Energy

“King Coal” is not dead yet

Many countries are ignoring the (false) principles of the Paris Climate Accord and instead going with what works to produce reliable electricity.

Here are some recent headlines about generating electricity by burning coal:

Africa to double coal fired power by 2030 (link)

India meets climate goals early by doubling coal, and keeping it as main energy source for next 30 years (link)

In 2020 China built three times more coal power than the rest of the world (link)

Un-Greening: Mexico gives up on renewables, revives coal industry (link)

The UK’s “End of Coal” lasted a whole week (link)

Colombia announces coal support for decades to come (link)

Coal rescues Germany from its renewable energy folly (link)

France relights coal power plants to keep the lights on (link)

Coal’s Share Of Global Energy Supply Has Been Increasing For 50 Years, IEA Reports (link)

And:

Will France Leave the Paris Agreement in 2022?

France is failing to meet its goals under the Paris Climate Accord. Depending who is elected the new French president in 2022, France may dump the accord altogether. (Read more)

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is employing climate and energy “czars” who appear to be woefully ignorant of both subjects. Instead, in my opinion, their real goal is power. The Biden administration’s approach to both energy and corona virus could be summed up as follows:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken

But President Biden claims that climate change is “an existential threat” and any view to the contrary must be eliminated, see:

When Climate Alarmism Meets Cancel Culture 

by Bjorn Lomborg

The academic and activist faction that sets the threatening tone in the climate conversation wants dissent eliminated, leaving themselves the only ones authorized to tell you how scared you should be. To avoid wasting trillions, we should not let them. (Read more)

For the real story on climate and energy, read my posts:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

As I wrote in 2015:

The “social cost of carbon”(SCC) is a computer-generated artifice that puts a dollar figure on the alleged environmental and economic damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. This number is supposed to allow bureaucrats to offset the alleged damage through regulation and taxes, i.e., it will increase the cost of electricity and gasoline. The computer models fail to take into account the benefits of carbon dioxide, such as making our crops more robust and more water efficient. Also, there is absolutely no physical evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions have any significant role in controlling global climate. (Read more on Wryheat)

Recent articles on SCC:

Why ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Is Most Useless Number You’ve Never Heard Of

by Kevin Dayaratna

Dubbed by some as “the most important number you’ve never heard of,” the social cost of carbon is defined as the economic damages associated with a ton of carbon dioxide emissions across a particular time horizon. That metric, relied upon heavily by the Obama administration, has been used as the basis for regulatory policy in the energy sector of the economy. Three sets of statistical models are used to estimate the social cost of carbon. Social cost of carbon estimates are based on very questionable assumptions regarding the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions, naive projections reaching 300 years into the future, and ignorance of discount rate recommendations by the Office of Management and Budget regarding cost-benefit analysis. Our results tell the same story: Assumptions made by modelers can drastically change the purported estimates and thus beef up the damages as much as they want. (Read more)

Social Cost of Carbon May Be Social Benefit of Carbon, Economist Finds

by James Taylor (commenting on Dauaratna’s paper)

The Biden administration made headlines by imposing a “social cost of carbon” – to be factored into federal cost-benefit analysis – that is more than six times higher than the social cost of carbon determined by the Trump administration. However, economist and data scientist Kevin Dayaratna published an article documenting that the alleged social “cost” of carbon may actually be a social “benefit” of carbon. In an article for the Daily Signal, Dayaratna observes that any accurate assessment of the social cost of carbon must include social benefits as well as merely social harms. Importantly, Dayaratna observes that any sound cost/benefit assessment must take into account “positive agricultural feedback effects associated with carbon dioxide emissions.”

“In fact, we found that under very reasonable assumptions, those benefits can outweigh the costs, suggesting that the social cost of carbon can indeed be negative,” Dayaratna writes. “The policy implication of a negative social cost of carbon is that the government should not be taxing carbon dioxide emissions, but should be subsidizing it instead.” (Source)

See also: The Social Cost of Carbon Fantasy and

Biden’s Arbitrary Social Cost of Carbon: What You Need to Know

12 State Attorneys General Sue Biden Admin Over Its Climate Policies The lawsuit said Biden’s executive order enables regulatory agencies to place restrictions on nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives in order to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

For a tutorial on climate read:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

White House Brochures on Climate (There is no climate crisis)

[Wryheat note, the brochures linked to below were intended to be posted on the White House website, but since they are politically incorrect, the new administration has banned them. If the original links don’t work, click the “alternate link.”]

[UPDATE: Jan. 13, 2021:

 These briefs demonstrate that climate science has glaring deficiencies as a science when it is used to declare that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. These deficiencies are unacceptable to any student of the scientific method.

Legates and Ryan Maue, an author of one of the briefs, were promptly removed from their positions by OSTP director and Trump’s science advisor Kelvin Droegemeier was fired. They returned to their positions at NOAA. Applying the scientific method to climate science is not permitted in Washington, regardless of political party. It is clear that conformity conquers all.]

January 8th, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. 

Late last year, several of us were asked by David Legates (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) to write short, easily understandable brochures that supported the general view that there is no climate crisis or climate emergency, and pointing out the widespread misinformation being promoted by alarmists through the media.

Below are the resulting 9 brochures, and an introduction by David. Mine is entitled, “The Faith-Based Nature of Human Caused Global Warming”.  

Wryheat note: These brochures never made it to the White House website and have been removed from Dr. Spencer’s website as well. Fortunately, I saved the originals. Note that these brochures are no longer official White House publications.

Introduction(Dr. David Legates)

Alternate link: White House Brochures on Climate (There is no climate crisis) « Roy Spencer, PhD

The Sun Climate Connection(Drs. Michael Connolly, Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon)

Alternate link: WH brochure The-Sun-Climate-Connection

Systematic Problems in the Four National Assessments of Climate Change Impacts on the US(Dr. Patrick Michaels)

Alternate link: WH brochure Systematic-Problems-in-the-Four-National-Assessments-of-Climate-Change-Impacts-on-the-US

Record Temperatures in the United States(Dr. John Christy)

Alternate link: WH brochure record temperatures

Radiation Transfer(Dr. William Happer)

Alternate link: WH brochure Radiation-Transfer

Is There a Climate Emergency(Dr. Ross McKitrick)

Alternate link: WH brochure is there a climate emergency

Hurricanes and Climate Change(Dr. Ryan Maue)

Alternate link: WH brochure Hurricanes-and-Climate-Change

Climate, Climate Change, and the General Circulation(Dr. Anthony Lupo)

Alternate link: WH brochure Climate-Climate-Change-and-the-General-Circulation

Can Computer Models Predict Climate(Dr. Christopher Essex)

Alternate link: WH brochure Can-Computer-Models-Predict-Climate

The Faith-Based Nature of Human-Caused Global Warming(Dr. Roy Spencer)

Alternate link: WH brochure The-Faith-Based-Nature-of-Human-Caused-Global-Warming

See also my Wryheat post: A Review of the state of Climate Science

 

Bjorn Lomborg on how to deal with climate change

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think-tank that researches the smartest ways to do good.

His new paper: Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies

Abstract:

Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today’s welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.

Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance, the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency and has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity, while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years.

Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.

Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP.

Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.

Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more. The IPCC’s two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 and the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world, but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today’s poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided.

Using carbon taxes, an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions and reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.75°C. This will cost $18 trillion, but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off. *

The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper. This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent.

More effective climate policies can help the world do better. The current climate discourse leads to wasteful climate policies, diverting attention and funds from more effective ways to improve the world.

This article will outline how to establish a rational climate policy in the context of many other, competing global issues. Read full paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 

*Wryheat comment: I disagree with Lomborg’s stance on “carbon taxes” because where they have been imposed show that they fail to deliver advertised benefits, see:

Carbon Tax Failures – Lessons from Australia and Germany

See also:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Fortuitous Link Between CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth (video)

Is Rising Atmospheric CO2 Causing Dangerous Global Warming? (video)

Many people are concerned about the potential impacts of rising levels of atmospheric CO2. For years they have been bombarded with claims that unless its concentration is slowed or even reduced, dangerous global warming will ensue, producing all sorts of undesirable consequences with little to no positive effects. Watch this video to lean why this scenario is unlikely to occur and why CO2 is not the all-important driver of temperature that climate alarmists make it out to be.

Tucson City Council and the “Climate Emergency”

On September, 9, 2020, the Tucson City Council unanimously passed a very politically correct resolution that declares a “climate emergency” and vows that Tucson will become “carbon neutral” by 2030. You can read the entire 14-page resolution here. In my opinion, this quixotic resolution demonstrates the incredible ignorance of the council on matters of climate and energy. So far, I have not seen any figures on what this quest will cost the taxpayers.

The first eight pages of the resolution contain the “whereas” clauses citing the reasons for the resolution, most of which are political propaganda that have been scientifically debunked.

For instance: “WHEREAS, in April 2016 world leaders from 175 countries recognized the threat of climate change and the urgent need to combat it by signing the Paris Agreement, agreeing to keep global warming “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C;”

Debunked: If the Paris Agreement were to be fully implemented by the whole world it will cost only $12.7 Trillion and prevent global warming of 0.17°C by 2100. (Source)

See also: Who Is Afraid of Two Degrees of Warming?s (We’ve been there and done that already.)

The “be it further resolved” section begins on page 9. These are what the Council hopes to do.

A sample: “…the City of Tucson commits to a citywide urgent climate mobilization effort to reverse global warming and the ecological crisis, which, with appropriate financial and regulatory assistance from local, state and federal authorities, reduces citywide greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible towards carbon neutrality by 2030; immediately initiates an effort to safely draw down carbon from the atmosphere through massive tree planting…and the Tucson Million Trees campaign. ” Where will the water come from? One of the “whereases” is to reduce water use.

The effort will be very, very politically correct: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Tucson recognizes that the full participation, inclusion, support, and leadership of community organizations, faith communities, youth, labor organizations, academic institutions, businesses, non-profits, Indigenous groups, and racial, gender, family, immigrant, and disability justice organizations and other allies are integral to the climate emergency response and mobilization efforts;”

 

For some real science, see my blog article: A Review of the state of Climate Science

This will give you an overview of climate issues and provide links to more detailed articles.

Why Wind and Solar Generation of Electricity Fail – California learns the hard way

The Science and Public Policy Project (SEPP) publishes a weekly newsletter (on Mondays) that review the week’s happenings in energy and climate. The newsletter is called “The Week That Was” (TWTW). The often 20+ pages provide commentary and links to many papers. You can get the newsletter in PDF form from SEPP at http://www.sepp.org/ .

The newsletter is also published at https://wattsupwiththat.com/ on Mondays. See the August 22 issue here.

The following are comments by Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP):

I’m shocked! Shocked! To protect the energy system which provides electric power for most of the state, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) was forced to create rolling blackouts during unusually hot days this past week. Immediately the chief executive of the state, Governor Gavin Newsom began blaming others for these needed actions, sending a letter to CAISO and the Public Utility Commission. According to the state constitution, the Commission “consists of 5 members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate, a majority of the membership concurring, for staggered 6-year terms.” CAISO has no authority over the Commission.

Newsom’s letter claimed: “These blackouts, which occurred without prior warning or enough time for preparation, are unacceptable and unbefitting of the nation’s largest and most innovative state,” and he later declared “This cannot stand.”

For years, CAISO has been warning anyone who will listen of the dangers of relying too heavily on unreliable renewables, particularly solar power, which requires rapid increases in reliable power in the late afternoon of sunny days when the sun goes down. These power outages are a result of legislative and executive errors from failure to recognize the serious damage that relying on untrustworthy power will do.

To illustrate the risks involved, CAISO used its Duck Chart [presented in the links below] showing the risk of overgeneration from solar power during the middle of the day as compared with the net load and the rapid ramp-up needed to meet the net load in the early evening. From 2012 to 2020, each year the belly of the beast descended, showing the overgeneration risk increased, and the ramp-up needed from reliable generation increased. As estimated on March 31, for 2020 the ramp need was about 13,000 megawatts in three hours – about one-half of the maximum net load (consumption or demand) which occurs around 8 pm.

Providing such ramp-up is highly inefficient. If realized in time, hydro-electric can do it, but the cost is excessive wear on heavy turbines. Pumped hydro storage can do it, but the power needs to be replenished daily, something that cannot be assured if the primary sources of power are unreliable solar or wind. The likely choice is gas turbines which can ramp-up in about 15 minutes. But these are far less efficient than modern natural gas combined cycle (NGCC). Straight gas turbines have about 35% to 44% efficiency, depending on the model, its age, and the amount of ramping up and down it has to do. The efficiency diminishes when run at variable speeds. Thanks to continued innovation, the efficiency of NGCC is exceeding 60% Thanks to continued innovation, the efficiency of NGCC is exceeding 60%.

Blackouts in California have provided a stark example of how green ideology has so blinded some government officials that they ignore stark warnings that their policies are leading to economic disasters. There is no magic technology or pixie dust that can make unreliable solar and wind reliable. Government officials who claim the problems have been solved are irresponsible.

While the California officials have been congratulating themselves on green power, as Steve Goreham notes, from 2008 to 2017 the state had the most power outages of any state, 4297, more than 2.5 times the number of the next highest state, Texas. And, as Robert Bryce notes some of the highest electricity rates in the country, “19.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is 47% higher than the national average of about 13 cents per kilowatt-hour.”

Destabilizing Wind: As discussed above, the Duck Curve illustrates how overreliance on solar power can destabilize the grid, especially on hot, sunny days with evening approaching. The question is, does wind power have similar weaknesses? In a presentation titled “The Storage Delusion” at the annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) physics Professor emeritus Howard Hayden shows that it does and explains why.

Wind power can ramp up and down very quickly and unpredictably, based on wind speed and unrelated to time of day. This can destabilize the grid without warning. Thus, a grid with a high percentage of wind power is subject to not only sudden drops in power, but also rapid increases requiring equally rapid decreases in conventional power. It is exceedingly difficult to keep the grid stable with a lot of wind power on it.

To illustrate the weaknesses of solar and wind, Hayden asks, Can you buy electricity from it at midnight or when the wind does not blow? The answers are obvious. But usually advocates claim you can store it, or the wind is blowing somewhere. The latter response is foolish, one cannot build wind turbines everywhere, and the cost of providing transmission lines to carry it to wherever it may be needed is prohibitive.

In addressing storage, Hayden shows that the only proven storage on a utility scale is pumped-hydro storage. As for other types, most hydrogen comes from natural gas, creating CO2, which contradicts the goal of avoiding creating CO2. Compressed air has been tried but has not been well received. The earliest system, Huntort CAES was created in Germany in 1978.

As Hayden states, flywheels just spin and are excellent for brief backup in data centers and electronic manufacturing such as computer chips until other generating systems such as diesel can be brought online.  They are certainly not grid scale. Capacitors are unsuitable on a grid scale, and a solar/molten-salt scheme has been tried in Nevada and failed.

All backup and storage systems involve a loss in energy. Hayden uses an estimate of the loss from pumped storage which was based on a dated (not clear) table by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA’s most recent estimate of loss in a closed system where water is pumped uphill is from 15 to 30%. Discussed in the June 13 TWTW, the largest pumped-storage facility in the world, Bath County Pumped Storage Station, in Virginia, reports an operating loss of 20%.

As presented by Hayden, wind and solar cannot be considered reliable forms of electricity generation, and except for pumped-hydro storage, energy storage is a delusion. Electricity storage is only in batteries which are not feasible on a utility scale. Until this problem is addressed, deployment of wind and solar will continue to be unreliable and a waste of resources. Please note that Howard Hayden is a director of SEPP.

Click the links above to read more.

 

 

 

 

The Case for Fossil Fuels

Below is an excerpt from a large study: “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” by  Alex Epstein, Center for Industrial Progress.

Read the full study here, 11 pages.

What does it mean to be moral?
This is an involved philosophical question, but for our purposes I will say: an activity is moral if it is fundamentally beneficial to human life.

By that standard, is the fossil fuel industry moral? The answer to that question is a resounding yes. By producing the most abundant, affordable, reliable energy in the world, the fossil fuel industry makes every other industry more productive—and it makes every individual more productive and thus more prosperous, giving him a level of opportunity to pursue happiness that previous generations couldn’t even dream of. Energy, the fuel of technology, is opportunity—the opportunity to use technology to improve every aspect of life. Including our environment.

Any animal’s environment can be broken down into two categories: threats and resources. (For human beings, “resources” includes a broad spectrum of things, including natural beauty.) To assess the fossil fuel industry’s impact on our environment, we simply need to ask: What is its impact on threats? What is its impact on resources? The moral case against fossil fuels argues that the industry makes our environment more threatening and our resources more scarce.

But if we look at the big-picture facts, the exact opposite is true. The fossil fuel industry makes our environment far safer and creates new resources out of once-useless raw materials.

Let’s start with threats. Schoolchildren for the last several generations have been taught to think of our natural environment as a friendly, stable place—and our main environmental contribution is to mess it up and endanger ourselves in the process. Not so. Nature does not give us a healthy environment to live in—it gives us an environment full of organisms eager to kill us and natural forces that can easily overwhelm us.

It is only thanks to cheap, plentiful, reliable energy that we live in an environment where the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat will not make us sick, and where we can cope with the often hostile climate of Mother Nature.  Energy is what we need to build sturdy homes, to purify water, to produce huge amounts of fresh food, to generate heat and air-conditioning, to irrigate deserts, to dry malaria-infested swamps, to build hospitals, and to manufacture pharmaceuticals, among many other things. And those of us who enjoy exploring the rest of nature should never forget that oil is what enables us to explore to our heart’s content, which preindustrial people didn’t have the time, wealth, energy, or technology to do.

The energy we get from fossil fuels is particularly valuable for protecting ourselves from the climate. The climate is inherently dangerous (and it is always changing, whether we influence the change or not). Energy and technology have made us far safer from it. The data here are unambiguous. In the last 80 years, as CO2 emissions have risen from an atmospheric concentration of .03% to .04%, climate-related deaths have declined 98%. Take drought-related deaths, which have declined by 99.98%. This has nothing to do with a friendly or unfriendly climate, it has to do with the oil and gas industry, which fuels high-energy agriculture as well as natural gas-produced fertilizer, and which fuels drought relief convoys. Fossil fuels make the planet dramatically safer. And dramatically richer in resources.

Mines, Minerals, and “Green” Energy: A Reality Check

Mines, Minerals, and “Green” Energy: A Reality Check
by Mark P. Mills, Manhattan Institute
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As policymakers have shifted focus from pandemic challenges to economic recovery, infrastructure plans are once more being actively discussed, including those relating to energy. Green energy advocates are doubling down on pressure to continue, or even increase, the use of wind, solar power, and electric cars. Left out of the discussion is any serious consideration of the broad environmental and supply-chain implications of renewable energy.

This paper turns to a different reality: all energy-producing machinery must be fabricated from materials extracted from the earth. No energy system, in short, is actually “renewable,” since all machines require the continual mining and processing of millions of tons of primary materials and the disposal of hardware that inevitably wears out. Compared with hydrocarbons, green machines entail, on average, a 10-fold increase in the quantities of materials extracted and processed to produce the same amount of energy.

Among the material realities of green energy:
Building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building machines using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy to society.

A single electric car contains more cobalt than 1,000 smartphone batteries; the blades on a single wind turbine have more plastic than 5 million smartphones; and a solar array that can power one data center uses more glass than 50 million phones.

Replacing hydrocarbons with green machines under current plans—never mind aspirations for far greater expansion—will vastly increase the mining of various critical minerals around the world. For example, a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials. Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car “consumes” five pounds of earth. Using an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.

Oil, natural gas, and coal are needed to produce the concrete, steel, plastics, and purified minerals used to build green machines. The energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one barrel of oil.

By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.
(Download full report)

The Scientific Case for Vacating the EPA’s Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding

This 24-page report by Patrick J. Michaels and Kevin D. Darayatna of the Competitive Enterprise Institute shows why the EPA’s “endangerment finding” was based on bad science and should be repealed.

Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 “Endangerment Finding” from carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases grants the agency a legal mandate that can have profound and far-reaching effects. The Finding is based largely on a Technical Support Document that relies heavily upon other mandated reports, the so-called National Assessments of global climate change impacts on the United States.

The extant Assessments at the time of the Endangerment Finding suffered from serious flaws. We document that using the climate models for the first Assessment, from 2000, provided less quantitative guidance than tables of random numbers—and that the chief scientist for that work knew of this problem.

All prospective climate impacts in the Endangerment Finding are generated by computer models that, with one exception, made systematic and dramatic errors over the climatically critical tropics. Best scientific practice would be to emphasize the working model, which has less warming in it than all of the others.

Instead, the EPA relied upon a community of wrong models.

New research compares what has been observed to what is forecast, and finds that warming in this century will be modest—near the lowest extreme of the prospective range given by the United Nations.

The previous administration justified its policy choices by calculating the Social Cost of Carbon [dioxide]. We interfaced their model with climate forecasts consistent with the observed history and enhanced the “fertilization” effect of increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2. We find that making the warming and the vegetation response more consistent with real-world observations yields a negative cost under almost all modeled circumstances.

This constellation of unreliable models, poor scientific practice, and exaggerated estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon argue consistently and cogently for the EPA to reopen and then vacate its endangerment finding from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The full document is available on the Competitive Enterprise Institute website at https://cei.org/content/scientific-case-vacating-epas-carbon-dioxide-endangerment-finding

See also: Dump EPA endangerment finding