U.S. Court of Appeals Rules on EPA CO2 Regulation

[donsutherland1]

For those who are interested, the Court's opinion can be found at: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/52AC9DC9471D374685257A290052ACF6/$file/09-1322-1380690.pdf

[WeatherRusty]

A big win for the Clean Air Act and the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

[ben4vols]

May be time to start investing in candle and wood burning stove manufacturers.

[donsutherland1]

Although the Court of Appeals did not specifically reconsider the merits of the scientific evidence on climate change, it did offer its judgment that the body of scientific evidence on which the EPA relied is "substantial," that the EPA had a rational basis for concluding that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are "very likely" the "root cause" of recent climate change, and that the EPA need not prove "cause-and-effect."

Some excerpts:

EPA simply did here what it and other decision makers often must do to make a science-based judgment: it sought out and reviewed existing scientific evidence to determine whether a particular finding was warranted. It makes no difference that much of the scientific evidence in large part consisted of "syntheses" of individual studies and research. Even individual studies and research papers often synthesize past work in an area and then build upon it. This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question...

The body of scientific evidence marshaled by EPA in support of the Endangerment Finding is substantial. EPA's scientific evidence of record included support for the proposition that greenhouse gases trap heat on earth that would otherwise dissipate into space; that this "greenhouse effect" warms the climate; that human activity is contributing to increased atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases; and that the climate system is warming.

Based on this scientific record, EPA made the linchpin finding: in its judgment the "root cause" of the recently observed climate change is "very likely" the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions...

Relying again upon substantial scientific evidence, EPA determined that anthropogenically induced climate change threatens both public health and public welfare...

If a statute is "precautionary in nature" and "designed to protect the public health," and the relevant evidence is "difficult to come by, uncertain, or conflicting because it is on the frontiers of scientific knowledge," EPA need not provide "rigorous step-by-step proof. As we have stated before, "Awaiting certainty will often allow for only reactive, not preventive regulation."

...In the end, Petitioners are asking us to re-weigh the scientific evidence before EPA and reach our own conclusion. This is not our role. As with other reviews of administrative proceedings, we do not determine the convincing force of evidence, nor the conclusion it should support, but only whether the conclusion reached by EPA is supported by substantial evidence when considered on the record as a whole. When EPA evaluates scientific evidence in its bailiwick, we ask only that it take the scientific record into account "in a rational manner." Industry Petitioners have not shown that EPA failed to do so here...

Furthermore, even as the Court did not delve into the scientific details, it delivered a stinging rebuke to a number of the lines of denial that have been advanced in recent years. Relevant excerpts follow:

...State Petitioners maintain that EPA erred by denying all ten petitions for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding. Those petitions asserted that internal e-mails and documents released from the Univeristy of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU)--a contributor to one of the global temperature records and to the IPCC's assessment report--undermined the scientific evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding by calling into question whether the IPCC scientists adhered to "best science practices." ...The petitions pointed to factual mistakes in the IPCC's assessment report from the use of non-peer-reviewed studies and several scientific studies postdating the Endangerment Finding as evidence that the Endangerment Finding was flawed...

State Petitioners have not provided substantial support for their argument that the Endangerment Finding should be revised. State Petitioners point out that some studies the IPCC referenced in its assessment were not peer-reviewed, but they ignore the fact that (1) the IPCC assessment relied on around 18,000 studies that were peer-reviewed, and (2) the IPCC's report development procedures expressly permitted the inclusion in the assessment of some non-peer-reviewed studies ("gray" literature).

Moreover, as EPA determined, the limited inaccurate information developed from the gray literature does not appear sufficient to undermine the substantial overall evidentiary support for the Endangerment Finding. State Petitioners have not, as they assert, uncovered a "pattern" of flawed science.

In the end, the Court upheld EPA's attempt to fulfill its obligations under the Supreme Court's Massachusetts v. EPA ruling. At the same time, it concluded that "Climategate" did not meaningfully impact overall scientific understanding of climate change, finding that no "'pattern' of flawed science" was discovered.

[ben4vols]

Although the Court of Appeals did not specifically reconsider the merits of the scientific evidence on climate change, it did offer its judgment that the body of scientific evidence on which the EPA relied is "substantial," that the EPA had a rational basis for concluding that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are "very likely" the "root cause" of recent climate change, and that the EPA need not prove "cause-and-effect."

If one comes to the conclusion that AGW is the root cause of the warming climate it usually helps not to consider the scientific evidence.

[donsutherland1]

If one comes to the conclusion that AGW is the root cause of the warming climate it usually helps not to consider the scientific evidence.

The Court was addressing recent observed warming, not the historic climate record. The preponderance of scientific evidence supports the idea that anthropogenic causes explain most of the recent observed warming (with some degree of uncertainty). The IPCC declared:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."

[cyclonebuster]

The Court was addressing recent observed warming, not the historic climate record. The preponderance of scientific evidence supports the idea that anthropogenic causes explain most of the recent observed warming (with some degree of uncertainty). The IPCC declared:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."

Time to rid the WORLD of Fossil Fuel GHG's.......

[ben4vols]

The Court was addressing recent observed warming, not the historic climate record. The preponderance of scientific evidence supports the idea that anthropogenic causes explain most of the recent observed warming (with some degree of uncertainty). The IPCC declared:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."

I don't think it would be possible to accurately prove today's warming is anthropogenic without looking at the historic climate record. I also find it odd that a court would rule the way it did considering global climate models generally over warm the current period, under warm the past and over sensitize the climate.

[aslkahuna]

Burning wood BTW releases CO2. Even if we do stop all usage of fossil fuels (not very likely without China, India and the Third World on board) we will still have 400 ppm or so in the atmosphere for some time to come thus some means of removing that excess is needed taking care not to make the all too human mistake of going overboard on the other end causing othere climate problems.

Steve

[TerryM]

Good news indeed, and not necessarily expected from all corners.

Terry

[donsutherland1]

I don't think it would be possible to accurately prove today's warming is anthropogenic without looking at the historic climate record. I also find it odd that a court would rule the way it did considering global climate models generally over warm the current period, under warm the past and over sensitize the climate.

The Court noted that the EPA relied on "three lines of evidence" in making an Endangerment Finding:

1. Basic physical understanding of the natural and anthropogenic changes on the climate system.

2. Historical estimates of past climate change against which global temperatures for the past 50 years were "unusual" [in their warmth].

3. Models, which "have only been able to replicate the observed warming by including anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases..."

Those asking the Court to overturn the EPA's Endangerment Finding bore the burden of providing sufficient evidence for such an outcome. The Court did not find that they provided such evidence.

[TerryM]

Burning wood BTW releases CO2. Even if we do stop all usage of fossil fuels (not very likely without China, India and the Third World on board) we will still have 400 ppm or so in the atmosphere for some time to come thus some means of removing that excess is needed taking care not to make the all too human mistake of going overboard on the other end causing othere climate problems.

Steve

I came across an article on 'Global Dimming' that I won't link to for fear of being judged an over the top alarmist. According to it temps over the US jumped 1C in three days after 9/11 when airline traffic was halted. The conclusion was that particulate matter was playing a much larger role in cooling the planet than had previously been thought, and that if we don't keep the dirty coal plants stoked and planes in the air we'll be cooked.

As I said I don't want to link to the site because it seemed too extreme, but I will google about and see what I can find.

Terry

[WeatherRusty]

I don't think it would be possible to accurately prove today's warming is anthropogenic without looking at the historic climate record. I also find it odd that a court would rule the way it did considering global climate models generally over warm the current period, under warm the past and over sensitize the climate.

You think the way you do because you believe the scientific basis for AGW comes out of computer models. It doesn't.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that climate sensitivity is "over sensitized"? Do you think the range between 2C and 4.5C / 2x CO2 is incorrect? Why? Because the previous 4 decade long warming rate has not continued for the past 10 years?

Do you expect the world of science to be overturned by a minority viewpoint? It's about time someone respects the science.

[ben4vols]

You think the way you do because you believe the scientific basis for AGW comes out of computer models. It doesn't.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that climate sensitivity is "over sensitized"? Do you think the range between 2C and 4.5C / 2x CO2 is incorrect? Why? Because the previous 4 decade long warming rate has not continued for the past 10 years?

Do you expect the world of science to be overturned by a minority viewpoint? It's about time someone respects the science.

No I think the way I do because models vs observation show a lower sensitivity. Usually somewhere in between 1C to 2C. The world of science generally operates differently than the world of AGW science.

[WeatherRusty]

Time to rid the WORLD of Fossil Fuel GHG's.......

That is not the plan and you should know it. We will continue dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come as we strive to diversify the sources of energy and draw down the persentage coming from fossil fuels. We need to do this as fast as possible, but fossil fuels are going nowhere fast. Don't buy into the stawman argument claiming we all are destined for poverty by advancing the options for where we obtain energy and how we utilize it.

Ever heard of progress?

Why do so many wish to enslave us to century old technologies? We have the proper vision, why do some wish to hold us back? I can think of a few less than honerable reasons!

[WeatherRusty]

No I think the way I do because models vs observation show a lower sensitivity. Usually somewhere in between 1C to 2C. The world of science generally operates differently than the world of AGW science.

I bet you don't even understand that climate sensitivity is an equilibriium result. Your relied upon observations do not represent a climate at equilibrium. Therefore, I conclude you speak out of ignorance.

[ben4vols]

The Court noted that the EPA relied on "three lines of evidence" in making an Endangerment Finding:

1. Basic physical understanding of the natural and anthropogenic changes on the climate system.

2. Historical estimates of past climate change against which global temperatures for the past 50 years were "unusual" [in their warmth].

3. Models, which "have only been able to replicate the observed warming by including anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases..."

Those asking the Court to overturn the EPA's Endangerment Finding bore the burden of providing sufficient evidence for such an outcome. The Court did not find that they provided such evidence.

1. Basic physical understanding of the natural and anthropogenic changes on the climate system.

3. Models, which "have only been able to replicate the observed warming by including anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases..."

First off I'd like to see those models. Secondly the physical understanding of natural and anthropogenic changes is pretty low. Thus the poor modeling.

2. Historical estimates of past climate change against which global temperatures for the past 50 years were "unusual" [in their warmth.

Well the 50 years clause helps by taking out the warming period of 1910-1940. Also the PDO and AMO roughly operate on a 60 year timescale so only using 50 years is a bit odd and shows the court has no clue.

[ben4vols]

I bet you don't even understand that climate sensitivity is an equilibriium result. Your relied upon observations do not represent a climate at equilibrium. Therefore, I conclude you speak out of ignorance.

It wouldn't be the 1st time you have concluded incorrectly.

[WeatherRusty]

It wouldn't be the 1st time you have concluded incorrectly.

Oh, so you understand climate science inside and out? I doubt it.

And you feel you have a handle on how to assess equilibrium climate sensitivity which is superior to literally 100's of studies which converge on the 2C to 4.5C range?

How can you use contaminated (not isolated on CO2) observations to conclude equilibrium climate sensitivity to increasing CO2?

[ben4vols]

Why do so many wish to enslave us to century old technologies? We have the proper vision, why do some wish to hold us back? I can think of a few less than honerable reasons!

You have seriously got the issue bassackwards. I tried to explain it to you in the thread about ADB.

LINK

[donsutherland1]

First off I'd like to see those models. Secondly the physical understanding of natural and anthropogenic changes is pretty low. Thus the poor modeling.

2. Historical estimates of past climate change against which global temperatures for the past 50 years were "unusual" [in their warmth.

Well the 50 years clause helps by taking out the warming period of 1910-1940. Also the PDO and AMO roughly operate on a 60 year timescale so only using 50 years is a bit odd and shows the court has no clue.

Several points:

1. IPCC's reports discuss the climate models. EPA relied on IPCC's reports.

2. The Court referred to the past half-century's temperatures contrasted with the longer climate record. The past 50 years of data was not held in isolation from the climate record.

The Court's opinion stated:

EPA further relied upon evidence of historical estimates of past climate change, supporting EPA's conclusion that global temperatures over the last half-century are unusual. Scientific studies upon which EPA relied place high confidence in the assertion that global mean surface temperatures over the last few decades are higher than at any time in the last four centuries. These studies also show, albeit with significant uncertainty, that tempeaturs at many individual locations were higher over the last twenty-five years than during any period of comparable length since 900 A.D.

So, yes the 1910-40 timeframe was included in the mix, as were past AMO+ and PDO+ periods.

3. The Court also noted that those suing the EPA had the responsibility to demonstrate "scientific uncertainty...so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming." Residual uncertainty is insufficient. That burden was not met.

[WeatherRusty]

You have seriously got the issue bassackwards. I tried to explain it to you in the thread about ADB.

LINK

People may be exploited. Therefore forget about any technological advancement.

AGW can not be serious, because some people may use it to exploit others.

I understand your 'logic', but I certainly do not agree with it!

[Carvers Gap]

Ultimately, it will be the economy that determines the power of the EPA. The EPA was at its most powerful(and correctly so) when it helped to clean-up industrial America in the late twentieth century. Now, it seems to be overstepping its bounds in several areas and thus limiting industrial growth. If it continues to limit economic growth, eventually the electorate will limit its powers. The EPA is quickly becoming, in my opinion, another beurocracy that would like to control the basic freedom of many Americans. That said, it served a great purpose in its day in cleaning-up America's waterways and air. However, like all government entities its power should be limited in nature and scope. Will this be appealed to the Supreme Court or is it even eligible to do so? I would think that the case would have some interesting aspects involved in it in regards to whether the Constitution grants the EPA those specific powers. However, since the US Supreme Court has heard a related case it may decline unless something new of Constitutional consequence is included. Sometimes, the Supreme Court will allow for "back door appeals"(such as the immigration ruling this week in regards to identity checks - the one piece that was "upheld") to its own decisions. Either way, if Americans begin having to pay increased prices for energy during a poor economy we will vote out the lot that put such a monstrosity of a policy into place.

[cyclonebuster]

That is not the plan and you should know it. We will continue dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come as we strive to diversify the sources of energy and draw down the persentage coming from fossil fuels. We need to do this as fast as possible, but fossil fuels are going nowhere fast. Don't buy into the stawman argument claiming we all are destined for poverty by advancing the options for where we obtain energy and how we utilize it.

Ever heard of progress?

Why do so many wish to enslave us to century old technologies? We have the proper vision, why do some wish to hold us back? I can think of a few less than honerable reasons!

Change now or lose summertime Northern Arctic Ice very soon. Who in their right mind is OK with that?

[WeatherRusty]

Ultimately, it will be the economy that determines the power of the EPA. The EPA was at its most powerful(and correctly so) when it helped to clean-up industrial America in the late twentieth century. Now, it seems to be overstepping its bounds in several areas and thus limiting industrial growth. If it continues to limit economic growth, eventually the electorate will limit its powers. The EPA is quickly becoming, in my opinion, another beurocracy that would like to control the basic freedom of many Americans. That said, it served a great purpose in its day in cleaning-up America's waterways and air. However, like all government entities its power should be limited in nature and scope. Will this be appealed to the Supreme Court or is it even eligible to do so? I would think that the case would have some interesting aspects involved in it in regards to whether the Constitution grants the EPA those specific powers. However, since the US Supreme Court has heard a related case it may decline unless something new of Constitutional consequence is included. Sometimes, the Supreme Court will allow for "back door appeals"(such as the immigration ruling this week in regards to identity checks - the one piece that was "upheld") to its own decisions. Either way, if Americans begin having to pay increased prices for energy during a poor economy we will vote out the lot that put such a monstrosity of a policy into place.

So, how do you like your mercury and lead? Medium or well?

You don't care or believe CO2 is acidifying the oceans and warming the environment to the detriment of human societies as well as the general biosphere?

Industry pollutes the environment. It's what they do to maximize profit. Use the environment as a free dumping space. Why shouldn't the cost of doing business include the proper disposal of industrial waste?

[TerryM]

Change now or lose summertime Northern Arctic Ice very soon. Who in their right mind is OK with that?

I suppose "very soon" is open to interpretation, but I can't see any scenario going forward that includes year round Arctic ice. I do see problems when all that energy raises temperatures as opposed to being spent melting ice.

Terry

[WeatherRusty]

Change now or lose summertime Northern Arctic Ice very soon. Who in their right mind is OK with that?

Most people either don't believe it or don't care. Or like the post above, they make excuses as to why we can't do anything about it.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

http://www.eia.gov/state/

Have to thin out the coal, petroleum producing plants. Increase the natural gas and wind plants. Once technology improves along with a new energy infrastructure, we will have better ways to transport electricity more efficiently.While also having better renewable energy storage to help accomodate peak and cyclical usage, then eventually after these steps are taken gradually thin out the natural gas producing power plants with better energy.

Make an immediate transportation infrastructure switch to run all vehicles on natural gas or hydrogen.

[Jim Marusak]

the big idea in all of this, would be something that I'd have to look up to be sure, but the gist of the statement is: why wouldn't you want to clean up CO2 levels? the best reason to do that is actually for us to become more efficient in how we use the fossil fuels. and when we become more efficient, not only do we save money, but then we'll also solve most of the other particulate and emissions problems, like smog and ground-level ozone, which in term would also help health care costs near the cities.

[ben4vols]

People may be exploited. Therefore forget about any technological advancement.

AGW can not be serious, because some people may use it to exploit others.

I understand your 'logic', but I certainly do not agree with it!

You talk about the enslavement of people, yet you support the agenda that is being used to do just that. Look I agree with you and I'm all for getting away from fossil fuels...but now isn't the time. There isn't a better alternative at the moment and cheap energy is just what a crumbling world economy needs at the moment. Shutting down coal plants and increasing energy prices by a good amount is not the answer, not now. Also the reason I don't take AGW all that serious has nothing to do with it being used to exploit people.