ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING NEWSLETTER 23 SEPT. 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 [email protected]. Please Note: This newsletter contains articles that offer differing points of view regarding , 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. EPA WITHDRAWS RECENT AMENDMENT OF ALL APPROPRIATE INQUIRY RULE On September 10, 2013, EPA announced that it will withdraw its direct final rule published on August 15, 2013 amending CERCLA’s All Appropriate Inquiry rule, 40 CFR pt. 312, to allow the use of the updated 2013 version of the ASTM International diligence standard, E1527-13, to satisfy the all appropriate inquiries needed to qualify for certain landowner liability protections under CERCLA, as an alternative to the 2005 version of the standard. See TIP 2013-140. The withdrawal announcement was made prior to the end of the 30 day comment period on the rule. EPA is withdrawing the rule in response to criticism that a two-tier standard would be created because the rule allowed the continued use of the 2005 version of the ASTM standard (ASTM E1527-05). Critics included participants in the development of the 2013 standard who expressed concern that, although the 2013 standard is better, use of the 2005 standard would be more likely since it is less expensive. EPA has indicated it will issue a new rule to address the criticism Roger Zygmunt

B. UNITED STATES SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINORITY REPORT CRITICAL THINKING ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Well worth reading http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=f1d2b8cb- eaff-6e1f-94e4-5a5aab6ed751&CFID=39730848&CFTOKEN=78002783

C. CARBON MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE 2013 October 21-23, 2013 Hilton Alexandria Old Town Alexandria, VA

This foundational conference , sponsored by the eight major engineering societies (ASME, AIChE, IEEE, ASCE, TMS, SME, SPE and AIST), draws practiced professionals from all engineering disciplines to share their expertise and provide perspective on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to changing climate. The conference will focus on engineering perspectives regarding technologies, strategies, policies, management systems, uncertainties, and metrics for evaluating alternatives. Gain engineering expertise, experience and perspectives on technologies, strategies, policies, management systems, metrics, and other key issues. Discover novel approaches and new technologies that are instrumental to technical, economic and social advancements in carbon management. Through robust scheduled sessions, well-known speakers from leading companies and academic institutions, co-located workshops, and networking opportunities, this year's program will address 20+ topics under these four themes: • Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage • Carbon Management Pathways from Electricity Generation to End User • Potentially Game-Changing Technology and Evaluation • Engineering Challenges and Solutions for Adaptation to Climate Change To view the technical program, visit http://fscarbonmanagement.org/content/technical-program Register today and be part of the one conference focused on the engineering perspectives critical to meeting the challenge of greenhouse gas emissions. For more information or to register, please visit us at http://fscarbonmanagement.org/content/cmtc-2013 Arnold Feldman

D. ASME IS DEVELOPING AN ASME ENERGY FORUM – Oil and Gas 2014 entitled Shale Development and –Challenges and Opportunities, Exploring Unconventional Resources. It is being planned for March 17–19, 2014 in San Diego and will focus on fracking. Arnold Feldman

E. EED MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT The Environmental Engineering Division (EED) is planning two meetings for all its members who are able to attend, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast.

The East Coast meeting will be held in conjunction with the Carbon Management Technology Conference (CMTC), which will take place at the Hilton Alexandria Old Town in Alexandria, VA, October 21-23. The EED meeting will be held the afternoon of Tuesday, October 22, from 7PM -9PM.

The West Coast meeting will be held during IMECE 2013 in San Diego, CA, November 15-21. The specific date and time have not yet been set.

At both meetings, we will discuss the recent EED member survey, the revised Division By- Laws, and interest in forming and participating in new technical committees identified as being of interest in the survey. EED members who wish to attend the Division meeting will not be required to register for either conference, although there are certainly benefits to attending these conferences if you are able.

For more information on the EED meetings contact:

 East Coast: Arnie Feldman, EED ViceChair, 267-880-2325, [email protected]  West Coast: Andy Miller, EED Chair, 213-244-1809, [email protected]

F. GLOBAL CCS INSTITUTE CCS WORKSHOP AT CMTC 2013 You are invited to participate in a workshop titled CCS/CCUS Overview: What It Is and What Are Its Implications? The workshop is sponsored by the Global CCS Institute in collaboration with the 2013 Carbon Management Technology Conference. It will be held at the Hilton Alexandria Old Town in Alexandria, VA on Sunday, October 20, 2013, and is geared to individuals who are involved in carbon dioxide management but who may not be an expert in all aspects. Registration for this workshop is free: https://chenected.wufoo.com/forms/registration- ccsccus-overview-workshop/ and a networking reception will be held for all attendees after the completion of the workshop. For those who wish to further enhance their knowledge of carbon management we encourage you to also attend the Carbon Management Technology Conference (CMTC 2013), sponsored by AIChE, ASME, ASCE, IEEE, AIST, SPE, TMS, and SME which begins on Monday October 21. For more information visit the website: http://www.fscarbonmanagement.org/content/cmtc-2013

2) HEALTH – A. PLAGUE - USA (02): (NEW MEXICO), BUBONIC

The New Mexico Department of Health announced today, 10 Sep 2013, a probable case of plague in an 11-year-old girl from Torrance County. Preliminary test results at the Department's Scientific Laboratory Division were positive. Confirmatory testing is pending. This is the 2nd human case of plague in New Mexico and in the USA in 2013. An environmental investigation will take place at the girl's home to look for ongoing risk to others in the surrounding area. http://www.eandp-environment.net/Health/Health020701.pdf

3) SAFETY – A. GREAT EXAMPLE OF HOW NOT TO CHECK FOR FLAMMABLE GAS. IF YOU ARE NOT USING A COMBUSTIBLE GAS DETECTOR THEN THIS MAY BE WHAT YOU ARE RISKING.

http://www.taproot.com/archives/38514?utm_source=July+23%2C+2013+Friends+Experts+Nor th+America&utm_campaign=July+23+Friends+and+Experts+US%2C+Canada%2C+Mexico&u tm_medium=email

4. TRANSPORTATION – A. OIL IN QUEBEC RAIL WRECK WAS MISLABELED By PAUL VIEIRA and TOM FOWLER OTTAWA—The oil carried on railcars that derailed, exploded and killed 47 people in a small Quebec town this summer was a more-flammable liquid than its shippers indicated, Canadian transport investigators said on Wednesday, a development that heralds a further tightening of oversight of the booming trade in shipping oil by rail. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada said its tests showed the oil had a much lower flash point— the temperature at which a fire can ignite—than originally indicated on tank-car signage and was more dangerous than identified on the railcars that plowed into Lac-Mégantic on July 6. http://www.eandp-environment.net/Transportation/Transportation020610.pdf

COMMENTS: A. THE WEEK THAT WAS: 2013-09-14 (SEPT. 14, 2013) By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) ################################################### IPCC:On September 27, the UN IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC)is scheduled to release the first part of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), including the politically negotiated Summary for Policymakers (SPM), and the Working Group I section that contains the science supporting the SPM. This is a departure from prior releases when the SPM came out long before the scientific section was ready for release. Much has happened since the last major report,AR4, was released in 2007. Numerous scientists exposed glaring IPCC mistakes, Climategate exposed game playing of many of the participants, etc. Probably most importantly, nature has undermined the credibility of the IPCC and the entire climate establishment and their models by refusing to allow the globe to warm, over 15 years on the surface and about a decade in the atmosphere. This failure to warm is in spite of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) continuing to increase, directly contradicting the prior claims of the IPCC and its followers that CO2 is the control knob of climate. Of the industrial countries, only the United States has significantly reduced CO2 emissions –without any governmental mandates to do so. Writing in and on the web site of Anthony Watts, Matt Ridley reports he has seen a key prediction in the new documents –the IPCC will reduce the most extreme projection of warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide somewhat, 30%, as compared with its 2007 projections. Writing on his web site, The Reference Frame, Luboš Motlis far from impressed. Motl thinks that based on the scientific[physical] evidence the warming from a doubling of CO2 would about 0.5 to 1.5 deg C. This is different than the values obtained by using computer models that have not been validated. Also, Motl is disturbed by the IPCC’s continued use of unsubstantiated probabilities in making its projections. We shall have to wait to see what the final documents actually contain. Please see Article # 1 and links under Problems in the Orthodoxy. ***************** SCC: Monday marks the last day for public comment to the Department of Energy on the Social Costs or Carbon (SCC) as recalculated by US government agencies, without legislative authority. The specific issue seems trivial –the electricity use by microwave ovens. But this is how some agencies now operate. Establish regulations on a trivial issue, and then slowly expand such regulations to other non-trivial areas until no one dare question the authority of the agencies for asserting such questionable power. One can label it as industrial policy by bureaucracy. The strategy was successfully employed by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers in regulating privately owned properties, labeled wetlands, even though many of the labeled wetlands had no water. Several Washington think-tanks are submitting comments, including the Heritage Foundation, CATO, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. One issue is sea level rise. Is it proper for the government agencies to apply future sea level rise from projected global warming from CO2 emissions to US industries when US emissions are falling and countries such as China are the principal sources of increasing emissions? Another main issues is the appropriate discount rate, how to value the possible future harm in today’s economy? The lower the discount rate the higher possible future harm is valued in today’s economy. carried an interesting article presenting the issue as being a moral vs. business issue. The moral stand point will be a low discount rate, thus a high present value assigned to future warming. The business stand point is a high discount rate with a low present value. This is the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. The real moral issue is what right do government agencies have for imposing costs on industry and the public for emitting CO2 when the government agencies have failed to produce a valid climate model that has been shown to successfully predict future global warming? At this point, it has not been scientifically established if CO2 emissions are a net cost or a net benefit. The NIPCC reports have reviewed thousands of studies showing increased atmospheric CO2 is a benefit. SEPP is submitting its comments on SCC, which will probably differ from most. Please see links under Social Cost of Carbon. ***************** Supreme Court: The US Supreme Court begins its fall session on October 7. It may announce its decision of wheth eror not to hear the challenges to the EPA Endangerment Finding at that time, or sometime afterwards. ***************** Australia’s Election: The coalition that opposed Australia’s carbon tax has announced the dismantling of significant climate change programs. But it does not have clear control of the Senate. Thus, the status of the carbon tax is not yet clear. Please see links under Questioning Green Elsewhere and Cap and Trade and Carbon Taxes. ***************** Benefits of Smart Drilling: The Wall Street Journal has two articles on the great benefits to the poor from the US oil and gas revolution. The revolution can be described as obtaining oil and gas from dense shale, deep underground by applying precision directional drilling, multi-port hydraulic fracturing, insertion of sand or small ceramics to keep fractures open, and use of selected chemicals to promote continued oil gas flow. Many politicians oppose the revolution, preferring to believe the false claims of the Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups. The actions of these politicians and environmental groups demonstrates how insensitive they are to the plight of less fortunate humans. Please see Articles # 2 and #3. ***************** Demolishing Icons? On his web site, Bernard Lewin has begun a series to investigate the various depictions of temperatures over the past 1000 years, and longer, that have appeared in IPCC publications. The first of the series centers on the writings of H.H. Lamb, particularly the Medieval Warm Period. Lewin’s analysis may prove to be illuminating and controversial. Please see link under Seeking a Common Ground. ***************** Global Cooling? Several articles and web posts have appeared proclaiming global cooling. The authors doing so are using the same logical fallacy as many global warming advocates –the hasty generalizations. Very simply, the existing data has too short a term to declare a trend. Warming has stopped, we do not know if the warming will resume, or if temperatures will remain roughly steady, or if there will be definitive cooling. Certainly, the failure of the Arctic Ice to melt to the extent that it did last year is not a trend. That said, solar scientists may have theoretical reasons for stating the earth will cool. Please see links under Changing Cryosphere –Land / Sea Ice. ***************** Responsibility: Judith Curry has two posts on responsible conduct in research enterprises and developing a standard for policy relevant science. In the latter post she quotes extensively from Ian Boyd, who is science advisor for the UK Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. Boyd points out how bias often enters into government sponsored research, no matter how unintentional. Curry concludes her post with: JC request of the IPCC: Please replace Rachendra Pachauri with Ian Boyd. ***************** Additions and Corrections: Last week, TWTW carried an article by Fred Singer in the American Thinker on data trends. Unfortunately, Singer omitted the clause that the spike in temperatures in 1998 should be discounted because it is widely accepted that it was the result of a strong El Nino. Otherwise, his argument stands, that surface temperature trends prior to around 2000 may be over-estimated. Vincent Gray continued the discussion on hypothesis testing as stated by Feynman, which was challenged by Professor Cramer, who stated that the null (no association between two phenomena) must be tested. Gray writes: “I object to the reformulation of Feynman’s argument on statistics by Professor Cramer He does not explain how it is possible to test for a “level of confidence”. If a scientific theory is successful in predicting all possible future behaviour you are justified in rejecting the null hypothesis and to have confidence in it Sometimes a theory is only successful in a limited range of circumstances. You may have confidence within this range but not outside it where the null hypothesis is accepted. The IPCC claims “levels of confidence” in its theories which are no more than the personal opinions of “experts” who usually have a conflict of interest. None of the models has been shown capable of successful prediction of future climate behaviour. The null hypothesis still stands. Until the theories have been shown to successfully predict a range of future climate behaviour over all the circumstances for which they are claimed to be valid they need to be rejected and the null hypothesis accepted.” [Behaviour is spelled the New Zealand way.] ***************** Number of the Week: 90% According to energy economist Mark Perry, data from the Energy Information Administration shows that in May the total energy produced in the US is was 90% of total consumption. The last time the percentage was that high was in September 1987. The change is dramatic from about 70% in 2006-7,when Washington refused to expand production in the Federal government controlled lands of Alaska, falsely claiming it would not help the US. Although the difference between production and consumptions wings widely during the year, Perry’s five graphs illustrate the US oil and gas revolution –which many politicians and environmentalists desire to stop. http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm

B. RSS GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DATA: NO GLOBAL WARMING AT ALL FOR 202 MONTHS

Posted on September 11, 2013 by Guest Blogger Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley As soon as the BBC/Maslowski forecast of no sea ice in the Arctic summer by 2013 has been disproven (see countdown on right sidebar), WUWT will need another countdown. May I propose the Santer countdown? On November 17, 2011, Ben Santer and numerous colleagues, including researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres) that, as his press release said,

“shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. … tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/a-question-for-oreskes-but-what-do-we-mean-by- consensus/#more-93280 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/rss-global-temperature-data-no-global-warming-at-all- for-202-months/#more-93635 Don Shaw

C. LACK OF HURRICANES HELPS CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS "Rick Perry leaves a trail of death." So reads the headline in a fake weather report, part of a new campaign to name hurricanes after noted climate change skeptics. The group, 350.org, hopes that associating politicians with destructive storms will make them more willing to enact restrictions on carbon emissions as a means of fighting global warming. The campaign is tasteless, but it helps to highlight an otherwise largely overlooked fact: Hurricanes have been largely absent this year. For the first time in 11 years, August came and went without a single hurricane forming in the Atlantic. The last intense hurricane (Category 3 or above) to hit the United States was Hurricane Wilma, in 2005. According to Phil Klotzbach, head of Colorado State University's seasonal hurricane forecast, accumulated cyclone energy is 70 percent below normal this year http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Neeley-Lack-of-hurricanes-helps-climate-change- 4803578.php

D. EPA PLAN TO CURB NEW PLANTS By KEITH JOHNSON and TENNILLE TRACY The Obama administration plans to block the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they are built with novel and expensive technology to capture greenhouse-gas emissions, according to people familiar with a draft proposal. The administration’s rule on emissions from new power plants, a long-awaited measure that is one of the capstones of the administration’s climate-change agenda, is set to be formally proposed by the end of next week. While the new rule isn’t final yet and is likely to face a legal challenge, it would be another blow to a coal industry already buffeted by a bonanza of cheap natural gas and increasing regulation.

The Obama administration plans to block the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they are built with novel and expensive technology to capture greenhouse-gas emissions, according to people familiar with a draft proposal. The administration’s rule on emissions from new power plants, a long-awaited measure that is one of the capstones of the administration’s climate-change agenda, is set to be formally proposed by the end of next week. While the new rule isn’t final yet and is likely to face a legal challenge, it would be another blow to a coal industry already buffeted by a bonanza of cheap natural gas and increasing regulation. http://www.eandp-environment.net/Environment/Env020701.pdf

E FEDS URGED TO BE TRANSPARENT ON CARBON PRICE TAG CALCULATIONS The Obama administration should withdraw its new estimate for the "social cost of carbon," which plays a crucial role in proposed emissions-reduction regulations for power plants, the American Petroleum Institute and other trade groups said. Prices were adjusted to $38 per ton in 2015 compared with $23.80 per ton in 2010, but the computations were done privately, the group said. "We ought to have a lot of transparency in the process because it will potentially impact every rule making that comes down the road that deals with energy," said Jack Gerard, API's president and CEO http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/09/11/oil-industry-challenges-governments-carbon-price-tag/

F. FRACKING BILL CLEARS CALIF. ASSEMBLY A bill that would impose tough regulations covering hydraulic fracturing cleared the California Assembly. Under the measure, energy producers would need to secure a permit before fracking, disclose the chemicals used in the drilling technique and monitor groundwater near wells. The bill has the strictest of regulations, but the industry would follow the rules, said Rock Zierman, CEO of the California Independent Petroleum Association. http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la‐fi‐mo‐assembly‐passes‐oil‐well‐fracking‐bill‐ 20130911,0,2255501.story

G. MAKING UP HISTORICAL TORNADO DATA Posted on September 12, 2013 by Anthony Watts

Tornado at Lebanon, Kansas, from the collection of S. D. Flora. In: ‘Monthly Weather Review,” July 1919, p. 448. From the Historic NWS Collection, Location: Lebanon, Kansas, Photo Date: 1913 October 09 – Can we reliably say that because this tornado was photographed, there are others not seen? From the “if a tornado hits a cornfield in Kansas, does it make a sound?” department comes this story. It isn’t enough that climate researchers have to constantly adjust the historical temperature record of the past to make it cooler, increasing the trend, now there’s talk of adjusting the historical tornado record because the technology explosion of the present lends itself to better reporting. Problem is, tornado formation, being highly chaotic, can’t be as easily interpolated, infilled, and adjusted like temperature data can. Just because a tornado occurred in two places, doesn’t automatically mean there was one in between them that was unreported. Thunderstorm cell formation is micro to mesoscale in size, meaning tornadoes are highly local, and not all cells produce tornadoes, even if there is a line of tornadic prone cells with a front. They’ll have to make up reports out of whole cloth in my opinion. Interpolation of tornado sighting data just isn’t sensible, but they are going to try anyway: Their model calls for the reported number in rural areas to be adjusted upward by a factor that depends on the number of tornadoes in the nearest city and the distance from the nearest city. Also, in my opinion, this is statistical madness. From an FSU press release, by Jill Elish Twister history: FSU researchers develop model to correct tornado records for better risk assessment In the wake of deadly tornadoes in Oklahoma this past spring, Florida State University researchers have developed a new statistical model that will help determine whether the risk of tornadoes is increasing and whether they are getting stronger. Climatologists have been hampered in determining actual risks by what they call a population bias: That is, the fact that tornadoes have traditionally been underreported in rural areas compared to cities. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/12/making-up-historical-tornado-data/#more-93716

H. NEWSBYTES: CLIMATE PROGRAMS NOW A POLITICAL TARGET Posted on September 12, 2013 by Anthony Watts From Dr. Benny Peiser and the GWP

Australian Government Axes Climate Programmes MPs Call For Review Of Britain’s Climate Change Act Public servants are drawing up plans to collapse 33 climate change schemes run by seven departments and eight agencies into just three bodies run by two departments under a substantial rewrite of the administration of carbon abatement schemes under the Coalition. The move is forecast to save the government tens of millions of dollars. The Climate Change Authority, which sets emissions caps, the Climate Commission, which has conducted research into climate change, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which funds renewable technologies, are all slated to be abolished under the plans. –Sid Maher and Lauren Wilson, The Australian, 11 September 2013 Following the election of a new government, Australia is to abolish its emissions trading scheme, disband a climate advisory body and institute a carbon reduction policy that experts say will fail to meet its meager target. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/12/newsbytes-climate-programs-now-a-political- target/#more-93705

I. MORE SETTLED SCIENCE: CLIMATE CHANGE/WARMING SPEEDS UP TREE LIFE CYCLES INSTEAD OF CAUSING MIGRATION  Posted on September 12, 2013 by Anthony Watts From Duke University and the “I was sure those tree rings were linear indicators” department, comes this news: Climate Change May Speed Up Forests’ Life Cycles DURHAM, N.C. – Many climate studies have predicted that tree species will respond to global warming by migrating via seed dispersal to cooler climates. But a new study of 65 different species in 31 eastern states finds evidence of a different, unexpected response. Nearly 80 percent of the species aren’t yet shifting their geographic distributions to higher latitudes. Instead, they’re staying in place – but speeding up their life cycles. The Duke University-led study, published online Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Global Change Biology, is the first to show that a changing climate may have dual impacts on forests. It adds to a growing body of evidence, including a 2011 study by the same Duke team, that climate-driven migration is occurring much more slowly than predicted, and most plant species may not be able to migrate fast enough to stay one step ahead of rising temperatures. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/12/more-settled-science-climate-speeds-up-tree-life- cycles-instead-of-causing-migration/#more-93643

J. SPEAKING OF HURRICANES We are still in a major unprecedented hurricane drought in the USA- Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has updated his drought graph:

Updated ‘Remarkable’ Major Hurricane Drought Figure — ’2,878 days. The US major hurricane drought continues. This length of time is almost exactly twice as long as the previous ‘drought’ since 1915 (which was 1975-1979)’ ‘Of course, it could end this month (September) or after, but it will end sometime. Whenever it does it has been remarkable.’

L. THE FATE OF PEATLAND CARBON IN A POTENTIALLY WARMING WORLD (10 SEP 2013) Reference Charman, D.J., Beilman, D.W., Blaauw, M., Booth, R.K., Brewer, S., Chambers, F.M., Christen, J.A., Gallego-Sala, A., Harrison, S.P., Hughes, P.D.M., Jackson, S.T., Korhola, A., Mauquoy, D., Mitchell, F.J.G., Prentice, I.C., van der Linden, M., De Vleeschouwer, F., Yu, Z.C., Alm, J., Bauer, I.E., Corish, Y.M.C., Garneau, M., Hohl, V., Huang, Y., Karofeld, E., Le Roux, G., Loisel, J., Moschen, R., Nichols, J.E., Nieminen, T.M., MacDonald, G.M., Phadtare, N.R., Rausch, N., Sillasoo, U., Swindles, G.T., Tuoittila, E.-S., Ukonmaanaho, L., Valiranta, M., van Bellen, S., van Geel, B., Vitt, D.H. and Zhao, Y. 2013. Climate-related changes in peatland carbon accumulation during the last millennium. Biogeosciences 10: 929-944. In introducing their enlightening Biogeosciences paper on the subject, Charman et al. (2013) write that "it is generally assumed that higher temperatures will increase peat decay, causing a positive feedback to climate warming." But feeling uneasy about this assumption, they were compelled to study it in more detail by employing "a new extensive database of peat profiles across northern high latitudes to examine spatial and temporal patterns of carbon accumulation over the past millennium." And what did they find by so doing? "Opposite to expectations," as the 42 researchers note, their results revealed the existence of "a small negative carbon cycle feedback from past changes in the long-term accumulation rates of northern peatlands." More specifically, they state that "total carbon accumulated over the last 1000 years is linearly related to contemporary growing season length and photosynthetically active radiation, suggesting that variability in net primary productivity is more important than decomposition in determining long-term carbon accumulation." Furthermore, as Charman et al. continue, "northern peatland carbon sequestration rate declined over the climate transition from the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) to the Little Ice Age (LIA), probably because of lower LIA temperatures combined with increased cloudiness suppressing net productivity," which finding suggests that carbon accumulation in northern peatlands would likely increase in response to any future climate warming. Therefore, as they conclude in the final sentence of their paper, the 42 researchers state that "based on our analyses of carbon accumulation over the past millennium, and contrary to the conclusions from soil decay models (Ise et al., 2008; Dorrepaal et al., 2009), we suggest that carbon sequestration may increase in many high-latitude peatlands in response to future climate warming over the next century." Additional References Dorrepaal, E., Toet, S., van Logtestijn, R.S.P., Swart, E., van de Weg, M.J., Callaghan, T.V. and Aerts, R. 2009. Carbon respiration from subsurface peat accelerated by climate warming in the sub-arctic. Nature 460: 616-619. Ise, T., Dunn, A.L., Wofsy, S.C. and Moorcroft, P.R. 2008. High sensitivity of peat decomposition to climate change through water-table feedback. Nature Geoscience 1: 763-766.

M. DIALING BACK THE ALARM ON CLIMATE CHANGE A FORTHCOMING REPORT POINTS LOWERS ESTIMATES ON GLOBAL WARMING Posted on September 14, 2013 by Guest Blogger A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming by Dr. Matt Ridley

Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “fifth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27. There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007. Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet. Specifically, the draft report says that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was “likely” to be above 2 degrees Celsius and “very likely” to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since “extremely” and “very” have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult. Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the “likely” range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time. Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm. ======The temperature rise sensitivity to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has been a major point of disagreement between Global Warming advocates and skeptics for a long time. The previous high sensitivity has been widely used in the computer models and has been proven wrong by the actual measured temperature data. Reportedly the IPCC report AR5 will show this dramatic divergence of model predictions from reality Most skeptics would say that the dial back is not large enough, but the admission while insufficient is at least a first step toward reality. Government funds are at stake! The AR5 will reportedly still claim 95% confidence level; however there is no science to back this up. It is in there for the politicians to still push for cap and trade or some other form of government control. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/14/breaking-ipcc-ar5-report-to-dial-back-climate- sensitivity/#more-93810 Don Shaw

N. ARE TORNADOES GETTING STRONGER? REBUTTAL TO ELSNER ET AL. Posted on September 14, 2013 by Paul Homewood By Paul Homewood http://news.fsu.edu/More-FSU-News/Researchers-develop-model-to-correct-tornado-records Quantification of long term tornado trends has been hampered by the fact that many more tornadoes are reported today than was the case in the past. NOAA summarise this well:- With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number EF1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/14/are-tornadoes-getting-stronger-rebuttal-to-elsner-et- al/#more-93827

O. EPA EXPECTED TO SET CAPS ON NEW PLANTS’ EMISSIONS NEW YORK TIMES Following up on President Barack Obama’s pledge in June to address climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency plans this week to propose the first-ever limits on greenhouse gas emissions from newly built power plants. But even before the proposal becomes public, experts on both sides of the issue say it faces a lobbying donnybrook and an all-but-certain court challenge. For a vast and politically powerful swath of the utility industry — operators of coal-fired plants, and the coal fields that supply them — there are fears that the rules would effectively doom construction of new coal plants far into the future. Separate limits While details of the EPA’s proposal remain confidential, experts predict that it envisions separate caps on carbon dioxide emissions from plants fired by natural gas and by coal. Plants using comparatively clean gas would be permitted to emit perhaps 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, a ceiling within easy reach using modern technologies. Coal-fired plants, meanwhile, may be allowed to emit as many as 1,400 pounds per megawatt- hour. But coal is so heavily laden with carbon that meeting even that higher limit would require operators to scrub carbon dioxide from their emissions before they reach the smokestack, and then pump it into permanent storage underground. While each plant is different, a generic version of the most advanced coal-fired plant in existence — “ultra-supercritical” plants that use enormous heat and pressure — still emits more than 1,600 pounds of carbon dioxide on average, said Howard Herzog, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Energy Initiative. By comparison, a 550-megawatt version of the most advanced natural-gas plant might be expected to emit 790 pounds of carbon dioxide, the federal Energy Department has estimated. Carbon-capture technology has been proven to work in trials. But the industry says the infrastructure to ship and store such vast deposits of carbon does not exist, and that the technology is in any case so costly that it would make new coal plants economically unfeasible. Technology ready? The American Public Power Association, a group of publicly owned utilities serving 14 percent of electric customers, urged the White House in a meeting on Sept. 4 to cap coal-plant emissions at no less than 1,900 pounds per megawatt-hour, arguing that carbon-capture technologies will not be commercially feasible for at least eight years. Some experts with ties to the power industry suggest that the EPA is inviting a lawsuit if its new rule forces coal plants to use carbon-capture technologies before they are ready. Already in use During four decades of enforcing the Clean Air Act, the EPA “has always talked about using demonstrated technologies, something out there in commercial use,” said Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer with the firm Bracewell & Giuliani who was the EPA’s assistant administrator for air and radiation during the administration of President George W. Bush. “If EPA finalizes a rule that requires carbon capture, I am sure there will be a legal challenge. I think EPA is taking a pretty big legal risk here.” Those who support strict limits on greenhouse-gas pollution take issue with that, saying the rules require only that clean-air technologies be “adequately demonstrated.” Indeed, they note, power industry officials themselves have said that carbon-capture principles have been widely used for decades in other fields. “The idea that pollution control technology is too expensive to implement is a familiar theme,” said Megan Ceronsky, a lawyer with the Environmental Defense Fund’s climate and air program. “It’s not a novel response to an environmental regulation.” She said, power companies are likely to find it far easier and cheaper to adopt new technologies are likely to find it far easier and cheaper to adopt new technologies than they now believe (The EPA approach reduces generated power output by at least 25 percent to cover CO2 separation and compression. Also to the best of my knowledge, there not a functioning plant capturing, compressing and delivering CO2 by pipeline to an injection well. Schwarze Pumpe, a CO2 pilot capture and sequester plant in Germany delivers CO2 by truck to the injection well. Schwarze Pumpe has operated 6500 hours the last three years GHH)

P. ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK Posted on September 15, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach David Rose has posted this, from the unreleased IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5): ‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C… The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’SOURCE I cracked up when I read that … despite the IPCC’s claim of even greater certainty, it’s a step backwards. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/15/one-step-forward-two-steps-back/#more-93850

Q. LOMBORG: CLIMATE MODELS ARE RUNNING WAY TOO HOT Posted on September 16, 2013 by Anthony Watts Guest essay by Bjørn Lomborg

The current climate models are running way too hot. Over the past 30 years, they are at least predicting 71% too much heat. Maybe 159%. (see graph)

This should make us greet the next climate panel report somewhat smarter. Yes, there is a problem, no, it doesn’t look like the end of the world. Let’s fix global warming without the fear. Here is my latest Project Syndicate column: http://www.project- syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg

R. NATURAL GAS WELLS LEAKING LESS, BUT IT’S TOO EARLY TO CELEBRATE By Jennifer A. Dlouhy WASHINGTON — Energy companies are making a major dent in the amount of harmful methane emissions that escape from natural gas wells, according to a broad peer-reviewed study published Monday that appears to validate new federal mandates for technology to rein in the heat-trapping pollutant. But the University of Texas study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also reveals bigger-than-expected methane leaks from valve controllers and other equipment at well sites. The report shows that even as energy companies make progress in one area, there is still plenty of work to be done to reduce methane leaks, which could undermine natural gas’ reputation as a cleaner alternative to coal and oil. Methane, one of the largest components of the fossil fuel, is a potent greenhouse gas that is 72 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide during the first two decades after it is released. “The results show a clear need to reduce emissions from pneumatic valves and equipment on well pads,” said Steve Hamburg, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund. “This represents a real opportunity to reduce methane emissions in the short term.” The report is the first in a 16-part series organized by the Environmental Defense Fund that aims to create a detailed accounting of how much methane is released across the entire natural gas supply chain, from initial production at wells to its end use on highways and in homes. Previous estimates are decades old and don’t take into account new technology or the recent surge in gas production that has been driven by combining hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Tip of supply chain The initial study focused solely on what is happening at the tip of the supply chain, at nearly 500 natural gas wells around the United States. It did not look at methane emissions from storage, transportation and processing natural gas, which are believed to be a more significant source of the greenhouse gas pollutant. Companies that cooperated in the University of Texas project included some of the nation’s biggest natural gas producers, including Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Chevron Corp., Shell’s SWEPI, Pioneer Natural Resources Co., Southwestern Energy and Exxon Mobil Corp.’s XTO Energy. Using data collected from 190 production sites, University of Texas chemical engineer David Allen found that recent government calculations vastly overestimated the amount of emissions tied to well completions. The completions process involves cleaning the well of injected sand and liquids, but when the so-called flowback fluid returns to the surface, it can carry dissolved gas. Under a federal rule made final last year, the Environmental Protection Agency is requiring oil and gas companies to use new “green completion” technology by 2015, which cuts down on volatile organic compounds and methane at the sites. Roughly two-thirds of the sites studied by Allen were already using the equipment, and other studied wells were low-emitting already, resulting in methane emissions from well completions that were, on average, 97 percent below the EPA’s 2011 national estimates. Overall, the study found that total methane leakage from natural gas production was 0.42 percent of all produced gas. The oil and gas industry — which generally opposed much of the EPA’s rule — said the study proves energy companies are on the right track. “The industry has led efforts to reduce emissions of methane by developing new technologies and equipment, and these efforts are paying off,” said Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs for the American Petroleum Institute. 70% higher emissions But the report shines new light on the extent of methane leaks from other equipment at drilling sites, including pneumatic devices designed to release small amounts of methane in normal operations. That equipment was found to have emissions on average 70 percent higher than the EPA’s recent estimates. The report comes as the EPA readies new greenhouse gas rules for power plants. Ahead of the mandates, utilities already are replacing coal-fired power with cleaner-burning natural gas, even though some environmentalists say methane leaks mean the fossil fuel is actually worse for the climate. Critics said the University of Texas study was flawed, in part because it was funded by oil companies, as well as foundations and philanthropists. But the participating companies were responsible for more than half of the wells drilled in 2011. Allen said his team had control in selecting wells where direct measurements were taken and the study’s methodology. Greenpeace executive director, Philip Radford, suggested the sites were cherry-picked and don’t represent the majority of the more than 25,000 wells drilled last year.(emphasis added, GHH) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/us/gas-leaks-in-fracking-less-than-estimated.html?_r=0

Regards George