ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING NEWSLETTER

25 NOV. 2013 Please be aware any Newsletter URL ending in 020701.pdf and 020610.pdf are available for downloading only during the six days following the date of the edition. If you need older URLs contact George at ghh@att.net. Please Note: This newsletter contains articles that offer differing points of view regarding climate change, energy and other environmental issues. Any opinions expressed in this publication are the responses of the readers alone and do not represent the positions of the Environmental Engineering Division or the ASME. George Holliday This week's edition includes: 1) ENVIRONMENT – A. CONGRESS TO QUESTION EPA OFFICIALS THIS WEEK IN BACK-TO-BACK HEARINGS Top officials of the Environmental Protection Agency will face lawmakers on Nov. 14 during separate back-to-back hearings. The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on power has invited the EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Janet McCabe to testify on the agency's proposed carbon emission rules for new power plants. Meanwhile, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will appear before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology to answer questions about her agency's accountability and transparency. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/189829-the-week-ahead-epa-in-the-hot-seat  

B. ASME IS DEVELOPING AN ASME ENERGY FORUM

san diego convention center San Diego, Ca, USA March 17-19 2014

Executive Advisory Committee: The Executive Advisory Committee for ASME Energy Forum Live – Oil & Gas includes senior members from Shell Exploration & Production, Draper Laboratory/Cambridge Research and Technology LLC, Baker Hughes, Stewart & Stevenson, BP Exploration, and ASME.

Doreen Chin, Co-Chair Shell Exploration & Production Co. Martin Rylance, Co-Chair BP Julio Guerrero Draper Laboratory, Cambridge Research and Technology L.L.C. Satya Gupta Baker Hughes Pressure Pumping Rustom Mody Baker Hughes, Inc. Jared Oehring Stewart & Stevenson Raj Manchanda ASME Program Committee: Phil Grossweiler, Program Committee Chair M&H Blake Burnette, Poster Committee Chair Baker Hughes Pressure Pumping David Paradis Weir Oil and Gas Pressure Pumping Arnold Feldman  

C. LAWMAKER DECRIES EPA PROPOSAL TO REGULATE U.S. WATERS Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, is opposed to a draft rule by the Environmental Protection Agency that he says would virtually put all U.S. waters under EPA control. "If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams," Smith said. The panel has invited EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to testify on Nov. 14 and answer questions on the agency's "ever-expanding regulatory agenda," Smith said. D. Notice of Availability for Public Review and Comment: Draft EPA Climate Change Adaptation Implementation Plans**

2) HEALTH – A. CAMPYLOBACTERIOSIS - USA (12): 2012, UNCOOKED CHICKEN LIVERS In October 2012, the Vermont Department of Health (VDH) identified 3 cases of laboratory-confirmed _Campylobacter jejuni_ infection in Vermont residents; the isolates had indistinguishable pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) patterns. A query of PulseNet, the national molecular subtyping network for foodborne disease surveillance, led to the identification of an additional case each from New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont that had been reported in the preceding 6 months. An investigation led by VDH found that all 6 patients had been exposed to raw or lightly cooked chicken livers that had been produced at the same Vermont poultry establishment (establishment A). Livers collected from this establishment yielded the outbreak strain of _C. jejuni_. In response, establishment A voluntarily ceased the sale of chicken livers on 9 Nov 2012. A food

safety assessment conducted by the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) found no major violations at the establishment. http://www.eandp-environment.net/Health/Health020701.pdf

3) SAFETY – A. PERFORATING GUN DROPPED DUE TO FAILED ROPE SOCKET While removing the spent perforating gun from the hole after perforating the 5th stage of a horizontal hydraulically fractured completion, the wire rope parted from the rope socket allowing the gun to fall to the ground. There were no injuries or damage. http://www.eandp-environment.net/Safety/Safety020701.pdf

B. REGULATOR ORDERS STAND-DOWN OF 5 ENERGY FIRMS FROM OFFSHORE WORK The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement has ordered Breton Energy, EP Energy, XTO Energy, Virgin Offshore USA and Matagorda Island Gas Operations to cease their offshore oil and natural gas operations after the companies failed to submit a required audit of their safety plans. Following the 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill, the agency has required energy companies to develop "safety and environmental management systems" and submit audits of their plans by Nov. 15. "BSEE must be assured that companies are addressing the key elements of SEMS and that they are not needlessly putting their workers and the environment at risk," said BSEE Director Brian Salerno. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/11/21/feds-order-five-companies-to-halt-offshore-work/

4. TRANSPORTATION – A. COMMENTS: A. THE WEEK THAT WAS: 2013-11-16(NOV. 16, 2013) By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Is the IPCC Logically Challenged?: Writing in American Thinker, SEPP Chairman Fred Singer recaps the major failures in science and in logic that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) employed in its five scientific Assessment Reports (AR) from 1990 to 2013. The scientific failures in the first three reports, such as Mr. Mann’s Hockeystick, have been clearly discredited. The logical errors in AR4 and AR5 are more subtle. As Singer states: “Their first step is to construct a model that tries to match the reported 20th-century surface warming. This is not very difficult; it is essentially a 'curve-fitting' exercise: By selecting the right level of climate sensitivity and the right amount of aerosol forcing, they can match the reported temperature rise of the final decades of the 20th century, but not the initial decades --as becomes evident from a detailed graph in their Attribution chapter.” The issue arose what type of logical error is this? Aristotelian scholar Viscount Monckton of Brenchley provided the answer. He wrote:“If the IPCC argument you are challenging is that we can only explain observed warming in the late 20th century if we assume a large anthropogenic forcing, but that we cannot explain it without that forcing, then the logical fallacy the IPCC here perpetrates is not the argumentum ad petitionem principii: it is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fundamental fallacy of arguing from ignorance. If we do not know why the warming

occurred, and we merely assume that the warming must be manmade because we cannot (or do not want to) think of any explanation except high climate sensitivity to manmade greenhouse-gas emissions, then we perpetrate the fallacy of argument from ignorance.” One can illustrate this error with algebra. If A + B = 10, where A is the natural variation, B is the human influence, and 10 is the measured change. One cannot solve for the numerical value of B without knowing the numerical value of A. Yet the models are used to simultaneously solve for the values of both, without independent testing of the values for natural variation, except for changes in solar irradiance. Of course, the models do not work if the value of B is removed. But, this not independent confirmation of the validity of the models. As The Right Climate Stuff Team reported, we cannot hope to successfully model the human influence on climate without first successfully modeling the natural influences on climate. The IPCC and the climate establishment do not even try to model the natural influences on climate. This week, scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) employed the same faulty argument in linking precipitation with global warming. For Singer’s evaluation see Article # 1, for the LLNL paper see link under Model Issues. **************** COP 19: The 19th Conference of Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change opened on November 11 in Warsaw, Poland, a country that gets 80 to 85% of its electrical power from coal. According to reports, a pro-coal rally was staged that attracted some 50,000 Poles. The conference began with special pleading on stopping climate change with claims that the destruction wrought by Typhoon Haiyanis illustrative of the dangers of human-caused climate change. Though the destruction was real and a natural disaster, the intensity of the storm and the loss of human life were exaggerated in the early reports. The actual evidence does not support the claims that such storms are becoming more frequent or more intense. Generally, the first week of these conferences involve political posturing by lower-level government officials, such as developing countries demanding monetary payments from developed countries for global warming/climate change. A group headed by China and Brazil raised the ante by insisting that the payments should be based on total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions starting about 1800. If Western emissions took the world out of the Little Ice Age; the developing countries should be paying the West. The conference also had some shocks. Australia announced it will not be involved in such monetary transfers. Japan announced it has changed its CO2 emissions goals from a significant cut to a modest increase in emissions. The objective of this conference is modest –provide a roadmap for an emissions agreement in the future. Although last days of the second week involve more senior government officials, with all night sessions on the closing day, it appears that the result of the conference will be modest. This prompts the question, why should Western taxpayers be funding this nonsense? Please see links under Questioning the Orthodoxy, Problems in the Orthodoxy, Communicating Better to the Public –Exaggerate, or be Vague?, and Changing Weather. **************** WMO: Especially for COP 19, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) issued a press release with the title “Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013.” It claimed continuing high temperatures globally and many climate extremes worldwide. As expected, it had typical alarmist writing; but, interestingly, the press release stated “For use of the information media --Not an official record.”

The press release also asserted “Temperatures so far this year are about the same as the average during 2001-2010, which was the warmest decade on record”… “The year 2013 is currently on course to be among the top ten warmest years since modern records began in 1850.” Such statements prompt one to wonder about the quality of the records in 1850. The WMO is a parent organization to the IPCC, with the slogan “The World Meteorological Organization is the United Nations System’s authoritative voice on Weather, Climate and Water.” See links under Defending the Orthodoxy and Models v. Observations. **************** Natural Causes?: Roy Spencer announced that, finally, a paper he did with William Braswell has been published in a peer reviewed journal, Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. They use a simple, one dimensional model, to explore the influences of El Nino and La Nina activity on the earth’s climate, as it relates to the sensitivity of the earth’s climate to a doubling of CO2. They test the model against changes in the global oceanic radiative budget, since March 2000, as observed by Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite instruments. They find that when their proposed natural radiative warming effect of El Nino is included, the climate sensitivity to CO2 is reduced substantially —to 1.3 deg. C. This is below the IPCC estimate of 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C. In the post, Spencer writes: “What I am saying is that El Nino is associated with changes in Earth’s radiative balance which are not just a feedback response to surface warming, but also force some of that warming. When that “internal radiative forcing” effect is included, optimizing the agreement with 10 years of satellite radiative budget measurements, it considerably reduces the diagnosed sensitivity of the climate system.” It remains to be seen if the research and the paper hold up. However, the research illustrates the need to independently test the natural influences on the earth’s climate before concluding that the IPCC findings are definitive. Links to Spencer’s post and the article can be found under Challenging the Orthodoxy. **************** Denial: On her web site, Judith Curry discusses two articles on the use of the term climate denier or similar terms in discussing those skeptical that humans are the primary cause of global warming/climate change. In an aptly named article “Words that think for us,” Edward Skidelsky writes: “The extension of the “denier” tag to group after group is a development that should alarm all liberal-minded people. One of the great achievements of the Enlightenment—the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma—is quietly being reversed.” Please see link under Communicating Better to the Public –Go Personal **************** Taking Credit: For the first time in nearly 20 years (in October 2013) US oil production exceeded imports. The administration immediately pulled a debating trick described by the 19th century philosopher Schopenhauer. When one realizes that his position is hopeless, suddenly declare that the winning position is his all-along. The administration proudly declared credit for the increase in oil production, even though it has systematically tried to limit oil production and regulate hydraulic fracturing by making false claims about its influence on ground water. In 2012, on lands controlled by the Federal government, the production of oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, and coal all fell. It is the production on private and state controlled lands that is the great success story. See links under Washington’s Control of Energy.

**************** Reliable Electricity: On the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics blog, Geoff Brown has a post that succinctly sums the critical difference between reliable electricity (in this case from hydro) and unreliable wind. It links to the charting of power from hydro, coal, nuclear and wind under the Bonneville Power Administration, updated every 5 minutes, over a week. Bonneville administers the largest hydro-power system in the US. The failure of wind power can be seen virtually every week. Brown juxtaposes this with an article on the important contributions of Bonneville hydro-power in winning WWII. One part of these contributions was that Bonneville provided the energy needed for the construction of 50,000 aircraft in the Pacific Northwest, including 11,000 bombers. The wind advocates in the Pentagon, who claim wind power would add to national security, will ignore such vital considerations. See Energy Issues –US. **************** Carbon Tax: The US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) produced a study stating that the most effective way of reducing the huge US deficit would be instituting a carbon tax. Although the report is a useful analysis, one must be leery of such conclusions, especially considering the negative impact of a carbon tax. The Keynesian models used by the government greatly overestimated the favorable consequence of the so-called 2009 stimulus bill. The models projected unemployment would never exceed 8% and today’s economy would be booming. The unemployment rate hit 10% and remains above 7%. The inflation-ajusted growth rate remains below 3%. This is the worst economic recovery since WW II. For the CBO study, see link under Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes **************** Number of the Week: $22.2 Billion US v. 24.7 Billion US. The November 2 TWTW reported that a White House report to Congress stated that the Federal government spent $22.2 Billion on climate change issues in FY 2013 (which ended on September 30, 2013). Medical researcher Martin Mangino remarked that this is almost as much as the Federal government spends on medical research, including clinical trials. According to the web site of the National Institutes of Health, its total budget authority for FY 2013 was $30.9 Billion, of which 80% ($24.7 Billion) went to medical research. The table on the Research/Disease Areasshowed thatof the $24.7 Billion, $11,018 went to Clinical Research. The US is spending about one-half as much on clinical research on known threats to human health as it is spending on the speculative threat from human-caused global warming/climate change. Of the $22.2 billion in expenditures on climate change, $8.1 billion went to “Energy Payments in Lieu of Tax Provisions.” These are cash payments to developers of alternative energy sources such as wind farms. By contrast, NIH spent $5.6 B on cancer research; $4 B on brain disorder research; $3.9 B on infectious diseases research; and $3.9 B on woman’s health research. These expenditures highlight the priorities given to various issues by those in Washington. See Article # 4, and links at http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/br.html http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2013/TWTW%2011-16-13.pdf

B. 2013 A TRANQUIL YEAR FOR TORNADOES SO FAR

"Hurricanes have been on holiday this year, and so too have their ferocious cousins, tornadoes.

The USA is enjoying its second-consecutive below-average tornado season, and one of the calmest years for tornadoes in more than two decades, according to data from the Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla. "It's been a near-record quiet year, especially with respect to strong to violent tornadoes," said warning coordination meteorologist Greg Carbin of the prediction center. Except for a stormy stretch in late May, which included a deadly EF5 tornado that devastated parts of suburban Oklahoma City, killing 24 people, the year overall has been remarkably quiet. So far this year, through the end of October, there have been about 800 reports of tornadoes, Carbin said. In a typical full year, based on data from 1993 to 2012, the USA has more than 1,250 twisters. November and December tend to be slow months for tornadoes, so it's unlikely the yearly total will come anywhere close to that number. Since 1990, the only other year that was quieter than this year was 2002, when only 741 tornadoes were reported from January-October. The year of 2012 was also a below-average season, as only 878 tornadoes had formed by this point in the year. Combined with the 2013 season, it's the quietest two-year period since the late 1980s. Is this part of a trend? No, said Carbin, who said that each of the past two years had very different reasons for the lack of tornadoes. Simply put, spring 2012 was too hot, and spring 2013 was too cold. Last year was hot and dry, and "drought conditions don't go hand and hand with severe weather," Carbin reported. This year, the unusually chilly spring across much of the country prevented the contrast in temperatures that is usually needed to spawn severe storms and tornadoes. Also, the lack of landfalling tropical storms and hurricanes — which can spawn tornadoes — has also been a factor, according to Carbin. The two quiet years come on the heels of the deadly and destructive 2011 tornado season, when more than 1,600 tornadoes killed 553 people and did more than $27 billion in property damages. So far, 45 Americans have died due to tornadoes this year, according to SPC data. Forty-two of those killed were in May. The most recent was on June 24. "This is a relatively long stretch," Carbin said. On average, tornadoes kill about 60 Americans each year. Tornadoes typically affect the U.S. more than any other nation. Each year, "the U.S. experiences about 80% to 90% of all of the tornadoes that occur across the world," says Randy Cerveny, an Arizona State University geographer. Carbin said the quiet years are welcome, but he puts them in perspective: "It really only takes one bad day; it doesn't matter if the year is above or below normal. Tornadoes can destroy people's lives."" http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/11/09/quiet-tornado-season/3477209/ Don Shaw

C. NETL'S OCTOBER 2013 CARBON STORAGE NEWSLETTER Carbon Storage News from Around the World: · A Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership-managed project injected 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into geological formations that consist of ancient basalt flows. · The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership announced the beginning of a large-scale CO2 injection in Michigan’s Northern Reef Trend.

· The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) NETL released revised editions of four Best Practice Manuals. · The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Center, Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage, Guangdong Low-Carbon Technology and Industry Research Center, and the Clean Fossil Energy Development Institute have formed a new initiative for research, development, and demonstration of innovative carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. · Petrobas has identified 14 of its projects for possible implementation of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technology to advance production. · SaskPower and Chugai Technos have signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding a ground CO2 monitoring system on CCS. · The California Air Resources Board announced that it will issue the first compliance offset credits eligible for use in the state’s cap-and-trade greenhouse gas emissions reduction program. · Representatives from California Air Resources Board and Quebec’s Minister of International Relations signed an agreement to fully integrate their respective cap-and-trade programs. Research Articles: · A comparison of techniques used to collect informed public opinions about CCS: Opinion quality after focus group discussions versus information-choice questionnaires · Pressure profiles for CO2-EOR and CCS: Implications for regulatory frameworks · Permeability prediction of coalbed methane reservoirs during primary depletion · CO2-Induced Dissolution of Low Permeability Carbonates, Part I: Characterization and Experiments · Effect of temperature on permeability of geopolymer: A primary well sealant for carbon capture and storage wells · Dense gas dispersion modeling of CO2 released from carbon capture and storage infrastructure into a complex environment · Selection of monitoring techniques for a carbon storage and enhanced coalbed methane recovery pilot test in the Central Appalachian Basin · Comparison of CO2 capture economics for iron and steel mills · An integrated optimization modeling approach for planning emission trading and clean-energy development under uncertainty · Canadian energy and climate policies: A SWOT analysis in search of federal/provincial coherence · Incorporating ecosystem services into the implementation of existing U.S. natural resource management regulations Did you know that the United States has at least 2,400 billion metric tons of potential CO2 storage resources in saline formations, oil and gas reservoirs, and unmineable coal? Download DOE’s 2012 United States Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas to learn more. Be sure to read current event information and other special announcements in your October 2013 Carbon Storage Newsletter from DOE’s NETL. Learn more about DOE's Carbon Storage Program. (DOE does not reveal the reason for Carbon Storage, GHH) Arnie Feldman

D. THE CLIMATE HAS NEVER BEEN MORE BORING

In my opinion, this article is pretty much accurate as it portrays the state of Climate Change and Global Warming today. I started studying the manmade global warming due to CO2 increase claims in detail over 10 years ago since the claims appeared to be suspicious even though there was modest warming. On the other hand, I questioned my instincts since so many so called "Climate Experts", the IPCC, and other authoritative bodies were part of the parade expressing the threat posed from manmade global warming. My skepticism grew stronger every year as more data has been available. I have continued to study this matter over the years and evidence piled up against the claims (Al Gore’s phony movie, climate gate, Mann's fabricated hockey stick claiming dramatic temperature rise, IPCC AR4 exaggerations/lies, and no warming for 17 years). I have finally reached the point where my understanding pretty much coincides with the article referenced below without any doubt. The IPCC AR5 recently released is rife with political agenda, ignoring scientific data further reinforcing my current position. Initially I found it difficult to accept that so many learned groups such as the IPCC were wrong, but now I am at the point where I have concluded that they either are corrupt or are in it for their agenda (cap and trade), or are simply lying to us while ignoring the actual temperature data which clearly shows that there has been no warming for over 17 years, and the claims about climate change are patently false. Check this article out and send it to all your friends if you agree with it. Unfortunately I think it captures the sad state of affairs in our government today. "Guest post by Dr. Robert G. Brown, Physics Department of Duke University (elevated from a comment on this thread: RSS Reaches Santer’s 17 Years) This (17 years) is a non-event, just as 15 and 16 years were non-events. Non-events do not make headlines. Other non-events of the year are one of the fewest numbers of tornadoes (especially when corrected for under-reporting in the radar-free past) in at least the recent past of not the remote past, the lowest number of Atlantic hurricanes since I was 2 years old (I’m 58), the continuation of the longest stretch in recorded history without a category 3 or higher hurricane making landfall in the US (in fact, I don’t recall there being a category 3 hurricane in the North Atlantic this year, although one of the ones that spun out far from land might have gotten there for a few hours). We (the world) didn’t have an unusual number of floods, we don’t seem to have any major droughts going on, total polar ice is unremarkable, arctic ice bottomed out well within the tolerances slowly being established by its absurdly short baseline, Antarctic ice set a maximum record (but just barely, hardly newsworthy) in ITS absurdly short baseline, the LTT temperatures were downright boring, and in spite of the absurdly large spikes in GASTA in GISS vs HADCRUT4 on a so-called “temperature anomaly” relative to a GAST baseline nobody can measure to within a whole degree centigrade, neither one of them did more than bounce around in near-neutral, however much the “trend” in GISS is amplified every second or third month by its extra-high endpoint. The US spent months of the summer setting cold temperature records, but still, aside from making the summer remarkably pleasant in an anecdotal sort of way (the kind you tell your grandchildren when they experience a more extreme weather, “Eh, sonny, I remember the summer of ’13, aye, that was a good one, gentle as a virgin’s kiss outdoors it was…”) it was unremarked on at the time.

Let’s face it. The climate has never been more boring. Even the weather blogs trying to toe the party line and promote public panic — I mean “awareness” — of global warming are reduced to reporting one of GISS’s excessive spikes as being “the fourth warmest September on record” while quietly neglecting the fact that in HADCRUT4, RSS and UAH it was nothing of the sort and while even more quietly neglecting the fact that if one goes back a few months the report might have been that June was the fourth coldest in 20 years. Reduced to reporting a carefully cherry-picked fourth warmest event? Ho hum. So, good luck in getting any news agency to report reaching 17 years in any or all of the indices — this isn’t news, it is anti-news. It is old. It is boring. It is also irrelevant. If GASTA stubbornly refuses to rise for five more years, stretching the interval out to 20 to 22 years in a way that nobody can ignore, does this really disprove GW, AGW, or CAGW? It does not. The only thing that will disprove GW or CGW is reaching 2100 without a climate catastrophe and without significantly more warming or with net cooling. A demonstrated total climate sensitivity of zero beats all predictions or argument. The “A”(nthropogenic) part is actually easier to prove or disprove in a contingent sort of way, although it will probably take decades to do so. Contingent because of there is no observed GW at all, AGW seems difficult to prove. But since we are in the part of the periodic climate cycle observed over the last 150 years where the climate remains neutral to cools around an overall warming trend, we might well see neutral to very slow warming even if AGW is correct, if there is an anthropogenic component to the long term trend and oscillation that we can observe but not really explain over the last 150 years. The one thing the 33 years of satellite measurements and increasingly precise surface temperature measurements have been able to prove is the one thing that the 17 year interval is truly relevant to. The GCMs used to predict CAGW suck. The GCMs in CIMP5 that contribute to the conclusions of AR5 are almost without exception terrible predictors of the Earth’s actual climate. This conclusion is unavoidable. Even if they all cannot be rejected at the “95% confidence level”, almost none of them are close to predicting even GASTA alone, let alone RSS/UAH, global rainfall, frequency and violence of storms, etc. As we leave 2013′s hurricane season behind with almost no chance for an Atlantic storm this year, which GCM predicted the paucity of hurricanes and tornadoes over the last few years? Where are the droughts and floods? Which GCMs actually got the temperature distribution right (when they didn’t get the average or average anomaly right, the answer is almost certainly “none of them”)?" "We are told “Catastrophic warming is coming, it is just around the corner”. We ask why and without exception we are told “Because the 30 or more GCMs we carefully built in the 1990′s in response to the CAGW threat and normalized with the warming data from the 70′s and 80′s (not to mention Hansen’s initial model report from the late 1980′s) all say so. We then quite reasonably ask what they predicted for the last 20 years, and of course we can see that they all did indeed predict shockingly rapid warming. We then compare this to what actually happened, which is almost no warming over the last 20 years — a single warming pulse associated with the 1997/1998 ENSO event and then neutral ever since. We note that the warmest of the models that are still included in the CIMP5 data because nobody ever rejects a model just because it doesn’t work are a whopping 0.5 to 0.6C warmer than reality — they are the models with a total sensitivity of 5 or 6 C by 2100, so they have to warm at 0.5C a decade to get there.

This really is shocking. Shockingly bad science, shockingly dishonest political manipulation of policy makers on the part of scientists who participated in the creation of AR5 and permitted their names to give the report its weight." "As I’ve pointed out once and will point out again, by failing to be honest in AR5, by removing words that expressed honest doubt from the earlier draft and redrawing the figure to obscure the GCM failure, the IPCC has now gone far out on a limb that will end the career of many scientists and politicians before AR6 if there is no significant warming by that time. Not only significant warming, but a resumption of some sort of regular upslope to GASTA. Even if there is another ENSO-related burst of warming (which I’m sure is what they are hoping for) if it is only 0.2 C — and it is difficult to imagine that it could be much more given evidence from the past — it will barely suffice to restore the warming trend to 0.1 C/decade give or take a hair, roughly half of the lowest estimates of climate sensitivity. And they run the very real risk of getting to 2020 with GASTA basically the same as it was in 2000." There is more at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/lets-face-it-the-climate-has-never-been-more-boring/#more-96765 Don Shaw

E. U.S. SUPREME COURT DECLINES REVIEW OF CERCLA APPORTIONMENT CASE On November 4, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Fourth Circuit opinion adopting strict proof requirements for divisibility of costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). See PCS Nitrogen Inc. v. Ashley II of Charleston LLC, 714 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2013); see also TIP 2013-61. The underlying case involves responsibility for CERCLA cleanup efforts at the former site of a fertilizer manufacturing plant in South Carolina. Various parties were deemed potentially responsible parties. The district court held Nitrogen PCS jointly and severally liable for harm at the site due to the court’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to reasonably apportion costs. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. PCS Nitrogen argued on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Fourth Circuit’s standard for apportionment was inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States. 556 U.S. 599, 613-15 (2009). The Supreme Court held in Burlington Northern that divisibility requires only a “a reasonable basis for determining the contribution of each cause to a single harm.” PCS Nitrogen argued that courts are failing to implement Burlington Northern’s standard for apportioning liability, and that this case was an opportunity to remind courts of the importance of apportioning liability when possible. PCS Nitrogen also argued that the Fourth Circuit incorrectly applied a “clear error” standard of review giving the district court too much deference on appeal. Another issue in the Fourth Circuit decision involving the bona fide prospective purchaser provision of CERCLA was not at issue on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roger Zygmunt

F. TWO SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEES HOLD HEARING ON "EPA POWER PLANT REGULATIONS: IS THE TECHNOLOGY READY?" The House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittees on Environment and Energy held a

joint hearing entitled "EPA Power Plant Regulations: Is the Technology Ready?" on Tuesday, October 29th. The hearing covered what considerations the EPA relied on in making its selection of the best system of emissions reductions in the proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for electric generating units (EGUs). The hearing explored the technological basis for concluding that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is adequately demonstrated as a technology for controlling carbon dioxide emissions in full-scale commercial power plants. Further, the hearing examined whether the rule promotes or deters technological development and American leadership in energy technologies. EPA first proposed a NSPS for emissions for carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants in 2012. However, after more than 2.5 million comments on the original proposal, EPA decided that a new approach was warranted and rescinded the original proposal. Simultaneously, on September 20, 2013, Administrator Gina McCarthy announced EPA's re-proposed CO2 NSPS for new fossil fuel-based electric generating units (EGUs). Under that proposal, EPA concluded that CCS has been adequately demonstrated as a technology for controlling CO2 emissions in full-scale commercial applications at coal-fired EGUs, while reaching the opposite conclusion—that CCS is not adequately demonstrated—in the case of gas-fired EGUs. There are currently no electric power plants operating with the CCS technology on a commercial scale. And witnesses at the hearing projected that affordable solutions may still be decades away. ASME Fellow Dr. Richard Bajura, Director, National Research Center for Coal and Energy, West Virginia University, summarized the current state of the technology as follows: "Without the building of new plants, no technology advancement would occur to demonstrate the commercial readiness of new carbon capture and storage plants. Investments in a strong research, development and demonstration program, coupled with a delayed phase-in of the standards proposed by EPA, would provide improved opportunities for technologists to meet the challenges proposed to us by EPA to improve our environment and economic competitiveness through advanced coal technologies. I recommend your consideration for both of these approaches." Additional information about the hearing, including the written testimony of the four witnesses, is available at: http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-environment-and-subcommitte-energy-joint-hearing-epa-power-plant-regulations

G. THE LITTLE ICE AGE: ITS RELEVANCE FOR INTERPRETING MODERN WARMING (29 OCT 2013) Reference Bakke, J., Trachsel, M., Kvisvik, B.C., Nesje, A. and Lysa, A. 2013. Numerical analyses of a multi-proxy data set from a distal glacier-fed lake, Sorsendalsvatn, western Norway. Quaternary Science Reviews 73: 182-195. Working with what they describe as a lacustrine sediment record derived from three c. 3.5-m-long sediment cores recovered from the distal glacier-fed lake Nedre Sorsendalsvatn located 35 km inland from the coast downstream of Blabreen in Nordfjord, western Norway, Bakke et al. (2013) developed a Holocene record of glacier variability based on a multi-proxy data set consisting of sedimentological, physical and geochemical data. Bakke et al. report that their reconstruction accords with "glacier variability reconstructed from other sites in western Norway, including the termination of the deglaciation at approximately 10,000 cal yr BP, the 8.2 ka BP (Finse) event, the Holocene thermal optimum between ~8000

and 5500 cal yr BP, and the onset of the Neoglacial at 5500 cal yr BP," while further noting that "the largest glacial extent during the Neoglacial time period took place during the 'Little Ice Age'." They additionally indicate that these several findings are "in accordance with all glacier reconstructions available for western Norway (e.g., Nesje et al., 2001; Nesje, 2009; Vasskog et al., 2012), northern Norway (e.g., Bakke et al., 2010) and ... with glacier fluctuations in Iceland (Geirsdottir et al., 2009) and in the European Alps (e.g. Holzhauser, 2007)." These facts clearly demonstrate that the most recent warming of the globe - which brought the Earth to its current state of warmth (which is still far less than levels that were reached at earlier times in the Holocene) - began at the very coldest point of the current interglacial. Thus, there is no reason to think it out of the ordinary that the planet would subsequently experience a strong warming, or that the latter portion of that warming would be in any way unusual, unnatural or unprecedented (especially since it actually ceased over a decade and a half ago). In fact, it was no more unnatural than thecooling that had brought the planet's temperature down to that earlier and truly unique cold point in time. Additional References Bakke, J., Dahl, S.O., Paasche, O., Simonsen, J., Kvisvik, B., Bakke, K. and Nesje, A. 2010. A complete record of Holocene glacier variability at Austre Okstindbreen, northern Norway: an integrated approach. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 1246-1262. Geirsdottir, A., Miller, G.H., Axford, Y. and Olafsdottir, S. 2009. Holocene and latest Pleistocene climate and glacier fluctuations in Iceland. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 2107-2118. Holzhauser, H. 2007. Holocene glacier fluctuations in the Swiss Alps. In: Mordant, C., Richard, H. and Magny, M. (Eds.). Enironnements et cultures a l'Age du Bronze en Europe occidentale. Comite des travaux historiques et scientifiques (CTHS), Paris, France, pp. 29-43. Nesje, A. 2009. Latest Pleistocene and Holocene alpine glacier fluctuations in Scandinavia. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 2119-2136

H. CMIP3 AND CMIP5 WIND STRESS CLIMATOLOGY (29 OCT 2013) Story submitted by Cornelis de Jager Reference Lee, T., Waliser, D.E., Li, J.-L.F., Landerer, F.W. and Gierach, M.M. 2013. Evaluation of CMIP3 and CMIP5 wind stress climatology using satellite measurements and atmospheric reanalysis products. Journal of Climate 26: 5810-5826. According to Lee et al. (2013), "the reliability of future climate projections using climate models depends heavily on the fidelity of the climate models," and they note in this regard that "the latter can be assessed by evaluating the ability of the climate models to simulate the present climate using available observations," citing Pierce et al. (2006), Gleckler et al. (2008), Waliser et al. (2009) and Su et al. (2013), which is something that should be obvious to all. Against this backdrop, Lee et al. state that "wind stress measurements from the Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) satellite and two atmospheric reanalysis [NCEP-1 and ERA-Interim] products were used to evaluate the annual mean and seasonal cycle of wind stress simulated by phases 3 and 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3 and CMIP5)."

Describing their findings, the five researchers say that (1) "generally speaking, there is a lack of significant improvement of CMIP5 over CMIP3," that (2) "the CMIP ensemble-average zonal wind stress has eastward biases at mid-latitude westerly wind regions (30°-50°N and 30°-50°S, with CMIP being too strong by as much as 55%)," that (3) there are "westward biases in subtropical-tropical easterly wind regions (15°-25°N and 15°-25°S)," that (4) there are "westward biases at high-latitude regions (poleward of 55°S and 55°N)" that "correspond to too strong anticyclonic (cyclonic) wind stress curl over the subtropical (subpolar) ocean gyres," that (5) "in the equatorial Atlantic and Indian Oceans, CMIP ensemble zonal wind stresses are too weak and result in too small of an east-west gradient of sea level," that (6) "in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, CMIP zonal wind stresses are too weak in the central and too strong in the western Pacific," and that (7) "the CMIP [models] as a whole overestimate the magnitude of seasonal variability by almost 50% when averaged over the entire global ocean." Even the most up-to-date CMIP5 models are still a long, long way from where they need to be for mankind to place much faith in what they predict in the way of CO2-induced global warming and its imagined negative consequences. Additional References Gleckler, P.J., Taylor, K.E. and Doutriaux, C. 2008. Performance metrics for climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research 113: 10.1029/2007JD008972. Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P., Fetzer, E.J. and Gleckler, P.J. 2006. Three-dimensional tropospheric water vapor in coupled climate models compared with observations from the AIRS satellite system. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL027060. Su, H., Jiang, J.H., Zhai, C., Perun, V.S., Shen, J.T., Del Genio, A., Nazarenko, L.S., Donner, L.J., Horowitz, L., Seman, C., Morcrette, C., Petch, J., Ringer, M., Cole, J., von Salzen, K., Mesquita, M., Iversen, T., Kristjansson, J.E., Gettelman, A., Rotstayn, L., Jeffrey, S., Dufresne, J.-L., Watanabe, M., Kawai, H., Koshiro, T., Wu, T., Volodin, E.M., L'Ecuyer, T., Teixeira, J. and Stephens, G.L. 2013. Diagnosis of regime-dependent cloud simulation errors in CMIP5 models using "A-Train" satellite observations and reanalysis data. Journal of Geophysical Research 118: 2762-2780. Waliser, D.E., Li, J.-L., Woods, C.P., Austin, R.T., Bacmeister, J., Chern, J., Del Genio, A., Jiang, J.H., Kuang, Z., Meng, H., Minnis, P., Platnick, S., Rossow, W.B., Stephens, G.L., Sun-Mack, S., Tao, W.-K., Tompkins, A.M., Vane, D.G., Walker, C. and Wu, D. 2009. Cloud ice: A climate model challenge with signs and expectations of progress. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: 10.1029/2008JD010015.

I. THE OUTLOOK FOR SUGARCANE PRODUCTION IN BRAZIL: HOW SWEET IT IS! Reference Marin, F.R., Jones, J.W., Singels, A., Royce, F., Assad, E.D., Pellegrino, G.Q. and Justino, F. 2013. Climate change impacts on sugarcane attainable yield in southern Brazil. Climatic Change 117: 227-239. Citing Rosenzweig et al. (2012), Marin et al. (2013) write that the primary challenges faced by the agricultural sector under predicted climate change scenarios are "to provide food security for an increasing world population while protecting the environment and the functioning of its ecosystems." And in this regard, they go on to indicate that "impacts on agriculture have special importance for Brazil, since nearly 30% of Brazilian gross national product is related to

agribusiness," citing Barros (2009). Fine-tuning this concern even more, they further note that "Brazil is the world's largest sugarcane producer," and that "the State of Sao Paulo produces nearly 60% of Brazilian sugarcane under rain-fed conditions." Against this backdrop, Marin et al. evaluated the effects of climate change on sugarcane yield, water use efficiency, and irrigation needs in southern Brazil, based on downscaled outputs of two general circulation models (PRECIS and CSIRO) and a sugarcane growth model (DSSAT/CANEGRO) that was calibrated for the main cultivar currently grown in Brazil, based on five field experiments conducted under several soil and climate conditions, where the sensitivities of simulated stalk fresh mass (SFM) to air temperature, CO2 concentration and rainfall were also analyzed. The seven scientists report that their analyses yielded increases in simulated SFM and water use efficiency (WUE) for all scenarios investigated. "On average," for example, they found that "for the current sugarcane area in the State of Sao Paulo, SFM would increase 24% and WUE 34% for rain-fed sugarcane." And they say that "considering the current technological improvement rate, projected yields for 2050 ranged from 96 to 129 tons per hectare, which are respectively 15 and 59% higher than the current state average yield." Also, in their concluding remarks, they say their simulations suggest that "the WUE increase due to higher CO2 seems to be the main cause for the positive simulated yield response." Additional References Barros, G. 2009. Brazil: the challenges in becoming an agricultural superpower. In: Brazil As An Economic Superpower? - Understanding Brazil's Changing Role in the Global Economy. Brookings, Washington, DC, U.S.A. Rosenzweig, C., Jones,J.W.,Hatfield,J.L.,Ruane,A.C.,Boote,K.J.,Thorburn, P., Antle, J., Nelson,G., Porter, C., Janssen, S.,Asseng,S., Winter,J.M., Greeley, A.P., Basso, B. and Ewert, F. 2012. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMip): Protocols and pilot studies.Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 170: 166-182.

J. OUR NEW PAPER: EL NINO WARMING REDUCES CLIMATE SENSITIVITY TO 1.3 DEG. C November 11th, 2013

Al Gore meets his match. Our new paper has finally appeared in Asia Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science (APJAS). Entitled “The Role of ENSO in Global Ocean Temperature Changes during 1955-2011 Simulated with a 1D Climate Model“, we use a time-dependent forcing-feedback model of global average ocean temperature as a function of depth to explain the Levitus record ocean temperature variations and trends since 1955. The modeling philosophy is to answer the question: What combination of net feedback (climate sensitivity) and ocean mixing best explain the observed global average ocean temperature variations since 1955? In the global average, temperature variations are the result of only 3 processes: Forcing, feedback, and ocean mixing. These can be addressed in a simple 1D model. Our primary interest was to explore how El Nino and La Nina activity since the 1950s affect our interpretation of climate sensitivity. Basically, if all of the ocean warming in the last 50 years (assuming it is real and accurate) has been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, it leads to a higher climate sensitivity. But if some of that warming was due to stronger El Nino activity (since the 1970s) it would lead to a lower climate sensitivity. We let a variety of observations tell us how the various influences combine to cause climate change, by varying the model “free” parameters over many thousands of combinations to find a best match to the observations. We examine three scenarios, shown schematically below

Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

K. RAISING THE BAR ON STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE I propose to send the following comments to EPA as requested in the Federal Register dated 4 November 2013. Your comments and/or revisions are welcomed. I encourage you to submit comments. Posted on November 12, 2013 by Anthony Watts I was searching the early edition of PNAS for the abstract of yet another sloppy “science by press release” that didn’t bother to give the the title of the paper or the DOI, and came across this paper, so it wasn’t a wasted effort. Steve McIntyre recently mentioned: Mann rose to prominence by supposedly being able to detect “faint” signals using “advanced” statistical methods. Lewandowsky has taken this to a new level: using lew-statistics, lew-scientists can deduce properties of population with no members. Josh (N=0) humor aside, this new paper makes me wonder how many climate science findings would fail evidence thresholds under this new proposed standard? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/12/raising-the-bar-on-statistical-significance/

L. WHAT'S HOLDING BACK NUCLEAR ENERGY A look at the challenges that keep it from taking off—and how to meet them By Keith Johnson Nov. 11, 2013 4:18 p.m. ET Nuclear power seems to have it all. Like renewables, it emits no greenhouse gases. Like coal, it is always on. Nuclear doesn't face the price volatility that natural gas does, and it actually has a better safety record than the coal industry. For all of these reasons, plenty of countries, from China and India to the Middle East, are betting big on nuclear energy to power their futures. So why does nuclear power's future in the U.S. look dim? A forecast by the Energy Information Administration, for example, gives it only 3% of new capacity for electricity generation through 2040—the same as for much-maligned coal http://www.eandp-environment.net/Environment/Env020701.pdf

M. GREAT PLAINS VANISHING IN QUEST FOR GREEN ENERGY ASSOCIATED PRESS ROSCOE, S.D. — Robert Malsam nearly went broke in the 1980s when corn was cheap. So now that prices are high and he can finally make a profit, he’s not about to apologize for ripping up prairieland to plant corn. Across the Dakotas and Nebraska, more than 1 million acres of the Great Plains are giving way to corn fields as farmers transform the wild expanse that once served as the backdrop for American pioneers. This expansion of the Corn Belt is fueled in part by America’s green energy policy, which requires oil companies to blend billions of gallons of corn ethanol into their gasoline. Ethanol has become the No. 1 use for corn in America, helping keep prices high. “It’s not hard to do the math there as to what’s profitable,” Malsam said. “I think an ethanol plant is a farmer’s friend.” Unintended results

What the green-energy program has made profitable, however, is far from green. A policy intended to reduce global warming is encouraging a farming practice that actually could worsen it. That’s because plowing into untouched grassland releases carbon dioxide that has been naturally locked in the soil. It also increases erosion and requires farmers to use fertilizers and other industrial chemicals. That, in turn, destroys native plants and wipes out wildlife habitats. It appeared so damaging that scientists warned that America’s corn-for-ethanol policy would fail as an anti-global warming strategy if too many farmers plow over virgin land. The Obama administration argued that would not happen. But the administration didn’t set up a way to monitor whether it actually happened. It did. More than 1.2 million acres of grassland have been lost since the federal government required that gasoline be blended with increasing amounts of ethanol, an Associated Press analysis of satellite data found. Plots that were wild grass or pastureland seven years ago are now corn and soybean fields. That’s in addition to the 5 million acres of farmland that had been aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — that have vanished since President Barack Obama took office. In South Dakota, some 370,000 acres of grassland have been uprooted and farmed from since 2006. In Edmunds County, a rural community about two hours north of the capital, Pierre, at least 42,000 acres of grassland have become cropland — one of the largest turnovers in the region. Malsam runs a 13-square-mile family farm there. He grows corn, soybeans and wheat, then rents out his grassland for grazing. Each year, the family converts another 160 acres from grass to cropland. Call for conservation Chemicals kill the grass. Machines remove the rocks. Then tractors plow it three times to break up the sod and prepare it for planting. Scattered among fields of 7-foot-tall corn and thigh-high soybeans, some stretches of grassland still exist. Cattle munch on some grass. And “prairie potholes” — natural ponds ranging from small pools to larger lakes — support a smattering of ducks, geese, pelicans and herons. Yet within a mile of Malsam’s farm, satellite data show, more than 300 acres of grassland have been converted to soybeans and corn since 2006. Nebraska has lost at least 830,000 acres of grassland, a total larger than New York City, Los Angeles and Dallas combined. “It’s great to see farmers making money. It hasn’t always been that way,” said Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group. He advocates for clean energy but opposes the ethanol mandate. “If we’re going to push the land this hard, we really need to intensify conservation in lockstep with production, and that’s just not happening,” he said. Satellites tell the tale The AP’s analysis used government satellite data to count how much grassland existed in 2006 in each county, then to compare each plot of land to corresponding satellite data from 2012. The data from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Agriculture identify corn and soybean fields. That allowed the AP to see which plots of grassland became cropland.

Jim Faulstich, president of the South Dakota Grasslands Coalition, said federal ethanol and crop insurance policies have encouraged the transformation of the land. Faulstich, who farms and ranches in central South Dakota, said much of the land being converted is not suited to crop production, and predicted the state’s strong winds and rains will erode the topsoil. “I guess a good motto would be to farm the best and leave the rest,” he said.

Doug Dreyer / Associated Press Robert Malsam checks corn in one of his fields near Roscoe, S.D. Malsam nearly went broke in the 1980s, but now prices are high enough to make a profit.

N. EXXON MOBIL FINED OVER ARKANSAS SPILL TRIBUNE COMPANY WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON — Federal regulators have fined Exxon Mobil $2.6 million for spilling 210,000 gallons of oil into an Arkansas subdivision and lake in March, citing a string of safety lapses by the oil giant going back more than a decade. The penalty levied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last week spotlights the damage caused by a spill at a time when the Obama administration weighs allowing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf Coast. The fine also comes after a pipeline leak in North Dakota gushed at least 20,600 barrels of oil into a wheat field. Irving-based Exxon Mobil said it was disappointed with the penalty and had not yet determined its next step. “It does appear that PHMSA’s analysis is flawed and the agency has made some fundamental errors,” said Aaron Stryk, a company spokesman. Stryk said Exxon Mobil did safety assessments more often than the agency reported. The agency said Exxon Mobil could contest the penalties. On March 29, a section of Exxon Mobil’s Pegasus pipeline buried in a residential cul de sac in Mayflower, Ark., ruptured, spewing oil down the street, into a drainage ditch and eventually into a cove of Lake Conway. All 22 families on the street were evacuated. Only five have moved

back or plan to. Most took a buyout from Exxon Mobil, according to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. The cleanup and remediation of Lake Conway continues. Exxon Mobil has spent more than $70 million so far dealing with the spill. In its investigation, the pipeline safety regulator found that the Pegasus pipeline was built with a type of pre-1970 pipe susceptible to failure. The agency said that, despite the pipeline’s vulnerability, Exxon Mobil did not assess its integrity every five years as it was required to do. Moreover, tests the company ran in 2005 and 2006 revealed that the pipeline in Mayflower was at risk of failure. But the company did not take adequate steps to prevent a rupture, which could have included more frequent testing of the line, repairs or replacement, the agency said.

Courtney Spradlin / Log Cabin Democrat file A duck recovered near Mayflower, Ark., was taken to a wildlife rehabilitation group.

O. VITTER, SESSIONS, BARRASSO, INHOFE: ADMINISTRATION LOBBIES TO DOWNPLAY REALITY OF WARMING HIATUS IN REPORT September 26, 2013 Todd Stern Special Envoy for Climate Change U.S. State Department 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520 Dear Mr. Stern: We have followed with great interest the Administration’s ongoing participation in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), particularly as the IPCC moves ahead with the issuance of the Fifth Assessment Report in the coming days. We are concerned by the Administration’s efforts to downplay the current, 15-year hiatus in global temperature

increases, even as the Administration participates in international efforts to explain why prior IPCC predictions of global temperature increases could have been so wrong. As reported last week by the Associated Press (AP), several nations lobbied the IPCC to craft an explanation in the IPCC Fifth Assessment that accounts for the lack of global temperature increases since 1998. According to the AP, the U.S. “urged the [IPCC] authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.” It appears that the U.S. did not, however, suggest that there could be potential flaws in the models themselves. With the benefit of decades of actual temperature data to evaluate, the climate forecasting models used by the IPCC and other climate alarmists over the last twenty years have now been shown to have over-predicted the extent to which the planet’s temperatures would increase. The fact that these models overestimate the extent of global temperature increases since 1998 has been recognized in many publications, including the scientific journal Nature. This 15-year period without measurable warming occurred at a time of record-breaking greenhouse gas emissions. These facts are deeply disappointing to those who have been demanding immediate and costly international and U.S. actions on the basis of these previous IPCC predictions. In a July 2013 Minority Report entitled Critical Thinking on Climate Change, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee outlined a number of predictions by liberal politicians and other alarmists made over the last 30 years on a range of climate issues that have not been borne out by the actual data. Moreover, according to the recent AP report, it would appear that the Administration has chosen to ignore the real potential for flaws in the climate models and, instead, decided to lobby the IPCC to downplay the lack of warming since 1998 by asserting the possibility that the oceans had absorbed heat energy that was otherwise expected to have manifested itself in higher global temperatures. On the other hand, the report suggests that Germany lobbied for the lack of warming since 1998 to be wholly erased from the report, and Belgium wanted a completely new starting year for measuring statistics. These efforts renew concerns that the IPCC is engaged in a political, not scientific, process. Further, the Administration’s lobbying efforts at the IPCC directly contradict the President’s own recent statements on climate change. As you know, the President recently claimed that “the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago” and that “the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.” On several occasions, the EPW Committee has requested data supporting this claim by the President. To date, the Administration has failed to provide the requested data and analysis. This matter raises several important questions: 1. Why would the Administration lobby the IPCC to explain the lack of warming in the IPCC report when the President has stated repeatedly that global temperatures are increasing faster than predicted? 2. Was the President correct when he stated that “the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago”?

3. Did you or anyone in your office attempt to correct the President after he made this claim publicly, knowing that you would be lobbying the IPCC to find the best way to explain why the temperatures have not, in fact, increased as much as was predicted a decade ago? 4. What role did the State Department, and your office in particular, play in developing the new estimates for the Social Cost of Carbon? We look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, _________________________ _________________________ David Vitter Jeff Sessions U.S. Senator U.S. Senator Go to http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=1609CE49-A7E4-2FE0-3111-45EE30BB2F05 Tom Sceifo

P. THE PRESIDENT'S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN THE CASE FOR ACTION While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, we have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged. Through steady, responsible action to cut carbon pollution, we can protect our children’s health and begin to slow the effects of climate change so that we leave behind a cleaner, more stable environment In 2009, President Obama made a pledge that by 2020, America would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels if all other major economies agreed to limit their emissions as well. Today, the President remains firmly committed to that goal and to building on the progress of his first term to help put us and the world on a sustainable long-term trajectory. Thanks in part to the Administration’s success in doubling America’s use of wind, solar, and geothermal energy and in establishing the toughest fuel economy standards in our history, we are creating new jobs, building new industries, and reducing dangerous carbon pollution which contributes to climate change. In fact, last year, carbon emissions from the energy sector fell to the lowest level in two decades. At the same time, while there is more work to do, we are more energy secure than at any time in recent history. In 2012, America’s net oil imports fell to the lowest level in 20 years and we have become the world’s leading producer of natural gas – the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/11/22/president-climate-action-plan/ Regards George