ASME 160314.Pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY DIVISION NEWSLETTER 14 MAR. 2016

If you need older URLs contact George at [email protected]. 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 editor alone and do not represent the positions of the Environmental and Energy Engineering Division or the ASME.” George Holliday

A. ENVIRONMENT 1. CLIMATE ALARMISM ON STEROIDS, WE ARE IN A “GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS” You just gotta love the phrase “unprecedented shift in temperature”, as if somehow people aren’t able to handle climate shifts say, like the difference in average annual temperature between New York and Miami (which is far greater than that caused by climate change), or the fact that humans simultaneously inhabit Antarctica and Death Valley, CA. No,… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/01/climate-alarmism-on-steroids-we-are-in-a-global-climate- crisis/ Don Shaw

JJDS Environmental is a full service Quality, Environmental and Safety consulting firm, formed in December 1999, which is dedicated to balancing legal requirements and cost. JJDS Environmental is a certified (SBA) small business located in Doylestown, PA (suburban Philadelphia); we are also a registered military (CCR), EPA, DOE, NASA and TDA contractor. JJDS Environmental's services include quality assurance and control programs, waste minimization/pollution prevention programs, safety and environmental auditing, compliance assistance programs, environmental permitting, USACE plan development and implementation, remediation services, construction oversight, start-up assistance, Environmental Management Systems, education and training programs, operator certification programs, peer review services, USACE/NAVFAC certified quality management, waste disposal contracting, expert testimony and contractor bid package preparation/evaluation. JJDS Environmental personnel include a USACE/NAVFAC Certified Quality Manager.

Mr. Feldman, the Owner/Principal, has over 30 years industrial experience and over 20 years environmental experience. He earned a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering at New Mexico State University in 1969. Before

beginning environmental work Mr. Feldman held a variety of engineering and production positions at industrial facilities. In 1980, he was the Environmental Manager at a large chemical plant in Illinois for Olin Corporation where he was responsible for overall compliance of the plant. Since then Mr. Feldman has held numerous positions in the environmental field with a heavy concentration on compliance monitoring and assistance for a wide range of industrial facilities. Mr. Feldman has been responsible for developing various environmental training tools and compliance assistance programs for both Olin and FMC Corporations. In addition, he has served on numerous industry trade association committees; he was a reviewer of the Chemical Manufacturer's Association RCRA [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] Subpart CC compliance manual developed in association with EPA, and co-authored and edited CMA's Responsible Care¨ Pollution Prevention Code compliance manual. Mr. Feldman is currently ViceChair of the ASME Hazardous Waste Incinerator Operators Certification Committee and Chair of the Testing Sub-Committee. To view Mr. Feldman's resume "click here"

3. REPORT: BIN LADEN PLANNED TO DESTABILISE AMERICA USING THE CLIMATE ISSUE Guest essay by Eric Worrall Reuter’s reports that the terrorist Osama Bin Laden intended to use the climate issue to spread chaos in the United States, by calling for people concerned about greenhouse gasses to rise up and overthrow the government. According to Reuter’s; Osama bin Laden wrote a letter calling on the American people… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/01/terrorist-plan-to-destabilise-america-using-the-climate-issue/

4. NEW PUBLICATION DEMONSTRATES THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE ROUTINELY EXAGGERATED THE “EVIL TWIN OF CLIMATE CHANGE” AKA OCEAN ACIDIFICATION A new paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science puts the issue of “ocean acidification” to the test, and finds that there has been significant exaggeration in the issue. The paper is: Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research “Ocean acidification” (OA), a change in seawater chemistry driven by increased uptake of atmospheric CO2… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/01/new-publication-demonstrates-that-scientists-have-routinely- exaggerated-the-evil-twin-of-climate-change-aka-ocean-acidification/

5. CLIMATE MODELS ARE NOT SIMULATING EARTH’S CLIMATE – PART 4 Guest Post by Bob Tisdale Alternate Title: Climate Models Undermine the Hypothesis of Human-Induced Global Warming According to the hypothesis of human-induced global warming; manmade greenhouse gases create an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, which causes the Earth to retain heat. One of the hypothetical results of that retained heat is… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/01/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-4/

6. AGU, EXXON AND THE CORPORATE FUNDING DILEMMA Posted on February 29, 2016 | 173 Comments by Judith Curry . . . to assess whether our partner/sponsor statements are in conflict with our position statements and accepted scientific consensus. – Margaret Leinen, AGU President Scientists to AGU: Drop Exxon sponsorship The relevant information is compiled [here]. Excerpts: Today more than 100 geoscientists sent the following letter to the President of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) – the world’s largest association of Earth scientists – urging the association to end its sponsorship deal with ExxonMobil. The oil giant is currently under investigation by the New York and California Attorneys General for its long history of climate denial campaigns. Many notable scientists have signed on, including the former director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies James E. Hansen, the former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Harvard Professor James J. McCarthy, Harvard Professor and author of Merchants of Doubt Naomi Oreskes, and Michael Mann– Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. The letter is the most recent example of a growing trend of scientists stepping out of their traditional roles to urge science institutions to cut ties to fossil fuel companies. Excerpts from the actual letter: We, the undersigned members of AGU (and other concerned geoscientists), write to ask you to please reconsider ExxonMobil’s sponsorship of the AGU Fall Meetings. As Earth scientists, we are deeply troubled by the well-documented complicity of ExxonMobil in climate denial and misinformation. For example, recent investigative journalism has shed light on the fact that Exxon, informed by their in-house scientists, has known about the devastating global warming effects of fossil fuel burning since the late 1970s, but spent the next decades funding misinformation campaigns to confuse the public, slander scientists, and sabotage science – the very science conducted by thousands of AGU members. Even today, Exxon continues to fund the American Legislative Exchange Council, a

lobbying group that routinely misrepresents climate science to US state legislators and attempts to block pro-renewable energy policies. Just last year, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson downplayed the validity of climate models and the value of renewable energy policies. The impacts of Exxon’s tactics have been devastating. Thanks in part to Exxon, the American public remains confused and polarized about climate change. And thanks in part to Exxon, climate science- denying members of Congress and lobby groups operating at the state level remain a major obstacle to US efforts to mitigate climate change. But by allowing Exxon to appropriate AGU’s institutional social license to help legitimize the company’s climate misinformation, AGU is undermining its stated values as well as the work of many of its own members. While we recognize that some of AGU’s scientific disciplines are deeply tied to the fossil fuel industry, we are also increasingly aware of the tension within our community regarding how we should respond to the urgency of climate change as individual scientists and as institutions. It is time to bring this tension into the light and determine how an organization such as AGU should approach the major challenges of today to ensure that we truly are working for the benefit of humanity. In particular, as the world’s largest organization of Earth scientists, if we do not take an active stand against climate misinformation now, when will we? Further details from ClimateWire (as quoted by Marlo Lewis): AGU’s meeting is the largest earth science conference in the world. It attracts tens of thousands of scientists and requires a conference space so large that it is used by Apple Inc. and Google Inc. for their yearly developer meetings. There are hundreds of sessions on the science of climate change. Exxon Mobil is a prominent sponsor and recruiter at the meeting and paid AGU $35,000 last year. According to Climatewire, one of the signers–Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists– stressed that petitioners are not asking AGU to cancel the sponsorships of all oil and gas companies, just Exxon. “AGU has set an unequivocal policy that restricts accepting funding from organizations that support or engage in misinformation on science,” he said. “That’s as it should be for any scientific society. We are just calling for AGU to implement the policy we already have.” AGU responds AGU President Margaret Leinen responds. Excerpts: In the summer of 2015, AGU released its new organizational support policy. This policy was designed to help ensure that AGU’s relationships with the corporate sector are in keeping with our values of unselfish collaboration in research and the highest standards of scientific integrity. One of the core principles of that policy is that it mandates that any potential partner not be engaged in the public promotion of misinformation about science. Prior to approving a new partner, AGU checks publicly available sources of information, such as websites and corporate media releases and public statements, to assess whether our partner/sponsor statements are in conflict with our position statements and accepted scientific consensus. Because we take such concerns seriously, the Board conducted its own research and discussed the issue at great length during the September 2015 meeting. At that time, we decided that ExxonMobil’s current public statements and activities were not inconsistent with AGU’s positions and the scientific consensus. It cannot be said that Exxon’s past positions and actions regarding climate change were in keeping with our policy or with the company’s current public positions, and we will be monitoring the results of the investigations by the Attorneys General of New York and California into those past actions. Yet our research did not find any information that demonstrates that they are currently involved in such activities. We recognize that companies can, and often do, modify their positions and actions on various issues over time. This can come about for a variety of reasons, and is

something that should be encouraged. But, if a company is excluded from the community based on its past actions, in spite of corrections or improvements that have been made over time, what are the implications? Does the rejection – or the inclusion – of such a company in our scientific community best serve the continuation of the progress we seek? We believe that inclusion is the best option. As the leaders of AGU, we welcome questions and requests from our members and others in the scientific community, and we assure you that if verifiable information becomes available that proves ExxonMobil is currently engaging in the promotion of misinformation about science or adopting positions that are in conflict with AGU’s own, or supporting groups that do, we will end the relationship, as dictated by our policy – at least until the company is able to demonstrate that such actions have ceased. We encourage our members to share with us any information about current activities that may contradict ExxonMobil’s public statements about their position and actions. Margaret Leinen is to be congratulated for not capitulating to demands to sever ties with Exxon, and for stating: Does the rejection – or the inclusion – of such a company in our scientific community best serve the continuation of the progress we seek? We believe that inclusion is the best option. Unfortunately, however, she falls into the ‘consensus trap’, the trap of mistaking scientific debate and uncertainty for ‘misinformation’, and for thinking that the AGU’s policy statement on climate change is the last word (i.e. ‘settled’) on the subject of climate change. The perils of position statements Marlo Lewis has an article Exxon Bashing, the AGU, and the Folly of Position Papers. Excerpts: Indeed, Leinem and the Exxon bashers tacitly agree that AGU’s role is not to facilitate debate of competing scientific viewpoints but to define and enforce a party line. When scientists behave like partisan hacks in the name of science, they degrade both science and politics. This phony brouhaha over Exxon’s alleged deviation from the AGU’s position statement should–but won’t–induce the AGU’s Board to question whether scientific associations have any business issuing consensus statements on matters of public controversy. Economist Ross McKitrick nailed it years ago. Official statements by scientific societies “celebrate groupthink and conformity,” foster “partisanship” by demanding allegiance to a “party line,” and “legitimate the appeal to authority as a form of argumentation.” In other words, official statements breed habits of thought and action detrimental to scientific integrity and progress. The AGU sowed the seeds of the Exxon bashers’ intolerant quackery when it decided to behave like a political organization instead of a scientific association. I have written several previous posts on the AGU Statement on Climate Change that was titled Human induced climate change requires urgent action:  AGU Statement on Climate Change  (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists Roger Pielke Sr, an AGU Fellow and member of the panel that prepared the AGU statement, penned a dissenting statement: Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The AGU Community Has The Responsibility To Accurately Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain My comments on the AGU statement were harshly critical: Of the two statements, I vastly prefer Roger Pielke Sr’s statement, since he discusses the complexity of the issue and the uncertainties. That said, I will once again question why AGU or any other professional society is issuing statements on this topic. IMO, AGU’s statement is one of the worst I’ve seen from a professional society on this topic, in particular its title ‘Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.’ This is an explicit statement of advocacy, that goes well beyond what the IPCC has said.

What really irks me about this statement is that I am a member of the AGU, and therefore this statement is implicitly speaking for me. It is clear that not even the 15 AGU members set to write this statement agreed, since one of their members (Pielke) has written a dissenting statement. The words ‘uncertainty’ or ‘debate’ are not used in the statement, leaving no wiggle room for them to pretend that this statement accounts for the range of perspectives in the AGU (or even within the writing committee), or the uncertainties. If the AGU wants to maintain credibility as a scientific organization, it should do some serious self reflection. The irresponsibility with which the AGU is proceeding with its advocacy has the potential to seriously harm not only AGU’s image and credibility, but also the science itself. So, we have two AGU Fellows (myself and Pielke) strongly objecting to the AGU Statement on Climate Change. I know of a number of AGU Fellows that also object to the AGU statement on climate change. I was originally worried about the position paper being used as a green light for AGU editors and reviewers to reject papers that challenge the ‘consensus’. I continue to worry about that. But now I see an unanticipated application of the AGU position statement: a litmus test for accepting or declining corporate sponsorship. Exxon The ‘charges’ against Exxon are fairly ludicrous, as summarized by Marlo Lewis: There is no way Exxon could have known about global warming’s ‘devastating’ effects in the late 1970s, because such effects are not evident even today. Even more fundamentally, Exxon could not have known in the “late 1970s” that global warming was a crisis because the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not know even in the early ’90s that anthropogenic global warming was occurring. The IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR), published in 1990, did not declare anthropogenic global warming to be a fact. Although the size of recent warming was “broadly consistent with predictions of climate models,” it was “also of the same magnitude as natural variability” (p. 6). Hence, “The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more.” Similarly, the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR), published in 1995, famously concluded the “balance of evidence . . suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” (p. 22). That too is not an assertion of what is demonstrably true, only what the “balance of evidence” “suggests.” There is genuine scientific disagreement about the relative importance of human caused climate change (versus natural variability) and the magnitude of climate sensitivity, not to mention how the 21st century climate will evolve (even if we know what the carbon emissions are). There is even greater disagreement over the following issues, for which science has little to contribute:  whether human caused climate change is on net ‘dangerous’  whether the near-term mitigation ‘cure’ is worse than the climate ‘disease’ in terms of damaging economies and increasing vulnerabilities, and unintended social and environmental consequences The letter writers are upset because the Exxon CEO downplayed the validity of climate models and the value of renewable energy policies. Well get over it – the Exxon CEO makes very valid points. The climate models have genuine validity problems, and current renewable energy policies are actually hampering things by diverting resources away from energy innovation. JC reflections It is worth revisiting my previous post Misinformation, disinformation and conflict. Excerpt: In terms of actual scientific facts in climate science, we have the infrared emission spectra of CO2. The rest of what passes for ‘information’ in the climate debate is really hypotheses or theories. Disagreement with someone’s hypothesis or theory, or not being convinced, does not make them a misinformer, disinformer or denier.

People discussing misinformation and disinformation in the context of a scientific debate are commonly doing so in context of frustrations and failures in their own propaganda to stimulate a policy response based on their view of what ‘science says’. It is sad (well much worse than sad) to see the AGU Executive falling for the ‘misinformation’ vs ‘consensus’ framing of climate science, without accounting for the massive uncertainties and the genuine disagreement. But that said, it is refreshing to see AGU engaging with industry (including oil companies) in a productive way. Would the climate science ‘enterprise’ be at the current impasse if they had engaged the energy companies from day one (back in the 1980’s): collaborating to develop emissions scenarios that make sense, and developing strategies to minimize the environmental impacts of fossil fuel use. Engagement with oil companies can also help support needed intellectual diversity in climate science to avoid the massive groupthink we now see. Instead, the fossil fuel companies were immediately positioned as ‘villains’, which exacerbated the traditional antagonism between green advocacy groups and the libertarian think tanks/advocacy groups and their lobbying efforts. Back in the mid noughties, oil companies (especially Exxon) did fund contrarian science. I recall seeing publicized an offer from Exxon for $10,000 to scientists who would poke holes in the IPCC AR4. At the time, I thought this was ‘evil’, since other ‘important’ climate scientists were making such statements in the media. Now I know better. SOMEONE should have been funding scientists to take an independent and critical look at the IPCC consensus and challenge it. Heck, the National Science Foundation should have been funding this. If the consensus is defensible, then skeptical challenges will only strengthen it. In areas where it is not defensible, skeptical challenges serve to move the science forward. Isn’t that our job description as scientists, and shouldn’t professional societies be promoting such activities? Hah! The climate scientists who think they are ‘masters of the universe’ are busy with their naive advocacy/activism; when this is amplified by the professional societies in the form of position papers etc., this advocacy/activism becomes irresponsible and detrimental to science. Back to AGU. So it is relief to see the AGU executive not immediately capitulating to the demands of the activists, and seriously considering its relationships with corporate sponsors. But I am afraid that the whole activist mentality has become so entrenched at AGU (at the great expense of the science), that the Executive doesn’t even realize the broader problems here. For additional context on funding and bias, see these previous posts:  Industry funding and bias  Is federal funding biasing research?  Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment The utter naivete of the scientist/activists/advocates never fails to astonish me, and the sheer irresponsibility of their advocacy never fails to concern me. One last comment. In looking at all the signatories to the letter (including the added ones), I was quite disturbed to see a number of young scientists signing, that were from the same institutions of the signatories of the ‘prime movers’ on this. If a senior faculty member came along (one who has a vote on your tenure case) and tries to convince you to sign this, I imagine many would think twice before saying ‘no.’ A very clear, but unfortunate, lesson to young climate scientists in how supporting the consensus can help you advance your career. On February 10th, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (“ACS”) hosted a panel discussion on legal approaches and activities associated with “combatting” climate change through legal action. Topics covered were RICO prosecutions, climate torts and the… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/12/how-the-progressive-left-intends-to-use-the-courts-to-harass- those-who-dont-agree-with-them-on-the-climate/

7. NEW STUDY: FULLY AUTOMATING SELF-DRIVING CARS COULD ACTUALLY BE WORSE FOR CARBON EMISSIONS Updated by David Roberts on February 27, 2016, 9:30 a.m. ET @drvox [email protected] Self-driving cars are at a fascinating juncture right now. We know they're coming soon. We know they're going to change things. But we don't know how they're going to change things — in what directions, to what effect, how quickly — so there's no end of breathless speculation. It stands to reason that vehicle automation could save energy and reduce emissions in some ways. Cars will be able to chain together more aerodynamically, drive at more consistent speeds, and perhaps serve as shared vehicles in lieu of individual vehicle ownership. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/27/11121416/study-fully-automating-self-driving-cars-worse Judith Curry

8. CALL FOR ASME PAPERS Track 8: Energy 2016 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition Phoenix, Arizona, November 11-17, 2016

8-14 Carbon Capture and Storage Organized by Dr. Chuanwei Zhuo, Cabot Corporation, [email protected] PURPOSE AND SCOPE Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of the technologies expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Efficient, economic, and environmentally friendly solutions are always being sought. This symposium brings together the work of prominent researchers in the field with the emphasis on both CCS fundamentals and applications. Main areas of interest are engineering challenges of CCS, and progress made in recent years in terms of novel materials, processes and applications. Papers, extended abstracts and technical presentation are solicited in areas including but not limited to: • CCS system - general (control, behavior, response, interaction with power generation and transmission systems, etc.) • Materials developed for CO2 capture, separation, purification, transport, storage, and applications • Gas capture (separation) from large point sources (power generation, natural gas processing, heavy industries, hydrogen production, etc.) • Gas compression/dehydration • CO2 transport and transport system maintenance • Beneficial reuse of CO2 (e.g. enhanced oil recovery (EOR), urea application, food industry, beverage carbonation, carbonate/bicarbonate, biomass processing) SUBMISSION DEADLINE: March 7, 2016

See Conference website for detailed Publication Schedule http://www.asmeconferences.org/IMECE2016/Author/NewAbstract.cfm

Sponsored by ASME Energy Division, Advances Energy Systems Division and Environmental Engineering Division Email From: ASME, 2 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Arne Feldman

ASME EED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN THE POWER INDUSTRY: REQUEST FOR QUESTIONS The ASME Environmental Engineering Division will be holding a panel discussion session on environmental issues at the ASME Power Conference, Charlotte, NC, June 26th-30th. The panel will include experts on the various issues surrounding environmental topics in the power industry. To maximize the input into the topics and questions we are asking those associated with environmental topics in the power industry to submit possible questions for the panelists. The current list of topics includes:

 Emissions/Waste Reduction in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Units  Permitting (multi media) in CCS Units at Power Plants  Water Conservation in Power Plants  Role of ASME Codes & Standards in Environmental Regulations  Environmental Impacts and Mitigation of Renewable Energy Sources (i.e., solar, wind, hydro, etc.)  Coal Ash Pond Containment Systems  Transient emissions, specifically Startup, Shutdown & malfunction (SSM), on combined cycle power plants  Impact of SSM on plant operations and emissions/emissions control

If there are other topics you would desire having discussed please let me know. Please feel free to submit your questions on the above topics (or other environmental issues) to Arnold Feldman ([email protected]) by June 10th. Arnie Feldman

COMMENTS A. THIS WEEK: BY KEN HAAPALA, PRESIDENT, SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT (SEPP) 5 MAR. 2016 Atmospheric Data – Re-Analysis and Confirmation: An issue developed this week that illustrates the importance of proper re-analysis of data and independent confirmation. The issue regarding temperature trends in the middle troposphere was noticed by Anthony Watts, WUWT, discussed in several other posts, with an expanded discussion by Roy Spencer. Spencer and John Christy developed the method of measuring temperatures using data from satellites, for which they received significant recognition. Their findings are publicly posted monthly, with the data going back to December 1978. These data, known as the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) data are the most comprehensive estimates of global temperatures in existence. The group is funded by NOAA. A private group, publicly and privately funded, is headed by Frank Wentz, with Carl Mears the chief scientist; Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) provides the other well-known analysis. Some years ago, this group discovered that the UAH data, at that time, did not properly account for orbital decay of satellites, giving a cooling bias to the data. Once this bias became known and demonstrated, UAH adjusted for it. This is the way science works, correcting mistakes. Unfortunately, this incident led some global warming promoters to declare that the UAH data is discredited, which it is not. THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Atmospheric Data – Re-Analysis and Confirmation: An issue developed this week that illustrates the importance of proper re-analysis of data and independent

confirmation. The issue regarding temperature trends in the middle troposphere was noticed by Anthony Watts, WUWT, discussed in several other posts, with an expanded discussion by Roy Spencer. Spencer and John Christy developed the method of measuring temperatures using data from satellites, for which they received significant recognition. Their findings are publicly posted monthly, with the data going back to December 1978. These data, known as the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) data are the most comprehensive estimates of global temperatures in existence. The group is funded by NOAA. A private group, publicly and privately funded, is headed by Frank Wentz, with Carl Mears the chief scientist; Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) provides the other well-known analysis. Some years ago, this group discovered that the UAH data, at that time, did not properly account for orbital decay of satellites, giving a cooling bias to the data. Once this bias became known and demonstrated, UAH adjusted for it. This is the way science works, correcting mistakes. Unfortunately, this incident led some global warming promoters to declare that the UAH data is discredited, which it is not. This week, ahead of print, the Journal of Climate posted an article by Mears and Wentz stating that, in effect, UAH under- estimate global temperature trends. And the fun begins. At issue are the readings roughly between 1995 to 2005 from one satellite, NOAA-14,. Spencer and Christy noticed that this satellite gave higher readings than the prior satellites and the following satellite, NOAA-15. They considered the warming to be spurious and adjusted for in their latest data on the Lower Troposphere and the Middle Troposphere for several reasons. One, the new Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) instrumentation on NOAA-15 is far superior to the prior instrumentation. Second, the NOAA-14 satellite orbit was “drifting far beyond any of the other dozen satellites in the record, leading to warming of the instrument itself.” Further, after Mears made the RSS data available, Christy calculated the level of agreement (variance) of the three satellite data sets (including NOAAv3.0) with eight sets of radiosonde data from weather balloons. The correspondence with the UAH dataset was far better than the other two satellite data sets, with the exception of the balloon dataset showing the greatest warming trend. Also, when Mears and Wentz first submitted their article to another journal for publication, Christy reviewed it and made certain recommendations, but did not recommend against publication. All this was available to Mears and Wentz prior to publication in Journal of Climate. Why they treated data from superior instrumentation the same as data from inferior instrumentation on a satellite that was shown to give biased readings is known only to them. But the incident demonstrates the importance of careful reanalysis and independent confirmation of instrument data. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and Measurement Issues – Atmosphere. ***************** UAH Atmospheric Data Discredited? As stated above, some global warming promoters claim UAH atmospheric data are discredited, even though UAH made the necessary adjustments decades ago. The atmospheric data used in the brief filed by some scientists in support of petitioners opposing the Administration’s power plan is for the Lower Troposphere (surface to 18 km (59,000 feet)). The data show no statistically significant trends, positive or negative, exist between 1979 and 2011. Further, the data show no tropical hot spot (an atmospheric warming trend centered at about 33,000 feet, 10km) with more a pronounced warming trend than surface warming trend. The Mears and Wentz study is for the middle troposphere, not the lower troposphere (there is some overlap). It will be interesting to see if they publish one for the lower troposphere and if they test their ideas against radiosonde data from weather balloons. In the context of atmospheric data, the new paper needs to be considered. In the context of the prevailing theory of the influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations on the earth’s temperatures, it is less important. Since the 1979 Charney report, the prevailing concept is that a doubling of CO2 will result in an increase in the earth’s temperatures in the range 1.5 º C to 4.5 º C or a range of estimates of 3 º C. As of now, the trend for RSS is 0.129 º C per decade and for UAH 0.072 º C per decade. The difference equals 0.057 º C per decade over the satellite record. Given the wide range of estimates being advanced by the Climate Establishment, a difference between UAH and RSS

estimates of 0.57 º C per century is not particularly significant. Using this difference to claim the UAH data discredited is akin to claiming a bump on the rump of an elephant discredits the elephant’s existence. [It should be noted that the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR-4) of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had the estimate of warming at 2.0 º C to 4.5 º C. This report was current in the 2009 EPA finding that greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO2, endanger public health and welfare (Endangerment Finding). The Fifth Assessment Report (AR-5) in 2013 went back to 1.5 º C to 4.5 º C. So the IPCC partially undermined the EPA Endangerment Finding. SEPP thinks that the lower bound (from a doubling of CO2) is far too high. Based on observations and recent research it should be no more than 1 º C, or significantly less. Of course, such an estimate would render meaningless the bureaucratic science being performed on the social costs of carbon by certain government entities, such as the US Global Change Research Program. See Measurement Issues – Atmosphere and the February 27 TWTW at SEPP.org. ***************** El Niño Influence: For some time, Roy Spencer, and others, have suggested that the current strong El Niño may increase atmospheric temperatures, showing that these data are influenced by events other than CO2 concentrations, including weather events and volcanoes. Spencer reports that this February is the warmest since full-year satellite measurements began in 1979. It should be remembered that the IPCC, and others, consider El Niños to be weather events, not climate events. Even the concept that frequent El Niños influence climate was not accepted by the IPCC. Not systematically discovering the causes of El Niños, which result in warming, and La Niñas, which result in cooling, is a major deficiency in the funding of climate science by government entities. The emphasis on only human factors is greatly misplaced. Among other private researchers, Bob Tisdale has asserted that El Niños result from a lessening of the trade winds in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, resulting in a lessening of the overturning of the ocean and a warming of the surface water. For months, private groups and government entities have been forecasting that this 2015-16 El Niño is a strong one. Also, some private groups, such as Weatherbell Analytics, have been stating that the current El Niño is significantly different than the 1997- 98 El Niño. It is centered further westward, towards the central equatorial Pacific, rather than in the eastern Pacific, off the coast of Peru. The different location results in different weather patterns, particularly in the Americas. As linked in last week’s TWTW, NASA finally recognized that the current El Niño is different than the 1997-98 one, and NOAA forecasts that it will fade quickly and be replaced by a strong La Niña this year. The real question is what will happen after the La Niña. Will the temperatures roughly stabilize for a number of years, as in the past? Will the level be roughly the same as before, or will it be higher, as happened after the 1997-98 El Niño. Unfortunately, these unknowns are among the many problems in climate science. ***************** RICO: Starting about September 2015, some academics at George Mason University (in Virginia) were urging members of Congress to begin investigations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against those who question the Climate Establishment that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming. Now, another member of Congress, Lamar Smith, is suggesting that at least one of the academics and his wife received compensation for full-time employment from federal grants while he received compensation for full- time employment at George Mason University. This practice is known as “double-dipping” and may be illegal. Given that the Justice Department refused to investigate Peter Gleick for pretending to be as a member of the Board of Directors of the Heartland Institute in order to obtain privileged documents, it is questionable if the Justice Department will investigate. But if Lamar Smith prevails, it will be interesting to see if the colleagues of this academic claim that he is protected by academic freedom. Also, are these colleagues still expecting great windfalls in possible RICO cases from suing private

companies for not spreading climate alarm? See link under Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt – Push-Back and Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up. ***************** Energy Security: On Climate Etc., Evan Hillegrand has an interesting discussion on energy security. All too often, such concepts are confused by secondary concepts such as energy independence or sustainability. As with other commodities, in themselves, energy imports are neither good nor bad, as long as the imports are reliable. Also, the concept of sustainability opens up a host of issues for speculation. Eight years ago, who would have proclaimed that oil and natural gas production in the US was sustainable for the foreseeable future – except those few who were advocating increased drilling? See link under Seeking a Common Ground. ***************** A Noble Experiment? On his web site, Energy Matters, Euan Mears (not Carl Mears) has been tracking an experiment on El Hierro, one of the Canary Islands, to make the island energy independent with 100% renewable electricity, with a combination of wind power and pumped hydro storage. With a round-trip loss of about 30%, or more, of the electricity that goes into pumping water uphill, pumped hydro storage is the only method used on a commercial scale to store excess electricity for future use. It is used in Denmark, with the pumped hydro in Norway and Sweden, and in the US, with the largest facility in Virginia. For El Hierro, the system had an installed wind capacity of more than twice the peak demand. The ultimate back-up was diesel. In a lengthy, somewhat technical post, Mearns discusses the experiment after eight months of operation. About 32% of the electricity delivered was renewable (wind and pumped storage). About 68% was diesel. Under prolonged windy conditions the renewable system delivered only about 50% of the electricity. Those promoting wind power, especially politicians, should be forced to address the limited reliability of wind power. See link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind -- Reliability ***************** Additions and Corrections: Australian Des Moore asked if the Supreme Court decision to “stay” EPA actions on the Administration’s power plan would impact on other regulations on CO2, and will the Administration fulfill its promises in the Paris Accord? To which we responded, from our reading, the unusual stay applies only to the Administration’s “Clean Power Plan”, which would have forced states to develop plans in order to reduce CO2 emissions. The plan applies to existing stationary sources and largely to coal-fired power plants. This does not prevent the EPA from inventing additional regulations, but if such regulations apply to CO2 emissions, the EPA will be in a legal thicket. The commitment to the Paris agreement is that of the Administration alone, not of the nation. It is based on the Administration’s power plan, which has been suspended, indefinitely. The Administration has ignored the role of Congress. There is little reason to assume it will obtain the support of Congress at this late date. ***************** Number of the Week 19.2%, compounded annually. Some promoters of global warming/climate change are demanding that insurers and other companies inform their stockholders of the risks of climate change. In the 2015 annual report, Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. did so. His comments include: “Up to now; climate change has not produced more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather-related events covered by insurance. As a consequence, U.S. super-cat rates have fallen steadily in recent years, which is why we have backed away from that business. If super-cats become costlier and more frequent, the likely—though far from certain—effect on Berkshire’s insurance business would be to make it larger and more profitable. “As a citizen, you may understandably find climate change keeping you up nights. As a homeowner in a low-lying area, you may wish to consider moving. But when you are thinking only as a shareholder of a major insurer, climate change should not be on your list of worries.” Berkshire Hathaway is the largest shareholder in Munich Re, the world’s largest re-insurance company. Annually, Munich Re promptly produces reports of losses, both insured

and estimated non-insured, for the previous year, which are linked in TWTW. There are no skyrocketing losses. Berkshire Hathaway’s annual report stated that the Compounded Annual Gain for the stockholders, 1965-2015, is 19.2%. Claiming that the stockholders are being misled by not stating the risks of climate change is absurd. See links under Questioning the Orthodoxy. ################################################### http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2016/TWTW3-05-16.pdf

C. GLOBAL TEMPERATURE REPORT: WARMEST EVER FEBRUARY DRIVEN BY EL NIÑO From UAH: February was warmest month in satellite record Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade February temperatures (preliminary) Global composite temp.: +0.83 C (about 1.50 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February. Northern Hemisphere: +1.17 C (about 2.11 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30- year average for February. Southern Hemisphere: +0.50 C (about… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/global-temperature-report-warmest-ever- february-2016-driven-by-el-nino/

D. LATEST GLOBAL TEMPS – FEBRUARY 2016

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years. A discussion of the latest version (6.0) of the dataset is located here. The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way

with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Roy Spencer

E. GLOBAL TEMPERATURE REPORT: WARMEST EVER FEBRUARY DRIVEN BY EL NIÑO From UAH: February was warmest month in satellite record Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade February temperatures (preliminary) Global composite temp.: +0.83 C (about 1.50 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February. Northern Hemisphere: +1.17 C (about 2.11 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February. Southern Hemisphere: +0.50 C (about… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/global-temperature-report-warmest-ever-february-2016- driven-by-el-nino/

F. THE ICE WAS ALL BETWEEN Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach I do my best to maintain my sense of awe regarding the things I study. I’ve had the good fortune in my life to be a commercial fisherman on the Bering Sea, and to voyage and fish on the edges of the Arctic ice. To me, sea ice, whether fixed… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/the-ice-was-all-between/

G. THE ‘KARLIZATION’ OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CONTINUES – THIS TIME RSS MAKES A MASSIVE UPWARDS ADJUSTMENT Forget homogenization, that is so 2010. If the pause is bothering you and your belief is that there must be more warming, we only need to find it in the data, then what you need is “Karlization”, named after director of the National Climatic Data Center, (now NCEI) Tom Karl who pulled a fast one… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/the-karlization-of-global-temperature-continues-this-time-rss- makes-a-massive-upwards-adjustment/

H. GOP, REGULATORS SPAR OVER PROPOSED OFFSHORE DRILLING RULE By James Osborne March 2, 2016 Updated: March 2, 2016 10:13pm WASHINGTON - A top U.S. energy official struck back Wednesday at what he described as "alarmist" criticism of a new federal rule designed to reduce the chance of another offshore drilling accident like the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill. Brian Salerno, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, testified to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources that his agency had made some "adjustments" to what is known as the well control rule. But, he said, those changes merely codified what was standard practice at his agency - that inspectors not rigidly follow the letter of the law but work with operators on offshore drilling rigs to find safe and reasonable solutions. "There's been a lot of alarmist language associated with this," Salerno said after the hearing. "To believe it, you would have to ignore the way this agency has historically operated."

Salerno declined to be more specific about the changes, noting that the well control rule is still under review at the Office of Management and Budget. The hearing comes almost six years after BP's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded while drilling in nearly mile-deep water. Eleven workers died, and the well leaked for months. Last year, U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced that the government was preparing to tighten regulations on offshore drilling, addressing the blowout preventers that failed in the Deepwater catastrophe and how companies drill and monitor wells far below the ocean's surface. Energy The regulation change comes as crude prices remain stubbornly low. Oil companies are scrapping projects worth billions of dollars across the Gulf of Mexico. At the same time, President Barack Obama's commitment to fighting climate change is drawing intensifying pushback in Washington from politicians representing fossil-fuel- rich states like Texas. GOP congressmen During Wednesday's hearing, in which the heads of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Land Management also testified, GOP congressmen took issue with the volume of new rules related to fossil-fuel extraction. "It seems like not a Friday afternoon has gone by without a notice from one of the agencies of proposed rule-making," subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said. Higher costs? A recent study from the Gulf Economic Survival Team, an industry group founded by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in 2010 in response to a post-Deepwater Horizon drilling moratorium, predicts the revised offshore drilling rule would raise costs so high that the number of exploratory wells drilled annually would fall by 55 percent, leading to widespread job losses. Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., demanded that Salerno's safety and environmental enforcement bureau put the adjusted rule back out for public comment to give industry a chance to review changes. "I am very concerned about the expertise within your agency to write this rule," he said. "Deepwater Horizon was caused by gross negligence. It wasn't because the rules were flawed." Salerno questioned that analysis, stating that the rule had been written in response to hundreds of recommendations from various government committees and task forces that had studied the 2010 accident. He also took issue with criticism that his group shut out industry representatives. "We've met with them 60 times during the development of this rule," Salerno said. Houston Chronicle

I. ANOTHER PIE IN THE SKY GREEN SCHEME FOR USING THAT EXCESS ATMOSPHERIC CO2 From the “there’s a shedload of carbon on the surface” department comes this “green solution” that will “overcome the environmental sins of our past”. Oy, Converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into batteries, A green solution for a global problem, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY. An interdisciplinary team of scientists has worked out a way to make electric vehicles that… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/another-pie-in-the-sky-green-scheme-for-using-that-excess- atmospheric-co2/

J. GO NUCLEAR-EFN NEWSLETTER - ISSUE 3, VOL 1 - FEBRUARY 2016. JOHN SHANOHAN

Please click here to subscribe to our newsletter.

Specially for you in this issue

The NUCLEAR Science & Technology Newsletter is sent to professionals in energy, medicine, science, to students, parents, teachers and leaders in industry and government in 113 countries. We focus on why peaceful use of nuclear is important for PEOPLE and the ENVIRONMENT.

Who wants the world to get along better, live better and preserve the environment and beauty of nature? We explore how plentiful energy and related science, products and services can help make a better world for everyone.

Give us your ideas. Take the survey below. Please forward this newsletter to your colleagues and friends and suggest that they take the survey. You will see different answers from around the world.

Fossil fuels provide most of the energy we use today. They are the basis of many products and services for modern living.

Billions of people still don't have full benefits of modern living, healthy economies and stable governments. Plentiful energy can help.

You are receiving this, because we think you want to work for a better world through understanding energy and the importance of related products and sciences to medicine, the economy, modern living and protection of nature and the environment.

This newsletter and the two websites will help you understand the importance of plentiful, reliable, clean, safe energy for humanity and the environment. It will help you learn about nuclear medicine and nuclear science through radioisotopes and low dose radiation. Please share this e-mail with colleagues and friends.

If this Newsletter is not of interest, you can unsubscribe.

Nuclear Energy Today

Dr. Theodore Rockwell was one of the great pioneers in commercial nuclear power and the U.S. nuclear navy. He said, "I like to stir up spirited discussions on important issues. Socially, I like to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

His "Nuclear Energy Facts" report covers many interesting aspects of commercial nuclear power. It is easy and fascinating

reading for the general public.

Ted Rockwell’s Nuclear Energy Facts Report

NOTE: You need to click on the IMAGE of the first page of the report to open the report. Press the ESC key to close the report.

Radioisotopes

The World Council on Isotopes Newsletter has lots of information on production of and uses of radioisotopes. In the March, 2015 issue, there is an excellent report about the challenges for a reliable supply of Mo-99, the most widely used radioisotope in nuclear medicine..

Don Robertson, "Reliable Supply of Mo-99"

You can subscribe to the World Council on Isotopes Newsletter by going to the website: www.wci-ici.org.

Another important article from the www.wci-ici.org website is in their January 2016 Newsletter titled, "Special Report on Advances in Medical Radiotherapy" The authors, Alan Waltar and Jim Katzaroff discuss advances in the field of medical radiotherapy over the last ten years. All very interesting and promising.

Special Report on Advances in Medical Radiotherapy

Radiation

Understanding low-dose radiation is one of the most important issues for nuclear energy and nuclear medicine. Instead of using science to establish guidelines for radiation safety, the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis with the Collective Dose Corollary has been used. This results in the industry using the ALARA principle, As Low As Reasonably Achievable. It sounds good, but places unnecessary and impractical restrains on the use of nuclear energy and nuclear science.

Here is an important article about the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis.

Zbigniew Jaworowski, The Paradigm that Failed

Endorsement For Nuclear Power by a Mother, Fashion Model and Dancer

Very important is to have people around the world understand and embrace nuclear power, nuclear medicine, and nuclear science. Denise Braunder-Scandrett grew up in London in the late 1950s. The air was terribly polluted. She moved to Paris and started a career as a dancer at the world famous cabaret, Lido de Paris. Then went on to an outstanding career as a top fashion model, traveling around the world. She is retired and

lives with her family in a suburb of Paris, where the air is clean

and nature is close by.

This is an entertaining video about nuclear power. Be prepared to catch the last second.

Denise Braundet Scandrett - An Environmental Conversation

Conference at the United States's National Museum of Nuclear Science & History

The National Museum of Nuclear Science & History in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA hosted a conference on February 24, 2016 to exchange information and ideas with Go Nuclear, Inc. and Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - USA about public education for nuclear energy, radioisotopes for

nuclear medicine and research, and understanding low dose

radiation.

Jim Walther, Museum Director gave the opening talk about the museum's mission for public education and sharing experiences with organizations like Go Nuclear, Inc. and Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - USA.

John Shanahan, President of Go Nuclear, Inc. and of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy – USA, gave a presentation in which he compared and contrasted the missions, content, people and education methods for his two organizations and the museum.

Mark Miller gave a presentation about Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI), explaining its membership policy, organization and mission statement. He introduced the XLNT Foundation, website (http://www.x-lnt.org/) to educate the

public on the observed beneficial health effects of low-dose ionizing radiation, and to campaign for eliminating use of the LNT model in order to enhance public health.

Ronald Knief, author of the textbook Nuclear Engineering – Theory and Technology of Commercial Nuclear Power, gave a talk about his experiences to educate the public about nuclear energy and nuclear power. He pointed to a recent publication of the National Academy of Sciences in which it was stated that we must use all available energy sources, and use them as efficiently as possible, if we are to continue making the world a better place for all.

Jeff Mahn gave a presentation with co-author Judith Mead titled "Nuclear Power, Fables and Facts," which addressed some fables about the safety of nuclear power plants, ionizing radiation risks from nuclear power plants, environmental effects of nuclear power, and radioactive waste. It was pointed out that such fables, disseminated by those opposed to nuclear power to frighten the public, continue to live on primarily because the counter arguments don’t lend themselves to simply understood explanations, and more detailed explanations can be generally beyond the public’s comprehension.

Worldwide Survey

Please take our quick survey indicating what you think will be the most likely future energy sources for your region of the world.

To take the survey, please click here.

Please click here to subscribe to our newsletter.

K. CHARTING HISTORICAL GLOBAL PER CAPITA GDP Writing in his recent book Contours of the World Economy, 1-2030 AD: Essays in Macro-Economic History, Angus Madison, Professor of Economic Growth, makes these observations: … From the year 1000 to 1820, growth was predominately extensive. Most of the GDP increase went to accommodate a four-fold increase in population. The advance in per capita income was a slow crawl – the world average increased by half over a period of eight centuries. http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/gdp-growth-over-the-very-long- run/

Regards George