr. The maximum rise is about 6 inches per century. This has continued for the past 135 years, even though CO2 concentrations have increased by 38%.”
Of particular interest for TWTW was Hadke’s estimates for St Petersburg, FL. Sea level rise in the Tampa Bay region was covered in the January 21 and the January 28 TWTWs. In August 2015, the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel (CSAP) reported that:
“Based upon a thorough assessment of scientific data and literature on SLR, the CSAP concludes that the Tampa Bay region may experience SLR somewhere between 6 inches to 2.5 feet in 2050 and between 1 to 7 feet in 2100.”
The 1-foot rise is from extrapolation of readings from local tidal gages. The 7-foot rise is from NOAA high estimates from IPCC and USGCRP reports.
Using a record dating back to 1947, Hadke finds “projected sea-level rise is only 10.7 inches over the next 100 years.” [The records for the Tampa Bay region are longer than for St. Petersburg alone.]
The reports of the IPCC, USGCRP, and, recently, NOAA cannot be relied upon as “the best science available.” See links under Changing Seas.
**************
Number of the Week: 99.998%. Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has informed the Commonwealth Government that: “AEMO, like every system operator in the world, targets a defined market reliability standard (NEM: 99.998%) and cannot promise or deliver 100% supply reliability”
To accomplish this goal, the AEMO needs a large increase in a reserve of reliable, dispatchable, electricity. Some politicians seem to willfully ignore the need for reliable electricity, and promote wind and solar. As physicist Howard Hayden has commented:
“Power from wind varies dramatically with wind speed, as anybody can tell by merely looking at the power curves from any turbine manufacturer on the planet. If the wind speed increases from 10 mph to 20 mph, the power increases by a cool factor of eight. If the wind speed drops from 20 mph to 10 mph, the power it produces drops by 87.5%. Such variations are at odds with the necessity of keeping the grid voltage constant within a few percent, and the frequency constant within 0.03%. In the electricity business, stability is the key ingredient”
Not experienced in physical issues, some politicians might readily endorse schemes where the instability is hidden; their failure to perceive the fatal limitation of wind power is one such example.
###################################################
Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2013
Summary: http://ift.tt/1iE4vh2
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2014
Summary: http://ift.tt/1iE4wS7
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus
By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, NIPCC, Nov 23, 2015
Download with no charge
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008
Challenging the Orthodoxy
Cracks in the Empire’s Armor Appear
By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Sep 20, 2017
Testimony to U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology
By John R. Christy, UAH, Feb 2, 2017
Simulating present-day climate with the INMCM4.0 coupled model of the atmospheric and oceanic general circulations
By E. M. Volodin N. A. Dianskii and A. V. Gusev, Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, Sep 2, 2010
“It is shown that the new model adequately reproduces the most significant features of the observed atmospheric and oceanic climate.”
Simulation and Prediction of Climate Changes in the 19th to 21st Centuries with the Institute of Numerical Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Model of the Earth’s Climate System
By E. M. Volodin N. A. Dianskii and A. V. Gusev, Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, Sep 24, 2012.
The 11-Year Major Hurricane Drought: Much More Unusual than Two Cat 4 Strikes
By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Sep 21, 2017
“Maybe global warming causes fewer landfalling major hurricanes.”
Reminder: How the IPCC and Climate Alarmists Hid the Good News on Global Warming
By Staff Writers, GWPF, Sep 18, 2017
Short report: Oversensitive: How the IPCC Hid the Good News on Global Warming
By Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok, GWPF, 2014
Long version: A Sensitive Matter: How the IPCC Buried Evidence Showing Good News about Global Warming
By Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok, GWPF, 2014
Are doomsday scenarios best seen as failed predictions or political detonators? The case of the ‘Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation’
By Tor H Aase, Geographical Journal of Nepal, Vol. 10: 1-14, 2017 [H/t GWPF]
Defending the Orthodoxy
A climate science milestone: a successful 10-year forecast!
By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website, WUWT, Sep 22, 2017
[SEPP Comment: Missing the key issue – cause. If the cause is CO2, warming, it should be more observable in the atmosphere than in the oceans. Uses NASA-GISS data.]
Questioning the Orthodoxy
Staircase Warming: New Paper Finds Decadal Climate Shifts, Lack of Linear Warming
By Staff Writers, GWPF, Sep 16, 2017
Link to paper: A staircase signal in the warming of the mid-20th century
By Belolıpetsky P.V., Bartsev S, Saltykov M.Y, And Reıd P.C., 15th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Sep 2, 2017
A climate of growing skepticism
By John Stossel, Tribune Review, Sep 15, 2017 [H/t GWPF]
After Paris!
Kerry to Trump: Paris agreement not some quick ‘real estate deal’
By Devin Henry, The Hill, Sep 20, 2017
[SEPP Comment: Were the last-second changes to avoid the appearance of a treaty that would need Senate approval transparently deliberated or smoke and mirrors?]
Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord
Press Release, The White House, June 1, 2017
[SEPP Comment: To reporters: if in doubt, read for yourself.]
Change in US Administrations
Administration officials meet to develop climate strategy
By Andrew Restuccia and Emily Holden, Political, Sep 21,2 017
[SEPP Comment: Is the report more hopeful than actual?]
Red team-blue team exercise will expose the junk science that filled Obama’s EPA
By Roger Bezdek and Joseph Bast, The Hill, Sep 21, 2017
EPA evaluating ‘red teams’ to challenge climate science despite hurricanes
By John Siciliano, Washington Examiner, Sep 15, 2017
EPA asked Heartland for experts who question climate science
Scott Waldman, E&E News, Sep 21, 2017
Lisa Jackson, aka Richard Windsor, Criticizes Trump EPA’s Transparency
Jackson used alias and private email to conduct official business at EPA
By: Elizabeth Harrington, Washington Free Beacon, Sep 19, 2017 [H/t Timothy Wise]
“EPA has been run by Democrats, and by Republicans, but it’s never in its history—and it’s 40 plus years old—been run by someone who seems to be determined to do the one thing that could destroy its credibility, which is make it non-transparent.”
[SEPP Comment: Is the science supporting the endangerment finding under Ms. Jackson transparent? Or PM-2.5? Or, the evidence showing DDT causes cancer.]
Social Benefits of Carbon
Hooray for Carbon Dioxide! It’s Helping to Feed the World’s Hungry
By H. Sterling Burnett, American Thinker, Sep 20, 2017
Problems in the Orthodoxy
Climate Change Will Take Longer, Say Scientists
By David Whitehead, GWPF, Sep 19, 2017
Link to paper: Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C
By Richard Millar, et al. Nature Geoscience, Sep 18, 2017
[SEPP Comment: Trump did not destroy the world – yet!]
Working together
By Martin Livermore, The Scientific Alliance, Sep 22, 2017
To quote from the paper’s summary: “Hence, limiting warming to 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.” This straightforward message is taken up by the BBC under the headline Paris climate aim is ‘still achievable’.
We Were Wrong, Climate Scientists Concede
By Ben Webster, The Times, Via GWPF, Sep 18, 2017
Changes in the Climate Policy Winds
By Patrick Michaels, CATO, Sep 20, 2017
Climate Models Run Too Hot: Settled Science Again
A Nature Geoscience study finds that humanity has more time to avert dangerous man-made warming.
By Ronald Bailey, Reason, Sep 21, 2017
How scientists got their global warming sums wrong — and created a £1TRILLION-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures
The scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally come clean. The planet has stubbornly refused to heat up to predicted levels
By James Delingpole, The Sun, Sep 20, 2017
Scientists Go After The Media For Highlighting A Study Showing IPCC Climate Models Were Wrong
By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Sep 20, 2017
Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
By Henry Bodkin, Telegraph, UK, Sep 16, 2017 [H/t WUWT]
Latest, belated admission the models were “too hot” is all PR and politics, nothing to do with science
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 21, 2017
Spot the political PR paper pretending to be science: the global carbon budget just got a whopping — four – times — bigger, but instructions on how to follow the carbon religion are 100% identical.
Seeking a Common Ground
Pielke on Climate #5
Climate Change as Symbolic politics in the United States,
By Roger Pielke Jr., The Climate Fix, Sep 18, 2017
Reasons For Optimism About Climate Hysteria
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Sep 22, 2017
Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science
The Recent Decline in Drought Over the Southeast USA
Mitra, S. and Srivastava, P. 2017. Spatiotemporal variability of meteorological droughts in southeastern USA. Natural Hazards 86: 1007-1038. Sep 22, 2017
“…1) droughts showed ‘high spatial and temporal variability, ‘ (2) droughts were more severe and frequent during the early (1901-1935) and mid (1936-1970) of the twentieth century [compared to the latter 1971-2005 period], ‘ (3) ‘trend analysis confirms that the study domain has become wetter over the last 105 years ‘ and that (4) such ‘wetting trends were more prominent in the agricultural season. ‘”
The Non-Impacts of Ocean Acidification on the Early Life Stages of Northern Rock Sole
Hurst, T.P., Laurel, B.J., Hanneman, E., Haines, S.A. and Ottmar, M.L.. 2017. Elevated CO2 does not exacerbate nutritional stress in larvae of a Pacific flatfish. Fisheries Oceanography 26: 336-349. Sep 11, 2017
The Impacts of Rising Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 Concentration on a Forest Floor Cyanobacterium
Lindo, Z. and Griffith, D.A. 2017. Elevated atmospheric CO2 and warming stimulates growth and nitrogen fixation in a common forest floor cyanobacterium under axenic conditions. Forests 8: 73, doi:10.3390/f8030073. Sep 20, 2017
The Impact of Elevated CO2 on a Widespread Ectomycorrhizal Fungi
McCormack, M.L., Fernandez, C.W., Brooks, H. and Pritchard, S.G. 2017. Production dynamics of Cenococcum geophilum ectomycorrhizas in response to long-term elevated CO2 and N fertilization. Fungal Ecology 26: 11-19. Sep 18, 2017
“In light of the above findings, it would appear that, given the near-global distribution of this EM fungi and its importance in stimulating ecosystem productivity, the positive impact of elevated CO2 on C. geophilum production (~50% increase for a 200 ppm rise) represents a welcomed benefit for the future of Earth’s forests.”
Measurement Issues — Surface
Too late: Bureau of Met buys time with another “major revision” of data that was already “best quality” five years ago
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 17, 2017
Puerto Rico’s Hurricane History
By Paul Homewood, No a Lot of People Know That, Sep 22, 2017
Additional graphs: Tropical Cyclone Climatology
By Staff, NOAA National Hurricane Center, Accessed Sep 22, 2017
Trends In Atlantic Hurricanes
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 20, 2017
GWPF TV: Climate Hysteria Vs Hurricane Resilience
By Staff, GWPF, Sep 9, 2017
[SEPP Comment: The clip of an alarmist using the term “climate breakdown” is rich.]
Analysis By German Scientists Concerning Hurricane Causes: More Propaganda Than Science
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Sep 16, 2017
La Nina and This Winter’s Weather
By Cliff Mass, Weather and Climate Blog, Sep 16, 2017
“I am always nervous about predicting the character of the upcoming winter’s weather for a number of reasons. Seasonal forecasting skill is not good, with our long-range numerical models having very little skill past three weeks. Furthermore, our main seasonal forecasting tool with any skill, the relationship between El Nino/La Nina and local weather, only explains some of the interannual (between years) variation….”
Hurricanes Happen
Protection against cyclones is necessary whether climate changes or not
By Matt Ridley, Rational Optimist, Sep 19, 2017
Climate Alarmists Exploiting Hurricanes Are Misguided
By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Sep 18, 2017
Climate Hysteria Hits ‘Peak Stupid’ in Hurricane Season
By Chris Mitchel, The Australian, Via GWPF, Sep 18, 2017
Jose And Maria Frustrate Global Warming Ambulance Chasers, Media And Warmunistas
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Sep 20, 2017
Changing Climate
Ancient tree reveals cause of spike in Arctic temperature
Press Release, Keele University, Sep 12, 2017 [H/t GWPF]
Link to paper: Rapid global ocean-atmosphere response to Southern Ocean freshening during the last glacial
By Chris S.M. Turney, et al, Nature Communications, Sep 12, 2017
[SEPP Comment: Questionable!]
Advert in The Australian describes what real climate change looks like [Advertisement]
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 22, 2017
[SEPP Comment: Advertisement by “the Climate Study Group.”]
Changing Seas
Data versus Hype: How Ten Cities Show Sea-level Rise Is a False Crisis
By Dennis Hedke, NIPCC Policy Brief, Sep 2017
Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice
Arctic sea-ice extent ends up not even close to setting a new low record
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 19, 2017
Breaking: 2016 W. Hudson Bay polar bear survey shows the population is still stable
By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Sep 19, 2017
Astrology and Climate Science
By Tony Heller, Real Climate Science, Sep 22, 2017
Lowering Standards
Nature, German Politics and Science
By Euan Mearns, Energy Matters, Sep 18, 2017
Policy driven research and Greenthinking match like a hand in a glove. For example, the 2008 Climate Change Act demands that the UK’s energy system follows a particular set of paths whilst avoiding others – the answer known in advance. Sustainability university departments sprang up all over the UK to receive funds from the UK and EU governments to provide the research that backs the policy to the exclusion of alternative paths. This is not science but political-academic dictatorship.
[SEPP Comment: Politics influencing Nature.]
Harvard report details the threats faced by New England forests
By Brooks Hays, Washington (UPI), Sep 19, 2017
[SEPP Comment: No link to report. Is the loss of farmland and pasture land to second growth forests as alarming?]
Justin Gillis Strikes One Last Time [NYT]
Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen, WUWT, Sep 18, 2017
MP welcomes ‘swift’ BBC rebuke of presenter over climate sceptic tweet
Adam Rutherford may have compromised BBC’s impartiality by criticising Labour MP Graham Stringer, a climate change sceptic, standards team says
By Graham Ruddick, Sep 18, 2017 [H/t GWPF]
Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?
Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles
By Staff Writers, NASA, Mar 22, 2017 [H/t William Readdy]
These line graphs plot monthly deviations and overall trends in polar sea ice from 1979 to 2017 as measured by satellites. The top line shows the Arctic; the middle shows Antarctica; and the third shows the global, combined total. The graphs depict how much the sea ice concentration moved above or below the long-term average. (They do not plot total sea ice concentration.) Arctic and global sea ice totals have moved consistently downward over 38 years. Antarctic trends are more muddled, but they do not offset the great losses in the Arctic.
Credits: Joshua Stevens/NASA Earth Observatory
[SEPP Comment: Combining the Arctic and Antarctic deviations creates clever deception.]
Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
5,000 deaths annually from Diesel-gate in Europe
By Staff Writers, Science Daily, Sep 18, 2017
Link to paper: Impact of excess NOx emissions from diesel cars on air quality, public health and eutrophication in Europe
By J E Jonson, et al. Environmental Research Letters, Sep 18, 2017
Link to earlier paper: Impacts and mitigation of excess diesel-related NOx emissions in 11 major vehicle markets
By Susan C. Anenberg, Nature, May 15, 2017
“Adopting and enforcing next-generation standards (more stringent than Euro 6/VI) could nearly eliminate real-world diesel-related NOx emissions in these markets, avoiding approximately 174,000 global PM2.5- and ozone-related premature deaths in 2040.”
[SEPP Comment: Deaths from PM2.5 are highly speculative.]
How Real Are Heatwave Death Claims?
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know that, Sep 19, 2017
[SEPP Comment: The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) fiddling with numbers?]
Welcome to Australia where it’s always warmer somewhere!
By Guess Blogger Bill Johnston, WUWT, Sep 21, 2017
Link to article in question: Australia’s record-breaking winter warmth linked to climate change
By Andrew King, Fellow, University of Melbourne, The Conversation, Sep 1, 2017
Questioning European Green
The Poor Are carrying the Cost of Today’s Climate Policies
Climate policies are doing more harm than good, a moral issue
By Matt Ridley, Rational Optimist, Sep 19, 2017
Cut green taxes now! Experts call for cost of energy bills to fall after scientists admit overstating global warming
Around 10 per cent of a family’s energy bill is used to subsidise green energy
Critics say this should be reduced because it is based on outdated information
A scientific report has said global warming was less drastic than first feared
By Colin Fernandez, Daily Mail, Sep 19, 2017
Utilities Line Up to Profit From ‘Slowest Trainwreck’ in History
By Jess Shankleman, Bloomberg, Sep 19, 2017 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
[SEPP Comment: The trainwreck will occur when consumers and voters demand reliable electricity, and the politically-favored producers have none!]
Germany Will Miss Another Green Goal
By Jamie Horgan, The American Interest, Sep 20, 2017
[SEPP Comment: No English link to German study.]
Funding Issues
Follow The Money
By Duane Thresher, Real Climatologists, Sep 18, 2017
“Abstract: The wasted and misspent money at NASA-GISS and all climate research institutions is staggering. So, as they said in Watergate, follow the money.”
Guardian: Climate Scientists are Not Just In it for the Money
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Sep 18, 2017
[SEPP Comment: Just the super-computers?]
How the Democratic Party Has Incurred Major Electoral Losses by Its Mistaken Support for Climate Alarmism
By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, Sep 20, 2017
Now that’s an inconvenient truth: Report shows the world isn’t as warm as the green doom-mongers warned. So will energy bills come down? Fat chance, says MP Graham Stringer
Press Release, By MP Graham Stringer, Sep 19, 2017 [H/t GWPF]
Litigation Issues
Two California Cities Sue Oil Majors Over Climate Change
San Francisco, Oakland want oil firms to fund protective measures against global warming
By Alejandro Lazo and Bradley Olson, WSJ, Sep 20, 2017
Via GWPF: As Two Cities File Lawsuits, U.S. Supreme Court Will Have to Rule About Claims (and Counter-claims) by Climate Scientists
Federal Judge Deals Major Blow to #ExxonKnew Crusaders
By Spencer Walrath, Energy in Depth, Sep 13, 2017
Green, industry groups file appeals to save EPA greenhouse gas rule
By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Sep 22, 2017
They’re asking all 10 judges in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rehear the case after a three-judge panel overturned the EPA’s hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) regulation.
[SEPP Comment: Special interest are appealing under the guise of climate impacts, tiny at most.]
IPSO adjudication upheld against MoS climate science article [Mail on Sunday (MoS)]
Editorial, Daily Mail (Sunday), Sep 16, 2017 [H/t Malcom Ross]
[SEPP Comment: The evidence supporting the claim that Karl manipulated NOAA data was not irrefutable. Would like to see irrefutable evidence that primary cause of global warming / climate change are carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.]
Rep. Lamar Smith cites fake news in fight against climate science
By Bob Ward, The Hill, Sep 23, 2017
[SEPP Comment: See link immediately above.]
Subsidies and Mandates Forever
ExxonMobil’s Tillerson on Wind and Solar Subsidies (an argument to remember)
By Robert Bradley Jr. Master Resource, Sep 21, 2017
“If I wanted to kill [tax subsidies], the thing to do is for Exxon Mobil to go and invest heavily in [wind and solar] and then Congress would immediately cancel the tax subsidy. Actually what they would do is they would just cancel it for us…. So we are not going to go into investments that are dependent on a government providing a tax system to make them viable.”– Rex Tillerson, Quoted in Russell Gold, “Exxon Mobil: We Like Renewable Energy Subsidies. Wink, Wink.” Wall Street Journal (March 6, 2009).
Solar Power Death Wish
Subsidies aren’t enough. Now solar-panel makers want tariffs.
Editorial, WSJ, Via GWPF, Sep 17, 2017
UK government launches plan to accelerate growth of green finance
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know that, Sep 19, 2017
EPA and other Regulators on the March
EPA needs to stick to its knitting
Editorial, Washington Examiner, Sep 18, 2017
“Pruitt promises to return the EPA to its proper mission and to limit its activities to those actually prescribed by Congress. Will Pruitt’s EPA address greenhouse gas emissions? Obama justified his Clean Power Plan by asserting the urgency of the issue. But the executive’s belief that an issue is important doesn’t give the executive branch the power to address an issue.”
Energy Issues – Non-US
E.On ‘ploy’ to persuade customers to get smart meters with cheaper deals
By Sam Meadows and Katie Morley, Telegraph, UK, Sep 21, 2017 [H/t Paul Homewood]
How Merkel’s Green Energy Policy Has Fueled Demand for Coal
Germany still gets 40 percent of its electricity from coal-fired plants.
By Brian Parkin and Weixin Zha, Bloomberg, Sep 21, 2017
Canada has too much clean electricity. Anybody want it?
By David Ferris, E&E News, Sep 21, 2017
Advice to the Commonwealth Government on Dispatchable Capability
By Staff Writers, Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), September 2017
Taxpayers give $300m to Saudi billionaire for solar plant that makes 2% of old dying coal plant’s power
By Jo Nova Her Blog, Sep 19, 2017
It will only take 50 plants like this, and $15 billion spare dollars, to replace the Liddell coal station (8,000GWh), now slated for closure in 2022.
Energy Issues — US
Another industry group asks agency to regulate carbon
By Niina Heikkinen, E&E News, Sep 21, 2017
“The Coalition for Innovative Climate Solutions, a group that represents electric generating companies and service providers in 19 states, is asking EPA to provide industry with “regulatory certainty” by developing a replacement for the Obama-era regulation on carbon emissions from power plants.”
Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
Well Prepared & More Resilient: How US Refineries Passed Hurricane Test
By Staff Writers, Financial Times, Via GWPF, Sep 18, 2017
Two Weeks After Harvey, Cheniere Runs More [Natural] Gas Than Ever
By Naureen Malik, Bloomberg, Sep 14, 2017
Return of King Coal?
How Merkel’s Green Energy Policy Has Fueled Demand for Coal
Germany still gets 40 percent of its electricity from coal-fired plants.
By Brian Parkin and Weixin Zha, Bloomberg, Sep 21, 2017
Nuclear Energy and Fears
A look at how bad radiation contamination from Fukushima was on the BC coast
By Simon Druker, News 1130, Sep 16, 2017 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
“Highest amount of contamination reached BC [British Columbia] a couple of years ago.”
Komarov explains nuclear’s role in energy mix
By Staff Writers, WNN, Sep 18, 2017 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
[SEPP Comment: Questioning claims that electricity from renewables are less expensive than nuclear.]
Regulators vote to move forward on Vogtle nuclear plant
By Mary Landers, Savannah Morning News, GA, Sep 19, 2017 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
“The PSC [Georgia Public Service Commission] expects to make a ruling in the case by February.”
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
The real strike price of offshore wind
By Roger Andrews, Energy Matters, Sep 20, 2017
Physics and PV Solar
By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Sep 19, 2017
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles
Alan Kohler dreams of banning combustion engines in cars in Australia
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 20, 2017
California Dreaming
Beast Of Burden – California Refiners Struggle In A State That Wishes They Would Go Away
By Sandy Fielden, RBN Energy, Sep 17, 2017
The Politician Behind California High Speed Rail Now Says It’s ‘Almost a Crime’
Quentin Kopp convinced voters to approve the project. Now he’s suing to kill it.
By Justin Monticello, Reason, Sep 20, 2017 [H/t Cooler Heads]
“California’s project will be both the slowest bullet train in the world—and the most expensive.”
Environmental Industry
Pathogenic lineage of Perkinsea associated with mass mortality of frogs across the United States
By Marcos Isidoro-Ayza, et al. Nature, Aug 31, 2017
[SEPP Comment: Contrary to what many environmental organizations asserted.]
Other Scientific News
NASA’s $3.9 bn Cassini spacecraft makes death plunge into Saturn
By Kerry Sheridan, Tampa FL (SPX), Sep 15, 2017
[SEPP Comment: The end of a long-term, exciting mission revealing data on our solar system. Such missions expand knowledge.]
Satellites measuring Earth’s melting ice sheets to go dark
By Paul Voosen, Science, Sep 15, 2017 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
###################################################
DUE TO OTHER COMMITMENTS AND TRAVEL, THERE WILL BE NO TWTW ON SEPTEMBER 30. TWTW WILL RESUME ON OCTOBER 7.
###################################################
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:
A glass ceiling?
By Staff Writers, Climate Change Predictions.org, Sep 18, 2017
“Scientists claim they can fight global warming by firing trillions of mirrors into space to deflect the sun’s rays forming a 100,000 square mile “sun shade.”
“According to Dr Roger Angel, at the University of Arizona, the trillions of mirrors would have to be fired one million miles above the earth using a huge cannon with a barrel of 0.6 miles across.
“Despite the obvious obstacles – including an estimated $350 trillion (244 trillion pound) price tag for the project – Dr Angel is confident of getting the project off the ground.” [Boldface added]
###################################################
1. Climate Change Hype Doesn’t Help
The bigger issue than global warming is that more people are choosing to live in coastal areas.
By Ryan Maue, WSJ, Sep 17, 2017
The research meteorologist assumes a consensus to which not all meteorologists agree when he writes:
”Although a clear scientific consensus has emerged over the past decade that climate change influences hurricanes in the long run, its effect upon any individual storm is unclear. Anyone trying to score political points after a natural disaster should take a deep breath and review the science first.
“As a meteorologist with access to the best weather-forecast model data available, I watched each hurricane’s landfall with particular interest. Harvey and Irma broke the record 12-year major hurricane landfall drought on the U.S. coastline. Since Wilma in October 2005, 31 major hurricanes had swirled in the North Atlantic but all failed to reach the U.S. with a Category 3 or higher intensity.
“Even as we worked to divine exactly where the hurricanes would land, a media narrative began to form linking the devastating storms to climate change.”
Maue gives specific examples then continues:
“How to put these two hurricanes into proper context? An informative website from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, synthesizes reams of research literature on the links between hurricanes and global warming. Over the next century, climate models generally indicate fewer but stronger storms—between 2% and 11% greater average storm intensity—with substantially increased rain rates. Against the background of slow sea-level rise, explosive coastal population growth will overwhelmingly exacerbate any hurricane’s damages. In the aggregate, the global-warming signal may just now be emerging out of our noisy observational records, and we may not know certainly for several decades. These conclusions are hardly controversial in the climate-science community.
“My own research, cited in a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, found that during the past half-century tropical storms and hurricanes have not shown an upward trend in frequency or accumulated energy. Instead they remain naturally variable from year-to-year. The global prevalence of the most intense storms (Category 4 and 5) has not shown a significant upward trend either. Historical observations of extreme cyclones in the 1980s, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, are in sore need of reanalysis.
“By focusing on whether climate change caused a hurricane, journalists fail to appreciate the complexity of extreme weather events. While most details are still hazy with the best climate modeling tools, the bigger issue than global warming is that more people are choosing to live in coastal areas, where hurricanes certainly will be most destructive.
“The nascent field of “attribution science” attempts to explain how climate change may affect characteristics of a given hurricane using models in “what if” mode. Such research requires a faithful reproduction of events and predictions of the future constrained by subjective choices within computer models. This research also takes time—which means other scientists must examine the evidence with patience and judiciousness not usually seen on Twitter or cable news.
“Still, the scientific community already knows plenty about hurricanes and climate change—knowledge it has accumulated over two decades through peer-reviewed research, academic conferences and voluminous national and international assessments. Yet climate scientists all too often speculate during interviews rather than refer to IPCC reports or their cousins from the U.S. National Climate Assessment. Some climate scientists have peddled tenuous theories with no contemporaneous research evidence. Advocacy groups package these talking points for easy consumption by journalists, who eagerly repeat them.
“The historical record books contain dozens of devastating hurricane landfalls over the past century, any of which, if repeated, would be catastrophic regardless of additional climate-change effects. To prepare for the next hurricane, the U.S. needs the best weather forecasts, evacuation plans and leadership. These plans should be built on sound science, not speculation, overselling or exaggeration. Hurricane science in this political climate already has enough spin.”
*****************
2. Let’s Get Rational About Disaster Risk
An unfortunate truth is that American influencers have one thing in common: a beach house in Florida.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., WSJ, Sep 15, 2017
After coitizing those who claim that the flooding of Houston was not caused by not having proper zoning, and using the flooding in Florida as an example of why zoning fails in areas with poor drainage, the columnist states:
“What’s really missing in all such places isn’t zoning regulation but proper risk pricing through insurance. This problem many of us once believed could be solved through sensible reform of the federal flood-insurance program plus the development of a global reinsurance industry, some of it based on promising so-called catastrophe bonds.
“Now we wonder if it can even be ameliorated. Anyone whose labors take him among America’s distinguished elder statesmen, especially those in the Boston-New York-Washington corridor, discovers that our most influential citizens all have one thing in common: a house in Florida. An unfortunate truth is that the value of their Florida coastal property would plummet if they were made to bear the cost of their life-style choices. A lot of ritzy communities would shrink drastically.
“Sun and fun would still attract visitors, but property owners and businesses would face a new set of incentives. Either build a lot sturdier and higher up. Or build cheap and disposable, and expect to shoulder the cost of totally rebuilding every decade or two. Faced with skyrocketing insurance rates, entire communities would have to dissolve themselves or tax their residents heavily to invest in damage-mitigation measures.
“Let’s admit this ain’t going to happen. No disaster was more foretold than Hurricane Katrina or the subsequent storms that have afflicted the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Yet the urge in Washington to rationalize risk signals proved shallow and short-lived. In a sentence that would get a columnist today accused of blaming-the-victim heartlessness, law professors Omri Ben-Shahar and Kyle Logue, in the Stanford Law Review, last year wrote: “We call weather-related catastrophes ‘natural disasters,’ but the losses due to severe weather are the result of a combination of natural forces and often imprudent, shortsighted human decisions induced . . . by questionable government policies.”
“After the televised tragedies of 9/11 and Katrina, a Lloyd’s of London insurance executive wondered, ‘If government hands out checks, do people need insurance?’ He might further have asked: With government assuming the risk, why would businesses and homesteaders ever think twice about building in the path of future hurricanes?”
After discussing the concept of Federal assistance beginning with the great Mississippi flood of 1928, the author suggests:
“But maybe we could start being honest with ourselves. Let’s see in the budget of the U.S. government a realistic estimate of the now-unrecorded contingent liability that we taxpayers have assumed on behalf of hurricane-prone communities—or, for that matter, the earthquake risks that we hardly ever talk about.
“At the time of Katrina, Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution and Ed Liddy, then of Allstate , led just such a call. Their proposal was the despair of those of us who knew a competitive, private insurance market would do a superior job of sending proper risk signals. But it increasingly seems better than nothing—nothing being ever-bigger ad hoc federal expenditures to rebuild what natural disasters knock down, without serious examination of the taxpayer equities involved.
“Just maybe, once we have formalized these estimates and shocked ourselves at the risk we not only expose ourselves to as taxpayers, but the risk to life and limb we expose our fellow citizens to by encouraging them to build in dangerous places, our country might begin to rationalize its risk-taking with respect to predictable natural hazards.”
###################################################
via Watts Up With That?
September 25, 2017 at 07:26AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 