New paper finds effect of natural variations on monsoon rainfall 9 times more important than greenhouse gases

Settled science: Yet another paper finds observations are the opposite of climate model predictions of the effects of alleged anthropogenic global warming. "Current theory predicts that the Northern Hemisphere summer monsoon circulation should weaken under anthropogenic global warming," however, observations over the past 30 years instead show a "substantial intensification" due to "natural long-term climate swings" such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and ENSO. The paper finds that natural climate oscillations have accounted for more than 9 times the effect of greenhouse gases on monsoon rainfall over the past 30 years. "These natural swings in the climate system must be understood in order to make realistic predictions of monsoon rainfall and of other climate features in the coming decades,"requiring "a knowledge of natural long-term climate swings, about which little is known so far."

Natural climate swings contribute more to increased monsoon rainfall than global warming

		IMAGE: This is a three-layered cloud structure in a developing Madden-Julian Oscillation during the Indian Ocean DYNAMO field experiments (November 2011). The photo won first place in the DYNAMO photo contest.... Click here for more information.

[Eurekalert 3-20-13] Natural swings in the climate have significantly intensified Northern Hemisphere monsoon rainfall, showing that these swings must be taken into account for climate predictions in the coming decades. The findings are published in the March 18 online publication of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Monsoon rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere impacts about 60% of the World population in Southeast Asia, West Africa and North America. Given the possible impacts of global warming, solid predictions of monsoon rainfall for the next decades are important for infrastructure planning and sustainable economic development. Such predictions, however, are very complex because they require not only pinning down how manmade greenhouse gas emissions will impact the monsoons and monsoon rainfall, but also a knowledge of natural long-term climate swings, about which little is known so far.

To tackle this problem an international team of scientists around Meteorology Professor Bin Wang at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, examined climate data to see what happened in the Northern Hemisphere during the last three decades, a time during which the global-mean surface-air temperature rose by about 0.4°C. Current theory predicts that the Northern Hemisphere summer monsoon circulation should weaken under anthropogenic global warming.

Wang and his colleagues, however, found that over the past 30 years, the summer monsoon circulation, as well as the Hadley and Walker circulations, have all substantially intensified. This intensification has resulted in significantly greater global summer monsoon rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere than predicted from greenhouse-gas-induced warming alone: namely a 9.5% increase, compared to the anthropogenic predicted contribution of 2.6% per degree of global warming. [0.4°C*2.6% = 1.04% over the past 30 years, a factor of more than 9 times less than natural variation]

Most of the recent intensification is attributable to a cooling of the eastern Pacific that began in 1998. This cooling is the result of natural long-term swings in ocean surface temperatures, particularly swings in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or mega-El Niño-Southern Oscillation, which has lately been in a mega-La Niña or cool phase. Another natural climate swing, called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, also contributes to the intensification of monsoon rainfall.

"These natural swings in the climate system must be understood in order to make realistic predictions of monsoon rainfall and of other climate features in the coming decades," says Wang. "We must be able to determine the relative contributions of greenhouse-gas emissions and of long-term natural swings to future climate change."

###

Citation: Bin Wang, Jian Liu, Hyung-Jin Kim, Peter J. Webster, So-Young Yim, and Baoqiang Xiang: Northern Hemisphere summer monsoon intensified by mega-El Niño/southern oscillation and Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. PNAS 2013; published ahead of print March 18, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1219405110.

Bjorn Lomborg: Earth Hour Is a Colossal Waste of Time—and Energy

Even if you believe man-made CO2 has any significant effect upon climate, turning off your lights for Earth Hour is a colossal waste of time and energy, which will actually cause CO2 emissions to increase. Plus, it ignores how electricity has been a boon for humanity. 

Earth Hour Is a Colossal Waste of Time—and Energy

Plus, it ignores how electricity has been a boon for humanity

By Bjørn Lomborg|Slate Posted Sunday, March 17, 2013

The Eiffel Tower is seen after the lights are turned off during Earth Hour 2012 in Paris.

Photo by Antoine Antoniol/Getty Images

On the evening of March 23, 1.3 billion people will go without light at 8:30—and at 9:30, and at 10:30, and for the rest of the night—just like every other night of the year. With no access to electricity, darkness after sunset is a constant reality for these people.

At the same time, another 1 billion people will participate in “Earth Hour” by turning off their lights from 8:30-9:30.

The organizers say that they are providing a way to demonstrate one’s desire to “do something” about global warming. But the reality is that Earth Hour teaches all the wrong lessens, and it actually increases CO2 emissions. Its vain symbolism reveals exactly what is wrong with today’s feel-good environmentalism.

Earth Hour teaches us that tackling global warming is easy. Yet, by switching off the lights, all we are doing is making it harder to see.

Notice that you have not been asked to switch off anything really inconvenient, like your heating or air-conditioning, television, computer, mobile phone, or any of the myriad technologies that depend on affordable, plentiful energy electricity and make modern life possible. If switching off the lights for one hour per year really were beneficial, why would we not do it for the other 8,759?

Hypothetically, switching off the lights for an hour would cut CO2 emissions from power plants around the world. But, even if everyone in the entire world cut all residential lighting, and this translated entirely into CO2 reduction, it would be the equivalent of China pausing its CO2 emissions for less than four minutes. In fact, Earth Hour will cause emissions to increase.

As the United Kingdom’s National Grid operators have found, a small decline in electricity consumption does not translate into less energy being pumped into the grid, and therefore will not reduce emissions. Moreover, during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO₂ emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward.

And the cozy candles that many participants will light, which seem so natural and environmentally friendly, are still fossil fuels—and almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs. Using one candle for each switched-off bulb cancels out even the theoretical CO₂ reduction; using two candles means that you emit more CO₂.

Electricity has given humanity huge benefits. Almost 3 billion people still burn dung, twigs, and other traditional fuels indoors to cook and keep warm, generating noxious fumes that kill an estimated 2 million people each year, mostly women and children. Likewise, just 100 years ago, the average American family spent six hours each week during cold months shoveling six tons of coal into the furnace (not to mention cleaning the coal dust from carpets, furniture, curtains, and bedclothes). In the developed world today, electric stoves and heaters have banished indoor air pollution.

Similarly, electricity has allowed us to mechanize much of our world, ending most backbreaking work. The washing machine liberated women from spending endless hours carrying water and beating clothing on scrub boards. The refrigerator made it possible for almost everyone to eat more fruits and vegetables, and to stop eating rotten food, which is the main reason why the most prevalent cancer for men in the United States in 1930, stomach cancer, is the least prevalent now.

Electricity has allowed us to irrigate fields and synthesize fertilizer from air. The light that it powers has enabled us to have active, productive lives past sunset. The electricity that people in rich countries consume is, on average, equivalent to the energy of 56 servants helping them. Even people in Sub-Saharan Africa have electricity equivalent to about three servants. They need more of it, not less.

This is relevant not only for the world’s poor. Because of rising energy prices from green subsidies, 800,000 German households can no longer pay their electricity bills. In the United Kingdom, there are now more than 5 million fuel-poor people, and the country’s electricity regulator now publicly worries that environmental targets could lead to blackouts in less than nine months.

Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from solar and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar. These technologies currently are too expensive. They are also unreliable (we still have no idea what to do when the wind is not blowing). Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar.

To green the world’s energy, we should abandon the old-fashioned policy of subsidizing unreliable solar and wind—a policy that has failed for 20 years, and that will fail for the next 22. Instead, we should focus on inventing new, more efficient green technologies to outcompete fossil fuels.

If we really want a sustainable future for all of humanity and our planet, we shouldn’t plunge ourselves back into darkness. Tackling climate change by turning off the lights and eating dinner by candlelight smacks of the “let them eat cake” approach to the world’s problems that appeals only to well-electrified, comfortable elites.

Focusing on green R&D might not feel as good as participating in a global gabfest with flashlights and good intentions, but it is a much brighter idea.

This article was originally published by Project Syndicate. For more from Project Syndicate, visit their Web site. Bjorn Lomborg is author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist." 

Global warming not a top priority for most Democrats or Republicans

According to a Pew Research Center poll, only 13% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats consider "dealing with global warming" to be a top priority for the President and Congress. Global warming ranked dead last on the list of 18 top priorities for Republicans, and 14th on the list for Democrats.

Graphic from WSJ.COM

New paper finds CO2 spiked to levels higher than the present during termination of last ice age

A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs CO2 levels during the termination of the last ice age and finds CO2 spiked to levels near or even exceeding those of the present, obviously without any human influence. According to the authors, "The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination," with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm. 

Left graph shows CO2 concentrations varied dynamically between ~220-425 ppm from 14,000-11,500 years ago. Ice core comparison is shown at right.

Related: From the paper by EG Beck showing chemical measurements of CO2 levels of up to ~480 ppm during the 1800's 

Related: New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

Stomatal proxy record of CO₂ concentrations from the last termination suggests an important role for CO₂ at climate change transitions

• Margret Steinthorsdottir^a, , , 
• Barbara Wohlfarth^a, 
• Malin E. Kylander^a, 
• Maarten Blaauw^b, 
• Paula J. Reimer^b

• ^a Department of Geological Sciences, Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, SE 109 61 Stockholm, Sweden
• ^b School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

• http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.02.003, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

• Permissions & Reprints

---

Abstract

A new stomatal proxy-based record of CO₂ concentrations ([CO₂]), based on Betula nana (dwarf birch) leaves from the Hässeldala Port sedimentary sequence in south-eastern Sweden, is presented. The record is of high chronological resolution and spans most of Greenland Interstadial 1 (GI-1a to 1c, Allerød pollen zone), Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1, Younger Dryas pollen zone) and the very beginning of the Holocene (Preboreal pollen zone). The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO₂] were significantly higher than usually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO₂ evolution through the studied time period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fluctuations in [CO₂] when the climate moved from interstadial to stadial state and vice versa. A new loss-on-ignition chemical record (used here as a proxy for temperature) lends independent support to the Hässeldala Port [CO₂] record. The large-amplitude fluctuations around the climate change transitions may indicate unstable climates and that “tipping-point” situations were involved in Last Termination climate evolution. The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO₂] records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concentrations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO₂] through time. The prevalent explanation for the main climate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and a larger role for atmospheric [CO₂] considered.

---

Highlights

► A stomatal proxy-based CO₂ record from the Last Termination is presented. ► The stomata based CO₂record is much more dynamic than ice core-based CO₂ records. ► CO₂ first increases abruptly before decreasing at cooling transitions and vice versa.

New paper shows Greenland was warmer during the 1930's and 1400's than the present

A new paper published in Climate of the Past reconstructs Greenland temperatures over the past 800 years and shows that reconstructed temperatures were higher in the 1930's and 1400's than at the end of the record in the year 2000. The paper also finds Greenland temperatures correlated to "solar-induced changes in atmospheric circulation patterns such as those produced by the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO)." The Medieval Warming Period 1000 years ago is not included in this 800 year reconstruction, but Greenland ice cores demonstrate that the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian, and other unnamed warming periods were all warmer than modern Greenland temperatures.

Reconstructed Greenland temperatures shown in blue bottom graph were higher in the 1930's and 1400's than at the end of the record in the year 2000. Michael Mann's bogus hockey stick is shown  for comparison in green in top graph. 

Clim. Past, 9, 583-596, 2013
www.clim-past.net/9/583/2013/
doi:10.5194/cp-9-583-2013
On the origin of multidecadal to centennial Greenland temperature anomalies over the past 800 yr

T. Kobashi^1,2, D. T. Shindell³, K. Kodera^4,5, J. E. Box^6,7, T. Nakaegawa⁴, and K. Kawamura^1
1National Institute of Polar Research, 10-3 Midoricho, Tachikawa, Tokyo, 190-8518, Japan
²Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
³NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA
⁴Meteorological Research Institute, Tsukuba, 305-0052, Japan
⁵Solar Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
⁶Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
⁷Department of Geography, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
 Abstract. The surface temperature of the Greenland ice sheet is among the most important climate variables for assessing how climate change may impact human societies due to its association with sea level rise. However, the causes of multidecadal-to-centennial temperature changes in Greenland temperatures are not well understood, largely owing to short observational records. To examine these, we calculated the Greenland temperature anomalies (GTA_[G-NH]) over the past 800 yr by subtracting the standardized northern hemispheric (NH) temperature from the standardized Greenland temperature. This decomposes the Greenland temperature variation into background climate (NH); polar amplification; and regional variability (GTA_[G-NH]). The central Greenland polar amplification factor as expressed by the variance ratio Greenland/NH is 2.6 over the past 161 yr, and 3.3–4.2 over the past 800 yr. The GTA_[G-NH] explains 31–35% of the variation of Greenland temperature in the multidecadal-to-centennial time scale over the past 800 yr. We found that the GTA_[G-NH] has been influenced by solar-induced changes in atmospheric circulation patterns such as those produced by the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO). Climate modeling and proxy temperature records indicate that the anomaly is also likely linked to solar-paced changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) and associated changes in northward oceanic heat transport.

 Final Revised Paper (PDF, 7995 KB)   Discussion Paper (CPD)   Special Issue

New bogus hockey stick paper shows linear greenhouse forcing over past 7000 years

The new Marcott et al bogus hockey stick paper contains a graph showing that alleged radiative forcing from greenhouse gases has been increasing at a linear rate for more than 7,000 years, more than 98% of which was before the invention of the automobile. Human emissions cannot possibly be responsible for a linear increase in greenhouse gas 'forcing' over the past 7,000+ years. In addition, the paper shows that solar activity at the end of the 20th century was near the highest levels of the past 9,000 years.

Figure 2 from the new bogus hockey stick paper: Total alleged radiative forcing from greenhouse gases has allegedly increased at a linear rate over the past 7,000 years [added red line in top graph]. Total solar irradiance [TSI, 2nd graph] was near the highest levels of the past 8,000 years at the end of the 20th century.

One of many rebuttals to the Marcott et al paper

Author admits the blade of the new bogus hockey-stick is not statistically significant

In an email to Steve McIntyre, the author of the new bogus hockey stick admits the primary finding of the paper, the alleged rapid rise of temperature from 1890-1950 is "probably not robust." Translation: it is not statistically significant and the hyped press releases from the authors are not scientifically nor statistically valid. 

Email from first author Shaun Marcott to Steven McIntyre:

Dear Stephen, 

Thank you for the inquiry. Please note that we clearly state in paragraph 4 of the manuscript that the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame. Specifically, we concluded this based on several lines of evidence.
...
Regarding the SH reconstruction: It is the same situation, and again we do not think the last 60 years of our Monte Carlo reconstruction are robust given the small number and resolution of the data in that interval.
Regards,
Shaun

Paragraph 4 from the paper is below. Did you catch that the primary finding of the paper is "clearly stated" to be "probably not" statistically significant? 

 

 

The paper also shows the bogus Marcott hockey stick blade "occurred" 50 years prior to Mann's bogus hockey stick blade

 

 

 

 

New study exposes Obama's fib of taking credit for US oil boom

Drill, Barack, Drill

A new study shows the U.S. oil boom is all on private and state land.

'I'm proud of the fact that under my Administration oil production is higher than it has been in a decade or more."

—President Obama, February 20, 2013

WSJ.COM 3/13/13:  President Obama does a neat John D. Rockefeller imitation these days, taking credit for soaring domestic oil and gas production as if he planned it that way. Not quite. As a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports shows, "All of the increased [oil] production from 2007 to 2012 took place on non-federal lands."

Related Video

Columnist Kim Strassel on a Congressional Research Service report that shows drilling has declined on federal lands during the Obama Administration. Photos: Getty Images

The research outfit reports that thanks to the innovation of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling on private and state lands, the U.S. in fiscal 2012 produced 6.2 million barrels of oil daily, up from 5.1 million barrels as recently as fiscal 2007. Private industry's technological advances, operating under state regulation, increased U.S. production last year at the fastest rate in the history of the domestic industry, which drilled its first commercial well in 1859.

The story on federal lands is the opposite. The CRS study finds that federal oil production fell more than 23% from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2012 and is today below what it was in 2007. The federal share of total U.S. oil production has slid under Mr. Obama to 26% in fiscal 2012 from 31% in fiscal 2008.

The story is the same in natural gas, with overall production climbing 20% since fiscal 2007 even as "production on federal lands has remained static or declined each year over the same period." Production on non-federal lands grew 40% since 2007, while production on federal lands fell by a hard-to-believe 33%. The federal share of total natural gas production in 2007 was 27.8%. Today it's 15.5%.

This sharp drop in production on federal lands is the direct result of Obama Administration policies. They include the drilling moratorium imposed after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, followed by a limit on new drilling permits—the notorious "permitorium."

Mr. Obama's has blocked exploration and production on significant areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the few leases he has put up for auction contain land that is of little value to drillers. The Congressional Research Service reports that the average time to process a federal application for a drilling permit increased 41% from 2006 to 2011—to 307 days.

Readers may recall that Mitt Romney raised this issue in the second presidential debate. Mr. Obama responded that "What you're saying is just not true. It's not true." The Congressional Research Service now documents that it is true.

The U.S. oil and gas boom has been a rare bright spot in the otherwise gloomy Obama economy. Imagine how much more energy the U.S. could produce, and how many more high-paid jobs it could create, if the Obama Administration stopped being an obstacle.

NYT urges climate alarmists to 'go crazy' if Obama approves Keystone

The Otter Way of Stopping

A futile and stupid--not to mention crazy and lawless--plan to "save the planet."

By JAMES TARANTO

WSJ.COM 3/11/13:  The Obama administration continues to drag its feet on approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canada through the American Great Plains to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. Environmentalists oppose the pipeline because they hate oil, which they claim causes "climate change."

Reuters

Following Friedman's advice

The New York Times editorial page demands that President Obama reject the pipeline "for one overriding reason: A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity's most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that--even by the State Department's most cautious calculations--can only add to the problem."

It's not as if the Canadians lack other options. If the administration nixes the project, they'll extract the oil and ship it on tankers to Asia. The Times says that would still be preferable because it would "slow down plans" to expand production and "force the construction of new pipelines through Canada itself," which in turn would "require Canadians to play a larger role in deciding whether a massive expansion of tar sands development is prudent." It sounds to us as if the Canadians have already made their call on that one.

In the last paragraph of the editorial--yes, we read it all the way through; this job has its hardships--the Times makes one hell of a concession: "In itself, the Keystone pipeline will not push the world into a climate apocalypse." So why all the fuss, eh? It seems the Times has borrowed its governing philosophy from Otter, a character in the classic political comedy "Animal House": "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!"

Reuters

Following Friedman's advice

Futile and stupid aren't enough for Times columnist Thomas Friedman. He agrees with his editors that Obama ought to put the kibosh on Keystone, but he doubts the president will. "So I hope that Bill McKibben"--an environmental extremist--"and his 350.org coalition go crazy."

By "crazy," he means lawless: "I'm talking chain-themselves-to-the-White-House-fence-stop-traffic-at-the-Capitol kind of crazy, because I think if we all make enough noise about this, we might be able to trade a lousy Keystone pipeline for some really good systemic responses to climate change. . . . So cue up the protests, and pay no attention to people counseling rational and mature behavior."

Remember when the Times and some of its columnists were crusading to silence "uncivil" language by their political adversaries and media rivals? By contrast, directly urging unlawful activity is acceptable on the pages of the Times if it furthers a leftist agenda.

...

Krugman proposes to avoid a debt crisis by going deeper into debt in the hope that will produce full employment and make the debt sustainable. It sounds crazy to us. A saner way of creating some jobs would be to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

New paper confirms Greenland is resistant to thaw

A paper published today in Climate of the Past confirms other recent peer-reviewed research finding that Greenland is much more resistant to thaw from warming than previously thought. The authors note that "During the Last Interglacial period (~ 130–115 thousand years ago) the Arctic climate was warmer than today, and global mean sea level was probably more than 6.6 meters higher," but that "Our combined modelling and palaeodata approach suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is less sensitive to orbital forcing than previously thought." Since the orbital forcing during the last Interglacial was more than 20 times greater than the alleged forcing from a doubling of today's CO2 levels, Andy Revkin's comment that "Greenland doesn't need saving" is quite correct.

Quantification of the Greenland ice sheet contribution to Last Interglacial sea level rise

Climate of the Past, 9, 621-639, 2013

Author(s): E. J. Stone, D. J. Lunt, J. D. Annan, and J. C. Hargreaves

During the Last Interglacial period (~ 130–115 thousand years ago) the Arctic climate was warmer than today, and global mean sea level was probably more than 6.6 m higher. However, there are large discrepancies in the estimated contributions to this sea level change from various sources (the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller ice caps). Here, we determine probabilistically the likely contribution of Greenland ice sheet melt to Last Interglacial sea level rise, taking into account ice sheet model parametric uncertainty. We perform an ensemble of 500 Glimmer ice sheet model simulations forced with climatologies from the climate model HadCM3, and constrain the results with palaeodata from Greenland ice cores. Our results suggest a 90% probability that Greenland ice melt contributed at least 0.6 m, but less than 10% probability that it exceeded 3.5 m, a value which is lower than several recent estimates. Many of these previous estimates, however, did not include a full general circulation climate model that can capture atmospheric circulation and precipitation changes in response to changes in insolation forcing and orographic height. Our combined modelling and palaeodata approach suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is less sensitive to orbital forcing than previously thought, and it implicates Antarctic melt as providing a substantial contribution to Last Interglacial sea level rise. Future work should assess additional uncertainty due to inclusion of basal sliding and the direct effect of insolation on surface melt. In addition, the effect of uncertainty arising from climate model structural design should be taken into account by performing a multi-climate-model comparison.

The failure of global-warming alarmists to rally the public

Notable & Quotable

Lawrence Solomon on the failure of global-warming alarmists to rally the public.

Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon writing in Canada's Financial Post, Feb. 7 :

WSJ.COM 3/10/13: Our thermometers simply haven't been rising. According to a study last month by NASA's James Hansen, Al Gore's mentor, temperatures have been "flat for the past decade." According to the U.K.'s Meteorological Office, every bit Al Gore's equal in alarmism, the temperature standstill has lasted 15 years and, its revised models say, may extend to 20. No wonder public opinion hasn't rallied to the alarmist cause.

For governments to muster the courage they need to impose carbon taxes or other unpopular measures, public opinion will need to swing dramatically to boost the number who worry that global warming threatens the planet. . . .

But what is the chance of that, when temperatures have risen only about one-half of 1C in each of the previous three centuries, and not at all so far in the 21st century? Alarmists will need to somehow up their game if they are to make progress in scaring the public into action.

The 'dirty little secret' of electric cars

Even if you believe in the man-made global warming swindle, buying an electric car will do little to reduce CO2 emissions, as the production and charging of electric cars causes heavy CO2 emissions. According to peer-reviewed research,  "If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles." 

Bjorn Lomborg: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret

Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions.

By Bjorn Lomborg

WSJ.COM 3/10/13:  Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.

For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

Getty Images

While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.

To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."

If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.

Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.

Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it's not. The current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5. This means an optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48.

Yet the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500. In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers like California-based Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors . This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.

The electric car might be great in a couple of decades but as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. That requires heavy investment in green research and development. Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that.

Mr. Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center in Washington, D.C., is the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Cambridge Press, 2001) and "Cool It" (Knopf, 2007).