effects of global warming

Getting it partly right on weather vs. climate

by Michael Fumento on February 19, 2010 · 1 comment

in Global Warming, Odds & Ends

Eugene Robinson in today’s Washington Post protests that global warming skeptics are using the current (though very long) cold snap in the mid-Atlantic region, which encompasses the nation’s capital, to confuse weather – a short-term phenomenon – with climate.

Robinson, who last year won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary, correctly notes that, “the Earth is really, really big. It’s so big that it can be cold here and warm elsewhere – and this is the key concept – at the same time. Even if it were unusually cold throughout the continental United States, that still represents less than 2 percent of the Earth’s surface.”

True enough. And he adds:

Those who want to use our harsh winter to ‘disprove’ the theory that the planet’s atmosphere is warming should realize that anecdotal evidence always cuts both ways. Before the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, crews were using earth-movers and aircraft to deposit snow on the ski runs – the winter had been unusually warm. Preliminary data from climate scientists indicate that January, in terms of global temperatures, was actually hotter than usual. Revelers participating in Rio de Janeiro’s annual carnival, which ended Tuesday, sweltered in atypical heat, with temperatures above 100 degrees. Fortunately, the custom during carnival is not to wear much in the way of clothing.

Again, true enough. And regrettably I once again missed going to the Rio Carnival, but hope springs eternal.

But here’s what he doesn’t say. His people have long played exactly the same game.

There’s a wonderful website that keep a more or less comprehensive list of all the things that warmists have attributed to “global climate change” – and mind you, the very term “global climate change’ was coined precisely to be able to tie any change, including things associated with cooling – to the effects of greenhouse gases. One glance at the site blows you away. I want you to click on this link right now and not continue with this blog until you have.

No. Stop. You didn’t click on the link. Do it now.

Okay, the point is made, isn’t it? It includes everything from “acne” to “yellow fever” with “short-nosed dogs endangered” in between. And there are lots of instances of weather change.

In fact, time and again cold weather and its fall-out, including blizzards, have been attributed to “global climate change.”

This is from an article of mine that appeared 13 years ago:

But there it was, the cover of the Jan. 22 Newsweek: “Blizzards, floods & hurricanes: Blame global warming.” There also was the New York Times front-page article by William K. Stevens headlined “Blame global warming for the blizzard” and a nationally syndicated article by environmentalist Jessica Matthews that ran under titles such as “Brrr, global warming brings our blizzard.”

Moreover, I note. Moreover, I say for emphasis, while this was a perfect opportunity for Robinson to show he was playing fair, he could have pointed out they’re doing it even now.

Moreover, Robinson could have seen it in his own newspaper from just days ago.

There it was, right in the headline of a column by uber-environmentalist Bill McKibben, “Washington’s Snowstorms, Brought to You by Global Warming.”

Time magazine also argues “climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.”

And of course I could go on and on, but point made.

If you live in the mid-Atlantic, don’t go out without a coat. But hypocrisy is a mantle never worn well.

U.N. Climate panel pummeled for misinformation, high and low

by Michael Fumento on February 15, 2010 · 1 comment

in Global Warming

From the very top of the earth to the bottom, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just can’t get it right.

I recently wrote of how the panel’s latest (2007) report, the one that split the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, was finally caught on what was an obviously false statement: That the glaciers atop the Himalayas would be melted by 2035 because of global warming. It would take an incredible amount of sustained heat to do that. The only question was what source the panel used, and that proved to be an off-the-cuff assertion by a global warming activist as reprinted in an environmentalist journal – with a mathematical error to boot!

Now it’s been revealed that the panel grossly overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level.

Its latest report says 55 percent of the country is below sea level, leaving it highly prone to flooding along rivers that would ostensible rise with warming temperatures. But Netherlanders can take off their clogs and relax. According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, just 26 percent of the country is below sea level and 29 percent susceptible to river flooding. You can see a lot of pretty maps regarding the subject by the Dutch Ministry of Transport here.

The IPCC insists that it’s a minor point in a report 3,000 words long and doesn’t affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe. Of course it doesn’t, any more than does the Himalayan nonsense.

But this latest wooden shoe to the butt again illustrates that this allegedly thoroughly documented reports by the allegedly top experts in world has a nasty tendency to simply include anything that will make its case seem stronger. Taken in light of the recent “Climategate” revelations that scientists who came to the “wrong” conclusions had their materially systematically excluded from the report and other IPCC documents, it shows just how shaky this house of cards is.

IPCC: “Our bad! Global warming not about to melt Himalayas.

by Michael Fumento on January 21, 2010 · 1 comment

in Global Warming

“The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, a large number of them may disappear by 2035 because of climate change.” Such was the lede of one of countless articles about how 1.3 billion Asians were in imminent danger of first flooding and then drought. And that’s not to mention the certain extinction of the abominable snowman.

You didn’t need a Cray computer to figure that this was nonsense, that temperatures would have to more or less instantly soar to incredible heights and stay there for this to happen. (As it turns out, 18 degrees Centigrade.) But people wrote it, read it, and believed it. You’d think a magazine with the name Technology Review would know better, yet its latest issue declares: “The Himalayan glaciers that feed rivers in India, China, and other Asian countries could be gone in 25 years.”

Why did they say it? In part, because it was convenient. And in part because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it in its Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Now the IPCC is saying, “Whoopsie!”

In a statement released on Wednesday, the group admitted “poorly substantiated estimates.” More specifically, it appears to have been based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published in 1999. That story, in turn, was based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist in Delhi. And Hasnain has since admitted his assertion “speculation” unsupported by any formal research.

The IPCC says it will “probably” issue a formal correction. “Probably?”

But admit it guys, wasn’t it fun while it lasted?

Alarmism Has Consequences

by Iain Murray on March 2, 2009 · 4 comments

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony

In a magnificent display of self-delusion, the green movement is holding a demonstration at the Capitol’s power plant today to protest the continued use of coal to keep people warm. Although I’d love to put the continued operation of Congress at the mercy of the weather, there is a more important point here. Coal is Affordable energy increases people’s income, keeps them in jobs, and keeps them alive. Here is a brief summary of some important research on the subject.

    The Human Consequences of Global Warming Alarmism

• Raising energy costs kills. According to a Johns Hopkins study, replacing ¾ of US coal-based energy with higher priced energy would lead to 150,000 extra premature deaths annually in the US alone.
• Reducing emissions hits the poorest hardest. According to the recent report by the Congressional Budget Office, a cap and trade system aimed at reducing emissions by just 15 percent will cost the poorest quintile 3 percent of their annual household income, while benefiting the richest quintile.
• Raising energy costs loses jobs. According to a Penn State study, replacing 2/3 of US coal-based energy with higher priced energy will cost almost 3 million jobs, and perhaps over 4 million.

    More detailed points

• We are already seeing the adverse effects of global warming policies in the ethanol debacle. Ethanol mandates have not just contributed to the spike in the price of gas, but have also increased food prices. Steaks are up 5.5% from a year ago, chickens up 7.7%. These increased costs force the poorest to make hard choices.
• The ethanol mandates also demonstrate that consumer behavior can’t be fine tuned. As fuel and food prices increased, the choices people made showed that they sacrifice food for fuel. A survey by the Food Marketing Institute found that more than 40% of consumers changed their food-buying habits in response to high gas prices. That illustrates that energy is one of the most important purchases they make.
• Coal production is also fundamental to the US economy. The Penn State study found that by 2015, coal production, transportation and consumption will contribute $1 trillion to the US economy and provide 6.8 million jobs and $362 billion in household income.
• That same study shows pronounced regional variations. If coal production was curtailed by 2/3rds, California would be hard hit. It would lose $58 million in economic activity. California households would lose $22 million a year. And 339,000 Californians would lose their jobs.
• But the states of the Central US would be worst hit – Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas would lose 1.5 million jobs between them.
• Legislators must consider the unintended effects of their actions. If coal production is to be stamped out, the railroad industry in this country would probably collapse along with it. Without rail transport, other bulk commodities would rise in price. And they would increase congestion on the roads, which don’t have enough capacity to deal with freight transport as it is.

    Background: Lives Lost

The Johns Hopkins study (Harvey Brenner, “Health Benefits of Low Cost Energy: An Econometric Case Study,” Environmental Manager, November 2005) found the following:

An econometric model was applied to a hypothetical regulatory case study, whereby U.S. coal was replaced by alternative higher-cost fuels such as natural gas for the purpose of electricity generation. The model was used to estimate the premature mortality associated with increased unemployment and reduced personal income. The adverse impacts on household income and unemployment due to the substitution of higher-cost energy sources were estimated to result in 195,000 additional premature deaths annually

The results from this hypothetical case study may be scaled to apply to specific policy initiatives affecting the U.S. coal-based electricity generation sector. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that climate change bills currently before the U.S. Congress—such as Senate Amendment No. 2028, rejected by the Senate in 2003 and again in June 2005—could result in the displacement of up to 78% of U.S. coal-based electricity generation with higher-cost energy sources. The methodology employed here suggests that, absent any direct mitigation measures to offset expected decreases in employment and income, implementation of such measures could result in an annual increase of premature mortality rates by more than 150,000.

    Background: Job, Income and Economic Impacts

The Penn State study (Rose, A.Z., and Wei, D., “The Economic Impact of Coal Utilization and Displacement in the Continental United States, 2015,” Pennsylvania State University, July 2006) found the following:

Assigning equal weight to each of the two energy price scenarios, we estimate that U.S. coal-fueled electric generation in 2015 will contribute:

• $1.05 trillion (2005 $) in gross economic output;
• $362 billion in annual household incomes, and
• 6.8 million jobs.

We also estimated the prospective net economic impacts of the “displacement” of coalfueled electricity generation at assumed levels of 66% and 33% from a projected 2015 base.

These levels of displacement are consistent with some of the potential impacts of major environmental policy initiatives in climate change or other areas. In these cases, we again calculated backward linkage and price differential effects to determine potential negative impacts on each state’s economy.

Additionally, we calculated potential positive economic benefits due to the operation of replacement electricity generation of various types. In all states, the net effect of displacing coal-based electricity was negative for the “high-price” scenarios, and in nearly all states, the net effect was negative for the “low-price” scenarios…

Assigning equal weight to the high- and low-price scenarios, we estimate the average impacts of displacing 66% of coal-fueled generation in 2015 at:

• $371 billion (2005 $) reduction in gross economic output;
• $142 billion reduction of annual household incomes; and
• 2.7 million job losses.

Assigning equal weight to the high- and low-price scenarios, we estimate the average impacts of displacing 33% of coal-based generation in 2015 at:

• $166 billion (2005 $) reduction in gross economic output;
• $64 billion reduction of annual household incomes; and
• 1.2 million job losses.