UPDATE: Republican Study Committee Chairman Steve Scalise’s anti-carbon tax amendment passed the House today by a vote of 237 to 176 including 12 democrats. Passage of the amendment marks the first time the House has gone on record opposing a carbon tax.

“President Obama’s plan to impose a tax on carbon would cause household electricity rates to skyrocket while destroying millions of American jobs,” Scalise said. “The House sent a strong bipartisan message to President Obama that a tax on carbon would devastate our economy and he needs to drop any idea of imposing this kind of radical regulation.”

Also, Thursday’s a subpoena came from House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, who said it’s been nearly two years since EPA promised to turn over the science it used to justify what Mr. Smith said were “costly” new regulations.

“The EPA should not base its regulations on secret data,” Mr. Smith said. “The EPA’s lack of cooperation contributes to the suspicion that the data sets do not support the agency’’s actions. The American people deserve all of the facts and have a right to know whether the EPA is using good science.”

Mr. Smith said Gina McCarthy, who was then deputy administrator and has since been approved as EPA administrator, promised to turn over the science data in 2011, but that the agency has failed to do so.

It was the science committee’s first subpoena in 21 years, Mr. Smith said.

--------

U.S. Closed for Business under Potential Ozone Regulations

Jack Gerard

Environmental benefits can be achieved without imposing massive costs that jeopardize job creation, economic growth, revenue generation and energy affordability. Yet that is just what many of the EPA’s current and proposed regulations threaten to do.

In 2008, the EPA approved new ozone standards of 75 parts per billion - the most stringent standards ever. Although these standards are only now starting to be implemented, the agency may lower the standards an additional 20 percent to 60 parts per billion in the coming months. These new standards could be the costliest EPA regulations ever:
97 percent of the population could be deemed out of compliance and subject to new emission reductions requirements.

Many communities could be forced to shut down business activity in a futile attempt to push ozone levels below background levels, stifling job creation and economic growth
Even pristine areas like Yellowstone National Park could be considered noncompliant due to naturally occurring levels of ozone.

Analysis of similar standards proposed and withdrawn in 2011 would have destroyed an estimated 7.3 million U.S. jobs and added $1 trillion in new regulatory costs per year between 2020 and 2030.

We’re already seeing reductions in ozone and particulate emissions under current standards, and these benefits will continue to accrue as the 2008 regulations are implemented. Since 1980, the amount of ground level ozone has decreased by 28 percent, while carbon dioxide emissions from energy dropped 12 percent between 2005 and 2012 to reach their lowest level since 1994.

Rather than propose unattainable new standards that are not justified under current health studies, EPA should determine reasonable controls for achieving the 2008 standards and give them a chance to work.

We’ve made great progress in improving our environmental performance. It’s possible to build on that progress without implementing unworkable standards that could do great damage to our economy while creating no discernible health benefits.

Enlarged

The house republicans are the only hope America has to avoid $8 gasoline and heating oil and an unprecedented economic crisis to go along with the daily growing list of scandals and disasters on Obama’s watch. Please call the house (202) 224-3121 and contact the democrats and republicans and encourage them to stand up to the EPA and the rest of Obama’s green goons. They may be on summer leave but you can leave messages. Contact them in your home state and tell them why it is the democrat leadership and the administration that has the science wrong. They need to hear from you.

---------

By Joseph D’Aleo, Icecap

In the process leading up to the EPA Endangerment Finding approval, I filed numerous comments that went into the record though they did not move the EPA off their position. Then worked with a great team of top leaders, scientists and lawyers on a science based Amicus brief to the DC Circuit Court. The liberal DC Circuit Court found in favor of the EPA but a minority opinion opened the door for a Cert petition to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS_ to review the DC court decision. The DC Circuit Court blocked the submission of the EPA’s own Inspector General’s report to the EPA chiding them for not doing its own scientific evaluation as required by the Information Quality Act.

Our top notch team of lawyers repackaged the arguments in an Amicus Brief to the SCOTUS, one of 9 such briefs. The EPA responded along with the NGOs (Sierra Club, World Wildlife Organization, etc) urging the court to ignore the science arguments we made.

We had argued the three lines of evidence the EPA built its whole case in made were all falsified by actual data. The warming had stopped, the changes and extremes in the climate predicted with that warming were not occurring and their models, never validated, were failing miserably. Without the warming and the results predicted, their entire house of cards had collapsed. 

EPA has its accomplices. To make claims about unprecedented warmth in recent decades, NOAA and NASA significantly modified the historical data with a major cooling of the previous warm blip in the 1930s. They couldn’t without detection modify the recent data to hide the current stasis and/or decline in global temperatures but could lower the past to make the recent data seem special. The liberal media was more than happy to hype every extreme weather event and the result as unprecedented. The universities purged the ranks of skeptics where possible and replaced them with environmental ‘scientists’ and other scientists more than willing to rake in big dollars as Eisenhower warned half a century ago. Jointly the scientists and universities were more than willing to accept some of the many tens of billions in grant bribes to build the case for their theory.  The engorged liberal universities require a tuition increases a multiple of inflation rate with tuition loan debt now exceeding $1 trillion. Then there are the labs and NGOs and phony groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and running tinker toy models and doing official looking reports that local and state politicians are using to spend billions of the state’s taxes to stop the rise of the sea (which data says will be just 6.7 inches the next century) and replace fossil fuels and hydropower with useless and unreliable wind and solar.

The message keeps morphing as forecasts fail - global warming becomes climate change which becomes climate disruption which is abandoned by focus on extremes. Even there when you look at the data it fails to demonstrate the claims made. But they are counting on the deafness to the truth by the liberal zealots and indifference of the low information voters.


Enlarged

Enlarged

Enlarged

Enlarged

Enlarged

The US Solicitor General, Department of Justice, and EPA attorneys filed their petition to the US Supreme Court requesting that it deny the petitions from the groups in which we and organizations such as SEPP participate asking for the court to review the decision by the US Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the EPA Endangerment Finding (EF) that greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), endanger public health or welfare.

The standard asserted in the petition is quite loose. “Although it found some ‘uncertainties’ in the scientific data, the EPA ‘determined that the body of scientific evidence compellingly supports “the finding that greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and public welfare by driving global climate change.”

Elsewhere the petition states:

“… EPA explained that the global warming by greenhouses gas emissions will produce an increase in heat-related deaths; an increase in respiratory illness and premature death relating to poor air quality; and increased risk of death, injury, and disease relating to extreme weather events; and an increase in food- and water-borne diseases.” It goes on to state: “greenhouse gas pollution is reasonably anticipated to endanger public welfare by causing ‘net adverse impacts on U.S. food production and agriculture, with the potential for significant disruptions on crop failure in the future’” by endanger[ing] U.S. forestry in both the near and long term’"…

Each one of these claims echoed by the administration are patently false. The president hopes to bypass congress and use the EPA to destroy the coal and fossil fuel industry and substitute renewables. Such an effort was tried and failed miserably in Europe and many have been abandoned as wind and solar have proved unreliable and caused energy costs to skyrocket leading to thousands of excess deaths in the brutal winters the last 5 years (not to mention the literal millions of birds, many endangered, and insect controlling bats) Ironically emissions have risen more rapidly as fossil fuel plants had to be used in less efficient back up modes for use when the wind stops blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

But you can expect more of the scare tactics like those used by our ideologue President in his shameful address on his climate plans filled with false claims and half truths and the false ads produced by the government subsidized American Lung Association (remember the infomercial and campaign ads with coughing child in the baby carriage near the capitol or child with oxygen masks) and the EPA itself claiming CARBON POLLUTION from fossil fuels is leading to increased asthma and has to be stopped.  Natural gas plants are clean and even coal plants have scrubbers and emit mainly water vapor and CO2. CO2 is not carbon pollution. It is plant fertilizer. Every breath you take exhales 40,000 ppm CO2 into air with just under 400 ppm so it is clear increasing 1 to 2 ppm per year in ambient air isn’t a health hazard. Particulates from burning wood or coal without scrubbers can cause issues as can ozone in smog, but both have declined for decades in the EPA’s own data, so if asthma is increasing it is for other reasons (tighter insulated homes, better survival rates for premature babies, increased pets in the home, smoking, etc).

Here is the analysis of both particulates and ozone trends for the Southern California LA County air quality district and then the national trend as determined by the EPA.


Enlarged

Enlarged

Enlarged

Enlarged
Please help us fight the EPA and NGO’s efforts to destroy America’s energy future and enable their regulatory assault on industry and on our economy to get the green light (now it is yellow). If the SCOTUS decides in September to hear the case, we will only have a matter of weeks to respond. We have the teams ready, we would like to fund their efforts. All the work so far has been pro bono. Donations are needed small and large. Use the donation button on the left. Small donations are appreciated. But corporate help is critical. You pay a little now to save a lot (including maybe your business) later. Contact us at frostdoc@aol.com to give us your contact information so we can tell you how you can donate to C3 or C4 efforts. 

The Making of An Extreme Event: Putting the Pieces Together

Randall Dole, Martin Hoerling, Arun Kuma, Jon Eischeid, Judith Perlwitz, Xiao-Wei Quan, George Kiladis, Robert Webb, Donald Murray, Mingyue Chen, Klaus Wolter, and Tao Zhang

NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, NOAA Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, MD, University of Colorado, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Boulder, Colorado

Abstract

We examine how physical factors spanning climate and weather contributed to record warmth over the central and eastern U.S. in March 2012, when daily temperature anomalies at many locations exceeded 20C. Over this region, approximately 1C warming in March temperatures has occurred since 1901. This long-term regional warming is an order-of-magnitude smaller than temperature anomalies observed during the event, indicating the most of the extreme warmth must be explained by other factors. Several lines of evidence strongly implicate natural variations as the primary cause for the extreme event.

The 2012 temperature anomalies had a close analogue in an exceptionally warm U.S. March occurring over 100 years earlier, providing observational evidence that an extreme event similar to March 2012 could be produced through natural variability alone. Coupled model forecasts and simulations forced by observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) show that forcing from anomalous SSTs increased the probability of extreme warm temperatures in March 2012 above that anticipated from the long-term warming trend. In addition, forcing associated with a strong Madden-Julian Oscillation further increased the probability for extreme U.S. warmth and provided important additional predictive information on the timing and spatial pattern of temperature anomalies.

Enlarged

Enlarged

The results indicate that the superposition of a strong natural variation similar to March 1910 on long-term warming of the magnitude observed would be sufficient to account for the record warm March 2012 U.S. temperatures. We conclude that the extreme warmth over the central and eastern U.S. in March 2012 resulted primarily from natural climate and weather variability, a substantial fraction of which was predictable.

Note: like March 2012 and March 1910, July 2012 was an outlier similar to July 1934, and 1901 on the warm side and July 2009 to 1992, 1950 and 1915 on the cold side.

Enlarged

--------

Arctic cold and snowstorm
Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Remember a year ago when few days of July ‘warmth’ with strong blocking over Greenland had the media abuzz. Last July a brief spell of temperatures in the mid 30s had caused some surface slush formation on top of the 1 to 1.5 mile thick Greenland ice. The NASA sensors merely color-coded the phase of the water: ice (white), mixed water and ice (rose) and none (land grey). Rose meant some surface liquid. It quickly refroze in a few days even before the flurry of news stories hyping it stopped.

Enlarged

You can see the ice at the summit was very much still in evidence.

Well a year later, an interesting opposite scenario with a deep, cold arctic low is bringing snow to the arctic and Greenland in late July.

The upper low is seen at 500mb and the cold air at 850mb.

See the snow forecast the next 8 days on the arctic ice and Greenland.

What about the arctic ice? Running well above last year and 2007. Strong polar systems with winds can move ice around and compact the ice or push it out of the arctic into the Atlantic so predictions of where we end up next month are still difficult. As I have posted, the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations control the ice extent. We have been in modes that favored the decline of ice since 1995 which will soon change.


Arctic Sea ice extent 30% or greater (DMI) Enlarged

Scott Doney’s testimony

Excerpts from Doney’s recent congressional testimony [link]

Rebuttal

Craig Idso has written comprehensive rebuttal to the NRDC film “Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification.” [link]

So what’s the story here? Are coral reefs really in their last decades of existence? Will the shells of other calcifying marine life also dissolve away during our lifetimes? The NRDC film certainly makes it appear that such is the case; but a little scientific sleuthing reveals nothing of substance in this regard. In fact, even a cursory review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals that an equally strong case, if not a more persuasive one, can be made for the proposition that the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will actually prove a boon to calcifying marine life. Sadly, however, the NRDC chose to present an extreme one-sided, propagandized view of ocean acidification; and in this critique we present the part of the story that they clearly don’t want you to know. [25 pages of text, 13 pages of references]

From the Conclusions:

In conclusion, based on the many real-world observations and laboratory experiments described above, it is clear that recent theoretical claims of impending marine species extinctions, due to increases in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration, have no basis in empirical reality. In fact, these unsupportable contentions are typically refuted by demonstrable facts. As such, the NRDC’s portrayal of CO2-induced ocean acidification as a megadisaster-in-the-making is seen, at best, to be a one-sided distortion of the truth or, at worst, a blatant attempt to deceive the public.

Surely, the NRDC and the scientists portrayed in their film should have been aware of at least one of the numerous peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic, or even a problematic, view of the effect of ocean acidification on calcifying marine organisms; and they should have shared that information with the public. If by some slim chance they were not aware, shame on them for not investing the time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for the biosphere. And if they did know the results of the studies we have discussed, no one should ever believe a single word they may utter or write in the future.

Finally, if there is a lesson to be learned from the materials presented in this document, it is that far too many predictions of CO2-induced catastrophes are looked upon as sure-to-occur, when real-world observations show such doomsday scenarios to be highly unlikely or even virtual impossibilities. The phenomenon of CO2-induced ocean acidification is no different. Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the bane of the biosphere; they are an invaluable boon to the planet’s many life forms.

JC comment:  So whose view of the ocean acidification is correct:  Doney’s or Idso’s?  In this instance, it is instructive for me to describe my own reasoning process, since I come to this topic with very little first hand knowledge, beyond understanding the basic chemistry of the problem.

When I saw Scott Doney listed as a witness for this hearing, I was very pleased, since he is a scientific heavy hitter on this subject.  However, upon reading the first page of his testimony, the following statement raised my skeptical hackles, especially since their was no evidence or reference to support this:

Today the surface ocean is almost 30% more acidic than it was in pre-industrial times.

I found Doney’s testimony to be highly normative, something that I am not a fan of in testimony by scientists.  I did a word search, looking for ‘uncertain’, ‘disagreement’, ‘debate’, ‘unknown’.  The only statements I found were:

Decisions should incorporate precautionary considerations to account for the fact that potential carbon dioxide thresholds are presently unknown for many aspects of ocean acidification.

The potential biological consequences due to acidification are slowly becoming clearer at the level of individual species, but substantial uncertainties remain particularly at the ecosystem level.

For these reasons, Doney’s testimony didn’t score too high on my credibility meter, in spite of my acknowledgement of his expertise and stature in the field.

I figured that there has to be another side to this story, so I did a quick Google search and spotted Idso’s document.  Idso’s document clearly states that there is another side to this story.  Idso’s approach is more credible IMO, since he acknowledges that there are two sides to the story, that at this point may be equally plausible.  I searched for the same 4 words; only spotted one use of ‘unknown’, so I am not sure how useful my little litmus test was.

The issue is this:  failure of the ‘mainstream’ experts to adequately discuss uncertainty and alternative viewpoints leaves a void to be filled by the likes of Idso, with the inadvertent effect of elevating Idso’s essay more than it probably deserves.

That said, I cannot personally judge whether Doney’s or Idso’s arguments are better scientifically, without digging into the primary literature myself; and even then I am not sure how confident I would be in my own ability to assess this.

Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax:

“...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth”

OK, so yesterday’s hearing really was entitled, “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now”. I like my title better.

In this exceedingly rare photo of me actually cracking a smile, note my subliminal shout out to the “Koch” brothers (whom I’ve never met, btw...I don’t even know what they do):
Spencer-EPW-testimony-7-18-2013

From the opening remarks made by the Democrats on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, apparently you can see climate change yourself just by looking in your backyard, or seeing how far from shore fishermen must go now to catch fish, or even (help me with the logic on this one) the fact that smoking causes cancer.

I just submitted my updated written testimony (Spencer_EPW_Written_Testimony) to include the following chart (Click for full size):
2000-yr-temperature-variations

This chart illustrates that, yes, we are currently warm, but not significantly warmer than the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or the Roman Warm Period (RWP). So how is it we know today’s warmth is human-caused, when the last two warm periods couldn’t have been caused by humans? Hmmm?

And if you want to hit me with a Hockey Stick, might I remind you that there are many more papers supporting the MWP and RWP than there are supporting the Hockey Stick’s slick revision of history?

Or does “consensus” only count when it supports your side?

What’s that you say? The hockey stick is now the “new consensus”? So a scientific consensus can be wrong, after all? Hmmm.

Hearing Post Mortem

The advertised star of the show was Heidi Cullen (aka “de-certify all TV meteorologists who don’t toe the line on global warming Heidi") who did an admirable job of presenting a litany of half-truths (hurricanes have increased [except in the last 7 years]; strong tornadoes have decreased [but she couldn’t bring her self to actually say that]; wildfire acres burned have increased dramatically [but the number of wildfires have decreased dramatically...all consistent with the USFS “let it burn” policy]; droughts and floods have increased [except NOAA’s charts say there is no change over the last 100 years], etc.).

Roger Pielke, Jr. was absolutely devastating in his testimony. Here’s a guy who claims to largely support the IPCC party line, even claiming increasing CO2 is having a “profound” effect on the climate system, yet he chides those who would try to use severe weather as evidence of climate change. The evidence simply isn’t there. Very Lomborgian, sans the sexy T-shirt.

During my testimony (in the Flash video, starting about 3:04 for my oral, and 3:23 for follow-up questions/interrogation) I decided to depart from my usual practice of reading of a prepared text to just winging it. There is VERY little you can cover in 5 minutes, and there were a number of things I would have liked to have said, but there simply isn’t time… that’s just the way committee hearings go.

All of the senators were moving in an out of the hearing room for a floor vote, so there were only 2-4 senators present at any given time.

Thanks to all of those who have posted and e-mailed supportive comments...I really appreciate it. Getting flogged in public by Sen. Boxer (last time I testified) and Sen. Whitehouse (this time) is not one of my favorite activities. But I warned the staffers I wasn’t going to be pushed around this time without some pushing back. I think we did OK for a hearing where the witness numbers were stacked against us.

--------

This from Forbes:

BOXER’S OWN EXPERTS CONTRADICT OBAMA ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Expert witnesses called by Sen. Barbara Boxer to testify during Senate Environment and Public Works hearings Thursday contradicted a key assertion made by President Barack Obama on climate change.

Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser less than a month before directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to impose costly new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, Obama said, “we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.”

“I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change,” Obama added.

During Thursday’s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?”

Nobody said a word. After several seconds of deafening silence, Weather Channel meteorologist and global warming activist Heidi Cullen attempted to change the subject. Cullen said our focus should be on longer time periods rather than the 10-year period mentioned by Obama. When pressed, however, she contradicted Obama’s central assertion and said warming has slowed, not accelerated.

Several minutes later, Sen. Jeff Sessions returned to the topic and sought additional clarity. Sessions recited Obama’s quote claiming accelerating global warming during the past 10 years and asked, “Do any of you support that quote?”

Again, a prolonged and deafening silence ensued. Neither Cullen nor any of the other experts on the panel spoke a word, not even in an attempt to change the subject.

Boxer may have envisioned her high-profile global warming hearings as an opportunity to build momentum for congressional or EPA action to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, the very global warming activists she called to serve as expert witnesses delivered a crushing blow to Obama’s central justification for expensive new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.

-------
Roger Pielke Jr.’s testimony was also powerful (here)

‘It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases’

Globally, weather-related losses ($) have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%) and insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.

* Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970 (when data allows for a global perspective).

* Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.

* Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.

* Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.” Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

* The absolute costs of disasters will increase significantly in coming years due to greater wealth and populations in locations exposed to extremes. Consequent, disasters will continue to be an important focus of policy, irrespective of the exact future course of climate change.’

----------

New article in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models
Hockey Schtick

Here is why:

New article in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models

Enlarged

An article published today in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models to predict climate a mere 5 years into the future, much less a century from now:

“The dramatic warming predicted after 2008 has yet to arrive.”

“It’s fair to say that the real world warmed even less than our forecast suggested,” [modeller] Smith says. “We don’t really understand at the moment why that is."”

“Although I have nothing against this endeavour as a research opportunity, the papers so far have mostly served as a ‘disproof of concept’,” says Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt says that these efforts are “a little misguided”. He argues that it is difficult to attribute success or failure to any particular parameter because the inherent unpredictability of weather and climate is built into both the Earth system and the models. “It doesn’t suggest any solutions,” he says.

“Because the climate does not usually change drastically from one year to the next, the model is bound to start off predicting conditions that are close to reality. But that effect quickly wears off as the real climate evolves. If this is the source of the models’ accuracy, that advantage fades quickly after a few years.”

“Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says that it could be a decade or more before this research really begins to pay off in terms of predictive power, and even then climate scientists will be limited in what they can say about the future.”

Once again, modellers attempt to explain away their failures due to the dubious excuse of Trenberth’s “missing heat” sinking undetected to the bottom of the ocean.

-----------

University scientists and BOM lie carried on Live Science (Lie Science?)

Global Warming Worsened Australia’s Record Hot Summer

Human-caused global warming played a role in making this past summer Australia’s hottest on record, a new study suggests.

The summer of 2012-2013 probably won’t retain its title for long; researchers say record-breaking scorching summers are five times more likely to occur now in Australia due to climate change.

“Our research has shown that, due to greenhouse gas emissions, these types of extreme summers will become even more frequent and more severe in the future,” study author Sophie Lewis of the University of Melbourne said in a statement.

Australia’s summer occurs from December to February, during the Northern Hemisphere’s winter. In those three months between 2012 and 2013, the country’s average temperature was 83.5 degrees Fahrenheit (28.6 degrees Celsius), 2 degrees F (1 degree C) above normal, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology. It broke the previous summer temperature record, set in the 1997-1998 season, by 0.18 degree F (0.1 degree C).

Unusually high temperatures gripped nearly the entire country, with just three percent of Australia experiencing below-normal temperatures. Bush fires and flooding, combined with the extreme heat, prompted Australians to call it the “angry summer.”

Lewis and colleagues looked at climate observations and more than 90 climate model simulations of summer temperatures in Australia over the past 100 years. They found that human influences likely stoked the record heat during a summer when Australians may have otherwise expected cooler temperatures.

“This extreme summer is not only remarkable for its record-breaking nature but also because it occurred at a time of weak La Nina to neutral conditions, which generally produce cooler summers,” Karoly said. “Importantly, our research shows the natural variability of El Nino Southern Oscillation is unlikely to explain the recent record temperatures.” The El Nino Southern Oscillation is a climate cycle that can impact weather and climate systems around the globe; it’s El Nino phases features warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean, while the La Nina phase features cooler-than-normal temperatures.

Climate describes weather that occurs over long periods, such as decades, centuries or millennia, and scientists are typically quick to point out that no individual storm, heat wave or unusual season can be directly blamed on climate change. But researchers have said that global warming can make some events, on average, more severe and more frequent than they would have been in the past.

The research has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (once a reputable journal).

The satellites tell the real story. Note how last year was 5th coldest summer. Karoly is a warmist ‘scientist’ once spreading the big lie in the US. Good riddance.

Enlarged

Data in Australia and New Zealand have been manipulated to produce warming where none exists.

Enlarged

Enlarged

Update: The Whitehouse releases a laughable state by state climate impact report
Posted on June 26, 2013 by Anthony Watts

This is verbatim from the White House Blog today, see my comments here.

-------------------

As for the action plan, there were two documents provided to the press: a fact sheet/summary and the full plan. Both are available as PDF’s at the end of this essay. I see a lot of “pie in the sky” language in the plan document, with little in the way of concrete ideas. It seems just another expansion of “big government” bureaucracy with little tangible benefit to the American citizen.

This is by no means a complete point by point commentary, I’m just touching on things that caught my eye. Readers are encouraged to submit responses to specific points in the comments section below.

THE GOOD:

1. There is no carbon tax/excise tax increase on gasoline that I can find. Some people thought there may be a plan to tack on some sort of additional carbon tax for gasoline, or some pitch for the excise tax to be increased by congress.

2. The claim is made that “the President’s plan will help American families cut energy waste, lowering their gas and utility bills.” A worthy goal to be sure, but, knowing that government doesn’t do anything well or efficiently, I seriously doubt we’ll see lower utility bills. I expect the opposite.

3. The plan “invests to strengthen our roads, bridges, and shorelines so we can better protect people’s homes, businesses, and way of life from severe weather.” Hurricane Sandy would have had less impact if NYC had better sea defenses, so building up these long ignored issues is a no-brainer. But, at what cost and from what funding?

4. The plan “Commits to partnering with industry and stakeholders to develop fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to save families money at the pump and further reduce reliance on foreign oil and fuel consumption post-2018”. On the surface this seems good, because better fuel efficiency is always a good thing, but at the same time this might translate into an unreachable draconian CAFE standard that automakers don’t even have technology for now.

5. The plan calls for “investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels and emerging nuclear technologies - including small modular reactors - to clean coal.” Biofuels are a waste of effort and money IMHO, small modular nukes sound good, as does clean coal. I like the clean coal part if only for the irritant factor it will be for the greens.

6. They haven’t declared fossil fuels to be evil. The plan says “Spurring Investment in Advanced Fossil Energy Projects: In the coming weeks, the Department of Energy will issue a Federal Register Notice announcing a draft of a solicitation that would make up to $8 billion in (self-pay) loan guarantee authority available for a wide array of advanced fossil energy projects under its Section 1703 loan guarantee program.” Again, that will tweak the greens.

7. There’s no mention of the KXL pipeline at all, but there is this bit of language:

“In addition, when it comes to the oil and gas sector, investments to build and upgrade gas pipelines will not only put more Americans to work, but also reduce emissions and enhance economic productivity.” The document then goes on to mention the Bakken Oil field as an example, but seems not limited to this.

My take on this: I think what is going on here with this document is that Obama is throwing environmentalists a bone, especially with coal power plant restrictions mentioned, while at the same time telegraphing that KXL is likely to happen. As I’ve said before, the Canadian Tar Sands oil will get burned someplace, and the USA may as well take advantage of the opportunity.

8. Launching a Climate Data Initiative: Consistent with the President’s May 2013 Executive Order on Open Data and recognizing that freely available open government data can fuel entrepreneurship, innovation, scientific discovery, and public benefits the Administration is launching a Climate Data Initiative to leverage extensive federal climate relevant data to stimulate innovation and private sector entrepreneurship in support of national climate change preparedness.

This sounds good, but I’m not sure it will do anything to improve the already shoddy surface temperature data. For example, NCDC spent millions on the Climate Reference Network, but has yet to even mention it in their monthly State of the Climate Reports.

9. Many of these things will take years to implement, and by then we might have some sanity in the White House. What can be done by executive order can be undone by executive order.

10. This plan is likely to put backlashes in place on Democrats from the citizenry, thus perhaps enabling a power shift in the Senate.

THE BAD:

1. More hand-outs for an already bloated climate science culture.

Developing Actionable Climate Science: The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget provides more than $2.7 billion, largely through the 13-agency U.S. Global Change Research Program, to increase understanding of climate-change impacts, establish a public-private partnership to explore risk and catastrophe modeling, and develop the information and tools needed by decision-makers to respond to both long-term climate change impacts and near-term effects of extreme weather.

Apparently Obama never got the memo that climate models aren’t working.

2. More regulations on existing power plants, as if they don’t have enough already. This will translate into higher electricity prices everywhere.

President Obama is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Environmental Protection Agency to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants. This work will build on the successful first-term effort to develop greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.

Great, I can just see the warning sticker on my next new car. Warning: This vehicle emits dangerous carbon pollution known to the Federal Government to cause bad weather. A tax is paid at purchase to mitigate your contribution to bad weather by daring to own this vehicle.

3. Pie in the sky savings.

Establishing a New Goal for Energy Efficiency Standards: In President Obama’s first term, the Department of Energy established new minimum efficiency standards for dishwashers, refrigerators, and many other products. Through 2030, these standards will cut consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars and save enough electricity to power more than 85 million homes for two years. To build on this success, the Administration is setting a new goal: Efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings set in the first and second terms combined will reduce carbon pollution by at least 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 equivalent to nearly one-half of the carbon pollution from the entire U.S. energy sector for one year while continuing to cut families’ energy bills.

Yeah, people are going to just rush right out and buy new appliances in this economy. That’s the ticket. Better efficiency is a good thing, but I think the adoption rate will be slower than they think.

4. Outright lies. (from the fact sheet)

“In the President’s first term, the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development completed efficiency upgrades in more than one million homes, saving many families more than $400 on their heating and cooling bills in the first year alone.”

Really? Where? In the greenest state of the union, California, my electricity bill has increased since 2008. I recently put solar on my home not as a climate hedge, but as a hedge against skyrocketing electricity rates.

5. The trucking industry is going to get hit again. This will translate into higher cost for goods.

During the President’s second term, the Administration will once again partner with industry leaders and other key stakeholders to develop post-2018 fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to further reduce fuel consumption through the application of advanced cost-effective technologies and continue efforts to improve the efficiency of moving goods across the United States.

6. Fast-tracking green energy, more pie in the sky since just about every green initiative and handout in Obama’s first term has ended in failure.

Accelerating Clean Energy Permitting: In 2012 the President set a goal to issue permits for 10 gigawatts of renewables on public lands by the end of the year. The Department of the Interior achieved this goal ahead of schedule and the President has directed it to permit an additional 10 gigawatts by 2020. Since 2009, the Department of Interior has approved 25 utility-scale solar facilities, nine wind farms, and 11 geothermal plants, which will provide enough electricity to power 4.4 million homes and support an estimated 17,000 jobs.

Green jobs aren’t generally like real jobs, there’s usually a handout or subsidy tied to them, and they tend to be transient, because after the solar field or wind farm is built, what then?

7. No comprehensive nuclear power plan, no mention of a Thorium reactor initiative, much like China is doing. A Thorium power initiative would go a long way to having safe, clean, and reliable electricity infrastructure without this nuclear waste issues that plague Uranium based reactors. Instead, they are chasing after wasteful biofuels initiatives which will do little. Have a bad crop year? Sorry, you can’t fill up with biodiesel.

8. Giveaways.

Mobilizing Climate Finance: International climate finance is an important tool in our efforts to promote low-emissions, climate-resilient development. We have fulfilled our joint developed country commitment from the Copenhagen Accord to provide approximately $30 billion of climate assistance to developing countries over FY 2010-FY 2012. The United States contributed approximately $7.5 billion to this effort over the three year period.

9. Higher prices at the pump.

President Obama is calling for the elimination of U.S. fossil fuel tax subsidies in his Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 budget, and we will continue to collaborate with partners around the world toward this goal.

This will of course get passed on to consumers.

THE UGLY:

1. Multiple citations of the crazy idea that carbon dioxide is “carbon pollution”, when it is essential to almost all life on Earth.

The phrase “carbon pollution” is mentioned 21 times.

2. Equating carbon dioxide to mercury and arsenic, which is just nuts.

Cut Carbon Pollution in America: In 2012, U.S. carbon emissions fell to the lowest level in two decades even as the economy continued to grow. To build on this progress, the Obama Administration is putting in place tough new rules to cut carbon pollution just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic so we protect the health of our children and move our economy toward American-made clean energy sources that will create good jobs and lower home energy bills.

3. Elevating a fake crisis.

While this progress is encouraging, climate change is no longer a distant threat we are already feeling its impacts across the country and the world. Last year was the warmest year ever in the contiguous United States and about one-third of all Americans experienced 10 days or more of 100-degree heat. The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15 years. Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our children will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse. And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts have put farmers out of business, which is already raising food prices dramatically.

No mention or recognition of the siting issues and adjustments that lead to these temperatures:

Enlarge

The claim of “The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15 years.” isn’t supported by the state all time high temperature records, it only exists in the highly adjusted national average.

This graph by Alabama State Climatologist, Dr. John Christy:

Enlarged

And asthma attacks? Really?  Pollution levels are down since the 1970’s. Unless you live in China, air pollution is now far less than what it once was.

Summary:

I’m not impressed at all with the Obama plan. It lacks real vision, and seems written mainly to appease activist groups. While there are some glimmers of positive things in it, the lack of a real way forward (solar, biofuels, and wind aren’t it) combined with new restrictions can only mean higher energy prices in our future, most of it due to government meddling in the free market.

Like most everything from this president, it is likely to be mostly lip service and tied up in legal battles for years. By that time Obama will no longer be President, and we’ll be left to wrestle with the consequences.

The documents: (Thanks to Marc Morano of CFACT for getting access to these documents.)

Fact Sheet(PDF)

President’s Climate Action Plan (PDF)