Cato Op-Eds

Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace
Subscribe to Cato Op-Eds feed

In several states around the country, legislators are working to pass legislation that would move their states toward compliance with the REAL ID Act, the U.S. national ID law. Oklahoma state senator David Holt (R), for example, has touted his plan as giving Oklahomans the “liberty” to choose which of two ID types they’ll get. Either one feeds their data into a nationwide system of databases.

If you want a sense of what these legislators are getting their states into, take a look at the eight-page notice the Department of Homeland Security published in the Federal Register today. It’s an entirely ordinary bureaucratic document, which walks through the processes states have to go through to certify themselves as compliant. Its few pages represent hundreds of hours of paperwork that state employees will have to put in complying with federal mandates.

Among them is the requirement that the top official of the DMV and the state Attorney General confirm that their state jumps through all the hoops in federal law. Maybe Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Scott Pruitt (R), thinks his office’s time is well spent on pushing paper for the federal government, but it’s more likely that he wants to be enforcing Oklahoma laws that protect Oklahomans.

REAL ID-compliant states have to recertify to the DHS every three years that they meet DHS’s standards. DHS can and will change these standards, of course. DHS officials get to inspect state facilities and interview state employees and contractors. DHS can issue corrective demands and require the states to follow them before recertification.

It’s all unremarkable—if you’re sanguine about taxpayer dollars burned on bureaucracy, and if you think that states are just administrative arms of the federal government. But if you think of states as constitutionally independent sovereigns, you recognize that this document is out of whack. States do not exist to play second fiddle in bureaucrat-on-bureaucrat bureaucracy.

Whether or not we have a national ID matters. The constitutional design of government matters, including, one hopes, to people in Oklahoma and other states across that land. State officials who are conscious of these things should reject this paperwork and these mandates. If the federal government wants a national ID, the federal government should implement it itself.

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

Although it’s a favorite headline as people shiver during the coldest parts of the winter, global warming is almost assuredly not behind your suffering (the “warming” part of global warming should have clued you in on this).

But, some folks steadfastly prefer the point of view that all bad weather is caused by climate change.

Consider White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) head John Holdren. During the depth of the January 2014 cold outbreak (and the height of the misery) that made “polar vortex” a household name, OSTP released a video featuring Holdren telling us that “the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak, is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.” 

At the time we said “not so fast,” pointing out that there were as many (if not more) findings in the scientific literature that suggested that either a) no relationship exists between global warming and the weather patterns giving rise to mid-latitude cold outbreaks, or b) the opposite is the case (global warming should lead to fewer and milder cold air outbreaks).

The Competitive Enterprise Institute even went as far as to request a formal correction from the White House. The White House responded by saying that the video represented only Holdren’s “personal opinion” and thus no correction was necessary. CEI filed a FOIA request, and after some hemming and hawing, the White House OSTP finally, after a half-hearted search, produced some documents. Unhappy with this outcome, CEI challenged the effort and just this past Monday, a federal court, questioning whether the OSTP acted in “good faith,” granted CEI’s request for discovery.

In the meantime, the scientific literature on this issue continues to accumulate. When a study finds a link between human-caused global warming and winter misery, it makes headlines somewhere. When it doesn’t, that somewhere is usually reduced to here.

Case in point: Last week, Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang published a piece by Jason Samenow that highlighted a pair of new findings that suggested that global warming was leading to more blizzards along the East Coast. The mechanism, favored by the global-warming-is-making-cold/blizzards-worse crowd is that Arctic warming, enhanced by melting sea ice there, is causing the curves (i.e., ridges and troughs) in the jet stream to become bigger, and thus slower. This “locks in” a particular weather pattern and can allow cold air to drop further southward as well as set up condition necessary for big snow storms. To us, this seemed more a case of natural variability than global warming, but we suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But what you haven’t read in the Washington Post (or anywhere else for that matter), is that an even newer paper has just been published by scientists (including Martin Hoerling) at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory  that basically demonstrates that global warming and Arctic sea ice loss should, according to climate models, lead to warmer winter temperatures, less temperature variability, and milder cold air outbreaks. This is basically the opposite conclusion from the one preferred and disseminated by Holdren et al.

From the paper’s abstract:

The emergence of rapid Arctic warming in recent decades has coincided with unusually cold winters over Northern Hemisphere continents. It has been speculated that this “Warm Arctic, Cold Continents” trend pattern is due to sea ice loss. Here we use multiple models to examine whether such a pattern is indeed forced by sea ice loss specifically, and by anthropogenic forcing in general. While we show much of Arctic amplification in surface warming to result from sea ice loss, we find that neither sea ice loss nor anthropogenic forcing overall to yield trends toward colder continental temperatures. An alternate explanation of the cooling is that it represents a strong articulation of internal atmospheric variability, evidence for which is derived from model data, and physical considerations. Sea ice loss impact on weather variability over the high latitude continents is found, however, characterized by reduced daily temperature variability and fewer cold extremes.

They were even more direct in paper’s conclusion:

We…showed that sea ice loss impact on daily weather variability over the high latitude continents consists of reduced daily temperature variability and fewer cold extremes indicating that the enhanced occurrences of cold spells during recent winters (e.g., Cohen et al. 2014) are not caused by sea ice loss.

This is pretty emphatic. Global warming results in warmer, less variable winters in North America (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1. Modeled change in winter mean temperature (left), daily temperature variability (middle), and temperature on the coldest 10 percent of the days (right) as a result of decline in Arctic sea ice. (source: Sun et al., 2016).

Now, if only our government’s “top scientist” were paying attention.

Reference:

Sun, L., J. Perlwitz, and M. Hoerling, 2016. What Caused the Recent “Warm Arctic, Cold Continents” Trend Pattern in Winter Temperatures? Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1002/2016GL069024.

Pages